Since I've been pretty verbal in this thread, let me just say that I am NOT a FH Gamemaster, my comments should not be taken as gospel truth or FH GM mindset unless someone backs me up otherwise, they are just my personal observations and opinions.
halfelfman wrote: It's a common set up at several larps where you can create a political money making pc but when it comes to combat your screwed.
You bet you still can. I see you also reiterated this in your post while looking over the rules. Just probably not from the get-go, because you'll probably need to be "Influential" enough (With support points) to buy production sources/traderoutes (Your level numbers look right). At that point, you can probably support yourself with no huge problems except market fluctuation/production. You'd be stuck with almost no combat skills though, because if you play a Master Buereocrat/Master Diplomat/Basic Sage, you only have something like, 20 points left at level 20 or 30 (Been awhile since I did the math). Think the starving artist type, too proud to accept what they can try to earn themselves. You'd have a little more if you only went 3rd in each, but I think you have to go Master Bureaucrat to really boost your support points. You still better have friends though, or anyone can take it from you.
Technically, being starving at that point wouldn't be THAT bad, since you probably don't have many in-game skills anyway (Although not really being able to run would probably hamper you substantially). With the argument I keep hearing that you can be "screwed" combat-wise, you CAN accept starving as that "screwed" point. In most cases, while it puts you at a disadvantage for combat (Such as what keeps being said above as "acceptable"), it doesn't make you unplayable by any means.
I think for a reasonable example, most "normal" people in the game in their small settlements or whatever where they are trying to eke out a sustenance-level existence, ARE probably starving, at least mechanically.
I would
generally agree that if someone wants to play a "survivor" at the cost of combat skills, it should be allowed (I used to be a pretty staunch arguer against them being taken out originally), but there also needs to be a balancing mechanism whereby the resources they gather are useless to anyone else. In my own humble opinion, Wilderness Survival should have been made a level 2 skill instead of a 1st level to bring it more in-line with diplomat, but then again, it's also lower because it's reasonable to assume that someone of a more savage upbringing might have these skills easier than someone of a privileged nature.
There are lots of reasons why resources in the system are limited. For one, this IS a survival based game. The players are fantasy pioneers, struggling to regain some sense of order in a world where large chunks of it are missing. Only by working together (or at least pretending to) do they have a chance at a better existence. It's a good balance: "Do I steal what I need and risk getting caught and punished? Or do I hope that because I help the community, regardless of whether I am a crafter or a warrior, they will make sure I don't starve. Do I starve and thereby learn to either be sneakier, stronger or more cooperative?"
Most people DO get supported, so I'm not sure how bad you have to be that NO ONE wants anything to do with you. I'm pretty sure SOMEONE was upkeeping the necromancer, Amagus, and lots of people grumbled openly about what he was doing. In a more out-of-character view, restricting resources also keeps the higher powered magic/crafted item count down and keeps people from firing off higher level Arcane spells like it's going out of style. It makes building actual mechanical structures more difficult.
For things to be changed, the whole political/support/trade resource structure would have to be massively altered. Which, as Mike says, is unlikely to happen this year, if ever. I still don't agree that the rules are perfect and polished. I don't agree with several of the rule changes. But I accept that FOR NOW, they are sufficient.
It's not my call, but for consistency's sake, I don't have a problem with the idea of Read/Write being taken out of starting gear points, since Privileged/Common can still buy them for pretty cheaply ala 20 points in Diplomat and anyone else can take the first two levels of sage for 40. It still requires a "real" investment. But the GMs would have to give more friendly reminders and be checking more sheets to make sure people who are reading things actually have read/write. It's hard to "forget" something you accidentally read. Also, for the 20 points you pay for the actual skill, you get two languages you can read/write, for 10 with starters, you just get one. It makes sense for a lot of people to know both their racial language (If applicable, not all races have a language) and the common language.
Otherwise, folks can wait and see what (if anything) goes in for perks and advanced skills and you might someday be able to support yourself with gathering skills. It will just be an achievement, rather than something you just "get."