17 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

As always you can do as you wish, but I feel you are deviating seriously from the letter and intent of the RAW.

I almost missed this, but I'm going to need an explanation of why you think that is, because I'm really not. I think RAW (intentionally) gives broad leeway to GMs in this case so I wouldn't even say you are deviating, but I do think I am closer to what the authors intended.

5 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I almost missed this, but I'm going to need an explanation of why you think that is, because I'm really not. I think RAW (intentionally) gives broad leeway to GMs in this case so I wouldn't even say you are deviating, but I do think I am closer to what the authors intended.

I wasn't going to add any more here, but just because its you...

Because the whole Negotiation section of the RAW is full of how this check is designed to be used frequently, and impactfully, and as an Opposed Check. The first bullet, " Any Time (emphasis added) the character wishes to purchase goods or services, he must either pay the sellers asking price or utilize the Negotiation skill". Second Bullet, "If a character wishes to sell good or services the final price is (emphasis added) determined by a Negotiation check". Following paragraph, "Negotiation is usually an Opposed check..." and later in that same paragraph, "The cases where this skill can be used without an opposed check are exceedingly rare (emphasis added)...". Finally, last paragraph, "A GM may use {Despair} to seriously sabotage the character's goals during the interaction... or agrees to terms that are entirely beyond the scope of the Negotiation (emphasis added)".

While I freely admit that I don't apply Success, Advantage and Threat exactly as written in this section, I do feel that my expressed methods are far closer to what is written than yours, especially about using Despairs to bind the character to an undesired result. If the character's goals are to buy/sell for less/more credits then I think binding the sale at an unfavorable price qualifies as "seriously sabotag[ing]" the character's goals, and my earlier comments about throwing in the blaster or cloak, or running an errand for the seller (or the purchase of the Antique Geonosian Vuvuzela!) fall, I believe, comfortably within "agrees to terms that are entirely beyond the scope of the Negotiation".

I hope you don't think I am saying that deviating from RAW is bad. It is a game, and the rules provide a framework. I just think my methods are closer to that framework that yours.

55 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Because the whole Negotiation section of the RAW is full of how this check is designed to be used frequently, and impactfully, and as an Opposed Check. The first bullet, " Any Time (emphasis added) the character wishes to purchase goods or services, he must either pay the sellers asking price or utilize the Negotiation skill". Second Bullet, "If a character wishes to sell good or services the final price is (emphasis added) determined by a Negotiation check".

The whole Negotiation section is about the Negotiation skill. Not about the rarity check, which is covered in Chapter V, or about selling, also covered in Chapter V. It glosses over them, but does not get into the nitty-gritty (such as it as) as to how those mechanics work.

The first is an "or" proposition, and the first part of it says "he must> <pay the seller's asking price" and I determine the asking price based on the results of the Rarity check, which usually just leaves it at base price (which as far as I can tell, is RAW). However, in the spending Threat portion of the profile for Negotiation, it says "may be spent to increase the cost of goods the character is attempting to purchase," which would directly counteract success if applied on the same roll, something inherently cross-grain for this game. So Threat is typically spent to increase the seller's asking price. Because of the distinction between Success and Threat, I see it as being intended for different checks. When negotiating to adjust the price, Success pushes it in your direction. When using Negotiation to find an item or a buyer, Threat pushes the asking cost in the wrong direction. (pretty sure this is all RAW)

1 hour ago, RickInVA said:

Following paragraph, "Negotiation is usually an Opposed check..." and later in that same paragraph, "The cases where this skill can be used without an opposed check are exceedingly rare (emphasis added)...".

The game also lays out an example where the Negotiation check is not opposed, and is used to determine the availability of the item, see Chapter V. I find their use of that line rather puzzling, though I would guess they had only the generic "negotiating" part of the skill in mind.

1 hour ago, RickInVA said:

Finally, last paragraph, "A GM may use {Despair} to seriously sabotage the character's goals during the interaction... or agrees to terms that are entirely beyond the scope of the Negotiation (emphasis added)".

I do not see how this contradicts anything I said, or proves anyone else's point. I've never argued against that.

I'm not accusing you of being intentionally deceptive, but you're cutting out an important point: The examples given. "perhaps the character receives counterfeit goods or payment, or agrees to terms that are entirely beyond the scope of the negotiation ."

1 hour ago, RickInVA said:

While I freely admit that I don't apply Success, Advantage and Threat exactly as written in this section, I do feel that my expressed methods are far closer to what is written than yours, especially about using Despairs to bind the character to an undesired result. If the character's goals are to buy/sell for less/more credits then I think binding the sale at an unfavorable price qualifies as "seriously sabotag[ing]" the character's goals, and my earlier comments about throwing in the blaster or cloak, or running an errand for the seller (or the purchase of the Antique Geonosian Vuvuzela!) fall, I believe, comfortably within "agrees to terms that are entirely beyond the scope of the Negotiation".

I'd like to note for the record that, like the other skills, it does not discuss what to do with excess Failure symbols as Failure is not "spent." If you fail, you did not take a step forwards. It does not mean you took a step backwards.

It does not say it binds the character to an undesired result. It says it sabotages the character's goals or they agree to a term beyond the scope of the negotiation .

Now let's take an example and apply these rules:

PC A is looking to purchase a blaster pistol. The question is, "what is the PC's goal?" In this case, the answer is simple. To acquire a reliable blaster pistol. Wanting a good price is just a side-bit. Now the question is the scope of the Negotiation: "Credits in exchange for a blaster pistol."

He rolls a Rarity check with his Negotiation skill, scoring 1 success and 1 Threat, so I increase the cost by 10% which brings it to 440.

PC A doesn't want to pay that much. So, he asks if he can negotiate with the seller. I allow it (I usually wouldn't), and set the difficulty at RPP.

PC A rolls and scores 2 Success, 1 Despair.

With the two Success, I allow him to reduce the cost back to 400 credits, but with the Despair, the shopkeeper gives him a lower-quality blaster pistol (unbeknownst to the PC). When PC A goes to use it, he finds that 2 Threat causes the blaster to malfunction and overheat, damaging it one step.

Analysis: The Despair seriously sabotaged the character's goal, as he did not " acquire a reliable blaster pistol " even though he did acquire a blaster pistol and paid a reasonable price.

Now let's look at a treaty discussion:

PC B is looking to secure an agreement with a Hutt to allow the party to use their space. That is the goal. The Hutt is demanding 50% of their profit for the privilege, and she obviously wants to negotiate it down. The scope is currently "percentage in exchange for free use of controlled space."

PC B rolls and scores 2 Success and a Despair. The Hutt will reduce the percentage to 40%, on the condition that she rescues his favorite lieutenant from a rival gangster.

Analysis: The Despair requires them to agree to a term outside the scope of the deal.
If I were actually ruling that situation, Failure with Despair would mean that the Hutt refuses to reduce his price and is angered by the PC, probably making things difficult for them if they refuse. In that case, the Despair "binds" them to the result of the check by threatening a serious consequence if they refuse. But they still have the choice to refuse.
I would also consider allowing them to scrap a successful check that had Despair, instead accepting the other's original terms (50%). If the check also had some Threat, the other party might refuse to make a deal other than the one resulting from the check with Despair.
I want to note that this is all very situationally contingent.

The phrase "agrees to a term" is the best case I've seen so far for the check being binding, but that doesn't say much since it is linked to a Despair and a Despair could very well change how that works. It is also the only piece of actual evidence I've see so far, so I don't put much stock in it. I think the weight of the evidence is on the side of not automatically being binding.

From a meta perspective of whether it would be binding or not, it allows a check and balance between the players and the GM. If the player can choose not to take a deal, the GM can't totally screw them over with a bad result. For example, you stated earlier that if the PC doesn't have enough credits to purchase an item, it is still binding and the seller can take a particular item from them. Having the ability to walk away means the GM can't just "rob" an item from the PC without any choice (something that would likely result in a lot of frustration, depending on what the item was).

This is an important distinction from physical consequences. If an item falls off your belt in your attempt to climb a skyscraper, there's nothing you can do about it. It's gone. Same as a crit taking your arm.

1 hour ago, RickInVA said:

my earlier comments about throwing in the blaster or cloak, or running an errand for the seller (or the purchase of the Antique Geonosian Vuvuzela!) fall, I believe, comfortably within "agrees to terms that are entirely beyond the scope of the Negotiation".

I agree.

1 hour ago, RickInVA said:

I hope you don't think I am saying that deviating from RAW is bad. It is a game, and the rules provide a framework. I just think my methods are closer to that framework that yours.

I don't think that's what you're saying, but RAW is important because it is the language we all talk in. When we disagree on definitions, we lose the ability to communicate effectively. Therefore, we need to know what the RAW is.

I disagree that your methods are closer. I think I stick extremely closely to the RAW/I. One big difference is that you see Failure as opponent's Success, while I do not. It is not a zero sum game. You can both succeed, and you can both fail.

In closing, I want to state that on page 151 of the EotE CRB, after the section on buying, selling, and trading, it says: "This is why the rules for buying, selling, and trading are all modifiable by the GM, and subject his judgement."
So like I said, the RAW/I specifically allows for different ways of handling it, painting no exact way as RAW.

P-47, I won't quote to save space, and I only have one comment to your, as usual, well reasoned arguments.

That is, that in your example you say acquiring the blaster is the PC's goal. In that example it certainly is. But, the OP was about walking away when the financial terms are the only thing that is unappealing to the PCs. That being the case please consider my comments particularly responsive to that situation where, it seems to me, the PCs primary goal is more/less credits.

4 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

That is, that in your example you say acquiring the blaster is the PC's goal. In that example it certainly is. But, the OP was about walking away when the financial terms are the only thing that is unappealing to the PCs. That being the case please consider my comments particularly responsive to that situation where, it seems to me, the PCs primary goal is more/less credits.

Like I said, "wanting a good price is just a side-bit." You don't go out looking to purchase something because you want a good price. You go out looking for something because you want the item. You may also want a good price, but that isn't your "goal." It may be " a goal," but not "The Goal."

It may sound like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

32 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

P-47, I won't quote to save space, and I only have one comment to your, as usual, well reasoned arguments.

That is, that in your example you say acquiring the blaster is the PC's goal. In that example it certainly is. But, the OP was about walking away when the financial terms are the only thing that is unappealing to the PCs. That being the case please consider my comments particularly responsive to that situation where, it seems to me, the PCs primary goal is more/less credits.

You will notice in none of the examples in the book force a pc to buy anything on a failure. the only time I would involve force in a purchase is a black market transaction. people who sell goods on the black markewt are often not the most stable or reasonable individuals. But I have NEVER seen anyone at a legal swap meet force someone to buy anything. If the 2 parties negotiating cant reach a mutually agreeable situation the sale just does not happen.

22 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You will notice in none of the examples in the book force a pc to buy anything on a failure. the only time I would involve force in a purchase is a black market transaction. people who sell goods on the black markewt are often not the most stable or reasonable individuals. But I have NEVER seen anyone at a legal swap meet force someone to buy anything. If the 2 parties negotiating cant reach a mutually agreeable situation the sale just does not happen.

While you have a point, my biggest argument against your view is that it means that no one, ever, in any circumstance, has ever been convinced to buy something by a salesperson, because they "wouldn't have bought it if they didn't want to, or at that price." Which is a statement that you may agree with, but I do not. Don't you see (seriously pleading voice here) the dice roll can mean that they were convinced, that they do believe they are getting a good price, and so complete the transaction.

Just now, RickInVA said:

While you have a point, my biggest argument against your view is that it means that no one, ever, in any circumstance, has ever been convinced to buy something by a salesperson, because they "wouldn't have bought it if they didn't want to, or at that price." Which is a statement that you may agree with, but I do not. Don't you see (seriously pleading voice here) the dice roll can mean that they were convinced, that they do believe they are getting a good price, and so complete the transaction.

you mean like in real life where they have to convince you to want something.

53 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Like I said, "wanting a good price is just a side-bit." You don't go out looking to purchase something because you want a good price. You go out looking for something because you want the item. You may also want a good price, but that isn't your "goal." It may be " a goal," but not "The Goal."

It may sound like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

Sure it is an important distinction. But, if the PC is looking to sell something that they don't need, getting max credits is almost surely the prime concern. If the PC can buy or sell, and does not, after Negotiating, what other consideration is likely than price? And even if there are other consideration, what if the PC says, "My sole motivation in this transaction is to sell the widget for max credits."?

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

you mean like in real life where they have to convince you to want something.

Yes! If it can't be done, then the entire industry of Advertising is a total waste of time.

yeah. because a failure on a negotiate will likely end with you walking away NOT making a sale.

1 minute ago, RickInVA said:

Yes! If it can't be done, then the entire industry of Advertising is a total waste of time.

no. having worked in the advertising they convince you to WANT something. They dont convince you to buy something.

and advertisers are using charm. not negotiate

32 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

While you have a point, my biggest argument against your view is that it means that no one, ever, in any circumstance, has ever been convinced to buy something by a salesperson, because they "wouldn't have bought it if they didn't want to, or at that price." Which is a statement that you may agree with, but I do not. Don't you see (seriously pleading voice here) the dice roll can mean that they were convinced, that they do believe they are getting a good price, and so complete the transaction.

That's a scenario where the salesperson is the acting character. So they convince the person that they want the item enough to spend the money to acquire it.
The acting character cannot be convinced by their own roll. (There may be some edge cases)
If the acting character becomes the target, then they can be convinced.

27 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Sure it is an important distinction. But, if the PC is looking to sell something that they don't need, getting max credits is almost surely the prime concern. If the PC can buy or sell, and does not, after Negotiating, what other consideration is likely than price? And even if there are other consideration, what if the PC says, "My sole motivation in this transaction is to sell the widget for max credits."?

In that case, yes. Selling for max credits is the goal. On a Despair, maybe they were tricked into selling it for less than it was worth.

But outside of a Despair, they have the freedom to walk away.

Note that Despair would usually not be an option, as the roll to find a buyer would generally not be upgraded (black market deals and Destiny Points being where that's more likely). If the GM were to allow them to try and make a Negotiation check against the character to further talk it up an increase the price (something I would rarely allow), then Despair would be more likely to come up.
But even still, I probably wouldn't force them to part with it. It is perfectly reasonable for a character to be determined not to sell for less than X.

The only situation where it would be binding is if I have someone try to swindle them out of it and they are the target of the social check.

I shouldn't be surprised that this thread is still going.

In my games, I really don't bother with rolls when my players want to buy something legal and time isn't a factor. They pay list price.

Likewise, I don't bother with rolls when selling used but legal items. I give them 50%.

Why? Because it's a waste of valuable game time.

Now illegal items require a roll, usually because something bad (i.e.: interesting) could happen....

Just how my games are. I'm running a Star Wars game, not Haggling The RPG (tm) .

But to each their own. Perhaps if my players all wanted to play Traders and focus on buying and selling, I'd run it different. However, they're more interested in mowing down storm troopers than haggling over the prices of stuff.

But sure, if a player wanted to set a minimum selling price higher than 50%, because they really needed the credits, I'd increase the difficulty (or require 3 successes) to manage it. Or perhaps I'd let them roll, and if they failed to achieve the minimum necessary result, I'd let them either take more Obligation or walk away.

It has just never been an issue for me.

When time isn't a factor, and the player could just try over and over again, why bother with a roll. You should only roll if it matters! So if time isn't an issue and the player is determined to get that higher price, I'd save real time and say they got it done instead of wasting time on rolls.

5 hours ago, RickInVA said:

While you have a point, my biggest argument against your view is that it means that no one, ever, in any circumstance, has ever been convinced to buy something by a salesperson, because they "wouldn't have bought it if they didn't want to, or at that price." Which is a statement that you may agree with, but I do not. Don't you see (seriously pleading voice here) the dice roll can mean that they were convinced, that they do believe they are getting a good price, and so complete the transaction.

That's a different (successful) roll made by the salesperson and not a (failed) roll made by the PC.

3 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

Likewise, I don't bother with rolls when selling used but legal items. I give them 50%.

Little off, but you should give them 25% price per RAW

And I would definitely play Haggling, the RPG! (Made me laugh out loud, thx for lightening up the topic)

2 hours ago, Rimsen said:

Little off, but you should give them 25% price per RAW

50% is a compromise to speed play.

Just as we have all been debating various stances throughout this thread, each group can alter the rules or interpret the rules as suits their own game.

The big thing is that we all remember that the game is supposed to be about fun and telling a collaborative story.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions about how Negotiation should work. As long as it is discussed outside a game session and agreed upon by all the players in a group, go for it!

It is when someone has differing views from RAW, but hasn't had this discussion, or is playing in a larger online game that problems may arise.

Again, always talk with those you game with. 😁

2 hours ago, Rimsen said:

And I would definitely play Haggling, the RPG! (Made me laugh out loud, thx for lightening up the topic)

😂

You're welcome!

Everybody, please remember, we can discuss this forever--just as long as we take a step back and remember that it's about a game!

We can and should be open to tweaking the rules to fit our home table, but also be willing to accept that a different group might run it differently!

In fact, this thread has made me think about this topic. As a narrative game, the rules should work with the narrative, not against it!

Have fun!

Cheers!

😊

4 hours ago, Rimsen said:

That's a different (successful) roll made by the salesperson and not a (failed) roll made by the PC.

I can appreciate this view. However, this is exactly what I feel an Opposed Check to be, both actors skills being combined into one dice pool. My personal opinion is that many of you put far too much emphasis on who is the instigating party. For me Failures and Despairs are just Successes and Triumphs for the non-rolling player on an Opposed Check.

35 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

I can appreciate this view. However, this is exactly what I feel an Opposed Check to be, both actors skills being combined into one dice pool. My personal opinion is that many of you put far too much emphasis on who is the instigating party. For me Failures and Despairs are just Successes and Triumphs for the non-rolling player on an Opposed Check.

And many of us feel you aren’t putting nearly enough emphasis on who the instigating party is. Who the acting party is is of vital importance .

59 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

I can appreciate this view. However, this is exactly what I feel an Opposed Check to be, both actors skills being combined into one dice pool. My personal opinion is that many of you put far too much emphasis on who is the instigating party. For me Failures and Despairs are just Successes and Triumphs for the non-rolling player on an Opposed Check.

They really aren't though. The Failure=Success for the other person is prima facie wrong. I'll need a source from RAW if you want me to accept that.

An Opposed check is basically just a regular check made more difficult by the active interference of one or more parties, and is not a zero-sum game. You can have both people fail, succeed, or draw in a social interaction. You lose that ability when a roll is an "A wins/B wins" binary.

Especially in the case of Triumph/Despair, they are not interchangeable.

Basically, if you roll a Triumph, something good happens to you. If you roll a Despair, something bad happens to you . If your Despair is their Triumph, that Despair could end up being good for you.
If they roll a Triumph, something good happens to them (and it doesn't have to be bad for you). If they roll a Despair, something bad happens to them (and it doesn't have to be good for you).

Further, Negotiation is the only one where it is opposed by an identical skill. It wouldn't make sense for Despair on a Coercion check to cause the target to "break your willpower, causing you to become a subjugated ally rather than an opponent." Now if they tried to Coerce you in turn and succeeded with Triumph, then maybe.

One of the things you lose when treating Failure as the target's Success is the ability for someone to be "a stone, unaffected" and just look at you quizzically, then make a counter-proposal. Then they make a check against you, and can roll their own Success and Triumph.

I should note that there are some Opposed checks where the difference is minimal. Stealth vs. Vigilance, for example. One could argue that you failing the Stealth check means they succeeded in their Vigilance check, but that's not quite accurate. Rather, you failed in your attempt to sneak by them unnoticed. Their passive opposition was simply to great for you to overcome.

3 hours ago, RickInVA said:

I can appreciate this view. However, this is exactly what I feel an Opposed Check to be, both actors skills being combined into one dice pool. My personal opinion is that many of you put far too much emphasis on who is the instigating party. For me Failures and Despairs are just Successes and Triumphs for the non-rolling player on an Opposed Check.

they person making the roll is the active person. which generally should be the player. and they shouldnt be taking control of the player off a negotiation check

Well, the last 3 pages don't seem to have accomplished anything. We keep repeating the same points, with the same responses. I like my way, you like your way. No harm, no foul. Enjoy!

Ha! If you think this is repetitive, you need to look up one of the armor discussions.

4 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

Ha! If you think this is repetitive, you need to look up one of the armor discussions.

Hey! I resemble that remark! 😝