Spell aging question

[Mike Holmes]

No you misunderstand quite a bit. You would look older. Well, not if you only aged a little, but you get what I mean. Jake has agreed that the fingernails and hair are for effect in another post, IIRC. And as such, I don't think it's at all problematic if you want to keep it in. I'm just trying to adjust for  consistency. But the real effect isn't cosmetic, and doesn't change from my version to the regular version. IThe real effect is that the character is nearer to death, and perhaps can't function as effectively.

That is, the "weariness" makes you old. Eventually, the character will lose stats before he normally would. Then he'll die prematurely. Not because some disease runs it's course sooner, but because, weakened by age, a disease he gets later will kill him more easily that it would otherwise have. Or, if he doesn't get a disease, then he'll die of old age at some point much sooner than he would have.

Basically, if you "age" a month, you have one month less to live, IMO. Which is strong incentive not to do it. OTOH, like smoking, you don't know how long you've got. So mages gamble with their lifespan, and hope they don't regret it later. But, unlike cigarettes, the mage can prevent the harm by being careful. So, if you were a smoker, and could do it without harmful helath effects would you do it? Well, to the extent that one would do so, a mage will be careful.

Mike

[Brian Leybourne]

Remember also that past 40 the character makes aging rolls every year. And a year can keep coming by mighty fast for a sorcerer...

Brian.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

No you misunderstand quite a bit. You would look older.

I wrote, "If a mage ages a month in a moment there won't be any external sign that this is the case." To me, this implies acceptance of the underlying principal that the mage has physically aged a month.

... the real effect isn't cosmetic, and doesn't change from my version to the regular version. The real effect is that the character is nearer to death, and perhaps can't function as effectively.

I don't think that you are suggesting that the aging is cosmetic. The idea that the mage is necessarily closer to death isn't correct though.

That is, the "weariness" makes you old. Eventually, the character will lose stats before he normally would. Then he'll die prematurely.

IMO, this is the free lunch for the mage.

Let me explain. A mage has his horoscope cast at 18. It is determined that unless external influences alter events he will die at age 93. At 25, while carousing, our mage catches syphilis. It cannot be cured. Another horoscope is cast and it is determined that he will die in 17 years time of tertiary syphilis. A spectacularly unpleasant fate.

The mage knows that spiritual aging is perfect aging; joints do not deteriorate through wear and tear, diseases do not run their course, tumours do not grow, there is no onset of rheumatism, parasites are kept at bay. He also knows that he has 51 years or over 600 months of spiritual aging up his sleeve before he affects his real life expectancy. And unless he has an SA relating to a desperate desire to die from a venereal disease, he probably wants to die before reaching 42.

Basically, if you "age" a month, you have one month less to live, IMO. Which is strong incentive not to do it.

Perhaps. The incentive would be stronger if the mage was really aging though: he dies at age 42 rather than age 93 in the above example, personal spells with durations expire, hair grows, memories fade.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the spiritual aging that you suggest. It is internally consistent and works.

Cheers,

[Valamir]

Personally, I have no desire to ever play in the sort of campaign that lasts long enough for aging rolls to make a difference.  I enjoy this aspect of Pendragon because so much depends on building a dynasty and participating in the full Arthurian cycle.  But not for TROS.  

I don't want to start playing with a 22 year old character, and still be playing that character when he's 42.  Just don't want it.

So for me, aging as a penalty has no bite to it.  Oh sure, one could simply role play the character's understandable desire to not get old.  After all, a GM has to do that for NPC sorcerers because generally he won't really care on their behalf how old they get.  But there isn't a built in mechanical reason for why a player would care.

I mean for me in a game I'd be more likely to think..."oh, so my sorcerer aged 18 months.  Big deal, I'll cast the spell again"

I mean when playing 1ed D&D did anyone REALLY care that Haste spells aged you?  Did anyone even bother to keep track.  Maybe.  Certainly not my group at the time.

The Insight rules make obtaining a new character less painful than in other games, so aging your character right into the grave really doesn't have that much downside from my perspective.

Pendragon's system where the wizard actually has to sleep following a powerful spell, IMO has some teeth to it.  It often is simply not convenient for the wizard to just take a 48 hour nap.  Super powerful magic might require years of sleep if the difficulty isn't reduced by being sure to cast the spell at the right time, on the right day, in the right place, with the right preparations.  

This to me has a lot more teeth to it (some would say "too much" to actually have a wizard as a PC in Pendragon.  Which suits me just fine)

"penalty now" is more effective than "penalty later".  I don't really care about "penalty later".  I'm not planning to play this character "later" anyway.

I think the aging rules are built on some pretty hefty assumptions about the ideal of roleplaying being having a character survive over the course of a campaign that lasts years of real time.  Because it would take years of real time (or an artificially flash forwarded clock) to reach the point where character age even begins to matter.

My solution.  Don't play with Sorcerers at all.  I never much cared for magic users anyway.

[Draigh]

I agree with you there Ralph.  I switched to using something like "paradox" from Mage: The Ascention as a penalty for my magic users.  They don't even see it coming until it's too late.

[Ian.Plumb]

I don't want to start playing with a 22 year old character, and still be playing that character when he's 42.  Just don't want it.

OTOH, the idea of starting a campaign with an inexperienced character -- such as a 22 year old -- may not appeal to most players. If your character starts the game in their late thirties, then rapid aging is more of a concern.

"penalty now" is more effective than "penalty later".  I don't really care about "penalty later".  I'm not planning to play this character "later" anyway.

Treating the character as disposable may not be the style of play TRoS' authors had in mind when they designed the game. However, I agree that an immediate penalty is more of an incentive than a future penalty.

I think the aging rules are built on some pretty hefty assumptions about the ideal of roleplaying being having a character survive over the course of a campaign that lasts years of real time.  Because it would take years of real time (or an artificially flash forwarded clock) to reach the point where character age even begins to matter.

This assumes that everyone starts their game with new characters fresh out of their apprenticeships. I can't remember the last time I played a character like that. In addition, it's not like every day, week, or even month of gaming environment time is played out in-game. That is, it's not like your character simply rolls from scenario to scenario in a seamless sequential manner.

Cheers,

[Brian Leybourne]

Well, TROS does have a "penalty now" component, which is that sorcerers are feared, reviled and killed on sight, and it's hard to hide the physical evidence of sudden hair, beard and fingernail growth. So it's a roleplaying thing as opposed to a hard-and-fast penalty.

Brian.

[Thanaeon]

Treating the character as disposable may not be the style of play TRoS' authors had in mind when they designed the game. However, I agree that an immediate penalty is more of an incentive than a future penalty.

I'm not so sure here; the Insight mechanic strongly suggests, at least to me, a character with a fateful Destiny, the opportunity of playing a tragic character by choice, without losing too much on character progression as compared to other players.

This assumes that everyone starts their game with new characters fresh out of their apprenticeships. I can't remember the last time I played a character like that. In addition, it's not like every day, week, or even month of gaming environment time is played out in-game. That is, it's not like your character simply rolls from scenario to scenario in a seamless sequential manner.

I very much agree with this point. Especially a kind of noble game could very easily contain months of pause between scenarios.

[Valamir]

Quite true Brian.  
Although in my experience there are only three real ways of playing out a "Pariah" disadvantage in actual play (such as a Zhodani character in Traveler, a rogue telepath from B5, etc).

1) in a campaign limited to a location where the character is not a pariah (the Zhodani homeworld say)

2) in a campaign where the entire campaign circles around the pariah character and his efforts not to get caught.  Which is a fun and exciting way to play, but comes with its own set of restrictions.

3) in a campaign where lip service is paid to the Pariah status, but in practical day to day play its just breezed over.


In situation 1 and 3, the penalty essentially goes away.  And in situation 2 the penalty has taken over the campaign which may or may not be desired by the other players.

The Paradox idea, or Sorcerer's Humanity limit I think is far more effective because both essentially feed into more story possibilities in a way that a mere spell point limit doesn't.

IMO, Aging is a really cool idea conceptually and would make a great foundation for a novel.  But doesn't strike me as a particularly effective limiter for an RPG.  A GREAT source of color for the RPG.  But no really an effective limiter.  I think the weakness in Sorcery in TRoS is trying to use the Aging as both a color provider and a limiter.

[Lance D. Allen]

Let us not also remember the knockout roll, fellas. The effects of rapid aging can knock a sorcerer out, leaving them vulnerable to whatever circumstances may come their way.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Well, TROS does have a "penalty now" component, which is that sorcerers are feared, reviled and killed on sight, and it's hard to hide the physical evidence of sudden hair, beard and fingernail growth. So it's a roleplaying thing as opposed to a hard-and-fast penalty.

I think it's important to distinguish between the game mechanics and the gaming environment. Not everyone will use TRoS with the Weyrth gaming environment. Changing rule systems is relatively easy -- changing campaign settings is a pain.

As such, the first part is a gaming environment limitation rather than a TRoS limitation. The second part is a trigger for enacting the first part, and whether the second part should be used at all is under discussion.

Personally I think that if there is to be a limitation it needs to be a mechanic. This lets the referee know that the rule set was designed with this in mind. If the referee opts to abandon the rule as it doesn't fit with their chosen gaming environment then they need to address any balance issues that result.

Cheers,

[Mike Holmes]

I agree with most of what's been posted so far. There are two ways to look at it. Either the aging thing is a mechanical disincentive or it's a role-playing disincentive. Mechanically, a character basically has a pool of months to his life that he's burning through with the only penalization that he'll run out earlier if he spends them quickly. But that assumes that the player feels this pressure.

Given that I, too, do not expect to play the character until he has a chance to age that much, I too do not feel the mechanical incentive not to spend age. So it must be a role-playing thing.

Your mage character probably doesn't have any SAs that say that he wouldn't roll around in mud in front of a crowd. But if there was some advantage to be gained by it, would you automatically have the mage do it just because there was no mechanical incentive against it? Not all motives have to be wrapped up in mechanics. The point is that I would think it very implausible, personally, if you were to play a mage who didn't care about whether or not he aged. In fact, think of it as a narrativist statement mechanically. The ammount of life that a character is willing to burn through to cast a spell should indicate the importance with which the character holds that action.

So, unless you're playing a very Gamist version of TROS, I think that the aging rules provide a perfectly suitable thematic relevance to using magic.

Mike