In all fairness, taking obligation to afford an item is always an option. After all, what is money but tokens of favour?

that being said, obligation is one of the few resources that the players have pretty good control over that they can’t be forced to take. Obligation is always a result of a consensual decision, even if they aren’t of making it sometimes. XD That being said, I don’t feel being unable to afford something should go down that rabbit hole normally unless the player vouches for it, the NPC is immensely influential and dangerous to force them to take the deal (which I would only use sparingly for the characters who really need to be hated) or it’s the result of some fine or penalty. I believe all those things could be reasonable provided context. I don’t believe anything fits all the boxes, all the time.

I’m less interested in the debating part of things; Qui-Gon is a seasoned negotiator, just the challenge was finding Watto’s Price/kink so to speak, which was winning this race that needed that child. I could believe the entire conversation was about giving this boy to win his own freedom, with the hyperdrive; it succeeded with the caveat of him having to win a rigged game of dice.

2 hours ago, whafrog said:

Your response was basically "sure, but the consequence is they don't get to make the deal". That's not a consequence at all. Not making a deal could save the PC from the results of a very bad roll, and more importantly have zero story impact. That's total BS, and I'm willing to bet there is no other skill where you'd let that resolve in that fashion.

You have not been listening to anything I've been saying.

I've stated clearly, many times , that the consequences include 1. "Failing" the roll and having to try again later, 2. Any effect that walking away from a deal may have, and 3. Any effects beyond the deal itself stemming from Advantage, Triumph, Threat, or Despair.

This is all situationally dependent. To bring up an actual example, PCs rolled success and 5 Threat trying to convince a Mandalorian armorsmith to provide them with beskar (Cortosis Weave).
I told them that with the 5 Threat, it'd cost 15k and he'd only sell one. If they'd chosen to walk away, the armorsmith would have grunted "good riddance" and that'd have been it, since he has no need to chase after them for anything. In that case, the Threat only applied to the deal, and they chose not to take the deal. Because they didn't take it then, he's unlikely to offer it again later, or it'll at least add Setback to a check to convince him to offer them the same deal, they aren't going to get better.
Now if they were trying to pawn off a shipment of spice and rolled a Despair, they may pull out of the deal, but they're still going to feel the effects of that Despair.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You have not been listening to anything I've been saying.

I've stated clearly, many times , that the consequences include 1. "Failing" the roll and having to try again later, 2. Any effect that walking away from a deal may have, and 3. Any effects beyond the deal itself stemming from Advantage, Triumph, Threat, or Despair.

This is all situationally dependent. To bring up an actual example, PCs rolled success and 5 Threat trying to convince a Mandalorian armorsmith to provide them with beskar (Cortosis Weave).
I told them that with the 5 Threat, it'd cost 15k and he'd only sell one. If they'd chosen to walk away, the armorsmith would have grunted "good riddance" and that'd have been it, since he has no need to chase after them for anything. In that case, the Threat only applied to the deal, and they chose not to take the deal. Because they didn't take it then, he's unlikely to offer it again later, or it'll at least add Setback to a check to convince him to offer them the same deal, they aren't going to get better.
Now if they were trying to pawn off a shipment of spice and rolled a Despair, they may pull out of the deal, but they're still going to feel the effects of that Despair.

1) As the player did not want the deal this is clearly an advantage, not a consequence.

2) I don't believe any of the examples you have provided fall in this category. Can you share some?

3) What if the dice result is 1 Success, no other result, but the player walks away because the financial gain with 1 Success is less than they want. What consequences apply then?

Just now, RickInVA said:

1) As the player did not want the deal this is clearly an advantage, not a consequence.

So failing the roll wouldn't be a consequence, then? It's a consequence because they lose the opportunity to get X item until they have an opportunity to try again.

1 minute ago, RickInVA said:

2) I don't believe any of the examples you have provided fall in this category. Can you share some?

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Because they didn't take it then, he's unlikely to offer it again later, or it'll at least add Setback to a check to convince him to offer them the same deal, they aren't going to get better.

2 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

3) What if the dice result is 1 Success, no other result, but the player walks away because the financial gain with 1 Success is less than they want. What consequences apply then?

See 2.
Sometimes, the answer is none. In which case, see 1.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

So failing the roll wouldn't be a consequence, then? It's a consequence because they lose the opportunity to get X item until they have an opportunity to try again.

See 2.
Sometimes, the answer is none. In which case, see 1.

Absolutely no offense intended, but I don't see any of those consequences being "consequential". The only one that gets close, for me, is that the Smith won't deal with them in the future. But there was never any guarantee of that Smith having Beskar to sell at any given point in time to begin with, so that still seems a mild consequence. As always, to each his/her own!

3 hours ago, whafrog said:

The skill results and scaling are intricately tied together. Easy case: 1 Threat can be applied as 1 Strain, whether it comes from Brawling or Negotiation. That's a fixed tangible amount in the game system that applies to all skill checks. So whether the PC sells or they walk away that threat still applies.

I have not been trying to make a positive case for being bound to purchase anything. All I said in my very first post is that there have to be consequences , that's all. Your response was basically "sure, but the consequence is they don't get to make the deal". That's not a consequence at all. Not making a deal could save the PC from the results of a very bad roll, and more importantly have zero story impact. That's total BS, and I'm willing to bet there is no other skill where you'd let that resolve in that fashion.

The logic chain for me is really simple: rolls should happen where there is something of consequence to roll about -> the consequence of the roll stands regardless of what the player does next.

No one is saying that there are no consequences. Threat and Despair always have consequences. However, a negotiation roll only sets the price, it does not force someone to make a purchase; and, as I said before, if the prospective buyer does not have the funds for the purchase at the offered price, even after haggling, then no deal can even be made.

Just now, RickInVA said:

Absolutely no offense intended, but I don't see any of those consequences being "consequential". The only one that gets close, for me, is that the Smith won't deal with them in the future. But there was never any guarantee of that Smith having Beskar to sell at any given point in time to begin with, so that still seems a mild consequence. As always, to each his/her own!

Yeah. Mild consequence. The death star isn't going to blow up their world because they decided not to buy a pair of specialty socks after realizing how much they cost.

And actually, the armorsmith did have beskar and they knew he had beskar. But he didn't want to sell it to someone outside the clan. Just changes the nature of the check to "find" the item they wish to purchase, though it's mechanically the same.

2 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Absolutely no offense intended, but I don't see any of those consequences being "consequential". The only one that gets close, for me, is that the Smith won't deal with them in the future. But there was never any guarantee of that Smith having Beskar to sell at any given point in time to begin with, so that still seems a mild consequence. As always, to each his/her own!

The Armorer in question was the Armorer of my character’s clan. The other party members were not from the same clan nor even house. One of the other party members did buy the Beskar at the final offered price. The other did not. My character, as a member of the clan got it at standard price.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yeah. Mild consequence. The death star isn't going to blow up their world because they decided not to buy a pair of specialty socks after realizing how much they cost.

And actually, the armorsmith did have beskar and they knew he had beskar. But he didn't want to sell it to someone outside the clan. Just changes the nature of the check to "find" the item they wish to purchase, though it's mechanically the same.

To clarify my comment...what I mean about the smith is that yes, he has Beskar now. If they were to leave and not have angered him with the Threats, and returned in some random time in the future, he might not be there, or be there and at that future time , not have any Beskar. So that the fact that he would not deal with them in the future at all is less of a firm consequence due to the variability of him having Beskar in the future. Unless, in your game, by definition that Smith will always have Beskar and they have now spoiled a great source forever, in which case, due to that specific fact, I would retract my statement and agree that is a consequence.

1 minute ago, RickInVA said:

To clarify my comment...what I mean about the smith is that yes, he has Beskar now. If they were to leave and not have angered him with the Threats, and returned in some random time in the future, he might not be there, or be there and at that future time , not have any Beskar. So that the fact that he would not deal with them in the future at all is less of a firm consequence due to the variability of him having Beskar in the future. Unless, in your game, by definition that Smith will always have Beskar and they have now spoiled a great source forever, in which case, due to that specific fact, I would retract my statement and agree that is a consequence.

Yeah, unless plot specific to have run dry, he'd have a supply of beskar. The point isn't getting into the weeds of the precise example, the point is the broader implications of the example.

And consequences (in general, not for shopping/selling specifically) are generally going to be fairly minor. Some will be major, some won't really even chart, and others will be a minor nuisance.

Some consequences will be as simpler as not having X and wishing you did because you didn't take the deal when you could get it. Or being unlucky the next couple time you try to buy/sell the item and being unable to.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No one is saying that there are no consequences. Threat and Despair always have consequences. However, a negotiation roll only sets the price, it does not force someone to make a purchase; and, as I said before, if the prospective buyer does not have the funds for the purchase at the offered price, even after haggling, then no deal can even be made.

If my summary that is about to follow is inaccurate, please correct me. To summarize your position, the Negotiation roll locates the item and establishes the price. It then takes another deliberate action by the Player to accept the offer and complete the transaction.

If that is correct do you apply that to other interactions with the Social Skills? As an example: If a Player wants to bribe a customs official to not inspect their cargo do you allow the Player to make the roll, setting the stage for the bribe, and then require her to take another deliberate action to complete the bribe?

10 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

If my summary that is about to follow is inaccurate, please correct me. To summarize your position, the Negotiation roll locates the item and establishes the price. It then takes another deliberate action by the Player to accept the offer and complete the transaction.

Yes. To clarify, the second "deliberate action" does not require a check.

11 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

If that is correct do you apply that to other interactions with the Social Skills? As an example: If a Player wants to bribe a customs official to not inspect their cargo do you allow the Player to make the roll, setting the stage for the bribe, and then require her to take another deliberate action to complete the bribe?

Is the "her" the customs official or the PC?
I'm going to proceed under the assumption that the "her" is the PC.

Yes. The consequences to not doing so would be pretty severe, but yes. As the PC is the acting character, they have the agency to decide not to follow through with a proposed course of action. Now, once that roll has been made, the NPC will act according to the results of the roll.

22 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

If they were to leave and not have angered him with the Threats,

I want to clarify this a bit: In that situation, the Threats didn't affect his relationship with them, or really affect anything outside of the price. He didn't particularly want their business, so them leaving is no skin off his nose. At worst, he's just minorly irritated that they wasted his time. This would not always be the case though. I play NPCs based on their motivations, and Threat/Despair is generally an outgrowth of that.
If they had left the deal, he's not going to give them a better one later on, and they'd still have to make a check to convince him to even give them the old deal. That's simply a natural consequence of having left the deal, unrelated to Threat.

28 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yes. To clarify, the second "deliberate action" does not require a check.

Is the "her" the customs official or the PC?
I'm going to proceed under the assumption that the "her" is the PC.

Yes. The consequences to not doing so would be pretty severe, but yes. As the PC is the acting character, they have the agency to decide not to follow through with a proposed course of action. Now, once that roll has been made, the NPC will act according to the results of the roll.

I appreciate the confirmation.

Yes, "her" in that example is the Player. Just to be sure I set up the situation correctly, in my hypo the Player has stated an intention to bribe the customs official, and has rolled dice . There would almost certainly have been some role playing involved here as well. Lets set up two possible scenarios:

1) The Player has offered the Customs Official 1000 credits as a bribe, and rolled 2 failure, with 1 advantage. Based on this "setting the stage" what options are now open to the Player?

2) The Customs Official lets the Player know that it will take 900 credits for him to not make the inspection. The Player's roll is 1 success with 2 Threats. What options are now open to the Player?

I like this example because it is, to me, a high risk/reward situation. For me it feels like a "you are in too deep to back out" kind of thing. And, I have to say, I have never had a Player not pay the agreed on bribe, so I'm a little unsure what I would do if they did say they wouldn't pay. Jail seems likely though, and I suspect that the Players have that same idea and so, having decided to offer the bribe, understand that there is no good way to back out (barring Triumphs or DP).

16 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

I appreciate the confirmation.

Yes, "her" in that example is the Player. Just to be sure I set up the situation correctly, in my hypo the Player has stated an intention to bribe the customs official, and has rolled dice . There would almost certainly have been some role playing involved here as well. Lets set up two possible scenarios:

1) The Player has offered the Customs Official 1000 credits as a bribe, and rolled 2 failure, with 1 advantage. Based on this "setting the stage" what options are now open to the Player?

2) The Customs Official lets the Player know that it will take 900 credits for him to not make the inspection. The Player's roll is 1 success with 2 Threats. What options are now open to the Player?

I like this example because it is, to me, a high risk/reward situation. For me it feels like a "you are in too deep to back out" kind of thing. And, I have to say, I have never had a Player not pay the agreed on bribe, so I'm a little unsure what I would do if they did say they wouldn't pay. Jail seems likely though, and I suspect that the Players have that same idea and so, having decided to offer the bribe, understand that there is no good way to back out (barring Triumphs or DP).

That’s not a purchase . That’s a bribe . That’s a completely different situation. Not only that, but that wouldn’t fall under Negotiation . That falls under Streetwise . A legitimate sale would not have that kind of risk, nor danger.

31 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

1) The Player has offered the Customs Official 1000 credits as a bribe, and rolled 2 failure, with 1 advantage. Based on this "setting the stage" what options are now open to the Player?

None. They have failed to convince the customs official to take the bribe, and will suffer appropriate repercussions.

32 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

2) The Customs Official lets the Player know that it will take 900 credits for him to not make the inspection. The Player's roll is 1 success with 2 Threats. What options are now open to the Player?

The player can choose to pay the customs official the bribe, or they can choose not to. If they choose not to, there will be repercussions from the customs official.

7 hours ago, whafrog said:

The skill results and scaling are intricately tied together. Easy case: 1 Threat can be applied as 1 Strain, whether it comes from Brawling or Negotiation. That's a fixed tangible amount in the game system that applies to all skill checks. So whether the PC sells or they walk away that threat still applies.

I have not been trying to make a positive case for being bound to purchase anything. All I said in my very first post is that there have to be consequences , that's all. Your response was basically "sure, but the consequence is they don't get to make the deal". That's not a consequence at all. Not making a deal could save the PC from the results of a very bad roll, and more importantly have zero story impact. That's total BS, and I'm willing to bet there is no other skill where you'd let that resolve in that fashion.

Why is not considered consequence if you can't buy something?

If you need a Dewback to pass the Jundland Wastes and you roll ridiculous bad, why is it not a consequence that you chose to walk instead and get a handful of punishment going on foot as opposed to riding smoothly.

2 hours ago, RickInVA said:

2) The Customs Official lets the Player know that it will take 900 credits for him to not make the inspection. The Player's roll is 1 success with 2 Threats. What options are now open to the Player?

What are they rolling for? If the officer sets himself up why roll? Pc either takes it or not.

6 hours ago, RickInVA said:

Absolutely no offense intended, but I don't see any of those consequences being "consequential". The only one that gets close, for me, is that the Smith won't deal with them in the future. But there was never any guarantee of that Smith having Beskar to sell at any given point in time to begin with, so that still seems a mild consequence. As always, to each his/her own!

It's a shopping trip, not a duel to the death. Not everything has to have consequences that are huge, dramatic, and far-reaching. Not getting what you want is a normal consequence for a bad roll on an action that is rather non-consequential to begin with.

I was just wondering, if the players can just walk away from a failed/bad Negotiations check to buy or sell something, what would keep the NPC vendor from walking away from their really successful roll? I mean, if they can do it so can anyone else. Just imagine the frustration if they rolled a great check on selling some expensive item and the NPC went, "Sorry, that's not the deal I want to make".

1 hour ago, Krieger22 said:

I was just wondering, if the players can just walk away from a failed/bad Negotiations check to buy or sell something, what would keep the NPC vendor from walking away from their really successful roll? I mean, if they can do it so can anyone else. Just imagine the frustration if they rolled a great check on selling some expensive item and the NPC went, "Sorry, that's not the deal I want to make".

Absolutely nothing.

"Yeah, I kinda really want to give you 15000 credits for your slightly charred, used Stormtrooper armour, but I really need this job and my boss would literally kill me. Plus, we don't have that kind of cash lying around anyway".

We generally tend to use Negotiation type of skills to hack out treaties and alliances, regardles of what game we're playing, not buying and selling of stuff, unles it's a character whose entire focus is on being a merchant.

2 hours ago, Krieger22 said:

I was just wondering, if the players can just walk away from a failed/bad Negotiations check to buy or sell something, what would keep the NPC vendor from walking away from their really successful roll? I mean, if they can do it so can anyone else. Just imagine the frustration if they rolled a great check on selling some expensive item and the NPC went, "Sorry, that's not the deal I want to make".

1 hour ago, micheldebruyn said:

"Yeah, I kinda really want to give you 15000 credits for your slightly charred, used Stormtrooper armour, but I really need this job and my boss would literally kill me. Plus, we don't have that kind of cash lying around anyway".

In this case, the PC is the acting character and so the target is bound by the check.

However, the GM can determine what the bounds of the check are, and the limit of how much can change. When selling something per RAW, you can't get above 75%. If the player were to try to deceive the character that the armor is more than it seems, then maybe he could get 15k for it. But he'd probably get a lot of Setback.

4 hours ago, Krieger22 said:

I was just wondering, if the players can just walk away from a failed/bad Negotiations check to buy or sell something, what would keep the NPC vendor from walking away from their really successful roll? I mean, if they can do it so can anyone else. Just imagine the frustration if they rolled a great check on selling some expensive item and the NPC went, "Sorry, that's not the deal I want to make".

This is what I've been wondering as well. If the player rolled incredibly well on the check, should the NPC have the same option to walk away that the PC has?

1 minute ago, Vorzakk said:

This is what I've been wondering as well. If the player rolled incredibly well on the check, should the NPC have the same option to walk away that the PC has?

No, because they are the target, not the acting character. So the results of the Social Skill check "sway them to the character's point of view for the duration of the scene."

I further outlined my position on the subject in the post just above yours.

It also depends on the NPC type. Minions and Rivals have considerably less character agency than Nemesiseses.

11 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That’s not a purchase . That’s a bribe . That’s a completely different situation. Not only that, but that wouldn’t fall under Negotiation . That falls under Streetwise . A legitimate sale would not have that kind of risk, nor danger.

Which was exactly my point in asking, to inquire if the "option to complete" was being applied uniquely to Negotiation or if people on that side consider it applicable to other interactions as well. P-47 clearly, from the answer, does feel that method applies to other interactions than a buy/sell Negotiation.