Why is Aging worse in Traveller than in 2300 AD?

[Terry Mixon]

This is what the aging metric looks like in 2300AD (Or so I am told. If anyone can confirm, that would be great.). If they start aging rolls at 50 rather that 34, shouldn't it be even better in Traveller? If 2300AD gets to 50 with no rolls, Traveller should get something like 66 to take the rolls out the same distance.

Thoughts?

 

[MasterGwydion]

Seems backwards

 

[Terry Mixon]

Seems backwards

It does.

 

[Condottiere]

No Planetary Health Service.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

I've been considering making a set of aging tables based on the level of genetic engineering your home world uses (and for how long) affecting your life span. So worlds that have been high tech for a long time and have at least periodic bouts of doing the engineering (or constantly if you are rich enough) have higher ages where the aging begins and longer gaps. They may also vary by social class on some worlds.

Higher TLs of medical care would delay the onset of "issues" but once they started they would rapidly become closer so your life span wouldn't be extended just have a longer "virile" stage before debilitating issues come in (sort of anagathics Jr.)

 

[Vormaerin]

At the core, it's a different design team with different tropes in mind. Traveller was released in the 70s with an eye towards classic sci fi. 2300 was released in the late 80s with the backdrop of the cyberpunk and transhumanism stuff.

 

[Grognardia]

This is what the aging metric looks like in 2300AD (Or so I am told. If anyone can confirm, that would be great.). If they start aging rolls at 50 rather that 34, shouldn't it be even better in Traveller? If 2300AD gets to 50 with no rolls, Traveller should get something like 66 to take the rolls out the same distance.

Thoughts?

View attachment 5112

Can confirm it's from the MGT2 version of 2300 AD.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Can confirm it's from the MGT2 version of 2300 AD.

Thanks. Then Traveller needs to change at least that much and probably more.

 

[Vormaerin]

So we going to add the rest of 2300? Heat sinks? DNAMs? Planetary Adaptation Syndrome? It's a very different setting.

You can certainly have different aging paradigms. 2300 has this, Mindjammer is different. IIRC, the aging in Clement Sector rules has a sliding scale based on TL.

 

[Terry Mixon]

So we going to add the rest of 2300? Heat sinks? DNAMs? Planetary Adaptation Syndrome? It's a very different setting.

You can certainly have different aging paradigms. 2300 has this, Mindjammer is different. IIRC, the aging in Clement Sector rules has a sliding scale based on TL.

It may be a different setting, but as they mention a change from age 34 (Traveller base rules) then this is valid to ask about Charted Space (another setting). If 2300AD gets a variance, Charted Space—with its base tech level being even more advanced—should as well. Just sayin.

 

[Vormaerin]

Yes, but there are other changes as well. In Charted Space, Skill 1 is sufficient to get a space job. The crew rules for 2300 require Pilot 3. So there is more than just make aging last longer.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Sure, but we are talking aging in specific. We can discuss the other stuff elsewhere because that’s just a distraction from the specific question asked.

 

[Vormaerin]

Personally, I like the longer aging table, but there's more to it than just importing it from 2300. The character creation there is quite different. Homeworld survival modifiers, modifiers for colony vs core, for tier of your home nation on education and eligibility for careers.

 

[Vormaerin]

Sure, but we are talking aging in specific. We can discuss the other stuff elsewhere because that’s just a distraction from the specific question asked.

Just giving everyone 4 more terms of service without any other changes to the rules is not without consequence. You might like those consequences. But it's not an obvious "Must be done", which it seemed like you were advocating when "Traveller needs to change that".

 

[Terry Mixon]

Personally, I like the longer aging table, but there's more to it than just importing it from 2300. The character creation there is quite different. Homeworld survival modifiers, modifiers for colony vs core, for tier of your home nation on education and eligibility for careers.

I don’t disagree, but the base of where aging rolls start doesn’t include those. It’s the foundation. I’m saying if foundational sophonts don’t suffer aging rolls until 50 in a lower tech setting, they shouldn’t start at 34 in Charted Space.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Just giving everyone 4 more terms of service without any other changes to the rules is not without consequence. You might like those consequences. But it's not an obvious "Must be done", which it seemed like you were advocating when "Traveller needs to change that".

I believe that Charted Space should change. That is what I’m advocating. It doesn’t mean I’ll get my way. Like you said, there are other game aspects. Even so, Traveller should make the changes to account for that as 34 has always been too low a bar for my taste.

 

[Vormaerin]

Is it a significantly lower tech setting? It's TL 10-12, with basically no low tech backwaters. Yes, Charted Space has higher tech worlds, but it also has lower tech worlds and the "average" is pretty comparable. It also has significantly superior biotech, both with what is routinely available to humans (soft path) and from aliens like the pentapods.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Is it a significantly lower tech setting? It's TL 10-12, with basically no low tech backwaters. Yes, Charted Space has higher tech worlds, but it also has lower tech worlds and the "average" is pretty comparable. It also has significantly superior biotech, both with what is routinely available to humans (soft path) and from aliens like the pentapods.

So make it 50 like 2300AD. Then it will all balance out.

 

[Vormaerin]

I believe that Charted Space should change. That is what I’m advocating. It doesn’t mean I’ll get my way. Like you said, there are other game aspects. Even so, Traveller should make the changes to account for that as 34 has always been too low a bar for my taste.

"I want the rules to be different because I like something different" is fine. But "a different setting uses different assumptions, so this setting should use those same assumptions" is not a persuasive argument for making the change.

 

[Terry Mixon]

"I want the rules to be different because I like something different" is fine. But "a different setting uses different assumptions, so this setting should use those same assumptions" is not a persuasive argument for making the change.

When your body starts crapping out is a pretty basic and foundational sort of thing.

I’ll stand by my thoughts on the matter though I hear what you’re saying.