How to do commercial transactions with smart players

[(E)]

Another thing to keep in mind is Fair Price and what is it worth to me (the merchant) are two different things.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by (E)

Another thing to keep in mind is Fair Price and what is it worth to me (the merchant) are two different things.

I think that shortages, surplus, and what not is just an explanation for extreme results. The whole point of having a system for this is so you don't need a detailed supply and demand model for every possible thing to buy.

[(E)]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I think that shortages, surplus, and what not is just an explanation for extreme results. The whole point of having a system for this is so you don't need a detailed supply and demand model for every possible thing to buy.

While that is definately true, as a GM I'll throw in a few complications to break up the reliance on an existing game mechanic that is being exploited. Like "sorry but the burdens that will be put upon me as a poor shopkeeper by the expected draconian second hand armour regulations mean that I can't offer you ...."

[GWJ]

If the players are always going to get the Poleaxe at the book price, anyway, why spend time on rolling reaction rolls, merchant rolls, and the likes

to make his life harder because of reaction penalties ;) or easier because of reaction bonuses

[AlexanderHowl]

I generally have a Reaction Roll before the first offer, which represents the initial position of the merchant. If the PC offers below the amount of the initial position, then the Merchant refuses to sell. If the PC offers above the amount of the initial position, then the Merchant agrees to the price offered by the PC. I then I have allow a Merchant roll represent haggling, which adjusts the price by 10% in favor of the winning party (a PC can walk away without buying after losing the Merchant roll, but they will suffer a cumulative -2 Reaction roll and Merchant roll with that same merchant during the following week for wasting the merchant's time).

[Tinman]

Originally Posted by GWJ

to make his life harder because of reaction penalties ;) or easier because of reaction bonuses

You may want to look at the buying & selling rules in Dungeon Fantasy then.
There are +/-'s for reaction rolls, merchant skill & wealth level. Best of all they are very simple, too. See DF-2 p.14-15

[Ashtagon]

No specific rules here (because away from books), but my general design philosophy:

In non-negotiable price contexts, players buy at the list price, and haggling rules are essentially ignored. This should be required in contexts where haggling is not acceptable, such as modern retail outlets. Specific retail outlerts may have higher or lower prices, and an appropriate skill check to establish local knowledge might be able to locate a less expensive vendor.

If the player wants to haggle for something that is not normally a haggleable item, an appropriate local knowledge skill check might be able to find a vendor who is open to negotiating the price.

In contexts where prices are negotiable (pseudo-mediaeval-Near-Eastern street markets, modern house purchases, etc.), players could declare from the outset that they don't want to use the haggle rules, and just aim for list prices. In such cases, appropriate social skills may give a fixed modifier to the list price. The party may decide that their most charismatic character buys for everyone using his modifiers. And that's fine, as long as time spend shopping is accounted for properly.

If a player wants to engage in haggling, each offer after the first must be matched with a role-played observation of a defect (real or imagined) with the item being purchased. If real, an appropriate skill check to see that flaw must be made, and if imagined, an appropriate skill check to lie about that flaw. Such flaws can be trivial and not affect the functionality of the item, but they count. Additionally, each offer after the first should impose a cumulative penalty on their merchant skill checks to get the offer accepted.

Getting a reputation for miserly negotiating over petty items can grant them a bad reputation if done often enough.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Ransom

If the NPC is supposed to be a competent merchant, I'd let him spot the pattern and not just accept the offer once it hits $120. I'd let him keep going on to $130, $140, etc, and only think about whether to accept the offer once he stopped hopping his offer up by predictable increments. Sure the merchant would be willing to settle for $120, but the player is telegraphing that there is easy money to be made by holding out a bit longer.

You think it's a safe bet that the potential buyer doesn't simply say 'okay, never mind then' when the seller rejects their highest acceptable offer?

If the bidder is approaching this competently they're not being too obvious about telegraphing which of their offers are prices they don't realistically expect to get.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Ransom

Exactly - they need to be more subtle than repeatedly increasing their offer by $10 increments. The buyer's threat to leave becomes less credible each time they increase their offer, and the seller won't accept an offer unless A) the offer is above their minimum acceptable price and B) the buyer has made a credible threat to leave if their offer is not accepted. It's part B where the seller has leverage against the tactic the player is using here.

There's no reason that increasing your offer by consistent 10$ increments undermines your credibility more than any other increase unless you're claiming your latest bid is literally all the money you have on hand. Perhaps barring some particular cultural assumptions that we evidently don't have in common? (Cultural Familiarity is, of course, a factor on both sides.)

Also, once you've made a second bid further bids don't really reduce the credibility of your threat to leave. Unless you're foolish enough to get caught up in the process like Daffy Duck insisting it's duck season, each further offer is more likely to really be your last, not less likely.

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Unless you're foolish enough to get caught up in the process like Daffy Duck insisting it's duck season, each further offer is more likely to really be your last, not less likely.

What this ignores is that the seller has a limited quantity item and the buyer (usually) has money. The buyer is looking for a specific tool or item that is needed for a purpose, whereas the seller is looking for liquid asset. If the buyer is sticking around for multiple raises on bids, then the seller can start reducing the amount they’re willing to decrement the price each bid, possibly to a limit far higher than the price the buyer was thinking he could haggle to.
As a craft hobbiest, I’ve seen a lot of haggling and heard rules for haggling on the seller-side. One of the rules is to ignore ridiculously low offers. Don’t even start haggling with someone if they offer you an amount where you can’t make a profit on material+labor (or just material if you’re happy as a mere hobbiest, but prepare to earn the ire of the craftsmen you undercut). For modern people, that often means sellers have to tell buyers their expectations are off (factory machined and underpaid labor versus local hand-crafted labor costs, as well as cheap metals/wood versus better quality materials).
A particularly offended but devious fantasy craftsman might direct cheapskate buyers to a poor-quality craftsman elsewhere “If it’s a bargain you’re looking for, Bewzker the One-Eyed sells his mistakes for considerable discount.” while thinking “I would never subject my customers to the dangers of using broken tools, so I destroy my mistakes.”