Would you play in a setting with no money?

[Matt_Rourke]

I've been toying around with primitive, survival-based game setting ideas, and the concept of money has become more and more troublesome.

In a realistic sense, once survival of the group becomes paramount and every villager must pull their weight or civilization collapses, money becomes less of a concern. Hunters hunt for the good of the community, and gatherers gather for the good of the community. Priests perform their rites and rituals because that is their function, and warriors fight when called upon to do so. Food is available for all. Equipment and other items are bartered for - either with goods or services. A hard currency is not found until these small communities develop more complex civilization, or come into contact with more complex civilization.

In a gaming sense, though, I worry that a setting with no currency will hold little interest for the majority of gamers. Plus, not having a currency sets up a host of system complications.

One thought was to have "honor markers" or something, where deeds that help the community are recorded by granting small tokens - which are then used as a bartering supplement, or a form of currency. Even so, though, deviating from the "gold standard" of D&D is a risk.

Personally, I am more of a narrativist gamer, in that I'm in it for the story and the character. Having no money wouldn't bother me much, as long as the story was compelling. I know that there are plenty of gamers who play for the "stuff" - and are keenly interested in the treasure, rewards, equipment, and gold that comes along with adventuring.

So, would you play in a setting with no currency? And, if so, would you play it as a primary setting, or just as a "one shot" concept?

Would you play in a sestting with an alternate non-gold currency - and again, as a longer campaign, or only a one shot?

 

[Li Shenron]

We've been playing a Rokugan campaign where basically equipment is not bought or sold. It is only found or given (and sometimes stolen), because everything belongs to the emperor first and foremost, then the clan and the family. Money is used mostly on transactions between clans or by low-caste people, but the adventurers instead are provided everything they need by their clan.

It works quite well in fact, as you can very easily keep track of the overall equipent by level from the DMG table.

 

[el-remmen]

Sure.

There are lots of valuable/cherished things even in a world w/o money.

 

[Felix]

Food is available for all.

This is something I'd like to disagree with. When civilization was eeking along a subsistance living, food was rarely available for all. Starvation and famine were common problems, often with no solution other than death. I suggest that in a pre-currency world these are the problems governments will have to deal with most often.

One thought was to have "honor markers" or something

Money is novel in that it was a medium of exchange, easily carried, widely accepted as a store of value, and scarce; this is not to say that other things did not hold that position before currency came along. Ritualistic items held value, and you could use these to pay off the PCs. Slaves, households, positions, obedience... all of these things could be used as rewards instead of currency.

By taking currency from the game, what you will have to do is replace it with the same value in things the PCs could use to buy with that currency. Instead of 4,000gp, they get a ring of counterspells. Instead of a pile of gold, one gets made a baron, and inherits the title and responsibility of taking care of the land (and making sure people don't starve, or making sure bandits don't come by and steal or destroy the food stores).

I don't think it will change the game that much, as long as you reward the PCs with the appropriate amount of loot that will take the place of currency; their deeds should still be rewarded with the same value, if not quite as liquid as money.

 

[Gold Roger]

Most definitely.

Actually, I think it enhances the basic D&D premise: Hunt and gather. Kill things and take their stuff.

 

[Turanil]

So, would you play in a setting with no currency? And, if so, would you play it as a primary setting, or just as a "one shot" concept?

Would you play in a sestting with an alternate non-gold currency - and again, as a longer campaign, or only a one shot?

Yes to both questions. As far as I am concerned, it's not the treasure in gp that makes a campaign interesting. It's more about mystery, exploration, and improvement of my character. Besides, when you have to find equipment rather than saying "Okay, I spend 153 gp to buy this and that", it's more fun.

 

[Driddle]

College students regularly play in games with no money ...

 

[irdeggman]

The d20 Modern Wealth system has "no money".

It is based on a continuous inflow and ouflow.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Yes I would.
I believe it is more fun to find/take stuff than to purchase it.
I am playing in an Eberron campaign now where we are on an expedition to Xendrik and aren't coming back for a while. Money is of no value this whole campaign. Survival is.

It is been great so far.

 

[Sound of Azure]

I certainly would play in such a game, and it would be just dandy as a full setting. I've been wanting to reduce the impact of money in my games (though not removing it completely) in my own games. Good luck!