How old does he look?

[Gray Lensman]

Combat Experience = Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm and other places that I can't talk about.

Yes to USA.

A Great Analysis.

 

[Water Bob]

Previously it was posted that being 35 does not automatically make you level 5, it means you have 15 levels of Exp, if you have spent 15 years in a box then you are level 1, if you have spent 15 years fighting to the death day-to-day in an alien jungle then you going to be much higher.

so the guy in Germany would be level 1 (maybe level 2), the guy in Vietnam would be 3 maybe 4

I don't think one year warrants a level, unless we're talking about PC high experience (as defined in the previous post), but, yes, I think you and I are on the same page.

Quality of experience is important.

A Great Analysis.

Thanks, man!

 

[Water Bob]

Those still having trouble with the OP, consider this....



You've got three basic types of characters in the game.

Faceless Mooks

Important NPC's

PC's and Major NPC's



When considering the level of a character in each of these categories, two of the categories are no brainers...

Faceless Mooks are always level 1-3. Pick the most appropriate.

PC's and Major NPC's are defined by game experience and story needs.



For the middle category, the Important NPC's, use the chart in the OP as a guideline--a rule of thumb--a starting point. Adjust from that point.

Done.



In a nutshell, that's what the OP says. If you're playing D&D or a d20 game with non-humans, then adjust age on the chart appropriately. If you want to use the chart for monsters, do the same thing.

All the chart is intended to be is a game aid. It's not a overbearing rule. It doesn't replace the GM's common sense and judgement. It's simply a tool for the GM to use when considering NPC character levels.

I think it does a pretty good job.

For those of you that don't agree....simply ignore the thread!

 

[Omegaxicor]

I don't think one year warrants a level, unless we're talking about PC high experience (as defined in the previous post), but, yes, I think you and I are on the same page.

Quality of experience is important.

one year, yea fair enough a level is too much but I meant however long the Vietnam conflict lasted

either way it is a great aid

 

[Loonook]

I chose the Climb skill because it easily shows the fault in the system. It crazy to assume an 80 year old man can do better on a Kilimanjaro climb than the same person could in his prime at age 25.

There's really no disputing that (unless you're Loonook and know half a dozen 80 year olds that wear capes and have a huge "S" on their chests). It shows how the d20 system does not handle age well as Loonook suggests.
.

I do love the ad hominen attacks... Let's go with the tricks of the fact that you really haven't addressed anything going against you.

So we're going to go with Kilimanjaro. 40000+ individuals have attempted to climb per year... lets say that goes for the last seventy years.

Let's go with the population at 1940 and just clear them off the table. Yes, there are individuals who could have survived from 1940 who are 72 or above... But we will also allow that group to represent the increase since 2010 estimates.

2.3 billion people existed before today's population 70 years ago. Current population estimate 6.9 billion.

9.2 billion people who have had the chance, if they were so inclined/able to afford it, to climb Kilimanjaro. So 1/225000 of the total theorized +70yr world population have attempted the summit... this year alone.

Over the last 70? 1/3,285.

Now, let's give you the benefit of the doubt here, and say that 60% (per some estimates here make it to the summit. We'll cut that total in half.

1 in 7000. Over the populace of the whole world? More than one million served.

And around 800 dead on the high side. Now this doesn't take into account that there may be higher deaths one year or another, bad climbing seasons... But I'm weighing the numbers to your side of the argument.

There are several summits at 80 including one that began their summit training by "climbing the 10 flights of stairs at the Rapid City Regional Hospital at the hospital where
she volunteers".

The fastest summit, for the record, is under 9 hours by an endurance runner/climber who climbs Kilimanjaro like you or I commute to work. I think he's just deciding to do it for the lulz at this point, but ehh...

By the by, our elder climbers use suggestions from those who plan climbs to Kilimanjaro on times, which sits between 6-8 days. The elders who climbed took... 8 and 6 days.

Again I'm talking extremes on my side, and baselines on your side. Individuals who summit usually go in small groups though of course you could solo. I have no data on solo'ing for the elderly, but could be a possibility... Just no data on oldest solo climb. For reference, our "ten flights of stairs" nurse only took her granddaughter with her.

It is completely impossible for the over 85 sect, who make up 5,493,433 or 1.8% of the population to do such grinding, harsh things. I mean, by the numbers there's a possible 784 individuals who are "summit ready". Of course let us half that just for dementia, various physical ailments, etc. and we have 392 people who could pull it off. I just don't think the old give too much of a damn about thrillseeking behaviors anymore.

Of course that would be silly!

Slainte,

-Loonook.

EDIT: Of course, by your 'high XP' decisions, you are dealing with mid-level characters for most of these people.. You know, fighting multiple years as pilots, infantry, airmen, climbing mountains, diving into the depths, curing diseases...

 

[Water Bob]

I do love the ad hominen attacks... Let's go with the tricks of the fact that you really haven't addressed anything going against you.

You're attacking the example and missing the point.

Forest for the trees.

 

[Loonook]

You're attacking the example and missing the point.

Forest for the trees.

Your example is, of course, the crux of your argument. Your argument, which makes for the fact that Age = levels, then complain that an old man should not be better at X because they are physically incompetent (of course, your stats still leave him at... a base 0).

Your whole post tries to fit levels into age... And drops off. I present an argument which you never really address, present several examples where you are wrong, place arguments down... And somehow I am missing something?

Thank the heavens for ignore. Knew there was a reason for it .

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Water Bob]

Your example is, of course, the crux of your argument.

Most people would agree that an 80 year old can't do many of the tasks--especially the physical ones--that the same person could do at age 25. It's common sense. It's fact. And, your comments to the contrary are ridiculous.

Do I believe that it's possible that an 80 year old could do something better than his 25 year old younger self? Sure. You bet. The world is full of contradictions.

But, we're talking about the d20 system and how it includes the ageing process in the mechanics. You said the d20 handles ageing well. I said that you're crazy to say that backed it up with an example.

Even a flat average human with all stats set at 10 will look like this at age 80.

STR 4
DEX 4
CON 4
INT 13
WIS 13
CHR 13

The physicals are probably about right (at least, they're getting there), but many (most?) 80 year olds get worse mentally, not more intelligent, wiser, and more charismatic!

All sorts of diseases tend to set in, not to mention the fact that older (unfortunately) doesn't usually mean better.

So, it really doesn't handle ageing that well. I accept it in the same way I accept a lot of things the d20 system doesn't model well (like going from fully healty at 1 HP to disabled at 0 HP and unconscious at -1 HP...what happens to things like "arm useless but still able to move and fight back as best as possible"?). But, because I accept it as a game doesn't mean I'm going to endorse the system as handling the situation well. I'm sure the d20 system could be tweaked to handle a lot of issues better than it does.

Your argument, which makes for the fact that Age = levels, then complain that an old man should not be better at X because they are physically incompetent (of course, your stats still leave him at... a base 0).

Don't confuse the arguments here.

You and I were discussing the merits of the d20 system and how it deals with age. We didn't originally start discussing an argument that Age = Levels.

As to Age = Levels, look at my last few posts above. I've gone over it a few times. It makes a lot of sense. Read those posts.