17 hours 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?

"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..."

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...

This is why you need to be in agreement with what the roll actually means. When calling for a roll be clear on what the roll means. it seems like a lot of the disagreement here is about the 2 sides not agreeing with what the roll means. Which would be what would cause an argument at the table. The roll should represent what the player wants to accomplish nothing more. If they want to know what the best price they can get then that is what the roll represents. It does not represent a sale unless the player decides they want to sell at that price. A roll only means a sale if the player says I am selling and I want to see how much they get. It is a subtle difference but an important one.

19 hours 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."

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.

But you should not have the roll represent more than what the player wants to accomplish. You should not make a roll represent more than the desired goal of the player. To make it represent more is not fair to the player.

I too agree with @P-47 Thunderbolt because of one key factor that determines even if the deal can be made: how much money the buyer actually has to spend. No matter the result of the roll, if the final asking price is more than the character is capable of spending, then he has to walk away from the deal. So, if I have “X” number of credits, and I attempt to purchase a weapon or set of armor, and a failed Negotiation check puts the price out of my ability to pay for it, I have no choice but to walk away.

9 hours ago, Daeglan said:

This is why you need to be in agreement with what the roll actually means. When calling for a roll be clear on what the roll means. it seems like a lot of the disagreement here is about the 2 sides not agreeing with what the roll means. Which would be what would cause an argument at the table. The roll should represent what the player wants to accomplish nothing more. If they want to know what the best price they can get then that is what the roll represents. It does not represent a sale unless the player decides they want to sell at that price. A roll only means a sale if the player says I am selling and I want to see how much they get. It is a subtle difference but an important one.

If you proceed with that method why would any player ever take option 2? Clearly there is no downside to always roll "...to know the best price", and then decide whether to take it or not. IMHO it makes a farce out of the whole idea of Negotiating and the skill.

9 hours ago, Daeglan said:

But you should not have the roll represent more than what the player wants to accomplish. You should not make a roll represent more than the desired goal of the player. To make it represent more is not fair to the player.

I have to disagree with this. The player is only part of the process. There is a milieu within which the player is operating, and it should have rules and consistency. "I want to do a pre-combat check to see how well I think I'll do. If I like the result I'll take it, if not I won't shoot!"

10 hours ago, Garran said:

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.

Perhaps you are right, although I think you underestimate salesmen. But here is what I think is the real rub. We are playing a game. There are no real consequences to anything. A person in the real world may have a real need to buy a new car and so will be motivated to sell their old one. That actual motivation doesn't exist at all in this game. How many people in real life go to all the trouble to drag that snowblower to the pawn shop just to "test the waters" on a price? I'm going to go out on a limb and say very few to none. In the real world most people that go to the trouble to take something somewhere they can sell it are motivated to actually sell it. Time is valuable, we all only have so much of it. In a game, pfaaa!, if my character wastes two weeks schlepping that widget all over the planet what do I care? It took me 2 minutes to say it!

Since there is a clear absence of a motivated buyer and an equally motivated seller in a game, this game has provided a simple, easy, and quick method to roll all that into, well, a roll. The Character's life, limb, and/or freedom are not at stake, just a few credits. Just my opinion as always.

41 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

I have to disagree with this. The player is only part of the process. There is a milieu within which the player is operating, and it should have rules and consistency. "I want to do a pre-combat check to see how well I think I'll do. If I like the result I'll take it, if not I won't shoot!"

Why would you as a gm force a player to do something they didnt want to do? It is not the gms place to define the players goal

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Why would you as a gm force a player to do something they didnt want to do? It is not the gms place to define the players goal

I'm not going to force her to do something she doesn't want to, but I'm also not going to make every option she desires always available.

What you appear to be saying to me is that if the player can structure their request in such a way that there is no downside to them that such an action is, and should be, always available. I disagree. I am no more going to allow a player to make a non-binding Negotiation check than I am going to allow them to make a non-binding Skullduggery, Charm, Deception, Combat, or any other kind of check. In my game such things don't exist, because I don't think they exist in the real world. I would certainly allow a player to ask a buyer, "What is your best price?", to which I will make an answer. But I offer no guarantees that such an answer is indeed their best price. [To pull back the curtain a bit, what I do in said case is roll a percentile die to randomly determine the NPC's honesty to such questions and reply appropriately. Unless thematically there is a better result.] But, that does not mean that the Character (not the Player) cannot attempt to Negotiate, which in my game means that they are bringing all their best arguments to bear in a contest of wits and wills, and that it is just as possible that the NPC will convince (the key aspect of the check to me) the character to accept a lower price as it is for the character to negotiate a higher one. Players are not required to use a skill to role play. If they want to have a chat back and forth that is non-binding go right ahead, chat all day. But when the dice come out, and the Character's Skill is being used, not the Player's, then, for me, the Player cannot, after the fact, not follow through simply because the Character's Skill did not provide the result she wanted!

I am interested, is negotiation the only skill that you would apply this "test the waters" approach to, or do you let players do this for all their skills? If only to Negotiation I would ask why. If yes to all, do your players routinely pre-Slice, and pre-Deceive, and find some way to word their other skill rolls to be free of negative outcomes?

Naturally there are plenty of other ways to play, my views are expressed to stimulate discussion only (although they certainly are my views!).

9 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

I'm not going to force her to do something she doesn't want to, but I'm also not going to make every option she desires always available.

What you appear to be saying to me is that if the player can structure their request in such a way that there is no downside to them that such an action is, and should be, always available. I disagree. I am no more going to allow a player to make a non-binding Negotiation check than I am going to allow them to make a non-binding Skullduggery, Charm, Deception, Combat, or any other kind of check. In my game such things don't exist, because I don't think they exist in the real world. I would certainly allow a player to ask a buyer, "What is your best price?", to which I will make an answer. But I offer no guarantees that such an answer is indeed their best price. [To pull back the curtain a bit, what I do in said case is roll a percentile die to randomly determine the NPC's honesty to such questions and reply appropriately. Unless thematically there is a better result.] But, that does not mean that the Character (not the Player) cannot attempt to Negotiate, which in my game means that they are bringing all their best arguments to bear in a contest of wits and wills, and that it is just as possible that the NPC will convince (the key aspect of the check to me) the character to accept a lower price as it is for the character to negotiate a higher one. Players are not required to use a skill to role play. If they want to have a chat back and forth that is non-binding go right ahead, chat all day. But when the dice come out, and the Character's Skill is being used, not the Player's, then, for me, the Player cannot, after the fact, not follow through simply because the Character's Skill did not provide the result she wanted!

I am interested, is negotiation the only skill that you would apply this "test the waters" approach to, or do you let players do this for all their skills? If only to Negotiation I would ask why. If yes to all, do your players routinely pre-Slice, and pre-Deceive, and find some way to word their other skill rolls to be free of negative outcomes?

Naturally there are plenty of other ways to play, my views are expressed to stimulate discussion only (although they certainly are my views!).

I don’t believe that’s what he’s talking about, and certainly not what I am.

59 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

I'm not going to force her to do something she doesn't want to, but I'm also not going to make every option she desires always available.

What you appear to be saying to me is that if the player can structure their request in such a way that there is no downside to them that such an action is, and should be, always available. I disagree. I am no more going to allow a player to make a non-binding Negotiation check than I am going to allow them to make a non-binding Skullduggery, Charm, Deception, Combat, or any other kind of check. In my game such things don't exist, because I don't think they exist in the real world. I would certainly allow a player to ask a buyer, "What is your best price?", to which I will make an answer. But I offer no guarantees that such an answer is indeed their best price. [To pull back the curtain a bit, what I do in said case is roll a percentile die to randomly determine the NPC's honesty to such questions and reply appropriately. Unless thematically there is a better result.] But, that does not mean that the Character (not the Player) cannot attempt to Negotiate, which in my game means that they are bringing all their best arguments to bear in a contest of wits and wills, and that it is just as possible that the NPC will convince (the key aspect of the check to me) the character to accept a lower price as it is for the character to negotiate a higher one. Players are not required to use a skill to role play. If they want to have a chat back and forth that is non-binding go right ahead, chat all day. But when the dice come out, and the Character's Skill is being used, not the Player's, then, for me, the Player cannot, after the fact, not follow through simply because the Character's Skill did not provide the result she wanted!

I am interested, is negotiation the only skill that you would apply this "test the waters" approach to, or do you let players do this for all their skills? If only to Negotiation I would ask why. If yes to all, do your players routinely pre-Slice, and pre-Deceive, and find some way to word their other skill rolls to be free of negative outcomes?

Naturally there are plenty of other ways to play, my views are expressed to stimulate discussion only (although they certainly are my views!).

That is not what i said...AT ALL. the player defines what they want to accomplish. you say what skill. The end. Finding the best price per the rules is a negotiation check. the results of which be the best price they can get.

6 hours ago, RickInVA said:

I'm not going to force her to do something she doesn't want to, but I'm also not going to make every option she desires always available.

What you appear to be saying to me is that if the player can structure their request in such a way that there is no downside to them that such an action is, and should be, always available. I disagree. I am no more going to allow a player to make a non-binding Negotiation check than I am going to allow them to make a non-binding Skullduggery, Charm, Deception, Combat, or any other kind of check. In my game such things don't exist, because I don't think they exist in the real world. I would certainly allow a player to ask a buyer, "What is your best price?", to which I will make an answer. But I offer no guarantees that such an answer is indeed their best price. [To pull back the curtain a bit, what I do in said case is roll a percentile die to randomly determine the NPC's honesty to such questions and reply appropriately. Unless thematically there is a better result.] But, that does not mean that the Character (not the Player) cannot attempt to Negotiate, which in my game means that they are bringing all their best arguments to bear in a contest of wits and wills, and that it is just as possible that the NPC will convince (the key aspect of the check to me) the character to accept a lower price as it is for the character to negotiate a higher one. Players are not required to use a skill to role play. If they want to have a chat back and forth that is non-binding go right ahead, chat all day. But when the dice come out, and the Character's Skill is being used, not the Player's, then, for me, the Player cannot, after the fact, not follow through simply because the Character's Skill did not provide the result she wanted!

I am interested, is negotiation the only skill that you would apply this "test the waters" approach to, or do you let players do this for all their skills? If only to Negotiation I would ask why. If yes to all, do your players routinely pre-Slice, and pre-Deceive, and find some way to word their other skill rolls to be free of negative outcomes?

Naturally there are plenty of other ways to play, my views are expressed to stimulate discussion only (although they certainly are my views!).

That's why it's important to be clear about what the roll represents:
- If the PC is shopping for a Hyperdrive generator and gets a price he doesn't like he can roll if he can lower the price or pay in different currency -> Roll happens and it says what he can get. He can decide whether he wants it or not or even if he has the money for it.
- If the PC wants to sell his speeder, because he needs to pay for the smuggler to take him to Alderaan -> He rolls and takes what he gets , because he stated earlier he needs to sell it right now even if a certain new models appearance lowered the price of his speeder recently.

There is a distinct difference between the two, and both uses Negotiation as RAW, but answers different questions.

22 hours ago, Daeglan said:

This is why you need to be in agreement with what the roll actually means. When calling for a roll be clear on what the roll means. it seems like a lot of the disagreement here is about the 2 sides not agreeing with what the roll means.

A valid point for sure. It would be rude of me to throw in a plot twisting spiral when all they wanted to do was buy a roasted monkey lizard sandwich.

22 hours ago, Daeglan said:

The roll should represent what the player wants to accomplish nothing more.

I'm not on board with this wording. Who needs a GM then? Why am I even presenting a plot or story? That sounds more like "choose your own adventure".

I will agree that if the GM reads too much into a roll it can be overbearing, but it really depends on the drama of the situation. If it's really just a purchase with no drama, then fine, there should be no additional implications... but then I'll go back to my original sentiment and ask why that is even part of the session? Just hand-wave that stuff. But of course if you *like* roleplaying shopping on eBay...go for it.

However, if there is any drama around the roll (like, "I really have to unload this stolen gold-plated blaster before I go through customs"), then it's entirely reasonable to me that the player might be subject to results they don't like. The roll might indicate that the potential buyer clues in to the desperation of the situation and wants to leverage that against the PC. So he offers a lousy deal. Two choices: the PC accepts being shafted, perhaps marking that NPC for future, more aggressive, negotiations; or the PC walks away, and now the bitter/vindictive NPC takes their own action (or not, but that's entirely up to the GM).

I really don't get what's so difficult about all this. Again @Daeglan I agree there should be some discussion of the consequences prior to rolling. But it should be obvious to everyone at the table that unloading a stolen gold-plated blaster carries risk, and the PC doesn't just get to walk away unscathed if they don't like the results.

1 minute ago, whafrog said:

I will agree that if the GM reads too much into a roll it can be overbearing, but it really depends on the drama of the situation. If it's really just a purchase with no drama, then fine, there should be no additional implications... but then I'll go back to my original sentiment and ask why that is even part of the session? Just hand-wave that stuff. But of course if you *like* roleplaying shopping on eBay...go for it.

In the examples I brought up, it would be handwaved with a roll. No roleplay involved, just a check to determine availability and price. In some circumstances, the roll can suddenly turn into more because of narrative results, but as a general rules it's just a roll to determine the price.

2 minutes ago, whafrog said:

However, if there is any drama around the roll (like, "I really have to unload this stolen gold-plated blaster before I go through customs"), then it's entirely reasonable to me that the player might be subject to results they don't like. The roll might indicate that the potential buyer clues in to the desperation of the situation and wants to leverage that against the PC. So he offers a lousy deal. Two choices: the PC accepts being shafted, perhaps marking that NPC for future, more aggressive, negotiations; or the PC walks away, and now the bitter/vindictive NPC takes their own action (or not, but that's entirely up to the GM).

I really don't get what's so difficult about all this. Again @Daeglan I agree there should be some discussion of the consequences prior to rolling. But it should be obvious to everyone at the table that unloading a stolen gold-plated blaster carries risk, and the PC doesn't just get to walk away unscathed if they don't like the results.

No one (at least, I don't think anyone) is saying they can walk away unscathed from a terrible roll. If they get a lousy roll on that Negotiation, they have the two choices you outlined. They don't ignore the roll, they can just choose to drop the deal.

In some situations (like buying a fairly common legal item), they might roll some Threat which indicates an increased price, and so decide they don't want to pay the increased cost and will just wait for a better opportunity. In that case, the consequence of the Threat is that they have to wait, as if they had failed the check. Now if they're trying to buy some highly illegal spice, the consequences could be very different.
In the case of selling, adverse reactions to pulling out of a sale are going to be more common and dramatic, especially if the PC is selling weapons or illegal items.

As an example of use for this, a couple PCs were looking to convince a Mandalorian armorsmith to sell them beskar for the Cortosis Weave attachment. They succeeded with 5 Threat. So I said that he's willing to sell it, but for 15,000 and only to one of you. The PC decided best to spring for it now rather than wait, and spent the extra 5k for it. If the PC had walked away, all they'd have lost in that case is the opportunity as the armorer has no motivation to go after them.
In that situation, they still aren't walking away without consequences, as they lose that opportunity and might face consequences further down the line for not having Cortosis Weave on their armor.

Just to underline: If they walk away from the deal, it has the same effect as having failed the roll. Depending on the situation and the roll, it may also have other deleterious effects.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No one (at least, I don't think anyone) is saying they can walk away unscathed from a terrible roll

Based on their wording, I'd have to say they are arguing exactly that. That's my interpretation of the OP and many posts since, including many of yours, and the only source of my contention. I mean, how else does one interpret: "The roll should represent what the player wants to accomplish nothing more."...?

Or I could be Han Quixote tilting at windmills...wouldn't be the first time

In any case I agree with:

9 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Just to underline: If they walk away from the deal, it has the same effect as having failed the roll. Depending on the situation and the roll, it may also have other deleterious effects.

1 minute ago, whafrog said:

Based on their wording, I'd have to say they are arguing exactly that. That's my interpretation of the OP and many posts since, including many of yours, and the only source of my contention. I mean, how else does one interpret: "The roll should represent what the player wants to accomplish nothing more."...?

Or I could be Han Quixote tilting at windmills...wouldn't be the first time

I think the latter is the case.

It could be some of us were careless in how we worded things, but my intention (and I stated this specifically, many times) was that they are simply allowed to choose not to sell an item or purchase an item at the resulting price, as long as they are the active character. Various consequences may result from this decision.

As for "The roll should represent what the player wants to accomplish nothing more." I would say that means that if the player is looking for the best price they can find, the roll shouldn't also bind them to purchasing or selling the item at that price.

Here are some of my relevant quotes on the subject:

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

By the way, you quoted the post that had the last one and said:

Quote

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.

6 hours ago, whafrog said:

A valid point for sure. It would be rude of me to throw in a plot twisting spiral when all they wanted to do was buy a roasted monkey lizard sandwich.

I'm not on board with this wording. Who needs a GM then? Why am I even presenting a plot or story? That sounds more like "choose your own adventure".

I will agree that if the GM reads too much into a roll it can be overbearing, but it really depends on the drama of the situation. If it's really just a purchase with no drama, then fine, there should be no additional implications... but then I'll go back to my original sentiment and ask why that is even part of the session? Just hand-wave that stuff. But of course if you *like* roleplaying shopping on eBay...go for it.

However, if there is any drama around the roll (like, "I really have to unload this stolen gold-plated blaster before I go through customs"), then it's entirely reasonable to me that the player might be subject to results they don't like. The roll might indicate that the potential buyer clues in to the desperation of the situation and wants to leverage that against the PC. So he offers a lousy deal. Two choices: the PC accepts being shafted, perhaps marking that NPC for future, more aggressive, negotiations; or the PC walks away, and now the bitter/vindictive NPC takes their own action (or not, but that's entirely up to the GM).

I really don't get what's so difficult about all this. Again @Daeglan I agree there should be some discussion of the consequences prior to rolling. But it should be obvious to everyone at the table that unloading a stolen gold-plated blaster carries risk, and the PC doesn't just get to walk away unscathed if they don't like the results.

yeah no. If their goal is to find out what they can get the GM doesnt get to read more into it than that. sorry. If they do they are being a jerk.

20 hours ago, Daeglan said:

That is not what i said...AT ALL. the player defines what they want to accomplish. you say what skill. The end. Finding the best price per the rules is a negotiation check. the results of which be the best price they can get.

Quite honestly I don't see how what you wrote can be read in any other way than how I read and responded to it. How else can you read "You should not make a roll represent more than the desired goal of the player." than that the Player gets to define what both success and failure mean for that roll?

But for the sake of discussion, for me, if the player says, "I want to check what the best price I can get for my widget is, but without committing to sell it", I'm going to say that there is no way to do that. You let the player do that. End of discussion for us.

41 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Quite honestly I don't see how what you wrote can be read in any other way than how I read and responded to it. How else can you read "You should not make a roll represent more than the desired goal of the player." than that the Player gets to define what both success and failure mean for that roll?

But for the sake of discussion, for me, if the player says, "I want to check what the best price I can get for my widget is, but without committing to sell it", I'm going to say that there is no way to do that. You let the player do that. End of discussion for us.

You dont get to make a roll to get the what people are willing to pay for an item result in people being angry someone didnt sell them an item at a price they felt was too low.

26 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You dont get to make a roll to get the what people are willing to pay for an item result in people being angry someone didnt sell them an item at a price they felt was too low.

Inasmuch as I, as the GM, get to define what a roll represents, I do. In my game a Negotiation roll is engaging in a negotiation binding on both parties to accept the result. Period. Liken it to Binding Arbitration in the real world. Primarily I feel that is the way the function is supposed to work. It is the simple, clean, "one roll to rule them all, and keep the game going" that seems to me to be a hallmark of this game. It also avoids players engaging in endless shopping for the "best price", and the "roll until you get a result you like" activities that follow from it.

3 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Inasmuch as I, as the GM, get to define what a roll represents, I do. In my game a Negotiation roll is engaging in a negotiation binding on both parties to accept the result. Period. Liken it to Binding Arbitration in the real world. Primarily I feel that is the way the function is supposed to work. It is the simple, clean, "one roll to rule them all, and keep the game going" that seems to me to be a hallmark of this game. It also avoids players engaging in endless shopping for the "best price", and the "roll until you get a result you like" activities that follow from it.

Several of us disagree. As I said before, if the interested party cannot afford the final asking price he or she has no choice but to walk away from the deal. Likewise, if a sale price is too low such that the seller is essentially losing his shirt, he would definitely refuse the sale. Turning down a sale is always an option, even if it has other consequences.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Several of us disagree. As I said before, if the interested party cannot afford the final asking price he or she has no choice but to walk away from the deal. Likewise, if a sale price is too low such that the seller is essentially losing his shirt, he would definitely refuse the sale. Turning down a sale is always an option, even if it has other consequences.

That is your view, and I respect it. It is, however, not my view.

1 minute ago, RickInVA said:

That is your view, and I respect it. It is, however, not my view.

So, what you’re saying is even if the buyer does not have enough money for the purchase he still has to buy the item?

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

So, what you’re saying is even if the buyer does not have enough money for the purchase he still has to buy the item?

Yes. "Oops, it looks like I'm a bit short of cash." "Well, that blaster/robe/trinket looks like its worth about the difference, I'll take that...and your cash!" Or, "Well, I am looking for someone to run an errand for me..." Maybe, "Dang, third time today I have to call the Enforcers over a deadbeat!" The piper has to be paid one way or the other. Lots of great role playing options here. Or, don't start negotiating if you can't afford the possible price.

I would appreciate it if someone in the non-binding camp would say if buying and selling is the only thing they provide this fantastic player benefit to, or if it applies to other things as well. I used to think I was a very player friendly GM, so I'm interested if it is just this topic where there are so many people to the "Player's do what they want" side of me, or if I'm a harder GM than I thought.

49 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Yes. "Oops, it looks like I'm a bit short of cash." "Well, that blaster/robe/trinket looks like its worth about the difference, I'll take that...and your cash!" Or, "Well, I am looking for someone to run an errand for me..." Maybe, "Dang, third time today I have to call the Enforcers over a deadbeat!" The piper has to be paid one way or the other. Lots of great role playing options here. Or, don't start negotiating if you can't afford the possible price.

I would appreciate it if someone in the non-binding camp would say if buying and selling is the only thing they provide this fantastic player benefit to, or if it applies to other things as well. I used to think I was a very player friendly GM, so I'm interested if it is just this topic where there are so many people to the "Player's do what they want" side of me, or if I'm a harder GM than I thought.

Absolutely not . If a GM tried to pull that, I would walk. Period. If the buyer cannot afford a purchase after negotiations, then the negotiations simply break down and no sale occurs.

51 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

I would appreciate it if someone in the non-binding camp would say if buying and selling is the only thing they provide this fantastic player benefit to, or if it applies to other things as well. I used to think I was a very player friendly GM, so I'm interested if it is just this topic where there are so many people to the "Player's do what they want" side of me, or if I'm a harder GM than I thought.

Does it apply to other things? Do the rules for plotting an Astrogation check apply to uses of the Brawl skill? It's just the way those checks are. There may be some checks that operate similarly, but this isn't a "general principle," just the way Negotiation works.

This isn't a "give the players a freebie." If you've been paying attention to what we've been saying, this isn't a "roll until you get it" or "let's drag out shopping" thing. They get one chance to find an item/buyer at a given time and place. If they fail, they have to try again somewhere else or at another time. If they succeed and don't like the price, they can choose to pass (aka, turn the roll into a failure) by walking away, and take whatever narrative effects come their way for choosing not to buy/sell the item or stemming from Threat/Despair.