32 minutes ago, the mercenary said:Wow, I'm really glad I don't game with some of you.
This apparently is one of those things that should be discussed before anyone sits down at the table to play. I'd be right p1ssed if the act of negotiating turned into "Oh, you rolled like crap.....you sell Priceless Artifact for 30 credits and half a stick of space gum. Too bad, should have rolled better".
So... I take it you have never actually read the Negotiation skill rules?
1 hour ago, the mercenary said:I look at it as, Negotiation is the act of reaching a certain price and/or conditions, but it's only binding once both parties agree.
I don't think anybody would be comfortable enforcing the kind of results in your extremist example. I mean, who the heck is advocating building all that Hutt extraction into a single Negotiation roll? Nobody, so maybe check your faux outrage.
I wouldn't have a problem if the player specified a low bar, provided that low bar is within the bounds of "reason"...which ends up being a judgement call. If the PC's low bar is above the price of the item, I'm not even taking it into consideration.
My only point is that rolls have consequences, and if the player wants to roll, they have to accept the results. If you fail and walk, I'm going to roleplay the heck of out that NPC, who only knows they thought they had a deal and just wasted a bunch of time. At a minimum the party will gain a bad rep, maybe Obligation if I used those rules, and the price of everything just went up as word spreads.
3 hours ago, whafrog said:I don't think anybody would be comfortable enforcing the kind of results in your extremist example.
Except for the fact that a few have basically already said as much.
Its your (their) table, play it how you want. The great thing about these games is you can do whatever you want and as long as everyone present agrees, it’s all good.
5 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:So... I take it you have never actually read the Negotiation skill rules?
Been a while, and I haven’t played a character with that skill in even longer. Isn’t it something like ‘success means a buyer is found, price is 1/2 list, advantages increase this by 5% each and threats decrease it by 5% each’? Or something like that?
Since you know I was exaggerating to make a point, I don’t need to finish this sent-
If a player rolls for a negotiation check the the result is binding. If the result gives a price the player thinks is too low, he / she can refuse the deal. But the it's that price that become the new base price for the next roll and black dice are automatically added to it. If the player wants to rolls until he / she is satisfied by the result, he / she is free to try. But it's always the lowest price given by any result that is the base price and each refused deal add setback dice, without limit for their numbers. The usual outcome is the price keeps getting lower and lower and the player keeps getting more and more frustrated to not have it his / her way.
A simple solution as rules should be the same for the whole table:
As a GM for a player that wants to run away from a deal he initiated because the dice show crap - just do the same with the NPCs and turn the whole Galaxy into NPCs that only accept deals with crap die results for the PC-party for buying and selling.
Enough exaggeration?!
I think most (if not all) would agree to set the base pricing for negotiations at a reasonable level, but from there on the dice are a representation of what happens and mean nothing if you can ignore the result. Belongs in the ballpark of "the art of failing" because it means that there is not a single individual in the Galaxy which is capable of talking the PC into a bad deal.
If a player wants such mechanics they need to play videogames with quicksave/quick load options, not a Pen&Paper RPG.
Been a while since I weighed in on something, and this seems like it needs a moderate perspective. I can see the positive aspects of both sides in this debate and have kind of struggled with what to do with it myself. Usually, my response is to determine allowing backing out of a deal on a "case by case" basis, but in practice I have always wound up coming down on the side of "the roll is the roll." Let me explain why.
To compare, I will first look at a few skills already mentioned that no one has debated the understanding of, that of combat skills for attack, and then also compare it to very mundane skills like astrogation and knowledge skills. As the Force and Destiny Core Rulebook was the most recently published (and therefore should represent the newest understanding of the rules), I will use that for rules statements.
When speaking of combat mechanically, a character rolls their combat skill to determine a few things. First, the accuracy of the attack - not only whether the attack hit, but also the location of the hit regarding a glance, solid, or especially vital hit. This is shown through adding damage to the attack (indicating the attack landed in a vital location, or merely did the least required to contact the target) with successes. Second, the roll also allows for the unique power of the weapon to be utilized (a low critical rating, the ability to hit multiple targets or multiple times). Finally, it is used to determine the ebb and flow of combat over a period of time (in this case one round) and takes into account (through the use of maneuvers and the characters action) how a character has utilized their time on this round (have they moved quickly to engage, have the taken time to aim their shot, have they merely stood still and swung away, etc). Narratively, it has been oft repeated that a single attack action represents many swings and counters, a flurry of attacks and dodges, and is not a single swing for a single roll. This means that while a single roll was made, it represents a large number of “things” (in this case foot movements and attacks) that result in a single, summarized, outcome of all effort made in the action. (“Conflicts and Combat” page 203)
When speaking mechanically of astrogation, a character rolls a single time to also determine a few things. First, the time it takes overall to program the nav computer with the jump coordinates and route, this is shown in the use of additional successes and triumphs being used to allow the acting character to reduce the time it took to program the computer. Second, the check determines the location relative to the destination that the ship will emerge from hyperspace into, represented as also being able to use additional successes to better target the destination location, bringing the ship into the orbit of the planet on exiting hyperspace instead of merely reaching the system itself. Finally, the check also determines the overall time that it will take the ship to complete said jump, as advantages and triumph can be used to decrease the travel time in hyperspace itself. Narratively, this skill check represents many things as well, numerous star chart references, computer calculations, and route choice comparisons before the actor making the check “settles” on the final jump route. (“Astrogation (Intellect)” page 114)
Finally, when making a knowledge check, we also see the skill represents multiple independent “things,” specifically researching sources for answers, with additional success reducing the time it takes to complete the research, the amount and specificity of information recalled or researched through the use of advantages and triumphs to learn additional details beyond the basics. Narratively, this represents cross-references sources, be they memory, books, or even knowledge experts, before getting the total information they have access to by the check’s end. (“Knowledge Skills” page 132)
Comparing that to a negotiation check, it also encompasses multiple independent “things.” Specifically relating to buying, it represents the ability to locate the desired item on the planet and it should be noted, this is the only use of the skill listed when the character is purchasing an item(s), and the use of threats to increase the cost of the PCs items being purchased (we can infer the reason for this is the availability of the item increasing the price through the principles of supply and demand). When selling an item(s) the skill check represents multiple things: final “haggled” price overall that has been reached between parties is represented by the use of success to adjust the character’s profit by 5% or length of contract, while threats decrease the value or length of contract. Second, the check determines any “side deals” to “sweeten the pot” that are made during the purchasing/selling of items by having advantages spent to either gain unrelated boons, or force the PC to make extra concessions. (“Negotiation (Presence)” page 123)
Next, let us look at how the book specifically refers to each, to determine if the results of the roll can be refused can be inferred by the books usage.
When dealing with combat skills, the book specifically states “First and foremost, keep in mind that a combat check is a skill check. It follows all of the rules and procedures for making a skill check, including the steps for assembling the dice pool. However, there are additional steps included in the combat check.” (“Perform a Combat Check” page 210). This means that we can analyze the combat check on the same merits as a Negotiation check. A combat check makes statements that allow us to infer that the making of the check aligns with the physical act of making an attack “Once the player rolls the dice pool for the attack, the player determines the results. As with any skill check, the check must generate more successes than failures to be successful (“Pool Results and Deal Damage” page 210).” Also, using threats or despair physical outcomes of the attack occur as well, such as dropping a weapon or falling prone (“Spending Threats and Despair in Combat” page 212). We can infer from this that should a player roll an attack, they cannot “check the swing” should the attack result in unwanted outcomes.
When making an Astrogation check, threats and despairs can be spent to “cause the character to miss relevant details when analyzing hyperspace routes or galactic maps” or represent “some truly disastrous occurrence, such as jumping out of hyperspace into the path of an asteroid (“Astrogation (Intellect)” page 115).” Through these uses, we can infer that the roll once again represents the physical act of making the calculations and then performing the jump and after the roll is made they cannot “recalculate” the route if they are unsatisfied with the results.
Finally, with knowledge skills, we see that it, too has the use of threats and despairs represent the outcome of the physical research done on the check. Threats have the GM omit vital details, whilst the use of despairs have outright falsehood and misinformation. We again can infer that this means the roll represents not just the information gathered, but the physical act of researching it (with threats representing missing a listed detail resulting in omitted information and despairs representing a failure to cross reference information resulting in falsehoods). While one could argue that a character, after having completed the research or recalled the information could choose not to pass it on and try again, it should be noted that uses of successes reduce the time it took in “completing the research.” This is important, for we can infer that the act of making the knowledge check was a “complete” task, meaning that all available sources were checked, and threats mean that information in those sources was missed. The character in this situation would have no reason to assume information would be where it was not previously, and so this precludes a character from being able “take back” the research.
This means that we will need to determine if a negotiation check should break tradition with the rest of these skills and be an exception. We are ironically aided in this determination specifically because the Negotiation (Presence) skill is an exceptional one in that it is governed by the “Social Skill Interactions” rules (“Negotiation (Presence)” page 123). These rules state specifically that Social Skill Interactions is used “whenever one character attempts to convince another character to act in a specific way (“Social Skill Interactions” page 117).” Also, it is specifically stated that a character “must either pay the seller’s asking price or use the Negotiation skill to haggle (“Negotiation (Presence)” page 123).” Because the Negotiation (Presence) skill us not used until the character knows the offer, and then once the option to haggle is made resulting in the application of results using the “Social Skills Interactions” rules, we can infer that once haggling begins then the acting character convinces the defending character to act in the sale according to the result. This allows us to infer that, like all the other skills we have looked at so far, the results of the roll represent the physical act of the sale. This is again bolstered by the fact (similar to knowledge checks) that it specifically mentioned that “when two individuals create an agreement or treaty they may make an opposed or competitive Negotiation check. The winner gains the better end of the resulting agreement (“Negotiation (Presence)” page 123).” This specifically keys the result of the check to the results of the agreement itself, not just the negotiation of the agreement. It by inference precludes the “backing out” of the deal at that time thanks again to the “Social Skill Interactions” rules stating that the results affect the character’s point of view “for the duration of the scene (“Social Skill Interactions” page 117).” This means that a character could change their mind after they leave the shop, but they would then need to do something about it then, such as going back on the deal after it’s been made (resulting in social complications and fallout) or returning to the other individual later and attempting them to reconsider the deal that was made. In either case, this would be a new encounter, and thus new rolls, but the transmission of services or goods would have already been agreed upon once and traded.
On 9/16/2020 at 11:20 PM, OddballE8 said:Here's my take on it.
Fail the roll and don't want to sell it for the low price?
Fine, but you can't try to sell it again on that planet.
And, maybe, next time you try to sell something there you get a disadvantage due to people not liking you pulling out of deals, etc.
In SW, I treat planets like I treat towns in fantasy games.
Yes, if you want to sell something in town, you roll... that roll represents looking for a sale in the entire town. Fail the roll and don't want to sell? Then you can't sell in that town. You'll have to go to another town.
In SW, I'd treat that as the whole planet instead.
You can always walk away from the deal, but there should be consequences. Depending on who you're dealing with, that can be anything from a setback dice next time you try to deal on that planet, to getting a hit put on you from a vicious Hutt that thinks you've tried to cheat them out of a good thing...(Also, remember that there's fuel costs, so even if you get a better deal on another planet, you might have lost that profit in fuel costs for going there in the first place)
But never, never, let your players just roam from place to place to find the best deal without any consequences to their actions.
I dont think not coming to a price both parties agree to is walking away from a deal. Walking away from a deal is agreeing to sell cargo at 5000 credits a crate and then when you get back to your ship changing your mind.
On 9/19/2020 at 3:55 PM, Malashim said:A simple solution as rules should be the same for the whole table:
As a GM for a player that wants to run away from a deal he initiated because the dice show crap - just do the same with the NPCs and turn the whole Galaxy into NPCs that only accept deals with crap die results for the PC-party for buying and selling.
Enough exaggeration?!
I think most (if not all) would agree to set the base pricing for negotiations at a reasonable level, but from there on the dice are a representation of what happens and mean nothing if you can ignore the result. Belongs in the ballpark of "the art of failing" because it means that there is not a single individual in the Galaxy which is capable of talking the PC into a bad deal.
If a player wants such mechanics they need to play videogames with quicksave/quick load options, not a Pen&Paper RPG.
The base price are already set. It's 25% of the items price and increases with successes.
I mean I understand both point about letting the player walk out of a deal or not, but the player should know that if he rolls bad he can't sell it or can't get a better price than quarter of its value. It's not debatable, it's clearly in the rules. You always have a base price and it should be known for the player too.
There's also no point arguing the extremes (like selling the invaluable mcguffin for ridiculous low price or selling crap for fortune) which are using totally different mechanisms in my book (why would I as a GM go below a base price, when i can say you didn't find buyer or simply resolve it narratively and trade it for something / ask for deception, if not reject it - respectively).
On 9/19/2020 at 12:12 AM, the mercenary said:Except for the fact that a few have basically already said as much.
No, they haven't. You're confusing the initial stakes from different examples and mashing them together to pretend to make a point.
If you start off wanting to sell a book, it would make no sense to tack on unrelated quests like springing a Hutt from prison. Likewise, if you start off trying to get the king to abdicate, it would make no sense to end up having to buy his comic book collection. A scale based on the initial stakes still applies. Of course, anybody with an imagination can find a way to link these ends of the scale, and that could be a lot of fun, but doesn't apply to the OP's initial question.
Okay, having thought about it more, here are two more of my cents (yeah, I've got a pretty large [and full] jar of pennies).
There are basically four different deals, monetarily speaking, you make with the Negotiation skills.
This sounds like two, but it isn't. Who is the acting character is important here.
Now some statements regarding where I'm coming from:
When I have the PCs dealing with a merchant, it is usually a nameless, faceless NPC who they will never RP with. It's simply a mechanical thing. Sometimes they deal with more major NPCs, in which case the interaction is RPed and will often require more checks.
I also view social skills as optional, and sometimes don't even require a check, even for Deception. The way I handle social skills is that you can accept what the person said, or you can "resist" it, in which case a check is made. I've had some negotiations where no dice were rolled.
Lastly, there are different benefits from Success/Advantage in different situations. For example: The party is trying to buy something valued at 5 million credits. Normally, Success would be able to reduce by 5%. But in this case, that's 250,000 credits. In that case, it'd probably be reduce by 100,000 credits per success at a max, to a maximum reduction of 500,000. Now if they were buying a blaster pistol (400 credits), 5% is only 20 credits. I'm more likely to stick to that, though I'll still have a minimum.
Of course, this is all very conditional and depends on a number of factors: legality, desperation, price, leverage, and other complicating circumstances.
1. You roll the Negotiation check, and the result determines the price and availability. If the PC doesn't like the price, they can choose not to buy it. Just because you go on eBay looking for a particular macguffin doesn't mean you're not going to balk when you realize the price. Most of the time, there isn't an option for haggling down the price. When there is, I always have a minimum price to which the PCs can reduce it (usually half).
2. In the case of someone trying to sell a PC some small item, or something they really don't need (Geonosian Vuvuzela), the NPC would be acting and the results would be binding, but the cost would be very low. This would just be for fun's sake, and would likely cost no more than 100 credits, give-or-take.
In the case of a more detailed sale (Want to buy this shipment of E-Webs?), it is unlikely to be abstracted to a single check, or if it is it'll be after some RP. In this case, I
always
have a minimum price (usually half). They can't reduce it any farther than that, no matter how many success they get.
Add Setback or Boost appropriate to the willingness of the PCs to participate.
3. On a successful Negotiation check, they have found an NPC willing to pay X amount. Now it is a simple matter of deciding if they want to sell it for that price, just as it would be for seeking out an item for purchase. Cons would be handled differently.
4. An NPC is trying to convince the PCs to sell something is also unlikely to be abstracted to a single check, or if it is it'll be after some RP. In this case, I am much more flexible unless it's a fairly common item. If someone is coming up and making them an offer, they probably have good reason for approaching the PCs. They'll have an initial offer, and the PC's roll can push it up, largely limited by how skilled the PC is.
In 1 and 3, the check involves the act of seeking out a potential buyer/seller and, in my opinion, that is the main issue at hand. The price is take-it-or-leave-it. In this case, the result is binding for the NPC, but the NPC has some say in how much they are willing to pay.
In 2 and 4, neither side is fully committed. They both have the choice to pull out if the deal isn't considered favorable. Again, the NPC usually has a minimum sell price.
Pulling out of a negotiation can have ill effects, particularly if the roll generated Threat or Despair. I'd be up front to the PCs about this, as their characters would get the sense that the NPC is displeased.
Now for a real world example: I know a guy who runs a business building custom widgets to suit customers' needs. He's talked to me before about customers who were offering so little that even after they negotiated, he withdrew, telling them to come back later when they understood just how much what they were asking for would cost. He's also made quotes that customers dropped because they saw the price as too high (basically the exact same problem, but from the other direction). Both in competitive deals and in ones where they were specifically sought out.
Those are both situations where the acting party has made a Negotiation check and reached a final price, then one of the two decided the deal wasn't good enough and backed out.
22 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:2. In the case of someone trying to sell a PC some small item, or something they really don't need (Geonosian Vuvuzela)...
Now for a real world example: I know a guy who runs a business building custom widgets to suit customers' needs. He's talked to me before about customers who were offering so little that even after they negotiated, he withdrew, telling them to come back later when they understood just how much what they were asking for would cost. He's also made quotes that customers dropped because they saw the price as too high (basically the exact same problem, but from the other direction). Both in competitive deals and in ones where they were specifically sought out.
Those are both situations where the acting party has made a Negotiation check and reached a final price, then one of the two decided the deal wasn't good enough and backed out.
Antique
Geonosian Vuvuzala! If its not an antique, what's the point?
To your last point, I think most are agreed that there are limits on how far a Negotiation check can move the needle. The buyer offering a price that doesn't cover cost is almost certain to fail. A seller asking the "new" price for a very used widget is also basically doomed to failure from a pure Negotiation perspective. But, in the narrative dice system, and in real life, there can be exceptions. Say the widget maker is just about out of new work to do. The customer's offer is below his all in cost, but does cover materials and labor. He might take the job to keep his employees working. In game this might be a number of successes with a Triumph or two thrown in. For the seller asking "new" money for worn stock, perhaps the buyer has an important client that really wants one of those widgets, or a buyer for a dozen blaster pistols and he has 11 currently. The buyer might pay more, even knowing that he will lose money on the deal, to keep that important client happy. Again I see that as many successes with Triumphs.
To echo some other posters, everyone is free to test the waters, but, like a combat check, once you choose to roll the dice you have to live with the consequences.
31 minutes ago, RickInVA said:To your last point, I think most are agreed that there are limits on how far a Negotiation check can move the needle. The buyer offering a price that doesn't cover cost is almost certain to fail. A seller asking the "new" price for a very used widget is also basically doomed to failure from a pure Negotiation perspective. But, in the narrative dice system, and in real life, there can be exceptions. Say the widget maker is just about out of new work to do. The customer's offer is below his all in cost, but does cover materials and labor. He might take the job to keep his employees working. In game this might be a number of successes with a Triumph or two thrown in. For the seller asking "new" money for worn stock, perhaps the buyer has an important client that really wants one of those widgets, or a buyer for a dozen blaster pistols and he has 11 currently. The buyer might pay more, even knowing that he will lose money on the deal, to keep that important client happy. Again I see that as many successes with Triumphs.
To echo some other posters, everyone is free to test the waters, but, like a combat check, once you choose to roll the dice you have to live with the consequences.
You make some good points there, but I would factor that into the "circumstantial modifiers" bit. I agree that Triumphs can affect it past the norm, but I usually use them for ancillary, more narrative benefits.
As for "living with the consequences," I agree. We just disagree about what the consequences are. The consequence is that you lose the opportunity to make that deal, and the other party may have an adverse reaction, making things difficult either in the present or in the future. As I've stated earlier, a rarity check is your one chance for that location (the meaning of "location" varies), or the analogue depending on the situation. It isn't "roll until you like it."
A somewhat similar situation is how I handle Astrogation checks. Unless Failure would mean something (like the PCs are being pursued, or they have damaged charts, etc.), I don't have them reroll failed Astrogation checks, as I don't think it makes sense. Instead, each Failure drops them further away from their target. This is also a way of clarifying that you can't just roll until you get a result you like. In some circumstances, it just means you consume a little extra fuel. But sometimes, it can have a very deleterious effect. Especially as the characters don't know where exactly they'll end up.
To me it depends.
If either party refuse to trade, even if prices are suggested then it’s cool for the check not to happen. Examine the item? Determine whether it’s genuine? All these steps can take part before the bargaining phase, potentially creating this elaborate social combat over the item if it’s a particularly big item, which can dramatically increase/decrease the value or disposition prior to the negotiation roll.
The moment it becomes a check; there is no backies as both parties have committed to bargaining. Even if the player or NPC wiff bad, they must accept the deal put on the table as one or the other has managed to get the better deal. Even if the other party isn’t being honest about the goods? It might come down to deception vs ones discipline or cool/negotiation. The players are not their characters, just their agents ensuring they have a bigger role to play then just screaming another characters name. XD
I mean, we’ve all known characters whom we love to hate hoodwink other characters, so sometimes it’s hilarious to sell a character a “lightsaber” only to turn out it’s literally an artfully crafted piece of scrap, or to overpay dramatically.
If there's no specific requirement to sell/buy the item RIGHT NOW then there's no reason that either (or both) parties can't walk away from the negotiation if they can't agree on something they're both happy with. It happens all the time IRL. (Even if I dicker with someone over the price of my used car, I'm not obliged to sell at whatever price they finally offer.)
The Negotiation result tells you what the best possible deal is (and it might well involve talking to many potential buyers/sellers, not just one person in particular).
If that's not good enough they you can wait and hope that the market improves, or move on to a different one. That takes (more) time and potentially travel, but it's valid as long as you have the patience for it.
If the negotiation is over something that has to happen RIGHT NOW then you don't have time to play the market and may have to take a bad deal, or cope with whatever consequences arise from not getting (or getting rid of) whatever it was. (Which probably leads to a new encounter of some sort, for good or for ill.)
On 9/21/2020 at 7:57 AM, Daeglan said:I dont think not coming to a price both parties agree to is walking away from a deal. Walking away from a deal is agreeing to sell cargo at 5000 credits a crate and then when you get back to your ship changing your mind.
Agreed, but that doesn't seem to be what the OP is talking about.
To me it seems like he's talking about the players rolling to see what price they can get for their cargo and deciding that it's too low and wanting to roll again.
To me that is the equivalent of "shopping around" for a good price, not being satisfied with the offers and deciding to not take anyone up on them.
But, it also seems that people are using the "walking away from a deal" term loosely here.
In my case, I'm referring to what I explained in this post. Players want to sell... roll to see what their best offer is... don't want to sell but want to roll again... in that case I wouldn't let them try again on the same planet because they've already shopped around to every contact they have... going back again to ask them to raise their prices seems... ridiculous.
1 hour ago, OddballE8 said:Agreed, but that doesn't seem to be what the OP is talking about.
To me it seems like he's talking about the players rolling to see what price they can get for their cargo and deciding that it's too low and wanting to roll again.
To me that is the equivalent of "shopping around" for a good price, not being satisfied with the offers and deciding to not take anyone up on them.
But, it also seems that people are using the "walking away from a deal" term loosely here.
In my case, I'm referring to what I explained in this post. Players want to sell... roll to see what their best offer is... don't want to sell but want to roll again... in that case I wouldn't let them try again on the same planet because they've already shopped around to every contact they have... going back again to ask them to raise their prices seems... ridiculous.
Strikes me as the gm not adequately defining what the roll covers. Ie this roll is you finding the best price on this planet.
I would say that once you roll, whatever the results are, the buyer and seller genuinely believe that is absolutely a fair and reasonable price. The PC believes the price is sound. Whether that is a price they are willing to buy/sell at is up to the player.
Edited by micheldebruyn1 hour ago, micheldebruyn said:I would say that once you roll, whatever the results are, the buyer and seller genuinely believe that is absolutely a fair and reasonable price. The PC believes the price is sound. Whether that is a price they are willing to buy/sell at is up to the PC.
I would saybitndepends on how the roll is framed. For example I can think a price is fair. That doesnt change the amount of credits my character has. It also doesnt necessarily change the amount credits the buyer has. So I think thengm and player really need to agree on what the roll is representing. It could Be finding potential sellers. It c I uld be finding buyers. It could be 1 roll for everything..etc.
Finding buyers seems more like a Streetwise thing to me. Or an appropriate Knowledge skill.
5 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:Finding buyers seems more like a Streetwise thing to me. Or an appropriate Knowledge skill.
That depends. Streetwise is used for illegal items, but the book specifies Negotiation for selling legal items, which includes finding a buyer.
On 9/26/2020 at 1:50 PM, Garran said:If there's no specific requirement to sell/buy the item RIGHT NOW then there's no reason that either (or both) parties can't walk away from the negotiation if they can't agree on something they're both happy with. It happens all the time IRL. (Even if I dicker with someone over the price of my used car, I'm not obliged to sell at whatever price they finally offer.)
The "sell the used car" scenario is used a lot, including by myself. One of my prior positions was as a Small Business Relationship Manager for a large bank. I had used car dealers that were clients. I can attest that many people, routinely , take far less than fair value for their used vehicle. If they all insisted on a "fair price" these dealers would be in a hurt. They are not, quite the opposite.
I'm not disagreeing with your idea of wanting to sell in a short time being different from merely testing the waters. I agree with that. But life tells me that people are frequently convinced by a buyer/seller to accept a price that is not the best. Why should the PCs be immune to this facet of existence? Can no NPC ever take advantage of the PC? If the PC's Negotiation roll is 4 Failures, 2 Threats, and 2 Despairs, they can just say "no" and walk away? They rolled so poorly that my only logical interpretation is that they are 200% convinced that the offer of half what they wanted (or whatever the amount is), is not only fair, but that they are dang lucky to get it. But, the player can just say, "No, Thanks!" and walk away? That makes no sense to me. I'm all for Player Agency, but it can't be carte blanche to just do whatever they want in the face of the dice and the failure of their skills, can it?
Getting four failures, two threats, and two despairs would require a minimum of what, seven upgrades to the standard difficulty? And even then a 'perfect' result on all of those dice (and the GBY ones too).
If they're trying to sell something with that much heat attached to it then no, they're not selling it for a bit less than they hoped with that sort of result. They're not selling it at all; they're probably fleeing the region with every major faction on their tail (and the Benny Hill theme playing over it).
8 hours ago, Garran said:Getting four failures, two threats, and two despairs would require a minimum of what, seven upgrades to the standard difficulty? And even then a 'perfect' result on all of those dice (and the GBY ones too).
If they're trying to sell something with that much heat attached to it then no, they're not selling it for a bit less than they hoped with that sort of result. They're not selling it at all; they're probably fleeing the region with every major faction on their tail (and the Benny Hill theme playing over it).
This is willingly missing the point. A player will see the results of his roll, whilst the character will not know if he is bargaining well or poorly. Even merely a lack of successes or a single failure could result in a player potentially simply "refusing a deal" in your "walk away" scenario and waiting to get a better roll later. Moreover, the rules imply that this shouldn't be allowed (as outlined in the post I made above). The poster gave a real world example of the fact that people didn't realize they were happily walking away from a deal with the dirty end of the stick, and you chose to refute the argument based on the wording of the argument instead of the argument itself. Simply, a player should not be able to base their acceptance of a poor deal on the physical outcome of the dice roll. This is philosophically the same as a player choosing to take a shot at a villain holding a hostage, and when they roll a despair resulting in the hostage taking the shot instead of the villain saying that they choose to "check their fire" instead of making the attack.
13 minutes ago, Kyla said:This is philosophically the same as a player choosing to take a shot at a villain holding a hostage, and when they roll a despair resulting in the hostage taking the shot instead of the villain saying that they choose to "check their fire" instead of making the attack.
No it isn't. A Negotiation check covers the search for an item or a buyer for an item, and then determines the price you are able to buy or sell for. A Ranged (Light) check is the act of firing your blaster.
When you roll, you have performed the action and you cannot take it back.
The question is where the Negotiation action ends. I say it ends before you make the transaction, but after you have reached a point where you can no longer shift the needle further in your favor.