Merchant / Haggling: Clarification/cleanup of current rules vs remaking from scratch?

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

I remember a thread for the haggling rules in Social Engineering, where some people argued that the rules occasionally produce dubious results. I don't remember all of it, and am not sure if the proposed solutions fixed the weaknesses of the system. I find the mechanics somewhat overcomplicated.

I also once started a thread on Basic Set haggling rules, as I'm very unsure whether I understand them properly. IIRC there wasn't much in the way of clarification.

----

That being said, I'm asking: do you, forumites, find the two haggling systems convenient and sensible? If not, are there any house-rule alternatives that are simpler / less prone to anomalous results that have been mentioned in the earlier discussions?

Thanks in advance!

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I also once started a thread on Basic Set haggling rules, as I'm very unsure whether I understand them properly. IIRC there wasn't much in the way of clarification.

What's to understand? "When two merchants haggle, the GM may settle it with a Quick Contest [of Merchant skill]. The winner adds or subtracts 10% of fair value, depending on whether he was trying to sell or buy." The GM starts with his estimation of fair value, the Contest is rolled, and the winner pushes the price 10% in his favor. If both parties agree to this price, the transaction takes place, otherwise it does not.

Personally, I'd rather use a Regular Contest for haggling; it's always depicted as being somewhat lengthy.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

What's to understand? "When two merchants haggle, the GM may settle it with a Quick Contest [of Merchant skill]. The winner adds or subtracts 10% of fair value, depending on whether he was trying to sell or buy." The GM starts with his estimation of fair value, the Contest is rolled, and the winner pushes the price 10% in his favor. If both parties agree to this price, the transaction takes place, otherwise it does not.

Personally, I'd rather use a Regular Contest for haggling; it's always depicted as being somewhat lengthy.

Generally the way it interacts with this seems to risk having different different results depending on what happens in what order / who starts the trade:

Originally Posted by B562 (but section starts on B560)

Commercial
Transactions
Roll when the PCs try to buy or sell
goods, find a job, or hire someone. If
no bargaining is involved, no roll is
necessary – unless there is a chance
that the merchant won’t deal with the
PCs at all.
As used below, “fair price” means
the normal price, at that particular
time and place, for the goods or serv-
ices in question. The PCs can try to get
a better price, at a -1 penalty for every
10% difference. Likewise, offering
more than the fair price,
or asking less than the
fair price, will give a +1
bonus for every 10%
difference.
If the players vary
their offer, determine
the NPC’s counteroffer
based on the proposed
price instead of the
fair price, if that is less
favorable to the PCs.
Example: If they ask
120% of the fair price
and get a “Bad” reac-
tion, the NPC will
offer half of that, or
50%.
Bargaining never
reduces the price
below 50% of “fair”
unless the NPC has
an ulterior motive!
Special Modifiers
for Transactions
-1 per 10% by which proposed
price favors the PC, relative to the fair
price.
+1 per 10% by which proposed
price favors the NPC.
+1 if the PC has Merchant skill at
any level.
+2 if the PC has Merchant skill at
level 20+.

'If they ask 120% of the fair price and get a “Bad” reaction, the NPC will offer half of that, or 50%' is particularly ambiguous: 'half of that' is very clearly not the same thing as '50%'. If the intent was to mean 'half of that, i.e. 120%/2 = 60%', then this results in some strange uses of multiplication and optimisation, such as asking 100% and hoping for a Very Good Reaction (which lists 'accepts up to 150%') . . .

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That being said, I'm asking: do you, forumites, find the two haggling systems convenient and sensible? If not, are there any house-rule alternatives that are simpler / less prone to anomalous results that have been mentioned in the earlier discussions?

Are you aware of the "Haggleability Category" concept that I employ in Sagatafl (and which I've no doubt mentioned in previous threads on this subject)?

If you're not, then I'll be happy to share it in this thread - it's quite brief.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Are you aware of the "Haggleability Category" concept that I employ in Sagatafl (and which I've no doubt mentioned in previous threads on this subject)?

If you're not, then I'll be happy to share it in this thread - it's quite brief.

Vaguely familiar; IIRC it's also touched upon in some of the Low-Tech Pyramid articles. But I'd rather stick for the basics first, and start working with categories later.

[Otaku]

Wow... I am really confused after reading that.

Is that page citation correct? Or am I just misunderstanding it (or rather, have been misusing it this whole time). I thought "B" meant "Basic Set", so B650 would be Basic Set Campaigns p. 560. Looking at that page, its mostly the Reaction Table with very little underneath it, and I'm not seeing that the cited text. So... where should I be looking? ^^'

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Wow... I am really confused after reading that.

Is that page citation correct? Or am I just misunderstanding it (or rather, have been misusing it this whole time). I thought "B" meant "Basic Set", so B650 would be Basic Set Campaigns p. 560. Looking at that page, its mostly the Reaction Table with very little underneath it, and I'm not seeing that the cited text. So... where should I be looking? ^^'

That quote appears to actually be at the start of page 562.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Wow... I am really confused after reading that.

Is that page citation correct? Or am I just misunderstanding it (or rather, have been misusing it this whole time). I thought "B" meant "Basic Set", so B650 would be Basic Set Campaigns p. 560. Looking at that page, its mostly the Reaction Table with very little underneath it, and I'm not seeing that the cited text. So... where should I be looking? ^^'

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That quote appears to actually be at the start of page 562.

Yes, the precise quote is from B562, though the relevant section (Reaction Table) starts on B560.

[Stormcrow]

The rules for commercial transaction reactions appear to assume that the PCs start off by proposing a price, and the NPC reacts. If the NPC were to open with a price, the reaction roll would, at best, be a general reaction roll based on the PCs' looks and behavior.

"If the players vary their offer, determine the NPC’s counteroffer based on the proposed price instead of the fair price, if that is less favorable to the PCs." Look at the proposed price and the fair price. Whichever is less favorable to the PCs, apply the NPC reaction to that one.

"If they ask 120% of the fair price and get a “Bad” reaction, the NPC will offer half of that, or 50%." In this case the PCs are selling to the NPC. The NPC rolled a Bad reaction, which calls for the NPC to be willing to pay only half price. Because the PCs are selling, 100% is less favorable to them, so we continue to use fair price in the reaction, so the NPC will only pay half 100%, or 50%. The "that" must refer to "fair price."

"If the players vary their offer..." I think this means if the players open with an offer that isn't 100% of fair price. Since the rule has you comparing fair price with proposed price, it obviously won't come into play if the two are the same.

It seems odd to have an example that doesn't demonstrate the rule because it fails the test built into the rule.

Clearly, all of this has nothing to do with the rule on p. B209. Perhaps the latter is a leftover from an earlier edition? I don't have my books handy to check. One thing I note, however, is that the method using reaction rolls doesn't account for the merchant's skill at all.

I think I'd do this: for quick resolution where you're not too concerned about the price, use the Quick Contest method. When you're most interested in pitting the NPC's skill against the PC's skill, use a Regular Contest with the same ±10% adjustment. When you care most about what price you get, use the reaction method.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

The rules for commercial transaction reactions appear to assume that the PCs start off by proposing a price, and the NPC reacts. If the NPC were to open with a price, the reaction roll would, at best, be a general reaction roll based on the PCs' looks and behavior.

Are you guys looking at Social Engineering? In fact it does discuss both of those options and how to apply the long form rules in either case.

Bill Stoddard