Unaging should be a perk

[Edman]

I was trying to model a character based very loosely on Adam Monroe from Heroes, i.e., an indestructible man who didn't age. And I realized how utterly worthless unaging is. At its most useful, it's an intriguing Unusual Background ("How come you know so much about the Holy Lavacum Empire, Uncle?" "I lived back then, knew the emperor, I did. Which is also why I know the lost capital is just a few miles from here") or a cool roleplaying hook ("No, demon, I will be here as well, waiting for the next time you strike. And I will stop you then, as I did now".)

I thought about games that spanned for a long time, but by the time characters have grown old enough for it to matter, they should be incredibly powerful and would probably find other ways to live forever (considering that almost all unaging settings would feature either supernatural stuff or ultraadvanced science). As for generations games, an unaging character would be so incredibly unbalanced (part of the charm is being green every now and then) that I as a GM never would allow one.

However, I am gladly proven wrong and would like to see when unaging has worked out for all of you.

[nerdvana]

You should check out Rev P Kitty's House Rules, specifically #2 "Reducing the value of "flavor" traits." There are good reasons for it not to be a perk, but at the same time the value being reduced is a good idea also.

[Not another shrubbery]

I take it you haven't searched the forums for threads related to this? It has come up a few times before.

If your game's time-frame is short enough that character aging is not an issue, and if there are no in-game ways to artificially manipulate age, then being unaging will confer no game benefit. You could just call it a 0 point Feature in that case. If it justifies extra skills that other characters (w/o the trait) can't have, then it would be an Unusual Background.

[Kaldrin]

If you think Unaging should be a perk you don't have enough artificial aging attacks in your campaign.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Kaldrin

If you think Unaging should be a perk you don't have enough artificial aging attacks in your campaign.

This.

Unaging is really handy in, say, fantasy games where you face evil spells and enemies that age you X years per hit.

It'd also be handy in some weird long-term or multigenerational game where characters without it are expected to grow old over the course of the campaign.

If getting older isn't an issue in your game, then it's pretty much only good for making someone who's been alive for centuries and has all sorts of weird skills and memories from the distant past; unless any of those skills are forgotten magic or Hidden Lore or something that would require an Unusual Background, it's probably a 0-point feature.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Xplo

If getting older isn't an issue in your game, then it's pretty much only good for making someone who's been alive for centuries and has all sorts of weird skills and memories from the distant past; unless any of those skills are forgotten magic or Hidden Lore or something that would require an Unusual Background, it's probably a 0-point feature.

QFT...

I am playing a mage (basically Marion Zimmer Bradley's Blue Star Adept) destined to fight for LAW against CHAOS at the end of time....if he doesnt get killed first.

I have had this character for about 2 yrs.

In the 23+ yrs I have been in the campaign NO ONE has ever died of "old age".

Technically Unaging is covered in the Adept of the Blue Star package (along with Magery 1; Status/1; Rep+1; College of Mages membership and a few other things (Disad Enemy other Bluestars FREX).

Edit:
Oh yeah and IC he is about 28...in a world where people are active into their middle age (80-90) and are known to live to 120-140 or so.

I am stone certain that there is no cost being charged for the "advantage" Unaging.

If I were GM I would likely just mod it meself.

Good Luck.

[carllarson]

I have a character I started back in 3E, and continue to play. Originally, was created for a mix of Cyberworld and GURPS oWoD. Basically, Unaging was a UB, as he was still in his 30s physically, even though born in 1960, making him 80+.

Too me, 15cp is fine for the ability to say "I was there, back then." Of course, after the 13+ years, 15cp is 1% of the char's total, so it really isn't that significant.

As well, though many other players in my groups have changed characters, I haven't, making my character very broadly experience, and the last 13+ years have actually covered hundreds of years IG.

I've even got to play through the OP's comment about "I'll still be here next time" when a rift took another party member forward in time, and my char had to wait out 140 years to the other end of the rift.

However, if this isn't your style, then use the core of GURPS: make it cost what its worth, or disallow it. After all, it's your game.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Kaldrin

If you think Unaging should be a perk you don't have enough artificial aging attacks in your campaign.

An alternate way to phrase it is "If you don't have enough artificial aging attacks in your game to make Immunity: Aging worth 15 points, you should make Unaging cheaper."

Or alternately, if aging attacks knock off a percentage of life expectancy (weeks for mice, decades or centuries for elves) instead of adding months/years to "effective time lived". This is the Dungeon Fantasy solution.

Either way, in these games, the first few levels of Short Lifespan should probably be discounted as well, and Self Destruct likely becomes a zero point feature.

Note that "classic" AD&D (And I think 2e) had undead aging folks as well as sucking levels out of them; it meant that ageing was a serious hazard.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by Bruno

An alternate way to phrase it is "If you don't have enough artificial aging attacks in your game to make Immunity: Aging worth 15 points, you should make Unaging cheaper."

Which you could say also about Immunity or Resistant to Disease.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Which you could say also about Immunity or Resistant to Disease.

Right, but artificial aging is unusual. Disease is a perfectly ordinary thing that afflicts people in the real world.

Of course, some GMs don't actually bother giving PCs diseases (hey, I usually don't) because it's too petty for their heroic game, or they don't think it's fair to randomly screw PCs over by diseasing them once in a while, or they don't think it's fun for the player to have to play an arbitrarily-diseased character, or maybe it just never occurs to them to do it. If they also don't have any adventures that involve plague epidemics, rooting through filth, or fighting monsters that inflict disease as an attack, and you ignore things like infected wounds, then yeah, disease resistance isn't really an advantage.

Alternately, if you're of the school of "if a player takes an advantage/disad/skill for his character, it means he wants it to be significant at some point", then anyone taking disease resistance is pretty much asking for disease to appear in the campaign. Amusingly enough, when it does, it'll probably only affect the PCs who don't have resistance. Metajinx? ;)