Better Aging Rules

[JCurwen3]

I've never been satisfied with the GURPS aging rules. They're not bad, and definitely better than in many other RPG systems. They're just not great.

Anyone have any good house rules to do aging better / more realistically? The only system that seems to have something better than GURPS's aging rules is Ars Magica (latest edition), but it's still not really great, and requires a bit of work to make it fit and play well with GURPS.

Any ideas or suggestions, or house rules to contribute, would be much appreciated!

[Gollum]

The problem of aging rules is that aging is very complex. Decline is not at all gradual and it does not only involve what GURPS names "Basic Attributes". It involves every sub-attributes (flexibility, memory, hearing...) and also skills.

So, if you extensively use the option "you may lose advantages or gain disadvantages of equivalent point value instead of losing an attribute point" (Basic Set, Campaigns, page 444), GURPS aging rules become fine.

Of course, this is not great, as you wrote it. But it still allows a good diversity of decline without having to use a complex table and too many rolls.

[Walrus]

and also skills.

And don't forget to enforce skill maintaining for every skill. It's a lot of bookkeeping but if you want realistic aging, it might suffice.

[Kilmore]

A quick idea is to make the aging rolls as given. For every two points the HT roll is missed by, deduct 5 points from the character. In case of a critical failure, deduct twenty points and roll again at HT-6.

In case of a second critical failure, the character suffers a major incident like a fall, seizure, heart attack or a stroke and suffers a "mortal wound". Deal with it like for any other mortal wound on page B423.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Walrus

And don't forget to enforce skill maintaining for every skill. It's a lot of bookkeeping but if you want realistic aging, it might suffice.

Yes. Basic Set, Characters, page 294.

Now, there is also a reason which explains why Aging rules are not great. Most characters are adventurers and live a lot of adventures every year... So, they suffer aging far much less than other hazard...

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

I've never been satisfied with the GURPS aging rules. They're not bad, and definitely better than in many other RPG systems. They're just not great.

Anyone have any good house rules to do aging better / more realistically? The only system that seems to have something better than GURPS's aging rules is Ars Magica (latest edition), but it's still not really great, and requires a bit of work to make it fit and play well with GURPS.

Any ideas or suggestions, or house rules to contribute, would be much appreciated!

I wrote some Aging rules for Sagatafl long ago, inspired in part by GURPS and in part by Ars Magica, but they are seriously due for an update. I'll share what I have, though:

One thing I did was to introduce a general unit for aging, called an Oldness Point. Oldness Points define the aging roll intervals for different species, e.g. for Humans it is 1 OP per 3 Years but may be much longer for other species, and also facilitates magical effects that inflicts aging proportonally to the lifespan of the target species (and unaffected by magic that slows down natural aging, e.g. a Torc of Longevity).

So one Spellcasting Fumble Outcome might be that you accumulate 3 OP. For a Human, that's 9 Years, while for a Dwarf it might be 15 Years, and 90 Years for an Elf. This makes magic-mishap-aging suck equally much for all species.

Another thing, which I'm actually not sure if GURPS does, is that after a certain number of rolls, penalties get piled on. So the first 10 rolls are at normal Roll Difficulty and 1 roll per OP. After that it's 2 rolls per OP for the next 10 rolls. After that again it's still 2 rolls per OP but now the RD is 1 higher, for a further 10 rolls. Then comes 15 rolls at 3 rolls per OP and at +2 RD, and so on. This means that everybody is going to die eventually, and the escalating penalties means that very few characters will live surprisingly longer than average. There's only so much player's luck at the dice can achieve.

Thirdly, aging rolls are not based on Constitution, but on a "normalized" derived stat. Sagatafl uses (Con+6)/3, so GURPS would use (HT+20)/3, or (HT+10)/2 if you want a less severe "normalization". This serves to reduce the influence of constitution on the process, without removing it entirely, and still opens up for Advantages that can give a bonus to the roll.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Gollum

The problem of aging rules is that aging is very complex. Decline is not at all gradual and it does not only involve what GURPS names "Basic Attributes". It involves every sub-attributes (flexibility, memory, hearing...) and also skills.

So, if you extensively use the option "you may lose advantages or gain disadvantages of equivalent point value instead of losing an attribute point" (Basic Set, Campaigns, page 444), GURPS aging rules become fine.

I do like this suggestion, I just wish there was a little more guidance from the RAW about using it rather than playing it by ear.

Originally Posted by Walrus

And don't forget to enforce skill maintaining for every skill. It's a lot of bookkeeping but if you want realistic aging, it might suffice.

Yes, I definitely use the skill maintenance rules. With a few small personal adapations I even have that apply to attributes raised most mundane ways after character creation. The maintenance rules definitely help with realistic aging, mostly because it forces characters to spend time training for maintenance rather than trying to train back up attributes lost to aging.

Originally Posted by Gollum

Now, there is also a reason which explains why Aging rules are not great. Most characters are adventurers and live a lot of adventures every year... So, they suffer aging far much less than other hazard...

Depends on the campaign though. In campaigns with large time skips, or with paranormal or superscience aging attacks or accelerators, or even time travel, aging rules become more important.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Kilmore

A quick idea is to make the aging rolls as given. For every two points the HT roll is missed by, deduct 5 points from the character. In case of a critical failure, deduct twenty points and roll again at HT-6.

In case of a second critical failure, the character suffers a major incident like a fall, seizure, heart attack or a stroke and suffers a "mortal wound". Deal with it like for any other mortal wound on page B423.

Very interesting ideas. I'll check how this plays out by running some aging simulations later, to reality check it and such.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

One thing I did was to introduce a general unit for aging, called an Oldness Point. Oldness Points define the aging roll intervals for different species, e.g. for Humans it is 1 OP per 3 Years but may be much longer for other species, and also facilitates magical effects that inflicts aging proportonally to the lifespan of the target species (and unaffected by magic that slows down natural aging, e.g. a Torc of Longevity).

So one Spellcasting Fumble Outcome might be that you accumulate 3 OP. For a Human, that's 9 Years, while for a Dwarf it might be 15 Years, and 90 Years for an Elf. This makes magic-mishap-aging suck equally much for all species.

The Oldness Point sounds like a pretty good idea. I believe this was inspired by Ars Magica's Decrepitude Points, no? It definitely has a usefulness when it comes to differing lifepans between races. It also sort of provides a "damage currency" for aging, akin to rads for radiation, and HP for most everything else. I like it.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Another thing, which I'm actually not sure if GURPS does, is that after a certain number of rolls, penalties get piled on. So the first 10 rolls are at normal Roll Difficulty and 1 roll per OP. After that it's 2 rolls per OP for the next 10 rolls. After that again it's still 2 rolls per OP but now the RD is 1 higher, for a further 10 rolls. Then comes 15 rolls at 3 rolls per OP and at +2 RD, and so on. This means that everybody is going to die eventually, and the escalating penalties means that very few characters will live surprisingly longer than average. There's only so much player's luck at the dice can achieve.

GURPS doesn't do that, but instead makes aging rolls more frequent once certain aging thresholds (50 years, 70, then 90) are reached. Which is another problem with GURPS aging I have... people do age before 50. Even age in ways that are granular and noticeable enough for GURPS's resolution.

Again this is where I like Ars Magica's treatment, as it starts aging rolls around when humans really start aging decline, from the mid-20s to early 30s; you also get to keep track of fractional loss of attributes, which sounds like a pain and has no in-game significance until you lose a full point due to more aging but gives a nice feeling of "I'm not what I used to be" that can be roleplayed, and also keeps track of how aging is affecting your appearance (it can do so less for some more than others).

It also introduces modifiers that help or hurt your aging roll for a given period. Things like healthy living which should realistically provide a bonus, and poverty providing a penalty. A decent set of modifiers that included penalties for unhealthy things like abusing drugs and alcohol, having certain diseases, etc, and bonuses for eating right (maybe you spend a bit more cash on the healthier options), being the guy at the bar that doesn't get blitzed each time, etc would go a long way to making even GURPS's system more realistic feeling.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Thirdly, aging rolls are not based on Constitution, but on a "normalized" derived stat. Sagatafl uses (Con+6)/3, so GURPS would use (HT+20)/3, or (HT+10)/2 if you want a less severe "normalization". This serves to reduce the influence of constitution on the process, without removing it entirely, and still opens up for Advantages that can give a bonus to the roll.

I like this idea. In your system, does that derived stat slowly go down as that Con score drops? In either case, the normalization you suggest would go a long way to making aging more realistic for characters with high HT that don't have Longevity, and might make that advantage actually feel more useful to players.

[Flyndaran]

There's a difference between aging and risk of death. I've heard that every eight years or so doubles one's risk of dying in a given year regardless of environment and life expectancy.