What's the problem with aging?

[K]

Ok, 3e glosses over aging heavily. 4e doesn't even acknowledge it.

I mean, how long does a Rakshasa live? Or a Half-fiend? Or a Griffon?

Despite people flipping out over elven long lives and the belief that long life comes in only the Highlander version where long life must equate to learning crazy stuff and getting really good at things, I see no reason why long life has to mean anything. Lots of people don't learn new things or master new skills as they age. They generally act like they were immortal with time on their hands and they still don't even attempt to do things of note.

I mean, one of 2e's basic conceits was that powerful people abused potions of longevity. Long lived wizards were a basic part of the game, and 3e tried to eat it alive. To my knowledge, 3e had only two PrCs that granted agelessness, a pile that let you not take aging ability penalties, and everyone assumed that undead, demons, and angels don't age despite the rules being mostly silent on the issue. 4e doesn't even tell you if vampires are ageless.

So what's the problem? Why can't you just add one line on a monster description to say how long they live?

I understand that in people's eyes it is a real ability (but it won't affect any game you play in, actually).

So here is an idea: balance out the non-abilities for races.

So, for example, crap like fire resistance is not a real ability. Your DM can quite easily forget to use fire damage for ten levels worth of adventures and then you don't get to use your thing.

So, you can just give Tielfings fire resistance and a few other flavorful things and offset that by a written weakness where is says that non-character races in your setting start off as hostile if they know you are a tiefling (but named NPCs don't). Both are essentially meaningless to combat and level balances, but combined they look like a real trade-off and keep the RPers satisfied.

So that being said, you can have something like elves having long lives, but they have some kind of weakness like dwarves distrust them, orcs and the other humanoid races single them out in combat, and they can't let magic items be destroyed (even with evil items). Then you can toss in some extra crap for the flavor of elf and offset it for that (so drow are hated by everyone but get Darkvision and a few weird and useless spell-likes, and wild elves can only harm animals to feed themselves but get stealth in woodlands).

Some racial abilities would have to be feats. Drow SR, for example, scales and is useful for most of your character play, and so would be a feat. You can just call it Noble Drow and just assume that drow peasants aren't supermen.

[virgil]

I'm kind of wary of having mechanical effects traded for nonmechanical ones.

[K]

I'm kind of wary of having mechanical effects traded for nonmechanical ones.

I'd argue that passive stuff like Fire Resistance 5 is not a "mechanic" in the mechanic/nonmechanic duality in the sense that it stands up with real mechanic for a real ability.

It should come up about as often as "Innkeeper is Hostile if you don't hide tieflling traits", which means that it we are essentially creating mechanics for nonabilties as a way to balance them against each other instead of against real abilities. For example, there are entire feat chains that in total grant you Cold Resistance 5 which is supposed to be balanced against feat chains that in total grant over half a dozen spell-likes of good spells. That's BS.

Unless you build an entire character around one, you shouldn't even notice nonabilities. Heck, considering the synergies people get by putting real abilities together, a little synergy from a nonability and a real ability is pretty meaningless.

[virgil]

I can agree with that, especially for the fire resistance. The stealth bonus in woodlands part is my biggest concern, because it can take you even farther off the RNG and being in the woods would come up more often than being exposed to fire.

I agree with the premise, I do. I was just disagreeing with one of the examples you used for a nonability; so I guess I should've been more clear on that point.

[Koumei]

I like the idea of nonabilities that function as little more than flavour, and almost-flavour penalties for balance.

I have seen cases of DMs trying to make ageing matter. End result? Never works. Ever. Better to just say "It doesn't matter, and here's a penalty that also doesn't matter, to balance it if you care."

[Amra]

Aging only seemed to exist in 3.5 so that anyone replacing a defunct high-level character with a Druid could rule the Universe even more...

I've had a few effectively-immortal-or-at-least-won't-die-from-aging characters dotted around my campaigns from time to time. In some cases they weren't even terribly powerful individuals; they'd just spent a lot of time and effort coming up with ways to make themselves live a long time.

The net effect was that they were, by and large, very cautious - or even fearful - types who actively *didn't* try to achieve big, noticeable things because they didn't want to be noticed. It didn't give them anything beyond a bit of colour and a couple of useful additional ways for me to think about how they might act.

If memory serves, didn't the 2e Monster Manuals often (but not always) say how long a creature would normally live?

[Jerry]

I get the feeling that if Wizards or some other publisher made rules for aging, you guys would diss it no matter what.

Welcome to the Gaming Den, where we toss around ideas that sound cool until they hit the printer, in which case they're unbalanced!

[RandomCasualty2]

Fire resistance is a tangible benefit. I mean unless your DM goes specifically out of your way to hose you and make sure that you dont' encounter fire creatures (which is a real dick move), there's a good chance that ability is going to be useful.

Saying that's something trivial is like saying charm person sucks because you may never encounter humanoids.

I don't buy that reasoning at all. Fire is one of the most common damage types in the game, you're bound to encounter it from time to time.

[K]

Fire resistance is a tangible benefit. I mean unless your DM goes specifically out of your way to hose you and make sure that you dont' encounter fire creatures (which is a real dick move), there's a good chance that ability is going to be useful.

Saying that's something trivial is like saying charm person sucks because you may never encounter humanoids.

I don't buy that reasoning at all. Fire is one of the most common damage types in the game, you're bound to encounter it from time to time.

In my last campaign(levels 3-10), I took fire damage twice. I met hundreds of humanoids that I'd want to charm. I think that pretty much sums it up.

But you do have a valid point, even if you don't agree with it. Charm Person shouldn't exist in its current form.

[K]

I get the feeling that if Wizards or some other publisher made rules for aging, you guys would diss it no matter what.

Welcome to the Gaming Den, where we toss around ideas that sound cool until they hit the printer, in which case they're unbalanced!

Bitter much?

Seriously. We have standards. We call "bullshit" when someone makes bullshit.

Being a "publisher" in the RPG business just means that you had 5-6K lying around to blow. If your rules don't work well, don't expect people to respect you, regardless of whether you are a "publisher."

That being said, the Den is a place where everyone is honest. We don't agree on lots of things, which is why it's a great place to toss around ideas. Constructive feedback is seldom kind.

[JonSetanta]

I get the feeling that if Wizards or some other publisher made rules for aging, you guys would diss it no matter what.

Probably. We'd also come up with alternatives.

Welcome to the Gaming Den, where we toss around ideas that sound cool until they hit the printer, in which case they're unbalanced!

I agree that Tome tends towards the rocket tag objective, but as Frank stated (in effect) it was intended so.
Non-casters were brought to a similar level of effectiveness as casters.

I could also put it this way; when Frank reviewed my Feybook draft a year ago, he called the excessive rules-less fluff "a waste of time" because, frankly, that's what it was. I just didn't notice the fact because I was imitating the fluff-packed WOTC and Green Ronin publications that I collect.
As a result of reviews by Bigode and Frank, I believe that I've become a better RPG designer (if one could ascribe such a title to oneself) and many others probably have similar stories to tell of how they were brought out of their delusions concerning game design.

[RandomCasualty2]

In my last campaign(levels 3-10), I took fire damage twice. I met hundreds of humanoids that I'd want to charm. I think that pretty much sums it up.

well, that's anecdotal evidence. In the last adventure I ran for my 3.5 campaign, they ran into several things doing fire damage. A wizard dropping fireballs and a pyrohydra.

And that was pretty routine. Given that scorching ray and fireball exist as spells, it's pretty likely they'll run into some fire damage based on the kind of campaign you're running.

I mean, now it's possible you could say that specialized abilities shouldn't exist, but I don't think that they're flavor abilities at all, they're just abilities that vary based on what the DM throws at you, which makes their value anywhere from awesome to nil.

A flavor ability is something that really does nothing for you mechanically, like "can play the flute."

Fire resistance is a situational bonus. Now that situation may or may not come up during play, based on the quest the DM is running. Seriously, I've had some quests that took place in some deep jungle or cave or whatever and charm person would have been totally useless. Sometimes you're in the arctic and fire resistance doesn't do dick. But that's mostly based on the DM.

[MartinHarper]

So, dopplegangers in 4th edition have a strong non-combat power in their at-will shapeshifting disguise ability. Should that be balanced out by having them die after a year?

I can agree with that, especially for the fire resistance. The stealth bonus in woodlands part is my biggest concern, because it can take you even farther off the RNG and being in the woods would come up more often than being exposed to fire.

You could make it a +1 racial bonus for the whole party, as for the current Elf bonus to Perception. Or you could give them automatic skill training whilst in woods (but if they've already got proper training in Stealth, they get nothing extra).

The problem is that all these things are so DM-dependant. You'd need a mechanic where a player checks a box every time they use a "flavour" ability, and if they don't check off enough boxes over an adventure, they get more good flavoursome stuff for free.

[K]

So, dopplegangers in 4th edition have a strong non-combat power in their at-will shapeshifting disguise ability. Should that be balanced out by having them die after a year?

I'd probably balance it out with a social penalty when someone finds out that you are a doppleganger.

By the way, nice strawman argument. I'm arguing that a situational bonus should be offset by a situational penalty, not that a strong power should be offset by making an unplayable character.

[RandomCasualty2]

I'd probably balance it out with a social penalty when someone finds out that you are a doppleganger.

By the way, nice strawman argument. I'm arguing that a situational bonus should be offset by a situational penalty, not that a strong power should be offset by making an unplayable character.

That isn't much of a penalty, given you can just disguise yourself again and then nobody will know if you're a doppleganger at all.

[MartinHarper]

By the way, nice strawman argument. I'm arguing that a situational bonus should be offset by a situational penalty, not that a strong power should be offset by making an unplayable character.

I didn't mean it as a strawmanor as an argument - it was a genuine question.

I don't see that dieing after a year is unplayable. Besides, why shouldn't there be short-lived races? There's no reasons why humans should always die first.

[Jerry]

Bitter much?

The fact that many threads here focus on the negative aspects of RPG mechanics strikes it as though many people here, but you and Frank in particular, are seldom satisfied with RPG games in general.

That, and I don't go on Internet message boards to find genuine works of quality, or some publishers for that matter.

Sure, there are problems in RPG games, but unless I'm getting paid, I'm not going to fix all of them.

[Aktariel]

It is almost always easier to find a problem than create a solution.

But people here do create solutions, especially Frank and K.

And no. I don't think most people here are very satisfied with many RPG games out there. (Which makes me wonder if people are even going to agree enough to get TNE out the door, or at least semi-finished, but hey. I digress. And haven't put much work into it myself.)

On another note, I've kind of given up on Fourth. Sure. Like K said, there are things that could be fixed. Things that could be done to make it better.

But you know something? I've been playing Third edition since it came out, and while I have no doubt that at some point I will learn the rules for Fourth as fully and completely as I've learned Third, I have enough of a time trying to run sane games in Third with F&K's fixes, without trying to learn a new edition, and how to fix it.

Way off topic. I know.

[Jerry]

It is almost always easier to find a problem than create a solution.

But people here do create solutions, especially Frank and K.

But how many threads/posts here are dedicated to fixing problems instead of complaining about them?

Sorry to be the Devil's Advocate, the boards just come off that way.

[Aktariel]

Like I said. Easier to find problems than make solutions.

[Jerry]

Like I said. Easier to find problems than make solutions.

Alright, I guess I just have different ways of talking about things that I don't like.

I'll stop talking about this subject now.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

But how many threads/posts here are dedicated to fixing problems instead of complaining about them?

Complaining about problems is important. Identifying a problem is the very first step in fixing a problem. All the complaining posts and threads are people refining their ability to identify problems, hopefully in an insightful or humorous way.

If you don't have that first step, you get Enworld. A place where bad ideas are not evaluated, and they go on to be praised unchecked.

[Jerry]

Complaining about problems is important. Identifying a problem is the very first step in fixing a problem. All the complaining posts and threads are people refining their ability to identify problems, hopefully in an insightful or humorous way.

If you don't have that first step, you get Enworld. A place where bad ideas are not evaluated, and they go on to be praised unchecked.

And if that helps, more power to you!

I just have a different way of dealing with problems.

Most notably on a more personal level:

Step 1: Does said problem impact my group's enjoyment of the game?
If yes:
Step 2: Are there any easy ways to change the problem to suit my group's tastes?
If no:
Step 3: Is there a solution in a D&D product or house-rule on the Internet that suits my group?
If no:
Step 4: Fix it myself.

[MartinHarper]

Weren't you going to stop talking about this?

Regardless,
Step 0: identify problem.

[RandomCasualty2]

I don't see that dieing after a year is unplayable.

It depends on the game, and it's not really a drawback regardless.

I always hate how games like GURPS give out big points for drawbacks like "Will die in a year." That's not a real drawback, that's juts backing your DM into a corner.

Either the DM has to:
-Make sure the campaign doesn't go as long as your lifespan (and therefore the drawback isn't a drawback at all)
-Have your character die at some point during the campaign (which means you just make Faramir instead of Boromir).

Neither is particularly helpful to the story or to game balance.