20 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No it isn't. A Negotiation check covers the search for an item or a buyer for an item, and then determines the price you are able to buy or sell for. A Ranged (Light) check is the act of firing your blaster.

When you roll, you have performed the action and you cannot take it back.

The question is where the Negotiation action ends. I say it ends before you make the transaction, but after you have reached a point where you can no longer shift the needle further in your favor.

Demonstrably false. You cannot argue this on the Negotiation skill action alone.

The Negotiation check is used (per "Negotiation (Presence)" FnD page 123 bulleted section) in three situations:

First, "Any time a character wishes to purchase goods or services, he must either pay the seller's asking price or use the Negotiation skill to haggle."

Second, "If a character wishes to sell goods or services the final price is determined by a Negotiation check.

Third, when two individuals create an agreement or treaty, they may make an opposed or competitive Negotiation check. The winner gains the better end of the resulting agreement.

Additionally, the Negotiation check follows the rules for Social Skills Interactions ("Negotiation (Presence)" FnD page 123 paragraph 2) on page 117 of the FnD core rulebook, which state "If the acting character is successful, the target is swayed to their point of view."

This means as a result, that in the first instance of the Negotiation skill a the results of the haggle either convinces the seller to lower their price or they remain stuck at the original price. This means that if a character is looking to see if he can find an object and what it will cost, the result of this roll answers that question. He can choose to purchase it or not, but the ASKING PRICE was the only thing determined.

In the second result, if a character is selling goods or services, then the FINAL PRICE of the good or service is determined, in case, the actor is establishing the price for the buyer, and therefore the deal for services or goods is determined and accepted. Since the "point of view" is determined by the check, this cannot be backed out of. It's the FINAL PRICE.

The third instance, if you really are dead set on allowing the roll for price to ONLY determine the price each persons "sticks at" would then be a second roll when the "deal" is finally made and goods are promised for exchange (the agreement or treaty). Whether an initial check or a secondary check, this results in the winner gaining the better end of the deal, and through the negotiation could result in another fluctuation of price (as determined by success/threat/advantage/failure) to have one or the other get the better end of things. This CANNOT be backed out of, as per the Social Skills Interactions table the "point of view" of the characters in the bargain have been adjusted.

A good practice as GM (one I use) is to keep it simple. Ask the player if they are shopping for price, or if they want a fast turnaround. If they are shopping for price, then it's the first or second uses, but if they are in a hurry and want a fast turnaround, then they use the third. This means that the player is in control of how many checks they are making and how long it takes. You can shop around to every store on the planet, and make a roll for each, but it will take A LOT of time - days or weeks. OR, you can make a single roll and have the goods moved in a matter or hours, the third roll straight off. It's gives the player the agency, but also determines the "finality" of things.

13 minutes ago, Kyla said:

Demonstrably false. You cannot argue this on the Negotiation skill action alone.

O_o
What of anything I said was "demonstrably false"? I'm taking that straight out of the CRB. Specifically, the sections "Rarity" and "Selling and Trading."

9 minutes ago, Kyla said:

In the second result, if a character is selling goods or services, then the FINAL PRICE of the good or service is determined, in case, the actor is establishing the price for the buyer, and therefore the deal for services or goods is determined and accepted. Since the "point of view" is determined by the check, this cannot be backed out of. It's the FINAL PRICE.

Yes, it's a final price. You can still choose not to buy/sell the item. "X is my final offer." "Okay, well I'm not paying that."

The other person isn't willing to offer you a better price, so you've got a choice: Take that price or don't make the deal. No more checks.

12 minutes ago, Kyla said:

The third instance, if you really are dead set on allowing the roll for price to ONLY determine the price each persons "sticks at" would then be a second roll when the "deal" is finally made and goods are promised for exchange (the agreement or treaty). Whether an initial check or a secondary check, this results in the winner gaining the better end of the deal, and through the negotiation could result in another fluctuation of price (as determined by success/threat/advantage/failure) to have one or the other get the better end of things. This CANNOT be backed out of, as per the Social Skills Interactions table the "point of view" of the characters in the bargain have been adjusted.

In a treaty, when both sides reach a point where they won't budge, negotiations break down. This would be one side saying "I won't go any further" and the other side saying "It must go further or I'm out" and the first side saying "Well too bad. I'm not budging on this." Then the other side has the choice to either accept the result (the final result of the Negotiation check) or back out, with all the consequences that entails.

21 minutes ago, Kyla said:

A good practice as GM (one I use) is to keep it simple. Ask the player if they are shopping for price, or if they want a fast turnaround. If they are shopping for price, then it's the first or second uses, but if they are in a hurry and want a fast turnaround, then they use the third. This means that the player is in control of how many checks they are making and how long it takes. You can shop around to every store on the planet, and make a roll for each, but it will take A LOT of time - days or weeks. OR, you can make a single roll and have the goods moved in a matter or hours, the third roll straight off. It's gives the player the agency, but also determines the "finality" of things.

I keep it simpler than that. "Okay, you want to sell/buy X? Give me a [difficulty] Negotiation check." *roll* "Okay, you can sell/buy X at Y price, do you want to do so?"

26 minutes ago, Kyla said:

Additionally, the Negotiation check follows the rules for Social Skills Interactions ("Negotiation (Presence)" FnD page 123 paragraph 2) on page 117 of the FnD core rulebook, which state "If the acting character is successful, the target is swayed to their point of view."

Yes, the acting character . So if the PC is making a Negotiation check, they are the acting character and the target is the one swayed, not the PC. In an inverted circumstance, it would operate the other way. (This is an unusual situation, but...) If an NPC were trying to sell something to the PCs with a value of 1,000 credits and they roll 2 net Success, the PC is willing to pay that 500 credits for the item.

As I've stated, some circumstances are more complicated and might include multiple checks where the PC has false information or is convinced of something that is not true or is embellished. In the case where a PC is tricked, the results would probably be binding because the PC should act in accordance with their knowledge and motivations.

50 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No it isn't. A Negotiation check covers the search for an item or a buyer for an item, and then determines the price you are able to buy or sell for. A Ranged (Light) check is the act of firing your blaster.

When you roll, you have performed the action and you cannot take it back.

The question is where the Negotiation action ends. I say it ends before you make the transaction, but after you have reached a point where you can no longer shift the needle further in your favor.

It seems to me a lot of this disagreement can be solved by the gm and theplayer agreeing on the scope and what the roll means before they roll. If player and GM dont agree on what the roll means there is going to be conflict.

I think in this case you’re both going at it from two extremes. The answer is somewhere in the middle:

re.walking away is possible sometimes depending on context. Selling some items to a merchent or offloading some spare goods? Or shopping around to try and secure a potential earmark for an asking price? Sure, one roll per avenue per location; with threats generating complications down the line. Got a rare item that you are selling to a Hutt collector who isn’t used to being told no? Or making a deal with a swave ship dealer who has a incredible wit and charisma to undersell the vessel? Or haggling in an auction where one guy is trying to make the PCs dramatically overpay? Walking away should present consequences as the players decide what to do with their role, then the GM will decide what to do with the negative symbols.

though I imagine it comes down to the social contract and the context. Like I’m imagining the real disagreement is different tables treating it completely differently. Which is fair enough, I’m only interested in how my table runs it, which is basically “it depends on the who, the what and where.” Who is asking; what is being asked for, and where is the deal being made.

The biggest disadvantage that I perceive from the view of the "walk away" group is that, for me , it greatly reduces, even eliminates, the usefulness of the Social Skills. One part of Role Playing is that of playing the role; the banter, the verbal back and forth of the human beings involved. There is another part as well, the skills that the Character has, which may well be different from the skills the Player has. The Player may be an adept negotiator, the Character a 2 Presence and no skill. My son will be getting his PhD in Chemistry in a few months. I'm not going to let him explain how his 2 Intellect Character with no skills is going to compound some super acid in the refresher. I remember reading somewhere about a GM in a Fantasy RPG who had the party encounter a trap. The thief character said, "I'll attempt to disarm the trap." At which the grinning GM pulled out a model of the trap and asked him how he was going to do that. The GM was very put out when the Player replied, "I don't know how to disarm a trap, but my Character is an expert, that's what the dice are for."

The skills should all be important. If the Character has no skill at Combat I think most would accept that in a straight up fire fight she would come out poorly. But with the Social Skills, no worry! No Skill? No Stats? No Worry! Just say "no"! (Yes, exaggerated for effect!) If the PCs are confronted by the local Law and succeed on a Charm, Deception. etc., check they reasonably expect to get some advantage from that, like the Law letting them go on their way. It seems to me that this needs to apply to the PCs as well the other way. When they see what they believe to be their "mark", and that worthy manages to succeed similarly, they shouldn't just get to say "no".

For me it is part of the RPG Social Contract that the NPCs need to be able to succeed against the PCs in all the aspects of the game. They need to be able to beat them at combat, and also be able to con them, charm them, deceive them, and pick their pockets. I can understand that the Player might not like having his pocket picked, but I'm sure he wants to be able to succeed in picking the other guy's pocket!

Neither the GM nor the Player might ever play a hand of 3 Card Monte on the streets of New York, but people do. You might never help a stranger by giving them money, but people do. Insert anything you want here that you would never fall for or do, but people do. My position is that since people do, it should be possible for the PCs to do so as well. No, not all the time, and subject to their skills. Don't want to be pickpocketed, maybe a skill in Vigilance would be a good investment.

I realize much of this is RPG theory as much as rules. I also 100% agree that these details should be understood before play begins. I only present these opinions to stimulate discussion, never to indicate that the other side is "wrong" (although I might point out that a rule specifically says something different). It is just a game after all.

P.S. my 4 failures, 2 threats and 2 despairs were predicated on an opposed negotiation check with the PC having say YG, and the NPC's opposing skill being RRPP, and, yes, a very poor roll.

I've been playing this game for some seven years now, IRL, and also via PBP for going on three years.

In all that time, I have not once encountered a player who didn't accept the social contract that is implicit with rolling the dice. I've seen them choose not to roll in the first place, but they have always accepted the results of the roll once it was made.

Negotiation to buy or sell is no different than Perception or Ranged (Light). They represent minutes (or even hours) of in game time, but are still represented by a single check in most instances.

If the player with GG in Negotiation wants to sell item X, and the GM says, "Okay, the Difficulty is RRRP," the player can choose to walk away without rolling ("Uh... nevermind."). However, if he chooses to roll, the player should accept the consequences of the social contract of rolling the dice.

If that seems "harsh" or "unrealistic", remember, this is a game. It's meant to be fun for everyone and not bogged down in minutae.

There also should be some element of risk when rolling the dice, otherwise it's a waste of time. If you're not willing to live with the results--good or bad--don't roll.

This system is meant to emphasize the narrative, and minimize the rolls. Only roll if there is a consequence of failure. This has been advocated on the Order 66 Podcast since this system has been out.

@RickInVA , the important distinction here is the difference between being an acting character and being the target. In the OP's question, the PC is the acting character.

My whole argument has been predicated on the point that the acting character has the option to walk away. The target character can't just say no, though there may be limitations to what they're willing to say yes to.

1 minute ago, salamar_dree said:

If the player with GG in Negotiation wants to sell item X, and the GM says, "Okay, the Difficulty is RRRP," the player can choose to walk away without rolling ("Uh... nevermind."). However, if he chooses to roll, the player should accept the consequences of the social contract of rolling the dice.

If that seems "harsh" or "unrealistic", remember, this is a game. It's meant to be fun for everyone and not bogged down in minutae.

There also should be some element of risk when rolling the dice, otherwise it's a waste of time. If you're not willing to live with the results--good or bad--don't roll.

This system is meant to emphasize the narrative, and minimize the rolls. Only roll if there is a consequence of failure. This has been advocated on the Order 66 Podcast since this system has been out.

Yes. You should accept the consequences.

The consequence of the roll in question is the loss of time, the loss of opportunity, Threat/Despair results, and any other negative effects that happen as a result of the action in question.

And in the case of buying or selling, the loss of credits. It's no different.

16 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

And in the case of buying or selling, the loss of credits. It's no different.

Alright look, if I go look up "Endless Vigil" on Amazon, eBay, etc. and the lowest price I come up with is $500, there's no way I'm paying that. I made my Negotiation roll, but I don't have to purchase what I found. Similarly, if I'm going around asking people if they want to purchase a book for $20 and the best offer I can get is 5, I'm going to hang on to it.

In both cases, the consequence is the time spent. In both cases, my "Negotiation check" was successful, yet I chose not to accept either deal. I am the "acting character" here. That is the sort of human behavior that happens on a regular basis in everyday life. For the PC to be unable to do that would be very abnormal.

Well, the first isn't a check at all. You just looked up an item online.

The second, I will admit, sounds like a very unsuccessful check. I will give you that.

In your example, however, you are obviously unwilling to sell it for less than $20. Nor are you asking more. That Negotiation check would have different parameters. As a GM, if you told me that you wanted to sell the book for exactly $20, I would assign a Difficulty based on that. Success (regardless of how many) garners you a sale at $20. Failure means no sale (the "walk away").

Similarly, if a player in my group insisted that he would not accept less than "x" amount before the roll, I would take that into account when assigning the Difficulty. Failure would be that no deal occurs. But that would be determined before the dice are rolled.

The default rules are of course open to change by any group, to fit their game. If that's how you wish to play, then more power to you!

9 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

Well, the first isn't a check at all. You just looked up an item online.

The Negotiation check covers the process of searching for an item to purchase. Looking up stuff online, you can dig through a variety of sites and listings to try and find a good price, it's not as simple as just typing it into a search engine and seeing what comes up (though that is the simplest way to do things, and most people don't bother with more). I think it qualifies, based on the parameters set out in the book.

11 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

The second, I will admit, sounds like a very unsuccessful check. I will give you that.

In your example, however, you are obviously unwilling to sell it for less than $20. Nor are you asking more. That Negotiation check would have different parameters. As a GM, if you told me that you wanted to sell the book for exactly $20, I would assign a Difficulty based on that. Success (regardless of how many) garners you a sale at $20. Failure means no sale (the "walk away").

Similarly, if a player in my group insisted that he would not accept less than "x" amount before the roll, I would take that into account when assigning the Difficulty. Failure would be that no deal occurs. But that would be determined before the dice are rolled.

According to RAW, to sell an item you make a check based on rarity. With 1 Success, you can sell for 25%. With 2, 50%, etc. The success means you found a buyer at the minimum price. Further success means you convinced them to pay more. The example I gave is straight RAW, but my roll only generated 1 success.

And you can modify the rules as you see fit.

Per RAW, you cannot walk away from a deal.

But if you want that option in your game, go for it.

46 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

Per RAW, you cannot walk away from a deal.

Show me where it says that.

When I look for it, I see "Finding an item on a world requires a successful Negotiation check" and "Player Characters can generally sell an item for one-quarter of its cost with upon a successful Negotiation check, increasing that to one-half with 2 success and to three-quarters with 3 success or more." Then when I go through the skill entry, I see nothing stating that a roll is binding and the character cannot back out. When I look at the Social Skill Interactions side bar, the only references that can be understood to mean that the check is binding refer only to the target, which is something I have not disputed.

It is incorrect to say that "per RAW, you cannot walk away from a deal." because RAW does not address it. RAW leaves it up to the table. The few arguments that have been brought up are very roundabout and I have already rebutted them.

Fine.

I mean, I just re-read all the rules regarding Negotiation, but failed to see anywhere that even implies that you can walk away from the deal, but sure, we'll go with what you say.

Have fun with your game!

Cheers!

13 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

I've been playing this game for some seven years now, IRL, and also via PBP for going on three years.

In all that time, I have not once encountered a player who didn't accept the social contract that is implicit with rolling the dice. I've seen them choose not to roll in the first place, but they have always accepted the results of the roll once it was made.

Negotiation to buy or sell is no different than Perception or Ranged (Light). They represent minutes (or even hours) of in game time, but are still represented by a single check in most instances.

If the player with GG in Negotiation wants to sell item X, and the GM says, "Okay, the Difficulty is RRRP," the player can choose to walk away without rolling ("Uh... nevermind."). However, if he chooses to roll, the player should accept the consequences of the social contract of rolling the dice.

If that seems "harsh" or "unrealistic", remember, this is a game. It's meant to be fun for everyone and not bogged down in minutae.

There also should be some element of risk when rolling the dice, otherwise it's a waste of time. If you're not willing to live with the results--good or bad--don't roll.

This system is meant to emphasize the narrative, and minimize the rolls. Only roll if there is a consequence of failure. This has been advocated on the Order 66 Podcast since this system has been out.

I am 100% behind this. I don't like players looking at the dice (or results) and be swayed by it. Your character either wants to do it or not. But that's my personal opinion. I believe your dispute is about the different application of the skill. I think before dice are rolled, the GM and players already needs to know what is it they are rolling and what are failure/success means. You two seems to have different outcome in mind when you grab the dice, which is great, the system is flexible for that reason.

As per CRB:

When a character makes a skill check in Edge of the Empire, the dice allow the players to quickly determine success and failure, as well as magnitude and narrative implications.

13 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Alright look, if I go look up "Endless Vigil" on Amazon, eBay, etc. and the lowest price I come up with is $500, there's no way I'm paying that. I made my Negotiation roll, but I don't have to purchase what I found. Similarly, if I'm going around asking people if they want to purchase a book for $20 and the best offer I can get is 5, I'm going to hang on to it.

In both cases, the consequence is the time spent. In both cases, my "Negotiation check" was successful, yet I chose not to accept either deal. I am the "acting character" here. That is the sort of human behavior that happens on a regular basis in everyday life. For the PC to be unable to do that would be very abnormal.

In this first case, I would call it a Negotiation for looking an item. You find an item with a success, price modified by the roll. That doesn't mean you need to buy it, it just means in that place that's your best option.

However the second one is another application, in which case I'd tell the player that failure means you coulnd't sell it, success means you get only 25% price and so on. She can decide whether she takes the roll or not, but once the dice rolled, you get what you rolled, no backsies.

These are both RAW applications of Nego, but the important thing is what is your roll means and sticking to it.

I don't like backing out on a successful check because if I'm upfront about the results beforehand, they know what's gonna happen. As per social encounters if she successful in selling the item, I believe the character is convinced that she couldn't/won't get a better price likewise when she ia charmed or decieved.

If it's a matter of selling at a given price, I'd give another difficulty (usually modifing based on the price difference of how much more success she would need to achieve it normally and add half the purple dice), but success means she got her price, failure she doesn't. Here I might offer her a lower price according to the role, but that's optional and she can choose not to accept it.

I believe these different methods should be all handled in different way, because of the different questions the dice answers. However once the dice rolled it's final for me.

On 9/29/2020 at 12:38 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

As I've stated, some circumstances are more complicated and might include multiple checks where the PC has false information or is convinced of something that is not true or is embellished. In the case where a PC is tricked, the results would probably be binding because the PC should act in accordance with their knowledge and motivations.

That's fine for your table, but don't then attempt to state the rules specifically show this is "the way to play it."

The rules are intended to make a single check representative of many different interactions and events to speed gameplay and not bog it down with endless rolling. Your viewpoint specifically encourages players to "metagame" the outcome based on knowledge of their results that their character would in have no idea of. Threat, failure, or despair generation on the roll in your case can simply be cancelled by saying, "Nope, I walk away." Your interpretation of the rules precludes the possibility of a player accepting a bad deal and their character being happy with the deal they made.

That said, there is obviously no other solution you will accept. I gave options in me previous post to do it either way - roll is king or roll is flavor, and you still opted to debate minutae. It's a dead horse at this point. You can continue the debate, but this will be my last response to you on the matter.

I respect you, and I'm not trying to imply you're anything other than someone of differing opinion, P, we agree on a lot of stuff, and have over the years, but I don't think we're going to be able to see eye to eye on this one.

5 minutes ago, Kyla said:

The rules are intended to make a single check representative of many different interactions and events to speed gameplay and not bog it down with endless rolling. Your viewpoint specifically encourages players to "metagame" the outcome based on knowledge of their results that their character would in have no idea of. Threat, failure, or despair generation on the roll in your case can simply be cancelled by saying, "Nope, I walk away." Your interpretation of the rules precludes the possibility of a player accepting a bad deal and their character being happy with the deal they made.

That's not at all what I'm saying. Threat, Failure, and Despair all have an effect regardless of whether the PC decides to go through with the deal or not. When the PC is the acting character, they can choose to walk away from a deal. When the PC is the target, it's different. So yes, the PC could make a bad deal and be happy with it because they were convinced by someone. My interpretation does not preclude that at all.
And yes, it's a single check to sped up gameplay and it stays that way. If you fail, you can't just reroll the check until you get what you want. You'll have to wait at least until you've gone somewhere else, which probably means you can probably only try once per session.

9 minutes ago, Kyla said:

That's fine for your table, but don't then attempt to state the rules specifically show this is "the way to play it."

I don't think I ever unequivocally stated that "this is the way" or that it's RAW, just that this is how I handle it and how I think it should be handled. You have, though, in a way I believe to be incorrect. I believe the rules were left intentionally open, up to the GM to determine how binding the check is. There is no stark indicator either way except in the case of a targeted character.

One very important distinction in this regard that I have seen many people overlook is that NPC Failure is not the same as PC Success, and vice versa.

14 minutes ago, Kyla said:

That said, there is obviously no other solution you will accept. I gave options in me previous post to do it either way - roll is king or roll is flavor, and you still opted to debate minutae. It's a dead horse at this point. You can continue the debate, but this will be my last response to you on the matter.

I continued the discussion because you and others were misunderstanding my point, or simply incorrect about something. You've either misunderstood or strawmanned my point, as I have never stated (in fact, I have explicitly stated the opposite) that you can leave the roll without consequences, or just reroll it. I continue the discussion because I want you to understand what I'm saying, and you don't seem to. If we understood each other, but disagreed, I'd have probably already dropped it.

29 minutes ago, Kyla said:

I respect you, and I'm not trying to imply you're anything other than someone of differing opinion, P, we agree on a lot of stuff, and have over the years, but I don't think we're going to be able to see eye to eye on this one.

I return the sentiment.

@P-47 Thunderbolt Definately with you on this one. My table we take a heavy roleplay approach to the game, even shopping. Players enter my handcrafted stores and will actually barter with the Shopkeeper before any rolls have been made.

If the Player is asking for a ridiculous deal, then the Negotiation check could be harder or with setbacks, and success might not mean they get exactly what they are asking for.

However, if the player roleplays really well by coming up with a convincing argument as to why the shopkeeper should take his deal, then I will hand out boosts.

I try to make everything an experience worth playing out, even shopping, and the dice come out when they are needed. Once the roll is made, the final price isn't binding, and I let players walk away from the deal. Threats, Failures and Despairs from the roll still stand, and effect the game world appropriately.

26 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

When the PC is the acting character, they can choose to walk away from a deal.

If only you added the words "despite the consequences" I wouldn't have a problem. But unless I missed something (and I admit, far too many words to chew through), my interpretation of your argument is the PC can decide to ignore the roll and the GM just has to roll with it. In which case I'd say, that's a fun little pandora's box, and why wouldn't the player decide to pull that stunt on any roll at all?

"Hey, lemme Coerce this Gammorean and call his mother a ..." <major failure, Despair etc> "... oh heck, you know I think I'll just I walk away, just like I didn't buy that speeder the other day..."

19 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Alright look, if I go look up "Endless Vigil" on Amazon, eBay, etc. and the lowest price I come up with is $500, there's no way I'm paying that. I made my Negotiation roll, but I don't have to purchase what I found. Similarly, if I'm going around asking people if they want to purchase a book for $20 and the best offer I can get is 5, I'm going to hang on to it.

These aren't Negotiation checks, not even close. I don't think there is a skill for "browsing a catalogue". A skill check has to have weight and gravitas behind it, otherwise there is no point. A skill check has to represent the attempt to apply some potential leverage on the part of the checker, none of which you've described.

As a side note...this is a main reason why I despise "shopping" in a game. Haggling over the price of something when there's nothing else at stake has to be the epitome of roll-playing...

On 9/29/2020 at 7:38 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

As I've stated, some circumstances are more complicated and might include multiple checks where the PC has false information or is convinced of something that is not true or is embellished. In the case where a PC is tricked, the results would probably be binding because the PC should act in accordance with their knowledge and motivations.

In this case, would Negotiation even be the skill used? Crooked used car salesmen have Deception as a spec skill, not Negotiation.

51 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

If the Player is asking for a ridiculous deal, then the Negotiation check could be harder or with setbacks, and success might not mean they get exactly what they are asking for.

If the Player is asking for a ridiculous deal, then the other party just laughs in their face and leaves until the player wants to start negotiating in good faith (unles the other party isn't really in a position to walk away, which would make it more of a Coercion check), and the player of course will get setbacks. Social skills aren't mind control.

59 minutes ago, whafrog said:

If only you added the words "despite the consequences" I wouldn't have a problem. But unless I missed something (and I admit, far too many words to chew through), my interpretation of your argument is the PC can decide to ignore the roll and the GM just has to roll with it. In which case I'd say, that's a fun little pandora's box, and why wouldn't the player decide to pull that stunt on any roll at all?

I have specifically stated multiple times, in multiple posts, that the consequences of the roll stand. Threat and Despair still have effects.

48 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

In this case, would Negotiation even be the skill used? Crooked used car salesmen have Deception as a spec skill, not Negotiation.

No. It's still a negotiation, but it would probably use multiple checks, certainly including Deception. Deceiving someone into purchasing your product would use Deception.

1 hour ago, whafrog said:

These aren't Negotiation checks, not even close. I don't think there is a skill for "browsing a catalogue". A skill check has to have weight and gravitas behind it, otherwise there is no point. A skill check has to represent the attempt to apply some potential leverage on the part of the checker, none of which you've described.

Per RAW, those are both Negotiation checks. I outlined why in my post and in my response to a rebuttal. They are also simplifications meant to make a point.

And I'm in agreement with P-47: general use of Negotiation to see what price you can get just sees what price you can get. It doesn't mean that any sale has happened.

Threat/despair doesn't mean you irrationally sold it for nothing; it does mean that the process was somehow more laborious and/or drew unwanted attention (from someone with a reason to be interested), etc.

On the flip side, advantage/triumph might give them a lead on a better place to look for a deal and/or provide some other opportunity involving the (whatever) - in other words, incoming plot hook.


Re the salesman, most people dealing with them have probably already decided that they're going to take whatever offer is made because they just want to get rid of the thing. I'm not in that much of a hurry, so I can wait for a better deal.