Trade; item value vs raw currency

[Hobo Elf]

So I was thinking up a weird ass RPG setting, and then I started to think of how trade would be handled in it. At first I was coming up with silly names for the currency used in the world, but then I came to the conclusion that not using any kind of currency was far more fitting. I thought it'd be an interesting idea to have a RPG without any kind of money. All you have is limited bag space and items of different value that you can trade. This way you can't just unload all your junk for a few coin and be done with it. I think this is an especially good idea in a RPG where survival is an important factor.
Anyway, what this means is that you can't just save up for the best items to buy them. You'd have to get lucky and find/steal something really valuable, or be very clever with what you trade to get valuables.
I also believe that it would make stealing a more appealing option, since there is no way of just saving up money and then eventually having enough coin to buy the cool gear. The player isn't given a safe guarantee that he'll eventually have good items. All he has to rely on is his luck and/or wits.

What does the Codex thing? Good idea? Shit idea? There's always room for improvement, and I'm happy to hear suggestions and opinions on this matter.
Also, I just want to add that I wish trading had a bigger impact in gaming (especially in RPGs). If designed badly it'll turn into a chore, but with good and intelligent design it could end up being a very fun aspect of the game.

 

[soggie]

Isn't this the same as a barter system? Or are there subtle differences?

 

[Hobo Elf]

Nah, it's the same, just without any money. The idea was to eliminate the safety factor of just selling heavy and useless trash loot for weightless coin.

And having an actual economy between the towns/villages/settlements.

 

[Phelot]

That's kind of like Mount and Blade, how certain towns place more value on particular items.

Actually, didn't Baldur's Gate make it so the more you sold a particular item, the less you'd get for it? The more you'd buy, the more it would cost?

I don't really mind money though I also think not having any might be cool too. I too would like to see a living breathing economy were a peasant wouldn't be interested in trading his valuable cattle for something like a sword, but perhaps for some grain or farming equipment, while a blacksmith will pick up anything that he can at least melt down albeit at a low cost. Scrap metal has historically always been valuable.

 

[J1M]

It's important to note that you are switching the restriction from currency accumulation to carrying space or weight. How do you propose avoiding the over valuation of strength as an attribute?

 

[Phelot]

It's important to note that you are switching the restriction from currency accumulation to carrying space or weight. How do you propose avoiding the over valuation of strength as an attribute?

Personally, I would do so by requiring the player purchase pack animals and carts (Daggerfall) or hire henchmen and party members.

I also think it's been a long time coming that games move away from power gamers that just expect their character to carry an entire dungeon worth of treasure out to the ye olde shoppes. I don't mind making several trips, though I realize not everyone would care for that.

This would also promote more meaningful, but more small scale combat. If a combat system is done right, fighting at max three opponents at once should be fun and it wouldn't be unreasonable to be able to loot all three.

 

[crufty]

i like it.

think in terms of bartering needed goods for needed goods/services. also, consider reserving purchasing of fancy loot by fences (for stolen items) or salvage yards (by the pound). Anything under a certain gp value just doesn't have value.

think of two guys fighting in an alley, an one guy gets a KO. Does guy #2 get his jeans, shoes, shirt stolen? probably not.

would need a wagon for mass transport of goods (always fun in games). and if someone wants to go around collecting bloody leather armor (with zero resale value) to sell to a tanner for 10 gp/ton, why not?

 

[J1M]

It's important to note that you are switching the restriction from currency accumulation to carrying space or weight. How do you propose avoiding the over valuation of strength as an attribute?

Personally, I would do so by requiring the player purchase pack animals and carts (Daggerfall) or hire henchmen and party members.

I also think it's been a long time coming that games move away from power gamers that just expect their character to carry an entire dungeon worth of treasure out to the ye olde shoppes. I don't mind making several trips, though I realize not everyone would care for that.

This would also promote more meaningful, but more small scale combat. If a combat system is done right, fighting at max three opponents at once should be fun and it wouldn't be unreasonable to be able to loot all three.

In that case the game has to be brave enough to have the pack mule die or be capable of being killed in combat or it's not really anything other than a large knapsack.

 

[Fez]

What can happen is that you'll force the player to use alternatives for currency (in the Fallouts I often used the drugs as a lightweight currency alternative and acted similarly in other games where possible) or make it tedious to swap loot around to get the most valuable or make the player do 'loot runs' after every big battle or discovery (STALKER) which can ruin the pace of the game or seemingly punish the player if they refused to do this.

Barter system is always possible, but anything small and highly valuable (like jewellery or gems) is destined to be a currency alternative. Unless you want the player to drag cartloads of grain or something equally mundane to buy a suit of armor.

It could add an interesting dynamic if you had to protect the loot train from bandits, but I can already imagine it feeling like a punishment to the player.

 

[denizsi]

You'll need a meta-value for the barter system to work mathematically. Then, by assigning tables containing scarcity & demand per item type to every location, meta value can be auto-adjusted. You'll have to set what items are in demand, what kinds of items are interchangeable etc. for every trader/character to avoid what Fez wrote.

Drugs could be worthless to a community producing their own drugs etc.

In the end, a very big emphasis would need to be on hunting for certain items or it will possibly be very boring.

 

[Murk]

How important would gear be in such a theoretical game? If it is of major importance then it would force the player to have to go through these trials of stealing/trading/whatever to get what they want. If however character and/or player skill overrides equipment value then I can see many a non-materialistic monk type characters already

I like the proposed ideas but is the plan to really avoid gp value 1 items entirely? what about basic items like... arrows or bolts? will they be sellable by the player or will they have a value of 2 or 3 or 4?

In gothic 1 there was no 'gold', the value 1 currency was ore - however arrows also had a value of 1 meaning that they too worked as 'gold'.

So what's to stop a player from loading up on say 500 arrows and using those as minor trading coins when selling his looted goods?

edit: did not see Fez's post above... ;(

 

[Fritz Haber]

So no jewels/drugs/precious metals? The whole economy is based on exchange of useful items?
As a question,why not give the money weight? And limit its uses in rural areas?

 

[denizsi]

So what's to stop a player from loading up on say 500 arrows and using those as minor trading coins when selling his looted goods?

That easily craftable items are cheap so unless someone's looking to deal in large numbers, no one gives a shit about such items.

 

[Murk]

That easily craftable items are cheap so unless someone's looking to deal in large numbers, no one gives a shit about such items.

So they aren't resellable, cool - but then it seems that there may be an artificial price bloat to make so that nothing falls in the range of "small light item that has low value" - like say extremely simple healing plants or lumps of metal or copper rings or whatever.

On the flip side if that is all impetus to create a system of craft skills that require you to have a profession in the game to make money, then all the better. that is - copper rings do sell for a few coin... but you need to learn to make them first then either mine/buy some copper and yatta yatta.

Though it does raise questions of item space - are we talking Divinity 1 style of endless pit only limited by your own str/carry-weight score or Witcher like slots that you can only carry a few items of?

 

[Fritz Haber]

I think the idea was no money at all, because in most games it's weightless and without volume.
The trouble with that idea would be that small items of high value could be used as a storage of wealth by the player.

 

[Murk]

So introduce monetary weight, I guess?

here's a good write-up of its mechanics: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=28551#28551

the write-up of souls/extraplanar currency is worth note because it is specifically detailed use and application of expensive items that can't be used for mundane shit like simple supplies but at the same time you know for a fact it can be used for unholy swords of god-rape.

though if the intent is to do away with money then even weighted gold is a no-go

 

[Fez]

I've seen weighted gold in games before too and even that didn't stop players from gathering up a mountain of the stuff. It just made it more inconvenient when the player had to go back to the stash to collect it and make a big purchase or meant that the party pack mule NPC(s) carried it.

Same with forcing gold to take up inventory space by capping each amount before it takes up a new slot.

 

[Hobo Elf]

It's not just about money having / not having weight. It's a matter of fitting in with the setting as well. I'm very anal about these kind of things. To me, the game mechanics have to be bended around the setting, and not vice versa. Sure, it's a hell of a lot more work, but I think it makes the world more interesting and believable.

And Fez, I did think about the alternative to currency, and how to avoid having a sort of Stone of Jordan that is used as a replacement for coin. I ran into this problem when I was thinking what kind of payment, for example, Assassins, Bounty Hunters and such get in a world with no money. Of course there will always be those who work for some organization / gang and get provided with the essentials to survive for their services, but what of the free lancers who do it as a living? What will they be given? Food? Surely there'd be far less dangerous jobs that could provide them with food. Clothes? Weapon? Sure, I guess. Occasionally. But then it'd feel too much like an MMORPG.
Or maybe these people make a concious decision of doing what they do knowing that they won't be rewarded for their services with anything substantial, and will have to work odd jobs on the side unless they are extremely successful?

Well, it's late, I'm tired and my head isn't working so well now, so I don't think I'll be able to think up of a way to solve this problem now. I'll try coming up with something interesting tomorrow, maybe. Or perhaps someone from the codex can think up of something more clever than what I could come up with.

 

[Fritz Haber]

A babaric society maybe? Something insanely structured in a capital/center of power (Atztec-alike), where advancement in the favour of a lord would mean the highest reward that society can offer? But that is at the same time primitive in small settlements, with no concept of currency (didn't mayans use cacao beans as a pseudo currency?).

 

[GarfunkeL]

Freelancers would die off, in that case. Except for the simple knight who travels from village to village, solving their problems and gets well fed in exchange. Maybe even a tryst with the innkeepers daughter, who's the infamous village bicycle anyway.

Your word could be extremely valuable as well, especially if the society is hard on honour. So specialists would give pledges of help against food & lodgings, pledges which would be cashed in when needed - which would also create quests:

"Okay innkeeper, for a good nights sleep and belly full of mutton plus a weeks worth of bread, salted meat and some apples, I pledge my sword to your cause when you need it"
-> a month later ->
"Sir Imric, I invoke thy pledge! Group of thieving mongrels kidnapped my daughter and stole two of my pigs and my best-milking cow! I want them back!"

And off the player goes unless he wants to get the extreme reputation hit from breaking his word.

As Fritz pointed out, it does require quite primitive society unless you craft some nifty religious/cultural reason for it: EMPEROR FORBADE MONEY FOR ITS EVIL INFLUENCE, ALL PRAISE THE EMPEROR.

 

[denizsi]

I've seen weighted gold in games before too and even that didn't stop players from gathering up a mountain of the stuff. It just made it more inconvenient when the player had to go back to the stash to collect it and make a big purchase or meant that the party pack mule NPC(s) carried it.

Same with forcing gold to take up inventory space by capping each amount before it takes up a new slot.

Letters of credits, bitches. Which game? Why, Daggerfall of course

 

[Hobo Elf]

As Fritz pointed out, it does require quite primitive society unless you craft some nifty religious/cultural reason for it: EMPEROR FORBADE MONEY FOR ITS EVIL INFLUENCE, ALL PRAISE THE EMPEROR.

No, it's supposed to be primitive.

 

[Fritz Haber]

Does magic exist in that system? You could give magic some extensive material component
and base every class on some kind of magical heritage (Earthdawn comes to mind).

 

[Hobo Elf]

Well, I was going to keep magic very toned down in the sense that only 7 entities can use it, and it's very unlikely you'd run into any one of them (would be pretty much Lovecraft level of instant doom if you did). I'm also trying to avoid conventional elemental magic.

But the idea is good, and it doesn't have to be related to magic. I don't see why the player couldn't learn a trade and be able to craft something himself.

 

[Orgasm]

Implement, plskthx.

Some explanation: Basically the sum sign is there because the trader1 can go to t2 and t3. So you add their values and div by the number of open routes (Ti) to get the average.

-edit-

Oh fuck, equal sign should be across the second div line. You also should throw in a log dependency for non linearity.

So technically your items still have a value (money) assigned to them. And a very rare stone made out of... stone could be traded for a steel armor. To circumvent this, you would need base value added to items.