24 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I'm afraid I'm going to be rather blunt here, but my patience has run out (something pretty rare).

You are doing everything you pretend to be upset about, including willfully misrepresenting my position on this very page* . I mean, your example was funny, linking socks to the death star, if only you weren't being misleading in the middle of an argument. That's not a very useful negotiation tactic, but then I know a few people like you: when someone concedes a position (which I have done several times), they don't accept or acknowledge the concession, they drive harder and dig deeper and pretend it's a zero-sum game. They don't want agreement, they want dominance. Then they get upset and go all crybaby when they get resistance. So you aren't "confident", you're belligerent.

Whatever. I'm pretty sure IRL you're not the extremist you paint yourself as. I know I'm not the extremist you're painting me as. I'm pretty sure if I was a player in a real game of yours before this argument I wouldn't have a problem with 99% of your rulings. I've seen your posts here, and we're mostly in agreement. Losing our minds over a subtle ruling like this is...well, it's kind of embarrassing to have been part of it and to have contributed negatively to it.

-------------

* edit: I guess it wrapped pages...page 8 then.

12 minutes ago, whafrog said:

You are doing everything you pretend to be upset about, including willfully misrepresenting my position on this very page* . I mean, your example was funny, linking socks to the death star, if only you weren't being misleading in the middle of an argument. That's not a very useful negotiation tactic, but then I know a few people like you: when someone concedes a position (which I have done several times), they don't accept or acknowledge the concession, they drive harder and dig deeper and pretend it's a zero-sum game. They don't want agreement, they want dominance. Then they get upset and go all crybaby when they get resistance. So you aren't "confident", you're belligerent.

Whatever. I'm pretty sure IRL you're not the extremist you paint yourself as. I know I'm not the extremist you're painting me as. I'm pretty sure if I was a player in a real game of yours before this argument I wouldn't have a problem with 99% of your rulings. I've seen your posts here, and we're mostly in agreement. Losing our minds over a subtle ruling like this is...well, it's kind of embarrassing to have been part of it and to have contributed negatively to it.

-------------

* edit: I guess it wrapped pages...page 8 then.

That means you are doing a REALLY crappy job of explaining your point. Because so far you keep going on and on about how their should be consequences to a roll to find out how much my character can sell their socks for. So tell what is a non milqtoast consequence to find out how much I can sell socks for.

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

That means you are doing a REALLY crappy job of explaining your point.

Could be.

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Because so far you keep going on and on about how their should be consequences to a roll to find out how much my character can sell their socks for. So tell what is a non milqtoast consequence to find out how much I can sell socks for.

🙄 seriously? As mentioned, I probably wouldn't bother. If the player says "I want my character to always be wearing crazy socks", then done. Hand waved. The PC has a sock fetish and the player gets to describe which funky socks they are wearing every day, and I'm happy to give the player a way to make their PC their own.

But if I had to actually have a roll for some reason, I'd probably just apply Threat as strain. A Despair might be a broken credit stick, or better yet, a broken credit stick sending bad data that just alerted the bank and authorities that it's being used fraudulently, so I can tie it into an existing story thread where the authorities are already looking for them.

It's that last part that's most important, how these rolls relate to the story. If they don't I tend to just roleplay it, without rolling.

30 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Could be.

🙄 seriously? As mentioned, I probably wouldn't bother. If the player says "I want my character to always be wearing crazy socks", then done. Hand waved. The PC has a sock fetish and the player gets to describe which funky socks they are wearing every day, and I'm happy to give the player a way to make their PC their own.

But if I had to actually have a roll for some reason, I'd probably just apply Threat as strain. A Despair might be a broken credit stick, or better yet, a broken credit stick sending bad data that just alerted the bank and authorities that it's being used fraudulently, so I can tie it into an existing story thread where the authorities are already looking for them.

It's that last part that's most important, how these rolls relate to the story. If they don't I tend to just roleplay it, without rolling.

So your "consequence" is pretty milqtoast too. You have been arguing for how many pages over strain or a failed credit check? When no one here suggested threat or despair shouldnt have a result

43 minutes ago, whafrog said:

🙄 seriously? As mentioned, I probably wouldn't bother. If the player says "I want my character to always be wearing crazy socks", then done. Hand waved. The PC has a sock fetish and the player gets to describe which funky socks they are wearing every day, and I'm happy to give the player a way to make their PC their own.

The socks thing was a joke. I doubt there's anyone here who would make their PC roll to find socks, or even pay for them. That falls under the "sundries" discussed in the CRBs.

You should be able to understand that, and substitute any other legal, relatively inexpensive piece of gear. Say, a tool kit. Or a generic blaster pistol. Or even a heavy hydrospanner.

The point is the same. Unless something goes really wrong (there shouldn't even be any Challenge dice on the roll), the "consequences" are mostly going to come down to opportunity cost. What minor Threat there is is probably what caused them to decide not to buy the item in the first place, so I consider their purpose fulfilled and thus the Threat resolved. If there were any left over Threat, it'd probably just be strain for frustration.

1 hour ago, whafrog said:

I'm pretty sure IRL you're not the extremist you paint yourself as.

What the heck is that supposed to mean? I'm not painting myself as an "extremist," I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

The rest of your post is obviously bunk (which is why I'm not bothering to respond to it), but this part simply confused me.

22 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

When you have a Coercion vs Coercion opposed check, what you’re talking about is a Staredown . The ultimate result of that does not necessarily mean that the loser will slink away, though, that is an option. It could cause him to act rashly. This is the likely outcome if the victor of the opposed roll had Success with multiple Threats or a Despair.

This is not the case with Negotiation. A negotiation is not simply about determining the price of an item, but if the item is even sold at all . In the example of the Mandalorian Armorer, which I was a part of, the negotiation for the other party members to buy Beskar for their armor was not only to determine a price, but if he would even sell to the other party members (those not members of Clan Buurenaar, or even House Ordo), even though the head of the clan authorized it.

Not only that, but it is completely unrealistic for every negotiation for a purchase to result in a sale anyway. I used to work in direct sales, and most of the time I didn’t get the sale at all. Not only that, but if you watch shows such as Pawn Stars, we see multiple times when no deal is reached even after several minutes of haggling . Thus, no sale is made. Your ruling makes that outcome impossible. Your ruling makes a sale inevitable with just the price being in flux. The way we look at it, the sale itself is in doubt. That is how it should be.

You make a reasonable argument with the Staredown.

You can certainly use Negotiation for that expanded use, but that doesn't change my opinion.

Lastly, as Pawn Stars is 100% scripted, its probably not the best example.

21 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

PC: I wanna buy that item that costs 500 creds, and I want to give you 250 for it.

NPC: Get out of my store before I call security.

You don't get to negotiate every last thing you buy. You don't get to negotiate most things you buy.

Actually, that is exactly my point! When the buyer has a unreasonable expectation you should not be rolling Negotiation. You roll Negotiation when you are in general agreement to buy/sell, and the question is not "Hmm, will I buy?" but, "I need the widget, let me Negotiate to try and save a couple of credits." And then, in my interpretation of the skill, when you have chosen to roll, and you do poorly, then perhaps (GM discretion in all things), the seller has convinced you to pay more. Maybe that means he just convinced you to pay more. Maybe that means he convinced you to buy the blaster with the engravings on the barrel, the details are again at GM discretion, but the upshot is that you "rolls the dice and you takes your chances".

I think both sides are pretty entrenched in their positions. I feel both sides made some good arguments. In the end, like P-47, I am even more convinced that my position is the way I want to play, and that the other way would be less enjoyable for me. But, far be it from me to say anyone else should do something a specific way. Your game, your rules. This does seem to raise some strong emotions though, so ensuring everyone has clarity on this issue would seem to have value in any game.

Okay, coming into a thread that seems pretty intense, but I feel the need to specify my position, and I'll try to do it calmly, and acknowledge it should be discussed on a group-by-group level. The rationale I'm using is what I've come to expect from my own TTRPG experiences.

There is a cost associated with a failed negotiation check, even without making the sale binding, and this is roughly how I'd handle a player trying to sell an item and rolling poorly on a negotiation roll.

Negotiation with one merchant:

Failure by a small margin: The merchant quotes a small price and won't budge from it, possibly providing personal reasons. You'll need to seek out a different buyer if you want a better price. This will take time. (Opportunity cost, minor time cost)

Failure by a large margin: You wasted a lot of time to get nowhere in your negotiation. You could have spent that time doing something more productive. (Opportunity cost, time cost)

Success with threats: You manage to convince the buyer to accept your price, but

1. The merchant can no longer afford to buy anything else you want to sell, is too mentally fatigued for further deals, or has something more urgent to do. This requires you to find another buyer. (Time lost to find a new buyer, wait for this buyer to improve their position or opportunity cost of being able to sell your remaining items.)
2. Your negotiation gets heated and you take strain from the experience. (Character resource)

Failure with advantage:

1. The merchant won't buy at your price, but he has a different offer he wouldn't normally give. (Time spent, and player may get a new temptation)
2. The merchant won't meet your price, but he's willing to refer you to someone else and put in a good word for you (Opportunity cost, time spent at the second merchant [though with boost dice])

Success with Despair: You sell the item for a good price, but

1. The credits or exchanged item are incriminating in some way. (New, hidden risk put on the players.)
2. The merchant spreads negative rumors about you, because he couldn't bring himself to outright refuse under social circumstances. (Loss of local reputation.)

Failure with Despair: Not only do you fail to get a good price, the merchant refuses to buy and is insulted enough that he bans you from his store. (Opportunity cost, including the opportunity to shop at that merchant's store in the future.)

If you're dealing on a larger scale, trying to sell to a marketplace, rather than a single merchant, adjust difficulty and scale accordingly. Having a large number of potential buyers should make it easier, but potentially more time consuming as you shop around for the best price.

Under ideal conditions, the time may not seem like much of a, but imagine if the players were trying to get rid of a stolen item, or were in desperate need of that money. Even then, the time spent carrying out failed negotiations is something that could have gone to more profitable actions, which is why there's also an opportunity cost. If you're stuck on a rural part of Generic Desert Planet #314 and only have one merchant to speak with, the opportunity cost of failure is also higher, since you have to go to greater lengths to find a new buyer. It seems to me that coming to a price for the player to take or leave has a cost and of itself.

While people can get flattered, cajoled, or otherwise pressured into bad sales, it affects the feeling of player agency. I also think it assumes a lot about the difference between player and character as well as what the player is actually thinking a reasonable price under the current circumstances is. People generally don't state exactly how high or low they really will go when haggling, in-character and out-of-character. I would say an unopposed Negotiation check represents a lack of specific agenda on the merchant's part, beyond getting a decent deal.

If a merchant is putting in extraordinary effort, or there's a plot-significant reason behind the interaction, then I might go for opposed rolls, using Charm, Coercion, Deception, or the merchant's Negotiation. That should put in a signal of significance to the act that shouldn't be present when players are just trying to fence generic loot from their latest escapade. With that signal, I find players are generally more willing to go along with getting in-character because it's suddenly a roleplay moment, rather than just gambly-accounting.

On 10/4/2020 at 10:26 PM, 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?

One check per item. It makes things simpler.

I only add difficulty dices to the pool when the rules say to do it. Otherwise I prefer to upgrade and / or add setback dices to make the check more difficult.

On 10/5/2020 at 7:43 PM, RickInVA said:

Actually, that is exactly my point! When the buyer has a unreasonable expectation you should not be rolling Negotiation. You roll Negotiation when you are in general agreement to buy/sell, and the question is not "Hmm, will I buy?" but, "I need the widget, let me Negotiate to try and save a couple of credits." And then, in my interpretation of the skill, when you have chosen to roll, and you do poorly, then perhaps (GM discretion in all things), the seller has convinced you to pay more. Maybe that means he just convinced you to pay more. Maybe that means he convinced you to buy the blaster with the engravings on the barrel, the details are again at GM discretion, but the upshot is that you "rolls the dice and you takes your chances".

It is also negotiating whether or not the person with the widget is even willing to sell. a failure also can indicate the item you want is not on the planet or those with the widget are not even considering selling their widget. Or no one wants the widget you are selling. or have so little demand they will only give low ball prices

14 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

It is also negotiating whether or not the person with the widget is even willing to sell. a failure also can indicate the item you want is not on the planet or those with the widget are not even considering selling their widget. Or no one wants the widget you are selling. or have so little demand they will only give low ball prices

Exactly.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It is also negotiating whether or not the person with the widget is even willing to sell. a failure also can indicate the item you want is not on the planet or those with the widget are not even considering selling their widget. Or no one wants the widget you are selling. or have so little demand they will only give low ball prices

If you are using Negotiation to find the item, which is a roll against difficulty based on the rarity of the item (EoE Table 5.1 and 5.2), I don't see how you feel you can also be using that same roll for price. The RAW states, "Any time a character wishes to purchase goods or services, he must either pay the seller's asking price or utilize the Negotiation skill", and "Negotiation is usually an opposed check, using the target's Cool or Negotiation". Kindly tell me how you merge those two functions into one roll where it both determines availability and price? To be transparent, those are two entirely different rolls for me.

5 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

If you are using Negotiation to find the item, which is a roll against difficulty based on the rarity of the item (EoE Table 5.1 and 5.2), I don't see how you feel you can also be using that same roll for price. The RAW states, "Any time a character wishes to purchase goods or services, he must either pay the seller's asking price or utilize the Negotiation skill", and "Negotiation is usually an opposed check, using the target's Cool or Negotiation". Kindly tell me how you merge those two functions into one roll where it both determines availability and price? To be transparent, those are two entirely different rolls for me.

never said it was.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

never said it was.

Then what is "It is also negotiating whether or not the person with the widget is even willing to sell. a failure also can indicate the item you want is not on the planet or those with the widget are not even considering selling their widget. Or no one wants the widget you are selling. or have so little demand they will only give low ball prices." supposed to mean, when I am specifically talking about a Negotiation on Price? ("I need the widget, let me Negotiate to try and save a couple of credits.") If I am Negotiating on Price then, by definition, I have found a willing buyer or seller already! It is, by definition past the point of finding the item!

If you are going to respond, you could at least respond to the statement actually being made. Unless you are just trolling at this point.

20 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

If you are using Negotiation to find the item, which is a roll against difficulty based on the rarity of the item (EoE Table 5.1 and 5.2), I don't see how you feel you can also be using that same roll for price. The RAW states, "Any time a character wishes to purchase goods or services, he must either pay the seller's asking price or utilize the Negotiation skill", and "Negotiation is usually an opposed check, using the target's Cool or Negotiation". Kindly tell me how you merge those two functions into one roll where it both determines availability and price? To be transparent, those are two entirely different rolls for me.

5 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Then what is "It is also negotiating whether or not the person with the widget is even willing to sell. a failure also can indicate the item you want is not on the planet or those with the widget are not even considering selling their widget. Or no one wants the widget you are selling. or have so little demand they will only give low ball prices." supposed to mean, when I am specifically talking about a Negotiation on Price? ("I need the widget, let me Negotiate to try and save a couple of credits.") If I am Negotiating on Price then, by definition, I have found a willing buyer or seller already! It is, by definition past the point of finding the item!

If you are going to respond, you could at least respond to the statement actually being made. Unless you are just trolling at this point.

Advantage/Threat can be used to manipulate the price you find the item at. Generally, I do not allow that price to be negotiated further, though there some items or deals where that would be an option.

It's one roll that wraps multiple things together.

12 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It is also negotiating whether or not the person with the widget is even willing to sell.

I feel very strongly that it is not. If it were, and you had a character build that seriously focused on Negotiation, you could walk up to a Jedi, ask what they want for the laser sword, an walk away with a cheap lightsaber.

8 hours ago, RickInVA said:

Then what is "It is also negotiating whether or not the person with the widget is even willing to sell. a failure also can indicate the item you want is not on the planet or those with the widget are not even considering selling their widget. Or no one wants the widget you are selling. or have so little demand they will only give low ball prices." supposed to mean, when I am specifically talking about a Negotiation on Price? ("I need the widget, let me Negotiate to try and save a couple of credits.") If I am Negotiating on Price then, by definition, I have found a willing buyer or seller already! It is, by definition past the point of finding the item!

If you are going to respond, you could at least respond to the statement actually being made. Unless you are just trolling at this point.

Maybe you should reread the rules. Because attempting to find nd buy an item is done with a negotiation check is what is used. you could break the role into several parts or make it one role depending on what the GM wants accomplished.

5 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

I feel very strongly that it is not. If it were, and you had a character build that seriously focused on Negotiation, you could walk up to a Jedi, ask what they want for the laser sword, an walk away with a cheap lightsaber.

If you roll for Rarity to find a Lightsaber available for sale, the GM decides who is in possession of a Lightsaber that they are willing to sell.

If you walk up to a Jedi and offer to buy his lightsaber, a GM is well within their rights to simply say "no" and not even allow a check. It strikes so against the character that it would not make sense. Now, if a Jedi was desperate for cash to accomplish some end, I might have a Jedi offer to sell, but he's not going to agree to a sale out of the blue.

Social checks also don't have to be Opposed. If you wanted to still allow the chance, I'd make it Impossible difficulty upgraded by Negotiation, with Setback appropriate the situation. Further, the GM selects the base price and how much Success/Advantage can reduce it, not the player. Getting it cheap would be nigh-on impossible.

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Maybe you should reread the rules. Because attempting to find nd buy an item is done with a negotiation check is what is used. you could break the role into several parts or make it one role depending on what the GM wants accomplished.

Given that I quoted the rules perhaps you should reread them.

3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

If you roll for Rarity to find a Lightsaber available for sale, the GM decides who is in possession of a Lightsaber that they are willing to sell.

If you walk up to a Jedi and offer to buy his lightsaber, a GM is well within their rights to simply say "no" and not even allow a check. It strikes so against the character that it would not make sense. Now, if a Jedi was desperate for cash to accomplish some end, I might have a Jedi offer to sell, but he's not going to agree to a sale out of the blue.

Social checks also don't have to be Opposed. If you wanted to still allow the chance, I'd make it Impossible difficulty upgraded by Negotiation, with Setback appropriate the situation. Further, the GM selects the base price and how much Success/Advantage can reduce it, not the player. Getting it cheap would be nigh-on impossible.

" It is also negotiating whether or not the person with the widget is even willing to sell. "

You're not rolling for rarity. You have already located the thing you want and are rolling to make the ower willing to sell it.

That is what he claimed. That basically eveything is for sale for a good negotiator.

12 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Advantage/Threat can be used to manipulate the price you find the item at. Generally, I do not allow that price to be negotiated further, though there some items or deals where that would be an option.

It's one roll that wraps multiple things together.

If I correctly take that to mean that you routinely use the "finding" roll to also dictate the price, then I respectfully submit that you are ignoring what I feel is the most important part of the interaction, which is the Opposed Check. As always you can do as you wish, but I feel you are deviating seriously from the letter and intent of the RAW. As I am implementing what I feel is the best and closest interpretation of RAW, it is clear that we are even farther apart in our thought process and game implementation than I thought. This may well explain why I feel I've been, at times, arguing with a wall. There seems to be virtually no common ground or common experience to have a discussion. Its like one of us is a Vegetarian and the other Keto, and we are discussing dinner! So, enjoy your dinner, as I will mine.

3 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Given that I quoted the rules perhaps you should reread them.

No, he addressed what you said head-on.

You roll for Negotiation to determine availability. Then Threat or Advantage can be spent to manipulate the item's base price.
So with a single roll of Success with some Advantage, you're able to find that widget at 450 instead of 500.

Now if you want (as you have said you do), you could split that into several parts (as Daeglan acknowledged). You could have the Negotiation check against rarity determine the availability only (at base price) with Threat/Advantage being used for ancillary things, and then require a second Negotiation roll to adjust the price.

If you have a second Negotiation roll to determine the price, then you do need the chance for Failure to move the cost up. The way we handle it, the initial check determines the price being offered.

Then, GM willing, the PC can try a Negotiation check to further move the needle on the price. On success, the PC gets a better price. On failure, the PC does not. In this method, the chance for the price to be moved upwards is accounted by the rarity check. This is consistent with our interpretation of Acting Character vs. Target Character.

Just now, RickInVA said:

Its like one of us is a Vegetarian and the other Keto, and we are discussing dinner! So, enjoy your dinner, as I will mine.

I'm actually more of a gas-guzzler sort of guy. So yes, not very much crossover there. I think the only thing we have in common in that regard is water, though it is not as important to me as it is to you since I only use it for my turbocharger.

1 minute ago, RickInVA said:

If I correctly take that to mean that you routinely use the "finding" roll to also dictate the price, then I respectfully submit that you are ignoring what I feel is the most important part of the interaction, which is the Opposed Check.

Coincidentally, I just addressed that in my above post, having come to the same conclusion as you as to our disagreement.

However, I will clarify my position regarding the Opposed Check.
If you walk into the store to buy a new pair of socks, the cashier doesn't negotiate with you. You take the base price, or you don't. That, to me, is the rarity check. Advantage/Threat just adjusts what the best price you find being offered is. Most of the time, there is not an option for Negotiation.

In some situations (particularly black market deals), there is more room for Negotiation. Even still, the rarity check determines both availability and what the asking price is (base manipulated via Advantage/Threat). Then you make an Opposed Check to see if you can lower the price. On success, you lower the price successfully. On failure, the price stays the same.
The principle is the same with sales, although the direction the price moves in is different.

12 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

" It is also negotiating whether or not the person with the widget is even willing to sell. "

You're not rolling for rarity. You have already located the thing you want and are rolling to make the ower willing to sell it.

That is what he claimed. That basically eveything is for sale for a good negotiator.

I addressed both.

First, the rarity check.

Then, walking up to a Jedi and making an offer.