[Edit]
Title is supposed to be "Negotiation Test results", I guess I need more coffee!

Hi all,

I've always had some issue with how to interprete the results of a Neogtiations Test and am curious to hear how you do it. Typical scenario is Mr. J offers X and the runner negotiate for more.

My current method is something like this:

Offer = 20,000 (range of 20-50k), Opposed Test (w/Social Modifiers), each team-net-hit bumps the price up +10%. That would mean 10-hits would be required to boost the pay to +100% which seems to be quite the Herculean effort in SR4.

But recently I thought of using a Threshold type method with 3-4 net-hits would produce 100% of the range and 5+ would be +125%. My thinking here is that a good "face" should be able to work all the angles and get an optimum price. Lower range would of course make even a good Face less effective.

So I am curious, how does everyone else interprete Negotiation test results?

Thanks,

~GTT

I've usually used an opposed test (Neg. + Wil.) each net hit moves the price 5%

The winning side modifies the price by 5% in their favor for each net hit on the opposed negotiations test. So if Joe Runner gets 5 hits, Mr. J gets 3 hits the runners will get an extra 10%.

Base Offer
Example: 20,000 ¥

Negotiation Success Increase Amount
Example: 1,000 ¥

Absolute Maximum
Example:30,000 ¥

Alternative Payment(if any):
I've got some combat drones that fell off the back of a truck. Would you be interested?


I decide all these factors myself before the negotiation test. I don't rely on any hard percentages but play it off the cuff based on my perception of the hirer. A particular Johnson may have really underbid his offer and will increase a large amount upon negotiation. Another's offer may be fairly close to the maximum he's willing to pay.

All of the instances of Negotiation in the RAW that mention one use a value adjustment of 10% per net hit. That being said, do what you like.

Doh! I was misremembering. We do 10%, not 5%. Not because it's RAW, but because we're lazy.

10% per net hit opposed test between the face and the Johnson. If other members of the team want to help, they use the assist rules. Johnsons always have a cap though; a 100% increase is rediculous IMO.

100% increase might work in some instances, such as when the Johnson thinks he can majorly undercut the team. Perhaps they're new and he knows it, or he thinks they don't understand shadow-economics. Or maybe he's just a butthead.

Edit: we usually use 30-40% as a cap, although some situations differ. I remember reading an adventure that had the Johnson agree to more money without a roll at all because he was pressed for time and needed the job done right away. I don't remember which one that was though. I'm pretty sure it was an official run.

That's true, but it doesn't work for my games because my players wouldn't know any better - we're all relatively new. I don't think it would be fair to them until they know how much jobs should pay.

Fair? This is Shadowrun. Life ain't fair.

You could do it to them but have the margin for success higher than 10% (it's what we do most of the time when the J is being stingy). If each success is worth 30% and the base job is half what it should be you can have 4 successes on the team's part equate to being paid slightly above normal. It also gives a roleplaying way of letting them know what things should pay when the Johnson says "I guess you aren't as new as I'd heard. You can't really fault me for trying to go under the going rate, but here ya go."

Cool. I'll have to try that out. For some reason the guy that plays the face in our current group prefers to negotiate for money up front to cover expenses instead of more money at the end. I can kinda understand his reasoning, but they give the money back if they can't finish the run, and usually have enough to cover expenses on their own.

To be honest the characters have usually been running for a little while even before the game starts... how else do you justify the 'ware and the skills they've picked up. Consequently most Johnsons aren't dumb enough to try and screw the runners too much (although he might leave out some detail about security so the runners will accept the job, trusting the team will get past anyway).

As for running negotiation tests I usually eyeball a reasonable raise on a good roll, but I always take into account any in character roleplaying. Should the players give good arguements as to why they should get more money then they ought to get more credit even if they fluff the role.

I like Booklord's suggestion of making a GM's note of the starting figure, max figure and any non-cash incentives the J has available.

As for players not being willing to take the run... I have noticed that to be a problem. I usually have enough story ideas to wing something, but even so, I run it as one Johnson, one job. If you say no your fixer might call again in a few days with another meet (and I can stall while I think of something!), but if you keep saying no it'll impact on the fixers rep and he won't like you for that!

I use the 10% per net hit but it seems silly that the the PCs would accept anything less than the initial offer so I use the Johnson’s expected payment as the base line and make the initial offer 30% less,

From the players perspective.
Opening offer 7k
Negotiation roll
-3sucseses = 7k
-2=8k
-1=9k
0=10k
1=11k
2=12k
3=13k

the Johnson will move a bit without to much difficulty, he accepts that the runners want to feel that they have squeezed more money out of him and planes accordingly.

Edward
I use the 10% per net hit but it seems silly that the the PCs would accept anything less than the initial offer so I use the Johnson’s expected payment as the base line and make the initial offer 30% less,

From the players perspective.
Opening offer 7k
Negotiation roll
-3sucseses = 7k
-2=8k
-1=9k
0=10k
1=11k
2=12k
3=13k

the Johnson will move a bit without to much difficulty, he accepts that the runners want to feel that they have squeezed more money out of him and planes accordingly.

Edward

I just assume the Johnsons offer as the baseline. You've already penalized you team by lowering the initial offer? Even with a "good" roll, they'll be back to actual offer price.

It's all where you start offering payment relative to maximum job payment, but looking at it from your point-of-view seems to screw your players.

I don't have the Mr. J lower the initial asking price, if they piss him off, he'd recend the offer.

I think most Johnsons should lowball their intiatal offering, though. Like Edward said, it's kind of silly for a Johnson who rolls really well to lower his initial offer. Not that every Johnson will be out to outright screw over the team (depends on the Johnson, the job, and the team's rep, if any). However, they are cutthroat businessmen out to get a dirty job done as cheaply as they can get it. And I agree that most Johnsons should have an expenditure cap imposed on them from their superiors.

I can see lowering the offer if the characters Glitch or worse on thier roll.
Strangly enough the face could glich and still get more successes than the Johnson.
So what then?

Johnsons who lowball and then say "You're not a very good talker. I'm taking two thousand from the table" will find themselves without a Shadowrunning team in short order, if not getting throttled on the spot by a pissed-off troll adept.

I was thinking more of the negotiator somehow convincing the Johnson that he was seriously overpaying because the face claiming the job would be a cakewalk or that they could just pay x to do it for less and still make a profit.

Either way, "Oh, in that case I'm lowering the payment" won't go over well. at all. Especially with the group's troll.

And if the group chooses to subcontract out their runs, it's time the tip-ex'd "Shadowrunner" out of their resume, and wrote-in "Fixer".