1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

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.

P-47, so if an NPC approached a PC and started asking about buying a piece of jewelry that the PC was wearing, what would have to occur, or what would the PC have to say, such that said encounter would be the NPC acting and the Player would therefore be required to accept the result?

12 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.

It's a conversation between a PC and an NPC regarding a transaction, currency in exchange for a service. That's Negotiation. Why would you use Streetwise? What does it matter if it's legal or not?

14 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

It's a conversation between a PC and an NPC regarding a transaction, currency in exchange for a service. That's Negotiation. Why would you use Streetwise? What does it matter if it's legal or not?

Per RAW, seeking out illicit goods or services, or knowing how to approach an underhanded deal is Streetwise. Once you've made "contact" you might use Negotiation to pin down the particulars.

12 hours 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).

1) The players don't have any real options here. The Advantage might mean the PCs just get a large fine instead of arrested. The ship gets inspected.

2) They can a) pay the guard or b) not, which is essentially voluntarily failing the roll, which will get them in trouble with the law. The effects of the two Disadvantages happen, regardles of whether they pay up or not. I'd probably have the guard already be under investigation for corruption, putting the PCs in the crosshairs of local authorities regardless of their succesful bribe.

23 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

P-47, so if an NPC approached a PC and started asking about buying a piece of jewelry that the PC was wearing, what would have to occur, or what would the PC have to say, such that said encounter would be the NPC acting and the Player would therefore be required to accept the result?

The NPC initiated, so I would have them making any Negotiation check that comes up (probably asking the player for a suggestion on number of Setback).

Something like that is a bit tricky to deal with, but here's how I'd handle that situation:

NPC: That's a nice necklace, it reminds me of a piece my mother used to have. Would you, perhaps, be willing to part with it?
PC: Oh, I couldn't, it's rather dear to me.
NPC: Oh come on, how much?
PC: X credits sounds about right to me.
NPC: *makes Negotiation check to talk down the PC*
PC: Y credits, that's my final offer.
NPC: *Chooses whether to take or leave the offer*

I'd agree with the PC on a base price, and be up front about the amount reduced by additional Success and that the NPC may choose to give up if the price isn't low enough.

5 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Per RAW, seeking out illicit goods or services, or knowing how to approach an underhanded deal is Streetwise. Once you've made "contact" you might use Negotiation to pin down the particulars.

You're not exactly seeking them out. You're trying to make a deal with whatever costums official is standing in your cargo bay.

Just now, micheldebruyn said:

You're not exactly seeking them out. You're trying to make a deal with whatever costums official is standing in your cargo bay.

Yeah, and you use Streetwise to 1. Determine if he'd be open to taking a bribe, 2. Come across as non-threatening, 3. Give the GM a good idea where to set a base price. All in the one Streetwise check.
Call it "soliciting" if you want.

Then, if you want to press your luck, you can try to haggle, using Negotiate to talk him down to a lower price.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The NPC initiated, so I would have them making any Negotiation check that comes up (probably asking the player for a suggestion on number of Setback).

Something like that is a bit tricky to deal with, but here's how I'd handle that situation:

NPC: That's a nice necklace, it reminds me of a piece my mother used to have. Would you, perhaps, be willing to part with it?
PC: Oh, I couldn't, it's rather dear to me.
NPC: Oh come on, how much?
PC: X credits sounds about right to me.
NPC: *makes Negotiation check to talk down the PC*
PC: Y credits, that's my final offer.
NPC: *Chooses whether to take or leave the offer*

I'd agree with the PC on a base price, and be up front about the amount reduced by additional Success and that the NPC may choose to give up if the price isn't low enough.

Wouldn't both parties have to consent to even be part of negotiations?

PC: "X credits sounds about right to me."

NPC: "I'll give you 2/3 of X for it".

PC: "No. Go away."

3 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yeah, and you use Streetwise to 1. Determine if he'd be open to taking a bribe, 2. Come across as non-threatening, 3. Give the GM a good idea where to set a base price. All in the one Streetwise check.
Call it "soliciting" if you want.

Then, if you want to press your luck, you can try to haggle, using Negotiate to talk him down to a lower price.

I don't think any of that falls under Streetwise. He's just a regular guy, not part of some criminal organisation. If a roll to determine if he's susceptible is required I'd use Perception, or Charm to make him susceptible.

3 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Wouldn't both parties have to consent to even be part of negotiations?

PC: "X credits sounds about right to me."

NPC: "I'll give you 2/3 of X for it".

PC: "No. Go away."

I'm not sure what you mean.

The NPC was already committed to Negotiating, and then the PC committed once they made an offer. Since the NPC is the acting character, they roll the Negotiation check and the PC is bound by the results. "Swayed to the character's point of view for the duration of the scene."

Just now, micheldebruyn said:

I don't think any of that falls under Streetwise. He's just a regular guy, not part of some criminal organisation. If a roll to determine if he's susceptible is required I'd use Perception, or Charm to make him susceptible.

Sure, that's reasonable. I handle it differently though.

The developers have been clear in stating that Negotiation is used for legal sales and deals, while Streetwise is used for underworld/black market deals. This would include bribes.

1 hour ago, RickInVA said:

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.

Different types of interactions have different purposes, and, therefore, types of results. The purpose of a negotiation in a potential purchase is to get a good deal that’s, ideally, mutually beneficial and agreeable to both parties. The catch is that there is no guarantee that two people will come to an agreeable price. A failed Negotiation check can just as easily be narrated as a failure to come to an agreement on price, and thus no sale, just as a failed Negotiation in trying to establish a peace treaty can result in a treaty not coming to fruition. In both cases Threats or Despair can make that situation worse, while Advantages or Triumph could smooth things over to provide a later opportunity to bring the two parties back together for further negotiations.

The goal of Charm is to get someone to like you (or to seduced the target, if you’re so inclined). A failed Charm simply means that you failed to sway your target. This could potentially result in the target’s disposition towards you worsening if you really blow it with Threats or Despair.

The goal of Intimidation is to frighten your target, for whatever reason. Failure simply means he’s not a fraid if you, which could have dangerous consequences.

Deceprion, obviously, is trying to make someone believe a lie. Failure means he doesn’t believe the lie. That’s it. Threats or Despair can provide other negative consequences just as Advantages and Triumph can smooth things over.

the similarities of all of these social checks is that you’re trying to convince the other person to do something or feel something. If you fail the roll, then the desired result does not occur. In the case of a failed Negotiation roll to convince the target to sell you something, then the seller doesn’t sell the item to you.

Sorry a bit late to this discussion just double checking.

So a Streetwise check to try and find someone with access to the item(s) you're trying to buy or find and then a Negotiation check to haggle the price?

The difficulty for the first check based on the Rarity of the item and the second is actually contested?

Have I got that right?

So for example a Lightsaber is Rarity 10 and a suit of Armoured Clothing is Rarity 6 being sought on a Mid Rim world near Manda and Kamino.

The Lightsaber would be a Formidable difficulty normally, however since that location would give an effective Rarity of 11 whilst the Armored Clothing would be a 7.

So the Streetwise check for someone with a Cunning of say 2 and the Streetwise skill of 1 would be at least 4 purple and 1 challenge dice against their one proficiency and ability dice for their pool whilst the much safer and less insane choice of looking for Armored Clothing would be a hard difficulty check of 3 purple and the 1 proficiency and ability die for their pool in an effort to find someone selling that.

Using the die app got a result of 2 successes and 2 threat so my character found someone selling a lightsaber, but in the process has drawn attention to herself possibly the Inquisitor and the Storm Troopers are currently wondering how the **** the 15 year old kid just found something lying around ever since the end of the clone wars without them noticing!

As for the other that's a result of 2 failure and 1 advantage... what a day when protective body armor is even harder to find that the weapon of a cult wiped out at the end of the Clone Wars!

So please let me know if I've got the wrong end of the stick there with the Streetwise checks?!

14 minutes ago, copperbell said:

Sorry a bit late to this discussion just double checking.

So a Streetwise check to try and find someone with access to the item(s) you're trying to buy or find and then a Negotiation check to haggle the price?

The difficulty for the first check based on the Rarity of the item and the second is actually contested?

Have I got that right?

No.

Streetwise to determine availability of a restricted (R) item, and the price it's being sold for.
Negotiation to determine availability of a legal item, and the price it's being sold for.

Then, GM willing, a PC may attempt to haggle down the price, making a Negotiation check with a difficulty determined by the GM.

So I was right to go with Streetwise with the Lightsaber, but should stick to Negotiation for regular items like Armored Clothing?

The actual haggling part is Negotiation based that would be contested normally wouldn't it?

So say the seller has Negotiation at 2 and Cunning at 3 against the same PC the die pool would be 2 challenge and 1 purple with 1 ability and proficiency die pool?

For 4 failure and 2 advantage so is hustled out of the shop and told to send their parent or guardian instead and the seller merely laughs off her efforts as a result...

Still getting looks from someone in a dark hooded cloak as she quickly heads off past the patrolling Storm troopers who are completely unaware about whats going on...

28 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No.

Streetwise to determine availability of a restricted (R) item, and the price it's being sold for.
Negotiation to determine availability of a legal item, and the price it's being sold for.

Then, GM willing, a PC may attempt to haggle down the price, making a Negotiation check with a difficulty determined by the GM.

I disagree on that. I allow only one check, streetwise for illegal items or negotiation for legal items, and that check is binding. The check determines if the character found a seller for the item(s) he / she wish to buy, or a buyer for the item(s) to sell, and at what price the deal is made. I always warn the player before the dice are rolled that he / she is not forced to do it but in this case no deal is made his / her character is bound by the result. The player can make his / her character opt out of a deal before dice are rolled not after.

53 minutes ago, copperbell said:

So I was right to go with Streetwise with the Lightsaber, but should stick to Negotiation for regular items like Armored Clothing?

The actual haggling part is Negotiation based that would be contested normally wouldn't it?

So say the seller has Negotiation at 2 and Cunning at 3 against the same PC the die pool would be 2 challenge and 1 purple with 1 ability and proficiency die pool?

For 4 failure and 2 advantage so is hustled out of the shop and told to send their parent or guardian instead and the seller merely laughs off her efforts as a result...

Still getting looks from someone in a dark hooded cloak as she quickly heads off past the patrolling Storm troopers who are completely unaware about whats going on...

Negotiation is linked to Presence, but yes.

And that narrative sounds about right.

30 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

I disagree on that. I allow only one check, streetwise for illegal items or negotiation for legal items, and that check is binding. The check determines if the character found a seller for the item(s) he / she wish to buy, or a buyer for the item(s) to sell, and at what price the deal is made. I always warn the player before the dice are rolled that he / she is not forced to do it but in this case no deal is made his / her character is bound by the result. The player can make his / her character opt out of a deal before dice are rolled not after.

If multiple items do you restrict to the item with the highest Rarity or would the multiple items make it go higher through virtue of more than 1 of similar rarity?

For example 3 items at Rarity 6 but 2 at say 5 with the Mid Rim location giving +1 to this would that be sufficient to raise it to a Rarity of say 8 in total for the combined check?

By that I mean would that be enough to take this from a Hard check to a Daunting one?

4 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The NPC initiated, so I would have them making any Negotiation check that comes up (probably asking the player for a suggestion on number of Setback).

Something like that is a bit tricky to deal with, but here's how I'd handle that situation:

NPC: That's a nice necklace, it reminds me of a piece my mother used to have. Would you, perhaps, be willing to part with it?
PC: Oh, I couldn't, it's rather dear to me.
NPC: Oh come on, how much?
PC: X credits sounds about right to me.
NPC: *makes Negotiation check to talk down the PC*
PC: Y credits, that's my final offer.
NPC: *Chooses whether to take or leave the offer*

I'd agree with the PC on a base price, and be up front about the amount reduced by additional Success and that the NPC may choose to give up if the price isn't low enough.

P-47, I appreciate that your view is consistent, which I understand to be that the Initiating Party, the one that rolls the dice in the check, is not obligated, but the target of the check is obligated. I do feel that this method is overly advantageous to the Players as my experience is that the Players are the Initiating Party in most instances.

This also offers me an opportunity to offer another way to view my position. I feel that the first parts of the above discussion, the first 4 lines, are not Negotiation. That is the "setting the stage" role playing portion. The Initiating Party can, at this time, chose to accept the terms offered, no roll needed. But, if not, then, it seems to me, we enter the next phase, the one we disagree on. I feel that at this point if the Initiating Party decides they are going to roll the dice that the are saying, "That general, or base, price is reasonable. I'm committed to buying the item. What I want is to Negotiate the specific price." This is the best I can come to explaining a complicated thought process. Specifically that rolling the dice shows the commitment to complete the transaction. This is the same presumption that I apply to Charm, Deception, Coercion, etc., that choosing to roll the dice is a commitment by the Initiating Party to complete the transaction. And that the Social Contract of the game requires that the Target of the transaction also be committed to completing the transaction. This commitment is not impacted by the results of the dice. Regardless of the benefit or detriment the dice reveal both sides are committed.

13 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

P-47, I appreciate that your view is consistent, which I understand to be that the Initiating Party, the one that rolls the dice in the check, is not obligated, but the target of the check is obligated. I do feel that this method is overly advantageous to the Players as my experience is that the Players are the Initiating Party in most instances.

This also offers me an opportunity to offer another way to view my position. I feel that the first parts of the above discussion, the first 4 lines, are not Negotiation. That is the "setting the stage" role playing portion. The Initiating Party can, at this time, chose to accept the terms offered, no roll needed. But, if not, then, it seems to me, we enter the next phase, the one we disagree on. I feel that at this point if the Initiating Party decides they are going to roll the dice that the are saying, "That general, or base, price is reasonable. I'm committed to buying the item. What I want is to Negotiate the specific price." This is the best I can come to explaining a complicated thought process. Specifically that rolling the dice shows the commitment to complete the transaction. This is the same presumption that I apply to Charm, Deception, Coercion, etc., that choosing to roll the dice is a commitment by the Initiating Party to complete the transaction. And that the Social Contract of the game requires that the Target of the transaction also be committed to completing the transaction. This commitment is not impacted by the results of the dice. Regardless of the benefit or detriment the dice reveal both sides are committed.

As you articulated it, you understand my position correctly (though I'd use the term "active" rather than "initiating" in case they are ever in conflict). And yes, it generally benefits the players, though I have no issue with that because I think the rules make sense.

I get what you are saying, but I still disagree.

16 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

"That general, or base, price is reasonable. I'm committed to buying the item. What I want is to Negotiate the specific price."

I think you are saying this from a meta perspective, but I would pose the question of "what if the base price is not reasonable?" and further state for the record that that is a terrible negotiation tactic. The only way a negotiation goes anywhere is if both participants are able to walk away. Otherwise, neither has leverage to shift the needle in their direction.
Because of how the social skills work, you have to have one character who is the "target" and can be convinced, Failure (usually) meaning that they exercise their right to walk away.

1 hour ago, copperbell said:

If multiple items do you restrict to the item with the highest Rarity or would the multiple items make it go higher through virtue of more than 1 of similar rarity?

For example 3 items at Rarity 6 but 2 at say 5 with the Mid Rim location giving +1 to this would that be sufficient to raise it to a Rarity of say 8 in total for the combined check?

By that I mean would that be enough to take this from a Hard check to a Daunting one?

You roll for items individually.

If there were a few items in the same difficulty bracket, I might be willing for the players to lump them together, but generally no. Per RAW, you roll individually.

I'll differ a bit here with P-47. While it's true that Negotiation should pretty much always involve the PC as the active characters, in the event than an NPC is doing the same thing and going around looking for a buyer they'd be getting the same outcome: they can find a buyer for it at X price and may or may not choose to sell at that price.

Note, however, that this still doesn't mean that the PCs are the one and only potential buyer out there. The NPC has found SOMEONE out there who is willing to pay that price. The NPC might decide not to sell if they don't like that price, but if they do then player agency would be deciding whether they want to be that buyer (or at least match the buyer's price). If not - and it'll depend entirely on whether they think the item is worth it - then some other NPC ends up with it.

This may or may not matter, although I would only ever consider doing this if the item was some sort of MacGuffin and the PCs merely being made aware of the sale could be significant later.

24 minutes ago, Garran said:

I'll differ a bit here with P-47. While it's true that Negotiation should pretty much always involve the PC as the active characters, in the event than an NPC is doing the same thing and going around looking for a buyer they'd be getting the same outcome: they can find a buyer for it at X price and may or may not choose to sell at that price.

Note, however, that this still doesn't mean that the PCs are the one and only potential buyer out there. The NPC has found SOMEONE out there who is willing to pay that price. The NPC might decide not to sell if they don't like that price, but if they do then player agency would be deciding whether they want to be that buyer (or at least match the buyer's price). If not - and it'll depend entirely on whether they think the item is worth it - then some other NPC ends up with it.

This may or may not matter, although I would only ever consider doing this if the item was some sort of MacGuffin and the PCs merely being made aware of the sale could be significant later.

You don't actually differ with me, I'm just saying that practically, the PCs are going to end up as the acting character most of the time. I wasn't saying that they should be the acting character, or that they are always the acting character, just that that's usually how it shakes out.

I agree with the rest of what you said, though.

31 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I think you are saying this from a meta perspective, but I would pose the question of "what if the base price is not reasonable?" and further state for the record that that is a terrible negotiation tactic. The only way a negotiation goes anywhere is if both participants are able to walk away. Otherwise, neither has leverage to shift the needle in their direction.
Because of how the social skills work, you have to have one character who is the "target" and can be convinced, Failure (usually) meaning that they exercise their right to walk away.

You make a good point. However, I still feel that the non-binding method is far to much in the Player's favor, and is too much allowing Player knowledge to influence the result.

And while I agree that the social skills have a target that is the primary recipient of the result, as they are generally opposed checks, so I don't think it is reasonable that the Active Party is immune to also being convinced. This is not like climbing a rope, there is another being opposing you, which, to me, allows for the possibility that if the Active Party fails, that the Target Party succeeds. To use an example from Tramp Graphics, if the Character is attempting Coercion on, say, a bouncer at a club, failure could mean that, in addition to not being let in, the Character is now afraid of the bouncer, and when told to "Beat it!' immediately does! I think that has to be a possible outcome, which is, to me, the equivalent of the Character paying/selling for more/less than they wanted to.