Would you play in a setting with no money?

[Tonguez]

The d20 Modern Wealth system has "no money".

It is based on a continuous inflow and ouflow.

Indeed simply change the word Wealth to Status, decide on a system of gaining (or losing) status and your problem is solved.

In non-money economies Status is everything since it determines who is willing to give you stuff and just how much you 'deserve'. A High status Leader will get first choice of goods (and may well be payed a tithe/tax of some sort) whereas a low status slave will be lucky to get the scraps (which are better used as food for pigs and dogs).

The game changes from pursuit of gold to pursuit of status - so yep going off and slaying the Dragon that keeps eating our hunters is still a good thing to do because it earns Status (plus the chance to find cool items). If you are worthy (ie have status) the village priest might even be willing to give you some talismans of protection, bless your weapons and take the Spear of Destiny from its place on the altar so you can use it.

Then of course there's the girls...

 

[Professor Phobos]

Kind of depends on how you want to set things up.

Tribal societies rarely developed their own currency- Native American tribes in the Pacific Northwest used sea-shells, but that's the only example I can think of. Most everything was communal, held to the Chief who had, via the "potlatch" tradition, an obligation to distribute everything as equitably and generously as he could. Hoarding was taboo. In such a society, adventurers are going to be working for the good of their community and rewarded by the Chief. Personal property is going to be relatively limited, with most production dedicated to the community.

That only works for the commune, though. Trade will be necessary between groups, and without currency that's on the barter system. The barter system is a fun thing in gaming, and if you're looking at a post-apocalyptic world, that's the main way crap from Before is going to come into player hands other than the take it/find it routes. "Sure, I"ll give you this magic sword forged by the long-dead whosamaguy empire, but only if you clear that cave of sharkowls."

The trouble with barter- and this comes from experience- is that's it is fun the first couple of times,but having to barter for everything gets really tiresome. Skip that stuff for unimportant trades, and just assume the PCs have the incidentals 'somehow'. Trading for a warm place to sleep for a night once is fun, twice is dull.

 

[Crothian]

This is something I'd like to disagree with. When civilization was eeking along a subsistance living, food was rarely available for all.

Ya, but with magic things can be a lot different.

I like the no money idea.

 

[Felix]

Ya, but with magic things can be a lot different.

Depends upon the availability. If every thorp has their own 3rd level Druid and attendees, then likely everyone's going to be OK. But if not, they also have to compete with the goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, griffons, ankhegs, etc who will be hunting the same herds of deer, cattle, or whichever to stay alive.

That, and it's very easy to get rid of human settlements: burn their stores of grain in the autumn. Much easier and more effective for goblins and orcs to do than kill every single human.

 

[painandgreed]

If the PCs deal with other groups in any sort of friendly way, I see them carrying around lots of trade goods. Then they'll barter, and the game will see lots of barter role play. Either that or you'll have to cut out other friendly groups or establish some sort of trading standard (which brings you right back to having money).

 

[mcrow]

IIRC, Midnight does not have money. I think it is more of a bartering system.

and yes I would play Midnight anyday.

 

[edemaitre]

Money in games

Yes, I would play in a setting with no money. In many D20 settings, money is rather abstract ("credits" in many space opera worlds) or a wealth difficulty check (especially for modern or superheroes). Also, currency is as much a function of a centralized government as of technology level--bartering was quite common even after humans moved from subsistence to ancient and early medieval economies.

I would recommend a wealth check based on level, social status, and occupational class. Some things, like a drink at a local pub, should be relatively easy for adventurers to come by, while others, like a gold dragon steed, should be impossible to merely buy in the marketplace (unless your world is particularly high fantasy). In contrast to True20 or C&C, D&D3.5 does require a high degree of wealth acquisition and resource management as player motivation, so good luck adjusting players' expectations!

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Sure, I'd play in a game without money. I don't mind being poor as long as I can be badass

Considering something like Monte Cook's Iron Heroes or some some other system that focuses less on items and equipment. Might be useful for what you're doing.

 

[Nomad4life]

Well, I don’t have any money IRL, so I’d be pretty acclimated to the idea already.

 

[Matt_Rourke]

By saying "food is available for all" I meant that when there is food, everyone gets a share - it's not like you have to go into a restaurant and buy it, or beg for food on the street. If there's a kill, it is shared (often with those with most status getting first dibs), and if there's rudimentary agriculture, it's also distributed among the people. I didn't mean there was food in abundance, just that it's not restricted by wealth.

The complicating factors I'm finding in this system are spell descriptions that say you need a gem of a certain value, and the like. With no money, value isn't measured in gp anymore. I suppose I'd need to get around that on a case by case basis.

The system is very much "kill things and take their stuff" - in that whatever piece of the creature is useful is taken. Animal horns, bones, etc. There's little in the way of dungeon crawling, bags of gold, or merchants.

I'm trying to figure out how, say, a weaponsmith in this environment would work. I mean, he'd make weapons for the good of the community, but what would govern who gets what weapon? Maybe he'll make things for people who bring material? Or maybe I could put in a status system, where he prioritizes what he makes based on the status of those wanting weapons.

Small village economy - between craftsmen who make things and warriors/scouts who need them - is more complex without basic currency systems.