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

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

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

I'm hoping to clear up my confusion with Basic Set before I move forward to Social Engineering. I tried to before, but the rules feel counterintuitive to me, so I'm trying again. I do look forward to getting to SE rules eventually.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm hoping to clear up my confusion with Basic Set before I move forward to Social Engineering. I tried to before, but the rules feel counterintuitive to me, so I'm trying again. I do look forward to getting to SE rules eventually.

Well, SE was trying to do the same thing you're trying to do, actually. . . .

Bill Stoddard

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, SE was trying to do the same thing you're trying to do, actually. . . .

Bill Stoddard

Yes... but as something some of us don't have access to when discussing something born purely out of the Basic Set, that still implies some need for clarification with the original text.

Doesn't it? >.>

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Yes... but as something some of us don't have access to when discussing something born purely out of the Basic Set, that still implies some need for clarification with the original text.

It seems to be still available for download, and even at a discounted price. I do understand that even inexpensive purchases may be financially constrained, though.

Clarifying the Basic Set is one of the things I set out to do in SE. So I agree with the need but I think you might also be reinventing the wheel. Remember, hours of original research can save you minutes in the library. . . .

Bill Stoddard

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Yes... but as something some of us don't have access to when discussing something born purely out of the Basic Set, that still implies some need for clarification with the original text.

Doesn't it? >.>

The clarification of lots of stuff in the Basic Set is really in supplementary materials; especially in Powers, Martial Arts, and Social Engineering (which are really all of the same kind of rulebook).

You can say the same thing about "Why does Off-Hand Weapon Training cost as much as Ambidexterity?", or "How does an ordinary person ever hit with a punch?" or "What does Power Talent add to when I use various specific abilities?", or "Can I take Affliction 1 (Invisibility) and turn the entire Earth invisible if it fails a HT roll?" or "How do I make the ability to create illusions"?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, SE was trying to do the same thing you're trying to do, actually. . . .

Bill Stoddard

Taking a look at SE26-27, let's see if I can get the way I should be doing it with the Basic rules (not the SE-expanded rules). Assuming that SE26-27 is actually a clarification of Basic Rules, and not an add-on which involves new crunch:

1. Assume PC asks the price of an item s/he wants to buy.
2. Roll Reaction. Let's say it's Very Good, which lists

Originally Posted by B561

The merchant accepts the PCs’ offer unless they tried to buy below 80% of the fair price or sell above 150% of the fair price.

. That does not seem helpful. Conversely,

Originally Posted by SE75

The merchant asks the fair price,
accepts any offer of at least 80% of the fair price. When buying:
He offers the fair price, agrees to pay up to 150% of the fair
price. He also offers help and advice.

Notice that SE27 refers to the Expanded Reaction Results, which lists the initial price offered - something not found on B561.
3. The PC makes a counteroffer, it has to fit into the same Reaction Result. So a counteroffer of down to 80% is acceptable.

----
Alternately:
1. Assume the PC wants to buy an item at 80% fair price.
2. The PC takes -2 on the Reaction Roll for offering a price 20% worse than fair. Assuming the same roll as above, 16-2 = 14, or Good.

Originally Posted by B561

The merchant buys and
sells at fair prices

Apparently the merchant will thus refuse to sell the item at 80%, since that's less than fair price. But

Originally Posted by SE75

The merchant buys and sells at fair prices. * In a society where haggling is routine, a merchant will
ask 110% of the fair price, accept 90%

Hmm, still no sell, as 80% is not within the 90-110 bracket.

====

That seems rather counterintuitive. Surely I'm reading the clarification wrong if I get significantly different results based on whether the PC asks what the price is and makes a counteroffer, or offers a price while hoping to achieve the same result.

Also, this procedure doesn't seem to be identical to the procedure on B562 quoted earlier - it looks like an alternate rule to me, not a clarification. Maybe I'm reading it wrong too.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The clarification of lots of stuff in the Basic Set is really in supplementary materials; especially in Powers, Martial Arts, and Social Engineering (which are really all of the same kind of rulebook).

You can say the same thing about "Why does Off-Hand Weapon Training cost as much as Ambidexterity?", or "How does an ordinary person ever hit with a punch?" or "What does Power Talent add to when I use various specific abilities?", or "Can I take Affliction 1 (Invisibility) and turn the entire Earth invisible if it fails a HT roll?" or "How do I make the ability to create illusions"?

Your presuppose that I don't subscribe to those notions, however in this case I thought the constraints on the line of thought were self-evident. When the rules are unclear to the point where users of the system struggle to make sense of them, that is where you get into errata territory. When its just clarifying or streamlining the rules, that is where we get into supplemental territory.

In this case, RAW seem garbled. Not just unclear, but potentially nonsensical. Of course it could just be a matter of reading comprehension, in which case it boils down to whether or not those (like myself) struggling to understand are noticeably under performing.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Taking a look at SE26-27, let's see if I can get the way I should be doing it with the Basic rules (not the SE-expanded rules). Assuming that SE26-27 is actually a clarification of Basic Rules, and not an add-on which involves new crunch:

1. Assume PC asks the price of an item s/he wants to buy.
2. Roll Reaction. Let's say it's Very Good, which lists
. That does not seem helpful. Conversely,
Notice that SE27 refers to the Expanded Reaction Results, which lists the initial price offered - something not found on B561.
3. The PC makes a counteroffer, it has to fit into the same Reaction Result. So a counteroffer of down to 80% is acceptable.

----
Alternately:
1. Assume the PC wants to buy an item at 80% fair price.
2. The PC takes -2 on the Reaction Roll for offering a price 20% worse than fair. Assuming the same roll as above, 16-2 = 14, or Good.
Apparently the merchant will thus refuse to sell the item at 80%, since that's less than fair price. But
Hmm, still no sell, as 80% is not within the 90-110 bracket.

====

That seems rather counterintuitive. Surely I'm reading the clarification wrong if I get significantly different results based on whether the PC asks what the price is and makes a counteroffer, or offers a price while hoping to achieve the same result.

Also, this procedure doesn't seem to be identical to the procedure on B562 quoted earlier - it looks like an alternate rule to me, not a clarification. Maybe I'm reading it wrong too.

Well, I don't think I can clarify all of this at this moment, but it seems to me you're treating distinct cases as if they were all meant to be done together. So naturally it seems contradictory.

At the end, you talk about the rule with 90% or 110% of fair price. That rule is not intended for the usual kind of bargaining that PCs engage in on a one-time basis. It's for two merchants who do business repeatedly and who are bargaining over commodities both of them are familiar with. There's not a big margin of variation there; they know approximately what the product is usually worth and they're trying to get a slightly better deal on one side or the other.

The other stuff is for merchants dealing with PCs. But note that the table in the Basic Set sometimes talks about what the merchant will ask or offer, and other times talks about what proposal from the PCs the merchant will accept for a buying or selling price. But in fact all four of those questions could arise for any level of merchant reaction that doesn't just preclude any transaction entirely! So in SE I filled it out to cover all four options for every rolled reaction—generally with "100% of fair price" when not specified.

I hope that does a little to make things clearer.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, I don't think I can clarify all of this at this moment, but it seems to me you're treating distinct cases as if they were all meant to be done together. So naturally it seems contradictory.

I'm comparing two ways in which 'short' trading of a non-predefined price can go.

Originally Posted by whswhs

At the end, you talk about the rule with 90% or 110% of fair price. That rule is not intended for the usual kind of bargaining that PCs engage in on a one-time basis. It's for two merchants who do business repeatedly and who are bargaining over commodities both of them are familiar with. There's not a big margin of variation there; they know approximately what the product is usually worth and they're trying to get a slightly better deal on one side or the other.

Okay, so it's even not supposed to be used? If so, the issue still comes up with the offer being too low that I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by whswhs

The other stuff is for merchants dealing with PCs. But note that the table in the Basic Set sometimes talks about what the merchant will ask or offer, and other times talks about what proposal from the PCs the merchant will accept for a buying or selling price. But in fact all four of those questions could arise for any level of merchant reaction that doesn't just preclude any transaction entirely! So in SE I filled it out to cover all four options for every rolled reaction—generally with "100% of fair price" when not specified.

Well, the extras in SE are definitely a good thing to add eventually, but I'd like to first figure how to work with Basic stuff before moving on to SE.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I hope that does a little to make things clearer.

Maybe a little. E.g. I'm still very puzzled regarding the discrepancy I found earlier.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Okay, so it's even not supposed to be used? If so, the issue still comes up with the offer being too low that I mentioned above.

Of course it's supposed to be used. If you're playing a merchant, and you have a scene where you look in on another merchant, you can use it to model the haggling that decides who gets more of the gains from trade. A realistically characterized merchant would probably care passionately about that.

But it's not supposed to be used when Joe Adventurer takes his loot to the fence or the pawnshop or the antiquities merchant.

Bill Stoddard