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

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

That's only true if haggling is something that's expected. I don't haggle with the Starbucks to buy a Latte. Or the sporting goods store to buy camping gear and firearms.

Of course. But that's in a very different society. In fact a process comparable to haggling goes on, but on a very different scale, with many millions of customers and many thousands of vendors contributing to it; and the market price is still a midpoint between the least the merchants will take and the most the consumers will pay, statistically rather than individually.

But we're looking at societies where haggling is a reasonable expectation. In that case, the "fair price" is the average or usual outcome of a long series of haggles between different people.

Bill Stoddard

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Of course. But that's in a very different society.

Yes, so the fastest way is to say "in this society there isn't much haggling". Done.

But we're looking at societies where haggling is a reasonable expectation. In that case, the "fair price" is the average or usual outcome of a long series of haggles between different people.

Sure, and I don't see a problem with assuming a Neutral reaction for transactions that aren't dramatically important. Most goods are going to be at those prices, after all. The reaction rules are meant to be used to make encounters with NPCs that don't already have set reactions interesting. The GM can just say "you can buy and sell at fair prices" and be done.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Sure, and I don't see a problem with assuming a Neutral reaction for transactions that aren't dramatically important. Most goods are going to be at those prices, after all. The reaction rules are meant to be used to make encounters with NPCs that don't already have set reactions interesting. The GM can just say "you can buy and sell at fair prices" and be done.

I don't see a problem, either, and didn't mean to suggest that there is one. My point was rather to explain why the listed price and the fair price are the same and can be taken to be the usual outcome of not bothering with haggling rolls. (It isn't as if products actually had a True or Just Price decreed for them in heaven, or as if gold were the true material embodiment of Value. Those are results of complex evolutionary processes. It's just that for gaming purposes it's convenient to pretend that there is a True Price.)

Note, by the way, that RAW is that if you just do a search through a city, you have a chance of finding a merchant who will sell to you, and that a successful search defaults to a Neutral or Good reaction, that is, to fair prices. So it's not even necessary to roleplay asking "how much?"

Bill Stoddard

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't see a problem, either, and didn't mean to suggest that there is one. My point was rather to explain why the listed price and the fair price are the same and can be taken to be the usual outcome of not bothering with haggling rolls. (It isn't as if products actually had a True or Just Price decreed for them in heaven, or as if gold were the true material embodiment of Value. Those are results of complex evolutionary processes. It's just that for gaming purposes it's convenient to pretend that there is a True Price.)

Yes, which is why I said that it's the same as just assuming a Neutral reaction.

Ah, I think we did that thing where I quoted you because I was in agreement, but you interpreted it as disagreement.

Note, by the way, that RAW is that if you just do a search through a city, you have a chance of finding a merchant who will sell to you, and that a successful search defaults to a Neutral or Good reaction, that is, to fair prices. So it's not even necessary to roleplay asking "how much?"

Yes, exactly.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yes, which is why I said that it's the same as just assuming a Neutral reaction.

Ah, I think we did that thing where I quoted you because I was in agreement, but you interpreted it as disagreement.

Actually, I didn't think that you were in disagreement. I figured you were agreeing with me. I was just amplifying the logic a bit, as a matter of general interest, and partly because I wasn't sure how clear it was to the OP.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Oh, so the very chance to use Reaction Rolls to modify price is considered as something unusual, even for characters who have significant Reaction Modifiers. I didn't see it that way. Now I wonder if this is so in all societies, or only in some. Probably in some.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Oh, so the very chance to use Reaction Rolls to modify price is considered as something unusual, even for characters who have significant Reaction Modifiers. I didn't see it that way. Now I wonder if this is so in all societies, or only in some. Probably in some.

"Unusual" isn't the issue. The issue is more that GURPS mechanics doesn't require you to play out the business of merchant reaction rolls if you don't choose to. Those are there for fun; if you just want to get in, buy your new sword, and get out, you can.

Do I want to roleplay my acquisition of a widget?
No: Use the Search process to find a widget dealer; get a Neutral reaction; pay the fair price. Done.
Yes:
Am I in the widget trade?
Yes: Use the alternate haggling rules to get the price up or down a bit. Done.
No:
Do I accept paying a price in between my offer and the merchant's asking price?
No: Use the offer/counteroffer mechanic. Done.
Yes:
Do I want to roleplay the hagglng at length?
No: Use the offer/counteroffer mechanic. Done.
Yes: Use the extended haggling rules. Done.

It's partly a question of how the character approaches it, with the proviso that in some societies, for some transactions, haggling is near mandatory, and in others, it's unheard of. But it's partly a question of what the player wants to roleplay. Some players like roleplaying long bargaining sessions for small gains; some players want to get into the dungeon and kill stuff. You're perfectly free to assume that all that haggling is going on, and that your Search roll led to a long haggling session, but that you're going to end up at the fair price so you just pay that and move on.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Okay, so about the sort of system that I would look forward to for trade. I'd prefer a table that has entries for Price The Merchant Offers, Price The Merchant Will Accept Without A Roll, and Price That Can Be Used To Start The Advanced Haggling Process Without Being Sent Away For A Silly Price.
The latter is quite important because (a) it seems extremely unlikely that the latter price is achieved in practice as a result of advanced haggling and (b) there should be some limits about where the starting price is in such a process. The assumption is that the merchant will start from price #1 if advanced haggling ensues.

So the table would be something like this:
Disastrous: No sell, bad stuff etc.

Very Bad:
When selling: 300%/150%/100%; when buying: 33% / 66% / 100%

Bad:
selling: 200% / 100% / 95%; buying: 50% / 100% / 105%

Poor:
selling: 120% / 100% / 90%; buying: 75% / 100% / 110%.

Neutral:
if haggly, selling 110% / 100% / 90%; buying 90% / 100% / 110%
otherwise all 100%

Good:
if haggly, selling 105% / 95% / 85%; buying 95% / 105% / 115%
else all 100%

Very Good:
When selling: 100% / 80% / 60%; buying: 100% / 150% / 175%

Excellent:
When selling: 100% / 50% / 25%; buying: 100% / 200% / 300%.

-----------------

Precise numbers subject to discussion, of course. But the lack of a third number for acceptable starting bounds of Advanced Haggling are a problem, it seems.