On the nature of Experience, Levels and Age...

[Sugarmouse]

OK.

So middle of the year, our group concluded a SW campaign. Within 6 months game time, my character went from a Level 1 Jedi Padawan to a Jedi Knight.

More recently, our DM/GM is running us through the Shackled City. My character is 19 years old, and the party is now fourth level average.

Now, we are aware that gaming is not real life (yet) nor generally consistent with Fantasy Fiction, in terms of age versus experience and levels.

Of course there are ways to explain disparate levels between younger characters and older characters (both NPCs and PCs), for example, the thirty year old veteran militiaman may only be a second level warrior, but that is because nothing occurs on a frequent basis to propel him to higher levels. And so forth and so on...

So how do you handle this situation in your games? Does it even come up? Do you bring in ageist discrimination on some levels? I, for one would difficult to swallow the advice of a young upstart telling me how to run my war, when I have been in the business for longer then this kid has been born, and wear boots that are older then him/her and any two companions on top of it all.

 

[Umbran]

In D&D (and most other d20 games), this seems straightforward to me.

A character gains levels by overcoming significant challenges. Thus, level is more dependant on the kind of life you've led than how old you are. If you've lived a long, quiet, uninteresting life, you won't have gained many levels. If you're young, but in the midst of the most hecktic and dangerous epic the world's seen this century, you'll be pretty potent even if you can barely shave yet.

 

[shilsen]

I don't see any necessary correlation between age and levels. As Umbran says, by the core rules a character advances by overcoming challenges. In Eberron, Keith Baker has pushed this even further and argued that the PCs get to go up levels because they're the heroes of the piece, and that NPCs should just have whatever levels suit the game. Arguably, in any Indiana Jones movie, the Nazis (being trained military personnel) should kick Indy's archeology-studying professorial ass all over the landscape. Why don't they? Because he's the hero.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I occasionally mandate downtime, with level training, research and travel.

I still have a problem with suspending my disbelief of very high level characters that are very young. but really not a lot can be done about it.
My one attempt to say "alright 3 years pass" - didn't work well.

 

[J_D]

Sean K. Reynolds came up with a set of variant rules that deals with this topic. Basically, he takes the position that a typical peasant's life is not an easy one, and simply surviving in the long term is worth experience. Basically, he posits that one month of life is roughly equivlent to a CR 1 challenge then proceeds from there. 7th level would be achieved at age 41, 8th level at 49, and 9th level at age 61, then progression stops there because 9th level characters don't get experience for CR1 challenges. So, in Sean's variant rule, there aren't going to be any thirty year old veteran militiamen who are only second level warriors. This makes sense to me. I always thought that life experence should count for something unless the NPC has a very sheltered and protected life, and I have always considered the idea of an old and grizzled 1st or 2nd level commoner or warrior be more than a little ridiculous.

You can read Sean's variant rule at this site:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/theoryaboutpeasants.html

 

[Umbran]

This makes sense to me.

It may make some sense, but...

Well, for one thing, it doesn't match up wiht the 3e base assumption that most of any population is made up of 1st and 2nd level commoners. Use it, and you can toss the DMG's demographics right out the window.

More importantly, it brings up some questions of power inflation. All those 1st and 2nd level people are now spread from 1st to 7th level. Same goes for all the races that advance by class levels. And all of a sudden you find that there's precious little adventure in the world that a 1st level character can handle.

When 3rd level warriors are commonplace, nobody needs 1st level fighters for anything interesting. You would expect that all the lesser challenges that are the bread and butter of low-level characters should have been "eaten up" by those higher-level characters. When you've got 3rd, 4th, and 5th level characters about aplenty, they should be cleaning up the smaller untidynesses because they can do so easily and with little risk.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, for one thing, it doesn't match up wiht the 3e base assumption that most of any population is made up of 1st and 2nd level commoners. Use it, and you can toss the DMG's demographics right out the window.

Not really. Given that most peasants never make it past 35 or so, you don't really have the high level inflation.

Also, someone who has reached that age by living a peasant's life is unlikely to be the sort who wants to go out goblin hunting. He'll defend his farm, and might spend a few days a month drilling in the militia, but he doesn't have an adventurer's spirit.

 

[LostSoul]

When 3rd level warriors are commonplace, nobody needs 1st level fighters for anything interesting. You would expect that all the lesser challenges that are the bread and butter of low-level characters should have been "eaten up" by those higher-level characters. When you've got 3rd, 4th, and 5th level characters about aplenty, they should be cleaning up the smaller untidynesses because they can do so easily and with little risk.

That's true, if you want to use the "mentor" type of adventure - where PCs go and deal with things for some NPCs. If the PCs decide what they want to do on their own - and stumble on to something that only they know about, and can deal with - it will still work.

So there won't be any adventures where NPCs are asking for 1st level PCs to kill the local goblin tribe, or whatever... but that's okay, because those never really made much sense to me.

 

[J_D]

It may make some sense, but...

Well, for one thing, it doesn't match up wiht the 3e base assumption that most of any population is made up of 1st and 2nd level commoners. Use it, and you can toss the DMG's demographics right out the window.

As far as I'm concerned, whenever there's a dispute between what makes sense and what the book says, then I choose reason and logic over the book. The 3E base assumption was made solely for metagame balance purposes regardless of what made sense within the game world, and that has always been a design philosophy I dislike.

More importantly, it brings up some questions of power inflation. All those 1st and 2nd level people are now spread from 1st to 7th level. Same goes for all the races that advance by class levels. And all of a sudden you find that there's precious little adventure in the world that a 1st level character can handle.

I don't think that's necessarily true. There are still 1st level people in the towns, and CR 1 creatures in the wilds.

When 3rd level warriors are commonplace, nobody needs 1st level fighters for anything interesting. You would expect that all the lesser challenges that are the bread and butter of low-level characters should have been "eaten up" by those higher-level characters. When you've got 3rd, 4th, and 5th level characters about aplenty, they should be cleaning up the smaller untidynesses because they can do so easily and with little risk.

I disagree with this. There might be a fair number of 3rd and 4th level NPC's, and they might potentially be more capable of dealing with something "interesting" than a 1st level PC, but these 3rd and 4th level NPC's are not adventurers. They're commoners and warriors. They don't want to adventure. They're simple folk, just living a hard life, and want only to tend their fields, be in the village militia, and provide for their families. They got their levels the honest and hard-working way, the way that takes years instead of a few months rooting in dungeons or hunting beasts. These people, despite being 4th level commoners or warriors, don't want to go out risking their lives in some foolish quest for treasure or glory. That's what the adventurers - the PC classes - are for. Commoners and warriors often view adventurers as at least somewhat foolish - like we view people who fall for get-rich-quick schemes - except moreso because adventurers are risking their lives. A village militia made up of a spread of 1st-6th level warriors might be able to trek miles into the wilderness to deal with that orc or goblin tribe, but they don't want to if there's any way to avoid it. They're going to get adventurers to do it for them while they guard their town. Hey, those crazy people like risking their lives; let them throw their lives away, while I stay alive for my family!

 

[Sugarmouse]

Interesting responses so far.

Thanks for the synopsis and link J_D, it does allow for that (shall we* say) more realistic portrayal of an fantasy social ecology. I can see this optional rule making even more sense in a VP/WP adaption (like SW) where just because you are more knowledgeable and older does't mean you get to live longer in a situation when the shots start flying.

True, in terms of full blown fantasy adventuring the hero's are supposed to be able to meet challenges of increasing difficulty, regardless of their physical ages. Which is fine for many gamers and DMs. Heck, it was fine for me as well. My tastes have simply changed with time.

On that note, remember that I am asking for opinions and instances on 'if' this particular issue comes up. What works for some, may not work for others. And rules is such a misnomer. I wonder if anyone has recently started a petition to change the terminology to 'guidelines.'

*and by 'we' I mean me.