ADVENTURER’S LUCK question

[Grimace]

To explain what I was discussing earlier, let's look at an example with the Courtier in my Burnt Offerings game. (Yes you Eloise, pay attention. )

She just hit second level, and the important numbers for this exercise are:

Haggle: +4 (2 ranks, +2 Wisdom)
Impress: +10 (5 ranks, +3 Charisma, +2 Insight)
Panache: 5
Appearance: +5 (+2 Panache, +1 Striking, +2 Only the Finest, +1 Grooming Case)

The Merchant has Haggle X and Competence III, or +12 and +2.

Eloise starts by talking to the Merchant to improve his Disposition (I'm assuming they both start at 0). This is an opposed check between her Impress and his Competence. Taking average rolls, she rolls a 25 (Rolled 10 + 10 +5) and he rolls a 12 (Rolled 10 + 2) for a difference of 13. She raises the merchant's disposition by 6. She then uses Charming to shift it up another 5. So his Disposition to her is now an 11.

Small talk aside, she settles down to Haggle. Using the same rolls, She rolls a 25 (10 + 4 + 11) and he rolls a 22 (10 + 12). Eloise succeeds by 3, netting a 10% discount or premium. More importantly though, as the scene ends the Merchant's Disposition settles at +6 Intrigued. So the next time she comes back to deal with him she gets another +6 to her Impress check.

Very nice example.

[Grimace]

BTW I got to thinking about the haggle skill and allowing those involved to back out, seems to defeat the purpose of haggling.

I'm thinking of not allowing this, using the roll as a you convince or were convinced that the new price is the best price you will get. 

Any suggestions on what would be the best way to handle this?

[Desertpuma]

Roll the merchant's dice behind a the GM screen for starters so the players do not know what you've rolled.

BTW, Krensky, very nice job on that.

[Sletchman]

BTW I got to thinking about the haggle skill and allowing those involved to back out, seems to defeat the purpose of haggling.

I'm thinking of not allowing this, using the roll as a you convince or were convinced that the new price is the best price you will get. 

Any suggestions on what would be the best way to handle this?

If your players are ok with it, I'd say do it just like that [results are what they sell for, no backing out].  As a former salesman, I've haggled people into buying stuff they didn't intend on buying many a time.

I'd just be sure to make sure they were aware these were the rules before it comes up in play, to avoid anyone calling BS.

Excellent example Krensky, shows those who don't realise what can be done, what can be done.

[Grimace]

BTW I got to thinking about the haggle skill and allowing those involved to back out, seems to defeat the purpose of haggling.

I'm thinking of not allowing this, using the roll as a you convince or were convinced that the new price is the best price you will get. 

Any suggestions on what would be the best way to handle this?

If your players are ok with it, I'd say do it just like that [results are what they sell for, no backing out].  As a former salesman, I've haggled people into buying stuff they didn't intend on buying many a time.

I'd just be sure to make sure they were aware these were the rules before it comes up in play, to avoid anyone calling BS.

Excellent example Krensky, shows those who don't realise what can be done, what can be done.

Yea I've already let them know no backing out. 

Perhaps I'll have the disposition of the NPC drop by the difference in the haggle rolls if a PC backs out.  This affects everything you do with the NPC and could result in being kicked out of the store.  Plus, depending on how bad the disposition gets the merchant may let his merchant friends know that the player is not trustworthy causing the disposition of that PC to fall to every merchant.

I'll have merchants never back out because it would hurt their reputation. 

[Desertpuma]

It just means that they raise their prices ... which is also a Campaign Quality that can be initiated in a game as well.

[Dhampire]

Appearance: +5 (+2 Panache, +1 Striking, +2 Only the Finest, +1 Grooming Case)

What, no Ceremonial Armor for an additional +1 to appearance?

[Krensky]

Appearance: +5 (+2 Panache, +1 Striking, +2 Only the Finest, +1 Grooming Case)

What, no Ceremonial Armor for an additional +1 to appearance?

Not really her style, I guess.

http://www.crafty-games.com/content/eloise-cartwright

[Grimace]

It just means that they raise their prices ... which is also a Campaign Quality that can be initiated in a game as well.

Yup there's that too.  But that's the last resort.

Here's a question.  I've been mostly having the Prudence % taken off before they can spend any cash, is that the right way to do it? 

Once they were actually in town at the completion of the final scene so, I allowed them to spend it before taking the hit.

[Mister Andersen]

To explain what I was discussing earlier, let's look at an example with the Courtier in my Burnt Offerings game. (Yes you Eloise, pay attention. )

Appearance: +5 (+2 Panache, +1 Striking, +2 Only the Finest, +1 Grooming Case)

Point of order: her appearance is actually +7 as there's a 2nd instance of Only the Finest in the group.

[Krensky]

To explain what I was discussing earlier, let's look at an example with the Courtier in my Burnt Offerings game. (Yes you Eloise, pay attention. )

Appearance: +5 (+2 Panache, +1 Striking, +2 Only the Finest, +1 Grooming Case)

Point of order: her appearance is actually +7 as there's a 2nd instance of Only the Finest in the group.

I was trying to keep things self contained.

[Mister Andersen]

I was trying to keep things self contained.

True, but it never hurts to mention favourable ability interactions, especially when they make you appear awesome 

Also worth noting a reminder that Appearance is an opposed quality; you only gain the benefit of the net difference between the two, and only then if yours is the higher value.

Here's a question.  I've been mostly having the Prudence % taken off before they can spend any cash, is that the right way to do it? 

Depends what you're after: if you want to keep your players perennially poor without seeing any significant financial benefit from the risking life and limb, then do it your way.

Personally, I apply it at the end of Downtime, which allows the players to enjoy the benefits of their efforts -- there is only a very finite limit on what they can convert that cash into all of which can be lost so very easily -- and has the added advantage of just being able to add any coin earned during downtime to whatever they've got on hand and doing a single calculation.

[Krensky]

I was trying to keep things self contained.

True, but it never hurts to mention favourable ability interactions, especially when they make you appear awesome 

Also worth noting a reminder that Appearance is an opposed quality; you only gain the benefit of the net difference between the two, and only then if yours is the higher value.

The NPC in question has no Appearance modifier.

Here's a question.  I've been mostly having the Prudence % taken off before they can spend any cash, is that the right way to do it? 

Depends what you're after: if you want to keep your players perennially poor without seeing any significant financial benefit from the risking life and limb, then do it your way.

Personally, I apply it at the end of Downtime, which allows the players to enjoy the benefits of their efforts -- there is only a very finite limit on what they can convert that cash into all of which can be lost so very easily -- and has the added advantage of just being able to add any coin earned during downtime to whatever they've got on hand and doing a single calculation.

The same here.

[Grimace]

Here's a question.  I've been mostly having the Prudence % taken off before they can spend any cash, is that the right way to do it? 

Depends what you're after: if you want to keep your players perennially poor without seeing any significant financial benefit from the risking life and limb, then do it your way.

Personally, I apply it at the end of Downtime, which allows the players to enjoy the benefits of their efforts -- there is only a very finite limit on what they can convert that cash into all of which can be lost so very easily -- and has the added advantage of just being able to add any coin earned during downtime to whatever they've got on hand and doing a single calculation.

I'm not going for either, I just want to make sure I'm doing it right.  If they are suppose to be able to purchase before the hit, then I'd doing it wrong.  If it doesn't really specify in the rules then I need to make a decision.

[Mister Andersen]

I think it's been left deliberately ambiguous. However, I would recommend the Prudence-at-the-end-of-downtime approach