The Economic System in TFT

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

It seems to me that these two quotes are arguing the exact opposite of each other. If an inexperienced player/GM doesn't realize that someone else is gaming the system due to lack of familiarity with both the system and roleplaying in general, there would be obvious value in suggesting that the GM reconsider things. If, on the other hand, the GM and players want to play it this way, go for it -- it's their game, after all.

More importantly, I was speaking about my own opinion (as I clearly stated) not making some overarching comment about the "one twue way" to play a game.

I was responding to you and ecz writing that spending six months working and saving money for something should not be done (apparently that's not what you meant exactly). Seems to me it ads interesting things that can be used in a few ways, though there are details to fix (the experience thing in particular) and GM suggestions I'd add (and I'd like to understand your and ecz' points of view, so they could be turned into constructive suggestions to GMs).

Originally Posted by ecz

I think it is pointless having eight variants of the same "military type" job for heroes and seven of the "wizardly type" carieer for wizards. No harm of course, but pages and efforts could be better used. I think that three levels per carieer are enough: basic, intermediate and high according the skils/talents of the PC . The Jobs table must stay, but should give more generic guidelines. GMs should not assign or negate a job just counting the number of "combat" talents/spells.

Yes, even at 11-12 years old, we didn't think measure qualifications by number of weapon talents made a lot of sense. I agree the jobs could/should be improved (perhaps by someone not named Steve) and more guidelines offered. It was interesting and useful for us as a starting point though, and some players did try out military careers (though they started trying to escape when they learned the military wanted them to learn pole weapons and use certain equipment and so on), and it was good to see the idea/value of having something written down that details the requirements/risks/rewards of various jobs including different levels and variations of a career, and to have a healthy range of examples and ways for characters to use their various talents for hire so the GM at least has a suggestion. It would have been good to have a sentence or two making clear that the listed job stats are just ballpark suggestions and that each specific job in a campaign could vary quite a bit in what it required and offered.

Originally Posted by ecz

Per RAW the PC first check if his talents conform to the list for a certain job, then he asks that job. Instead I imagine a system where the player first asks for a Job, than the GM checks if that job (or another similar) is available considering a lot of parameters set by the rules (including the talents of the PC). If I have time I'll publish in future exactly what I mean.

Cool!

Originally Posted by ecz

About the fact players and GM decides how spend time I fully agree. But if the jobs table coming with the rules is too favorable (as it is the current TFT one) we'll have players that spend too much time working to improve their characters attributes through risk rolls and earning an inordinate quantity of money.

The part about getting enough experience for an attribute is broken, especially for high-point-total characters.