Why is Aging worse in Traveller than in 2300 AD?

[Saladman]

"Aging" can cover lingering work-related injuries, lingering effects from treated mishap injuries (it was always odd to me you could buy those off completely), minor radiation damage, losing the strength or wind you had in your twenties. They don't have to be literal geriatric decrepitude.

There's also a meta-game aspect. Parallel to how "death" in Classic char-gen really meant "you pushed your luck too far, start over, and consider a lower term count the next time you get good stat rolls," "aging" starting at 34 really means "you can try for lower or higher, but the game softly encourages characters centered around 4-5 terms, so pushing past that has a trade-off."

Even so, Traveller should make the changes to account for that as 34 has always been too low a bar for my taste.

Well, there it is. This is the worst possible reason to make a change to the rules. It's a house rule. If you want to house rule it, house rule it and carry on. If you want to discuss your house rules, that's fine too. But this kind of thing should be kept far away from the rulebook.

 

[Terry Mixon]

"Aging" can cover lingering work-related injuries, lingering effects from treated mishap injuries (it was always odd to me you could buy those off completely), minor radiation damage, losing the strength or wind you had in your twenties. They don't have to be literal geriatric decrepitude.

There's also a meta-game aspect. Parallel to how "death" in Classic char-gen really meant "you pushed your luck too far, start over, and consider a lower term count the next time you get good stat rolls," "aging" starting at 34 really means "you can try for lower or higher, but the game softly encourages characters centered around 4-5 terms, so pushing past that has a trade-off."



Well, there it is. This is the worst possible reason to make a change to the rules. It's a house rule. If you want to house rule it, house rule it and carry on. If you want to discuss your house rules, that's fine too. But this kind of thing should be kept far away from the rulebook.

I said I can house rule it and will, but that isn't the worst possible reason to change the rules on aging. For a medically advanced setting, it is far too low. Also, just because that is my opinion doesn't make it a terrible reason to advocate a change. My taste isn't that bad.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I said I can house rule it and will, but that isn't the worst possible reason to change the rules on aging. For a medically advanced setting, it is far too low. Also, just because that is my opinion doesn't make it a terrible reason to advocate a change. My taste isn't that bad.

I agree that 34 is too low for a civilization that is TL-12 on average and TL-16 at its top end. Besides, the Charted Space setting has Anagathics and you regularly see people who are 120+ and still perfectly healthy in the written fluff. Anagathics should be cheap as hell TL-15+ since they can make them synthetically. Also, life-extending nanobots are a thing from TL-13+. So, maybe the average age is higher in Traveller and We do not know it because it was never spelled out very clearly.

At TL-13 SOC 12+ tends to live, on average, 10 years longer. 80kCr/year
At TL-14 SOC 10+ tends to live, on average, 25 years longer. 40kCr.year
At TL-15 SOC 7+ tends to live, on average, 43 years longer. 20kCr/year

Longer if they use anagathics.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Added an edit to My previous post to show yearly cost of the nanobots.

 

[Vormaerin]

I like the idea of changing the aging system. I just think it takes more work than just doing that. I basically don't use the aging system at all in my campaigns (people do age, but not in the course of chargen or typical campaigns). I change the rank system to be 10 ranks instead of 6. Easy enough for the military (book 4/5/6/7 has extended rank and advancement restrictions that are easy to adapt). I also extend the mustering out tables and incorporate more events (some from MgT1e, some of my own design) so they won't result in as many duplicates. Chargen ends when your advancement roll is less than your terms served. I also use a version of TNE's weighted skill distribution so you get more skills in your first few terms and fewer skills in your later terms, so that characters that "muster out" early are not as disadvantaged as you'd otherwise expect.

I also make a big deal about skill ranks more than about die roll modifiers. For example, a character with Computer 4 might be rolling for how long the hack takes, while someone with a skill of 2 will be rolling for if they even succeed before they trigger the alarm. Even if both are rolling at +5 because of stats and gear.

IMHO, just adding a different aging start point (from 4 terms to 8, say) will just result in more high rank characters and a lot of duplicated mustering out benefits (which generally means more skills or stats than otherwise). And the game system needs to be modified to account for these higher skill values and DRMs, because a 2d6 curve is not very flexible. Especially if you are more generous with gear based bonuses than I am.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I like the idea of changing the aging system. I just think it takes more work than just doing that. I basically don't use the aging system at all in my campaigns (people do age, but not in the course of chargen or typical campaigns). I change the rank system to be 10 ranks instead of 6. Easy enough for the military (book 4/5/6/7 has extended rank and advancement restrictions that are easy to adapt). I also extend the mustering out tables and incorporate more events (some from MgT1e, some of my own design) so they won't result in as many duplicates. Chargen ends when your advancement roll is less than your terms served. I also use a version of TNE's weighted skill distribution so you get more skills in your first few terms and fewer skills in your later terms, so that characters that "muster out" early are not as disadvantaged as you'd otherwise expect.

I like the method you use though. I also agree that skills in terms should be weighted in favor of earlier terms as it becomes harder to learn to skills as you age. (and also, because it is a good game mechanic with a nice limitation) I miss the D66 tables for events and such that were in some of the books. Using D66 for skills would be awesome as well. Then you are not choosing between different tables, you are rolling D66 on only one table instead of D6 on your choice of 3 or 4 tables.

I also make a big deal about skill ranks more than about die roll modifiers. For example, a character with Computer 4 might be rolling for how long the hack takes, while someone with a skill of 2 will be rolling for if they even succeed before they trigger the alarm. Even if both are rolling at +5 because of stats and gear.

I tend to only require rolls for dramatic reasons. As a general rule, if with all of their bonuses, they can hit the difficulty with a roll of 4+, I auto success it. Then they only roll if they want the benefit of a higher Effect, since the auto-success is just a basic success.

 

[ross]

Actually, I did write something about this… Aging in Traveller

 

[Terry Mixon]

I like the idea of changing the aging system. I just think it takes more work than just doing that. I basically don't use the aging system at all in my campaigns (people do age, but not in the course of chargen or typical campaigns). I change the rank system to be 10 ranks instead of 6. Easy enough for the military (book 4/5/6/7 has extended rank and advancement restrictions that are easy to adapt). I also extend the mustering out tables and incorporate more events (some from MgT1e, some of my own design) so they won't result in as many duplicates. Chargen ends when your advancement roll is less than your terms served. I also use a version of TNE's weighted skill distribution so you get more skills in your first few terms and fewer skills in your later terms, so that characters that "muster out" early are not as disadvantaged as you'd otherwise expect.

I also make a big deal about skill ranks more than about die roll modifiers. For example, a character with Computer 4 might be rolling for how long the hack takes, while someone with a skill of 2 will be rolling for if they even succeed before they trigger the alarm. Even if both are rolling at +5 because of stats and gear.

IMHO, just adding a different aging start point (from 4 terms to 8, say) will just result in more high rank characters and a lot of duplicated mustering out benefits (which generally means more skills or stats than otherwise). And the game system needs to be modified to account for these higher skill values and DRMs, because a 2d6 curve is not very flexible. Especially if you are more generous with gear based bonuses than I am.

I can agree with that.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Actually, I did write something about this… Aging in Traveller

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Tom B]

Actually, I did write something about this… Aging in Traveller

Though it was so low in 1700, because of a high infant mortality rate. Once someone reached adulthood, they could expect to live until their 50s (I think).

The human body is not designed to live beyond 90, once you hit that age, many things are going wrong. We will not get a significant increase in life expectancy without a breakthrough in medicine, what form that is or when it will happen we can't tell.

So what I'm saying is I agree with much of what is being said.

I think aging rolls should start in the 50s.

High tech levels should delay it, especially for the rich.

If anyone has AoCS 4, the Suerrat have some age extension tech.

 

[MonsterX]

Physical decline is evident in elite athletes in many sports in their 30s, or even earlier. Nobody notices for the rest of us because if you're not a professional athlete, normally nobody is tracking your VO2 Max or one rep max deadlift on a regular basis. That said, I don't think that for active people you end up with THAT much decline before 50 - many people become overweight and more sedentary at that point for various reasons and that of course has an impact. And some people get an injury or chronicle illness. That aside, you do get some decline, but I don't think nearly as much as RAW seems to imply. If you add in injury, illness and the possibility of poor lifestyle choices though, the RAW odds probably make sense. That is to say, your health does not HAVE to decline, and your stats could stay the same, but there is a chance they won't and that is incorporated into the dice rolls.

I'm torn on this issue. Someone should do an analysis of the the average life expectancy based on RAW, but I am far to lazy to do it myself. I suspect it would be somewhat on the low side.

From a game mechanics perspective, it is good to get PCs to end their careers while they are still early middle aged, and haven't yet achieved the rank of Admiral of the Universe. The trade off with skills gives the freedom to push it sometimes, but most people tend to quit in the late 30s early 40s, and this creates the right vibe for the game. Letting people get a lot older without consequences would also imply slower advancement ranks (as this would apply to everyone, so fewer people would retire, and promotions would come slower).

 

[Sigtrygg]

Average age data should always be investigated. If it includes infant mortality then average age drops, but expected lifespan for someone who makes it to adulthood remained pretty similar throughout history until the advent of antibiotics.

I think the Traveller core rule book aging table is not fit for purpose, it should include a TL component. Personally I would use the good old MegaTraveller TL tech code groupings to modify when you have to consult the aging table as well as providing a DM to the roll.

World tech code	pre-industrial	industrial	pre-stellar	early-stellar	avg-stellar	high-stellar
aging roll DM	-2	-1	0	+1	+2	+3
aging rolls begin	34	34	34	38	42	46

 

[Condottiere]

Stem cell regeneration.

 

[boggo2300]

Though it was so low in 1700, because of a high infant mortality rate. Once someone reached adulthood, they could expect to live until their 50s (I think).

Much older, late 60's and 70's weren't unusual, and that was MUCH earlier than the 1700's, you are absolutely correct about the infant mortality being the skew though

 

[boggo2300]

Average age data should always be investigated. If it includes infant mortality then average age drops, but expected lifespan for someone who makes it to adulthood remained pretty similar throughout history until the advent of antibiotics.

I think the Traveller core rule book aging table is not fit for purpose, it should include a TL component. Personally I would use the good old MegaTraveller TL tech code groupings to modify when you have to consult the aging table as well as providing a DM to the roll.

World tech code	pre-industrial	industrial	pre-stellar	early-stellar	avg-stellar	high-stellar
aging roll DM	-2	-1	0	+1	+2	+3
aging rolls begin	34	34	34	38	42	46

I like this, though I would be tempted to move the +1 DM to Avg-Stellar, and leave early-stellar at 0, and make High-Stellar +2, and drop the aging rolls to 44. then for 16+ is when you get the meaty DM and aging ages.

 

[Arkathan]

Since the character can pay to have the "aging" damage corrected, often subsidized depending on career, I count it as accidental injuries not covered by events when they occur... But then I also use the MgT1 Swordworlder diet of limited but toxic anagathics to help avoid those effects.
It helps that my recent campaign wanted to be based out of the Sword Worlds, but I was using a similar mechanic in the 80's.

 

[Vormaerin]

Actually, that's not how the rules work. Aging is not injury and the medical care rules only apply to injury.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Since the character can pay to have the "aging" damage corrected, often subsidized depending on career, I count it as accidental injuries not covered by events when they occur... But then I also use the MgT1 Swordworlder diet of limited but toxic anagathics to help avoid those effects.
It helps that my recent campaign wanted to be based out of the Sword Worlds, but I was using a similar mechanic in the 80's.

Under Medical Care, it does specify "Injury". Aging is not listed on the Injury Table.

 

[MasterGwydion]

CRB needs fixed. I spotted an error.

page 50 under Anagathics

"the drugs cost 1D x Cr25000 for each term the Traveller uses the drugs."
So, 4-year supply costs 25kCr to 150kCr or 520Cr to 3,125Cr per month.

page 115 under Anagathics

"Anagathics (TL15): These slow the user’s ageing
process. Synthetic anagathics become possible at
TL15 but there are natural spices and other rare
compounds that have comparable effects. Anagathics
are illegal or heavily controlled on many worlds. One
dose must be taken each month to maintain the anti
aging effect. They cost Cr20000 per dose."

So, at 20kCr per dose and one dose per month, that is 960kCr per 4-year term. Huge difference in the two listed prices.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think the basic reason is that 2300AD came later than Traveller and wanted to make a point about the ageing process. A lot of the ideas in 2300AD are as a revision to what was previously written in order to be more ‘realistic’.