Re: Social Engineering: Haggling - Broken?
 

I'm not saying that any given rule is or isn't in need of clarification, but . . . Please do not attribute to the medium what is, if it's an issue at all, an issue with the message. The rules of late are mostly in PDF because that's how we publish of late. Were we publishing on paper, the exact same rules would be there on the page, staring you in the face. Our PDF production values are as high as our paper production values – any difference is in your head. The only meaningful difference is that when we find errata in a PDF, we can submit them at once and get an updated PDF in weeks to months, which will then be free for all buyers to download. Whereas when we find errata in a printed book, the wait on a reprint is years to forever, and the reprint will cost you money.

Re: Social Engineering: Haggling - Broken?
 

We have seen FAQs and Errata and lots of posts questioning various rules for both printed and PDF. Just from the last few days on the forums we have confusion over slams, grappling and concentration, diffuse and restraint or being grappled and those are from the Basic Set.

Sometimes the rule is complex or just the wording seems clear to the author but winds up being read differently by various people. Examples help by clarifying and showing the intent of the rule.
I often benefit from the examples and appreciate them.
GURPS is very complex and rules often have to take into account a wide variety of possibilities. I wish more things would make it into the official FAQ and there have been times when many of us have wished we were in a playtest to call someone to explain a rule more clearly before it is printed.
But having been in one playtest and written documents for users I can see the conflict between word count and different readers and styles of understanding.

Re: Social Engineering: Haggling - Broken?
 

First, I agree that the way the haggling rules work, you move toward a middle between the two offers; one's offer must go up for the other's offer to go down (or vice-versa). That part of the rules is fine.

However, even your example used reasonable values in the offers. An item of $1,000, the merchant asking $1,100, accepting $900 (well $800, but it should have been $900 for a reaction table result), and the PC buyer offering $500. The problem comes when the NPC makes the first offer, then the PC make a "ridiculous" counter-offer, regardless of which way they want to go.

Say that, instead of starting their offer at $500, they started with $0 ("why not just give it to us because we need it really badly.") That's a $1,100 difference between the offers. Using your stats in the quote, that means that the merchant is likely to reduce his offer by ($1,100/2.4 =) $458, which means that he'll lower his offer down to ($1,100 - $458 =) $642... which goes below his "maximum" offer (or in this case minimum, as he's selling), so the merchant will most likely sell at $900. It's therefore easy for the PC to get the optimal selling price according to the merchant's initial reaction roll.

It would be even weirder going the other way with the merchant buying, offering $900 and not willing to go over $1,100. The PC counter his initial offer with a $5,000 ask.. a difference of ($5,000 - $900 =) $4,100. The merchant's next counter-offer, without even making a roll, is 10% of that ($410) or 20% of the fair value ($200). Either way, he's now reached his maximum value of $1,100... without a single roll required.

From what I can tell, the rules work more or less fine when the PC make the first offer, as then the +/-1 edit: to the reaction roll per +/-10% of fair price kicks in, and the PC risk getting a disastrous result in which the merchant refuses to deal with them if they go overboard. But when they let the merchant give the first offer, and then the PC make a counter-offer, there is no new reaction roll, so any ridiculous offer can be brought to bear, and this will give the PC all the maneuvering room they could possibly need to get the best result according to the initial reaction roll.

At least, that's how it appears to me, unless I'm missing something... For example, there are some lines on p.27 I'm not to sure as to what they mean:

"If they make a counteroffer, refer to Commercial Transaction Results to find out if it’s acceptable to the seller, based on the same reaction roll."

and

"If the seller refuses an offer or counteroffer from the PCs, the transaction doesn’t take place.

Does this mean that the PC's first offer must fall within the merchant's acceptable margin of his initial reaction roll? If so, that seems odd, as then they'll never be able to negotiate him his maximum limit through haggling. And Step 3 of the haggling process indicates you can go outside the limit with your offers, but the merchant just won't accept them and draw the line at his minimum/maximum value.

Thus, we fall back to a statement made by someone else earlier in the thread: how do you determine where the merchant draws the line for a ludicrous counter-offer?

EDIT: My proposed solution: Determine what modifier the PC's offer would have using +/-1 per +/-10% of fair price and add that modifier to the initial reaction roll solely for the purpose of seeing if that would modify the reaction to disastrous where the merchant would no longer deal with them. If it does, the dealings stop. If not, continue with haggling as per normal, still using the original reaction roll without the modifier. And perhaps add the modifier for each new counteroffer to the PC's skill roll for haggling as well, making the merchant more likely to lock in his price.

Re: Social Engineering: Haggling - Broken?
 

Um isn't every merchant's manner of calculating margins unique? I understand that systems abstract such interactions to simplicity, but If it gets too complex it might take up too much time relative to the amount of interactions over the course of a session.

To the GM the number of Haggling instances should be put in perspective, relative to the overall activity of the game. if the calculation of the Haggling (the opportunity to One-up someone without combat) is a great source of influence of satisfaction over time of the game, then it would be best to use a simpler system thus creating more opportunities and greater overall utility for the game.

Re: Social Engineering: Haggling - Broken?
 

Actually, no. It's 20% of his initial price. His initial price was $900, and 20% of that is $180. So he goes to $1,080, not $1,100.

That does seem to be a lacuna in the transition between the initial rolls and the haggling phase.

I agree that a criterion is needed, but I think that one may be too generous, and perhaps a little too complex to figure in play.

Reviewing the commercial transactions reaction rolls, I see that the very best reaction roll possible results in the merchant being willing to sell for a minimum of 50% of the fair price, or to buy for 200% of the fair price. That might be a reasonable place to draw the line of "you're not serious."

Bill Stoddard

Re: Social Engineering: Haggling - Broken?
 

Then let me clarify...

I don't consider that the PDF's are substandard because they are PDF's in and of themselves. I used the terminology that I did, because I consider it as an "era" boundary if you will. A description of a point in time relative to the whole existence of GURPS production.

Re: Social Engineering: Haggling - Broken?
 

Your memory of the past is creating a golden age that never existed. I had to deal in a small way with previous art, and 3/e books were written with much less care for consistency. If you look at Compendium 1, you will see a lot of close duplication of traits, such as the multiple "resist fear" traits, and you will see overly narrow traits, such as the two different skills for starting fires (both of which are folded into Survival in 4/e). And there were entire domains with no standardization, such as earnings, prices, and costs of living for Status levels. Beyond that, there was no shortage of overcomplex and poorly tested game mechanics introduced in individual supplements. All that was part of the reason that 4/e went through.

With 4/e, SJ Games went to trying for a much higher level of internal consistency. As a result, the shortfalls are more apparent. Nonetheless, a lot of effort is made, as I can tell you from many exchanges with Kromm and PK during the writing of my books.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Social Engineering: Haggling - Broken?
 

We still hire good writers, mostly experienced ones (mostly the same ones); we still run playtests, often longer ones alongside peer reviews, thanks to the absence of a printer deadline; and we still use experienced editors (ask RPK how long he had to do lesser tasks until I assigned him a full edit). There has been no turn for the worse in content quality. The real change is that we're now in the "web forums era," when what would have been a private errata report in 1992 or 2002 is posted for lengthy open dissection. This increases the perception that more rules aren't "cear cut," but the reality is that our standards for rules writing have remained level or even improved.

I've played GURPS since 1986, and I recall plenty of confusing rules before we had web forums or even Pyramid forums . . . so I was confused in private, and my only option was to write to Roleplayer and hope that my letter got picked. Today I'd come here and discuss it, which allows dozens of times more rules issues to enter public view. It doesn't follow that there are dozens of times more rules issues. If anything, I'd assert that discussion here puts pressure on us to commit fewer gaffes.

It's similar to the difference between murder rate and reported murders: The rate is down, but you hear about the crime more often thanks to modern media and reporting styles. Ergo, the situation might seem worse even though it's better. This is a well-known paradox of digital media in general (and by this I mean "web forums" more so than "PDFs").

Speaking as a rules writer and developer, I can only agree with this. I spent a boatload of time condensing GURPS Third Edition to the original GURPS Lite, distilling GURPS Third Edition content for GURPS Compendium I and II, and ultimately revamping GURPS Third Edition to GURPS Fourth Edition. Coming from the background I have – an academic one in the physical sciences – I have significant training in organizing information and making systems mathematically consistent. It's my opinion, after all my GURPS work, that the "golden age" wasn't . . . it was simply perceived as such because there were more printed books for people who like such things. In absolute terms, GURPS has without a doubt become more organized and consistent with time.

Re: Social Engineering: Haggling - Broken?
 

A glance at the errata suggests an overall improvement over time. The 4e Basic Set volumes have a handful of errata items per printing, typically less than a screen-full on my monitor (yes, scientific measurement, isn't it?). The 3rd edition Basic Set doesn't get to that level until the third printing of the revised edition, which is essentially the 8th incarnation of that book. The Compendia also took multiple printings to get to the same level of errata that 4e's Basic started out with, if they ever got there at all. Now, this doesn't directly address Hal's specific concern about rules clarity (a book can be errata-free but still badly written), but it does tend to confirm that whatever QA processes are in place have been tightening up over time. I agree that the immediacy of the web and the communities it enables magnifies the appearance of issues rather than the issues themselves.

Re: Social Engineering: Haggling - Broken?
 

That is simpler, but does give a very good margin for leeway for more neutral reactions (i.e., you start at 50% or 200% and have all that room to haggle to the best offer of 90%/110%), and leaves no room to capitalize for the best reactions as you start at the merchant's best possible offer and must go down from there when haggling.

Perhaps doubling the merchant's limit for his offer based on current reaction might work:

EDIT: Bold text below edited in after initial post for clarification

- With a Neutral Reaction, the merchant will go to +/-10% as his best offer values, so he's not in the mood to entertain any haggling offer more than (2 x +/-10% =) +/-20% of fair price since you're just another customer.

- With a Very Good Reaction, he's willing to go for 80% (i.e., -20%) so he won't entertain any offer less than 60% (i.e., (2 x -20% =) -40%), or, when buying, he's willing to go to 150% (i.e., +50%) so he won't entertain any offer more than 200% (i.e., +100%). He's willing to entertain such offers because he likes you.

- With a Bad Reaction, he's willing to go fair price, or 100% (i.e., +/-0% to fair price); you need to start your offer at (2 x +/-0% = +/-0%, or) fair price to even get his attention to haggle. Seems unfair, but then again, you got an initial Bad Reaction from the merchant.

This proposed method allows you to negotiate to the merchant's limit, and varies the acceptable amounts based on the initial Reaction, which seemed to be implied in Social Engineering.