Trivial: Can we not have every starting character at age 21?

[Chunkyman]

This isn't trivial. It puts large limits on roleplaying when you're forced to play as only one age.

[jezz555]

You correcting me on the time period in which the game is set is welcome, but you've really only served to back up my point, as you said the average life expectancy is 69 so at sixty you have less than a decade of estimated life left in you.

Mmm no. At the age of 60, your life expectancy would be more than nine years.

 

not in the present day...obviously. In the time period in which the game is set e.g. renaissance period, furthermore its not my data to begin with, It was Hormalakh who said people of that time period lived until about 69, thus less than a decade.

Nope, that's not it. Assume the expected life span is 69 given that you made it to 20. Once you reach the age of 60, your expected life span is more than 9 years. That's because the probability distribution is different for age of death given that you are age 60 compared to the distribution for your age of death when you are, say, age 20.

 

Ah I see what your saying now, But he didn't give the life expectancy for someone who had survived to sixty, so there really isn't much more I can go on given that I'm too lazy to look up my own data. Regardless my point is unchanged, life expectancy was, I'm sure you'll concede, shorter than it is today and medicine/sanitation ect. was far worse, therefore elderly people would not only be rarer but most likely in poorer health than elderly people of today and therefore less effective in combat, particular after a lifetime of adventuring.

Edited November 5, 2012 by jezz555

[Hormalakh]

I'm not saying for adventurers to start adventuring at age 60. Some of them can start a little later, at around age 30 for example.

[jezz555]

I'm not saying for adventurers to start adventuring at age 60. Some of them can start a little later, at around age 30 for example.

 

eh still. I'm not saying its incredibly unreasonable or something, but I think they are a lot of good arguments against it as I like to think I've shown, and the only real argument you've brought up is that you think it would be cool. And it seems like your main objection to the current system, at least in your first post was just that the portraits don't usually match, which could be remedied fairly easily.

Edited November 8, 2012 by jezz555

[Hormalakh]

I'm not saying for adventurers to start adventuring at age 60. Some of them can start a little later, at around age 30 for example.

 

eh still. I'm not saying its incredibly unreasonable or something, but I think they are a lot of good arguments against it as I like to think I've shown, and the only real argument you've brought up is that you think it would be cool. And it seems like your main objection to the current system, at least in your first post was just that the portraits don't usually match, which could be remedied fairly easily.

 

No the issue I have against forcing my character to be 20 years old, is:

 

1-that it forces my character down a certain path with only a limited amount of backstory that he could have lived before starting his newest adventure

 

2-stop railroading my characters

 

3-it starts to look ridiculous that my level 1 elf is aged 150, and learning his first magic missle, whereas my level 9 human aged 21 knows fireball. Was the elf j***ing-off for the past 130 years?

 

4-stop railroading my characters

 

5-Portraits won't match up to ages.

 

6-seriously....stop railroading my characters.

 

7- It can bring in interesting game mechanics (see others' posts).

 

8- It's not too realistic.

 

I didn't really see any arguments other than "this is how it's always been done" from you though.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Hormalakh

[DCParry]

I'm not saying for adventurers to start adventuring at age 60. Some of them can start a little later, at around age 30 for example.

 

eh still. I'm not saying its incredibly unreasonable or something, but I think they are a lot of good arguments against it as I like to think I've shown, and the only real argument you've brought up is that you think it would be cool. And it seems like your main objection to the current system, at least in your first post was just that the portraits don't usually match, which could be remedied fairly easily.

 

The only argument that needs to be used is that it increases the range of role playing experience for the player. If it does this, does not cost more zots (or significantly more zots for the pay off), does not interfere with the creative vision of the creators, then there is no reason not to add it. Now, these are admittedly some big caveats, but I think we can reasonably say that it would indeed increase the range of role playing experiences for the overall audience, even if you, in particular, wouldn't use it. From what we know of how the game starts, it wouldn't interfere with the creative vision (or at least seriously interfere). The questions then are the labor/design investment and how it might play out later in the game.

 

As for previous experience, that is all encapsulated in the starting skills and load out. In most cRPGs you don't start out completely incapable of doing anything. So I wanted to play a grizzled woodsman. In his youth he was conscripted by the local baron to fight in some border war. While away, his village, with his wife and child, was burned to the ground by raiders because the baron was too worried about protecting the his vineyards than his peasants. After returning, he lived as a near hermit, dealing with people on to trade with when necessary. Cue traumatic spiritual event, start game.

 

So, my PC is either a ranger or warrior, depending how much I want to play up the woodsman angle. In rangers are all druidy and tree hugging, I go with warrior. Regardless as far as stats I drop charisma down, since he, you know, hates people. Second, for skills I concentrate on survival/hunting/wilderness skills. For weapons, I throw in a spear as a proficiency (if they exist, proficiencies that it). Perhaps there is something like a perk system, so I could pick something for flavor, like anarchistic type trait to represent his hatred of established feudal government or some such. Viola, I have my grizzled, 40 year old woodsman. Functionally, not a lot different from any other character creation. I think if Obsidian provides use the tools to do minor customization like this, then I think it will be better for everyone. No mucking with boni or mali for being aged (also, I doubt many of us are full time adventurers, so we might not be entirely familiar with how a life of goblin killing, troll burning, spelunking or whatever would affect our physical state.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I like giving players options to play a range of character ages. Some of that can be reflected in portraits or in dialogue. I would rather not place mechanical modifications on character age. If you think an older character should be weaker and wiser, you can arrange your ability scores to reflect that.

 

As far as the story goes, we do not currently plan to have any restrictions on the PC's starting age (other than being an adult).

[Hormalakh]

I like giving players options to play a range of character ages. Some of that can be reflected in portraits or in dialogue. I would rather not place mechanical modifications on character age. If you think an older character should be weaker and wiser, you can arrange your ability scores to reflect that.

 

As far as the story goes, we do not currently plan to have any restrictions on the PC's starting age (other than being an adult).

 

Very cool! Thanks sir!

[Hormalakh]

The only argument that needs to be used is that it increases the range of role playing experience for the player. If it does this, does not cost more zots (or significantly more zots for the pay off), does not interfere with the creative vision of the creators, then there is no reason not to add it. Now, these are admittedly some big caveats, but I think we can reasonably say that it would indeed increase the range of role playing experiences for the overall audience, even if you, in particular, wouldn't use it. From what we know of how the game starts, it wouldn't interfere with the creative vision (or at least seriously interfere). The questions then are the labor/design investment and how it might play out later in the game.

 

As for previous experience, that is all encapsulated in the starting skills and load out. In most cRPGs you don't start out completely incapable of doing anything. So I wanted to play a grizzled woodsman. In his youth he was conscripted by the local baron to fight in some border war. While away, his village, with his wife and child, was burned to the ground by raiders because the baron was too worried about protecting the his vineyards than his peasants. After returning, he lived as a near hermit, dealing with people on to trade with when necessary. Cue traumatic spiritual event, start game.

 

So, my PC is either a ranger or warrior, depending how much I want to play up the woodsman angle. In rangers are all druidy and tree hugging, I go with warrior. Regardless as far as stats I drop charisma down, since he, you know, hates people. Second, for skills I concentrate on survival/hunting/wilderness skills. For weapons, I throw in a spear as a proficiency (if they exist, proficiencies that it). Perhaps there is something like a perk system, so I could pick something for flavor, like anarchistic type trait to represent his hatred of established feudal government or some such. Viola, I have my grizzled, 40 year old woodsman. Functionally, not a lot different from any other character creation. I think if Obsidian provides use the tools to do minor customization like this, then I think it will be better for everyone. No mucking with boni or mali for being aged (also, I doubt many of us are full time adventurers, so we might not be entirely familiar with how a life of goblin killing, troll burning, spelunking or whatever would affect our physical state.

 

Hey dude. I've got your character portrait for you and his name. Ron Swanson.

 

[AGX-17]

The reason why you typically have a young protagonist is because you're starting, typically, around level 1 (and from the buzz I've heard PE is going to top out around 12?) How does a 60 year old man go through 60 years of life and gain no experience? And what's the point of an experience system if you start at the maximum level from the start?

Edited November 8, 2012 by AGX-17

[jezz555]

I like giving players options to play a range of character ages. Some of that can be reflected in portraits or in dialogue. I would rather not place mechanical modifications on character age. If you think an older character should be weaker and wiser, you can arrange your ability scores to reflect that.

 

As far as the story goes, we do not currently plan to have any restrictions on the PC's starting age (other than being an adult).

 

well that settles that.

 

The reason why you typically have a young protagonist is because you're starting, typically, around level 1 (and from the buzz I've heard PE is going to top out around 12?) How does a 60 year old man go through 60 years of life and gain no experience? And what's the point of an experience system if you start at the maximum level from the start?

 

PE tops out around 12? where are you getting that from, because I would kind of take issue with that...

 

I'm not saying for adventurers to start adventuring at age 60. Some of them can start a little later, at around age 30 for example.

 

eh still. I'm not saying its incredibly unreasonable or something, but I think they are a lot of good arguments against it as I like to think I've shown, and the only real argument you've brought up is that you think it would be cool. And it seems like your main objection to the current system, at least in your first post was just that the portraits don't usually match, which could be remedied fairly easily.

 

No the issue I have against forcing my character to be 20 years old, is:

 

1-that it forces my character down a certain path with only a limited amount of backstory that he could have lived before starting his newest adventure

 

2-stop railroading my characters

 

3-it starts to look ridiculous that my level 1 elf is aged 150, and learning his first magic missle, whereas my level 9 human aged 21 knows fireball. Was the elf j***ing-off for the past 130 years?

 

4-stop railroading my characters

 

5-Portraits won't match up to ages.

 

6-seriously....stop railroading my characters.

 

7- It can bring in interesting game mechanics (see others' posts).

 

8- It's not too realistic.

 

I didn't really see any arguments other than "this is how it's always been done" from you though.

 

Hey fair enough dude, If you want it that badly then I hope you get it. My argument to clarify, was only that its always been done that way, because it fits a first level character the best. It is ridiculous that an elf would be lvl 1 at age 150 unless elves mature very slowly in PE, but it's also ridiculous that you would be lvl 9 at age 21, I never advocated for lvl 9 characters being 21. My point was that it makes sense for a first lvl character and that's why in games they typically are, hence why I was advocating for a character that ages throughout the course of the game. So your lvl at least to a certain extent matches your age, because I think that's more realistic and you get to play your character at many different ages instead of him just being frozen at one age. But that may be to hard to implement, idk.

Edited November 8, 2012 by jezz555

[Utukka]

The reason why you typically have a young protagonist is because you're starting, typically, around level 1 (and from the buzz I've heard PE is going to top out around 12?) How does a 60 year old man go through 60 years of life and gain no experience? And what's the point of an experience system if you start at the maximum level from the start?

 

There's plenty of old people in real life that aren't qualified to greet the door at Walmart....pretty sure a few could slip through in PE.

[jezz555]

The reason why you typically have a young protagonist is because you're starting, typically, around level 1 (and from the buzz I've heard PE is going to top out around 12?) How does a 60 year old man go through 60 years of life and gain no experience? And what's the point of an experience system if you start at the maximum level from the start?

 

There's plenty of old people in real life that aren't qualified to greet the door at Walmart....pretty sure a few could slip through in PE.

 

so your a sixty year old guy not qualified to greet the door at Walmart...and then you somehow become an amazing adventurer? At sixty your not really growing anymore, that's the point. age and xp, (if we assume realism is a factor) would seem to be linked, i.e. you should gain more xp as you get older.

Edited November 8, 2012 by jezz555

[Utukka]

The reason why you typically have a young protagonist is because you're starting, typically, around level 1 (and from the buzz I've heard PE is going to top out around 12?) How does a 60 year old man go through 60 years of life and gain no experience? And what's the point of an experience system if you start at the maximum level from the start?

 

There's plenty of old people in real life that aren't qualified to greet the door at Walmart....pretty sure a few could slip through in PE.

 

so your a sixty year old guy not qualified to greet the door at Walmart...and then you somehow become an amazing adventurer? At sixty your not really growing anymore, that's the point. age and xp, (if we assume realism is a factor) would seem to be linked, i.e. you should gain more xp as you get older.

 

Quite the event at the start of PE. I agree it does make more sense to be younger but you never know.

[FlintlockJazz]

The reason why you typically have a young protagonist is because you're starting, typically, around level 1 (and from the buzz I've heard PE is going to top out around 12?) How does a 60 year old man go through 60 years of life and gain no experience? And what's the point of an experience system if you start at the maximum level from the start?

 

So are you saying that all old people are high level then? Classes and levels are arbitrary and unrealistic, do you get level 20 bakers? Most PCs seem to reach epic level before reaching 25 years of age. So saying that being old and level 1 is unrealistic isn't really a problem as its just a game mechanic. Its simple enough to assume the character has had no reason to go adventuring before.

[Hormalakh]

Experience and levels are really just an abstraction and don't really correlate to "realism." The way I see it is to think of it as "experience adventuring." Levels are even more of an abstraction. There is nothing in real life that equates to levels (except the floors in a building). Remember that while the devs have said they take verisimilitude into account, they only implement things that the player would find fun.

[vv221]

The reason why you typically have a young protagonist is because you're starting, typically, around level 1 (and from the buzz I've heard PE is going to top out around 12?) How does a 60 year old man go through 60 years of life and gain no experience? And what's the point of an experience system if you start at the maximum level from the start?

I agree with Hormalakh on this point: you should see xp like "experience in adventuring".

A sixty-years-old character starts at level one because he did never adventure before.

 

Age should be nothing more (and nothing less) than an aesthetic, roleplaying choice!

 

So, Josh Sawyer post is very good news for me!

[jezz555]

my bad, double post

Edited November 8, 2012 by jezz555

[jezz555]

The reason why you typically have a young protagonist is because you're starting, typically, around level 1 (and from the buzz I've heard PE is going to top out around 12?) How does a 60 year old man go through 60 years of life and gain no experience? And what's the point of an experience system if you start at the maximum level from the start?

I agree with Hormalakh on this point: you should see xp like "experience in adventuring".

A sixty-years-old character starts at level one because he did never adventure before.

 

Age should be nothing more (and nothing less) than an aesthetic, roleplaying choice!

 

So, Josh Sawyer post is very good news for me!

 

But skills like jumping and swimming go up as your level increases, not to mention speech skills and performance skills. Was your guy sealed in a box for sixty years? How did he make a living without any skills? To use an example, I saw a lot of players back when I was playing D&D who would want to come up with super-elaborate cool-guy backstories that involved their characters say slaying hoards of dragons, conquering cities, leading rebellions ect. and my response to them all would be more or less the same, "your first level, you haven't done any of that stuff yet." If you want to be a bad-ass you have to become a bad-ass, you have to build a reputation yourself,you have to play your life, you can't just say that it already exists, besides it's more fun to actually feel like you accomplished something instead of just instantly gratifying yourself. That's what the level progression is all about, or should be anyway.

 

 

The reason why you typically have a young protagonist is because you're starting, typically, around level 1 (and from the buzz I've heard PE is going to top out around 12?) How does a 60 year old man go through 60 years of life and gain no experience? And what's the point of an experience system if you start at the maximum level from the start?

 

So are you saying that all old people are high level then? Classes and levels are arbitrary and unrealistic, do you get level 20 bakers? Most PCs seem to reach epic level before reaching 25 years of age. So saying that being old and level 1 is unrealistic isn't really a problem as its just a game mechanic. Its simple enough to assume the character has had no reason to go adventuring before.

 

Going by D&D( or at least 3ed) baking and other crafting abilities are skills which you are able to put more points in as you level up. So the best baker's would be 20th lvl bakers because they would have the most skill points in craft(baking). But commoners follow a different progression from adventures(which is to say none at all) because they are supporting characters so the point is moot anyway, adventurers are heroes they get to progress. Experience may not always be directly analogous to what one might refer to as "life experience" but imo it should be, or at least more so. I will grant you that the status quo is unrealistic, but what I would advocate for is a system that's more realistic, not just a different kind of unrealistic.

[Sacred_Path]

I like giving players options to play a range of character ages. Some of that can be reflected in portraits or in dialogue.

 

In a CRPG, how would you account for the different life expectations (different races have different definitions of what's old)?

[Hormalakh]

But skills like jumping and swimming go up as your level increases, not to mention speech skills and performance skills. Was your guy sealed in a box for sixty years? How did he make a living without any skills? To use an example, I saw a lot of players back when I was playing D&D who would want to come up with super-elaborate cool-guy backstories that involved their characters say slaying hoards of dragons, conquering cities, leading rebellions ect. and my response to them all would be more or less the same, "your first level, you haven't done any of that stuff yet." If you want to be a bad-ass you have to become a bad-ass, you have to build a reputation yourself,you have to play your life, you can't just say that it already exists, besides it's more fun to actually feel like you accomplished something instead of just instantly gratifying yourself. That's what the level progression is all about, or should be anyway.

 

I can see your concern with players making characters with ridiculous backstories, etc. but I would argue that that's just what a few players will do. Just because a few players create Mary Sue characters doesn't mean that we should lock out characters from a starting age. I guess people could make stories about how their character killed the greatest wizard of all time right when they were born but are still unexperienced as a wizard (see Harry Potter). It either makes for an interesting story or it doesn't. That isn't for you to decide, it's for the player to decide. Edit: Either you like the story that that player has created with his character, or you say that the story is riddled with Mary Sue characters and makes for a weak story. But limiting creativity from players by just forcing everyone to be a certain age, doesn't equate to a role-playing game for me.

 

In regards to skills relating to levels or age, I would still have to argue that it would be more prudent to look at any skills, experience or level strictly from an adventuring perspective. A baker might be a great baker when he has pots and pans and cooking oil, but an experienced adventurer-cook is more of a survivalist, cooking things he can find out in the forest and knowing which mushrooms are poisonous and which aren't. Similarly, regardless of how many years you've been living, if you have no experience adventuring and surviving out in the dangerous world all by your lonesome, you aren't an experienced adventurer.

 

Looking at everything from a survivalist/adventurer perspective allows you to still have extremely detailed backstories for your characters, who have just -until now- never adventured outside of their communities.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Hormalakh

[jezz555]

But skills like jumping and swimming go up as your level increases, not to mention speech skills and performance skills. Was your guy sealed in a box for sixty years? How did he make a living without any skills? To use an example, I saw a lot of players back when I was playing D&D who would want to come up with super-elaborate cool-guy backstories that involved their characters say slaying hoards of dragons, conquering cities, leading rebellions ect. and my response to them all would be more or less the same, "your first level, you haven't done any of that stuff yet." If you want to be a bad-ass you have to become a bad-ass, you have to build a reputation yourself,you have to play your life, you can't just say that it already exists, besides it's more fun to actually feel like you accomplished something instead of just instantly gratifying yourself. That's what the level progression is all about, or should be anyway.

 

I can see your concern with players making characters with ridiculous backstories, etc. but I would argue that that's just what a few players will do. Just because a few players create Mary Sue characters doesn't mean that we should lock out characters from a starting age. I guess people could make stories about how their character killed the greatest wizard of all time right when they were born but are still unexperienced as a wizard (see Harry Potter). It either makes for an interesting story or it doesn't. That isn't for you to decide, it's for the player to decide. Edit: Either you like the story that that player has created with his character, or you say that the story is riddled with Mary Sue characters and makes for a weak story. But limiting creativity from players by just forcing everyone to be a certain age, doesn't equate to a role-playing game for me.

 

In regards to skills relating to levels or age, I would still have to argue that it would be more prudent to look at any skills, experience or level strictly from an adventuring perspective. A baker might be a great baker when he has pots and pans and cooking oil, but an experienced adventurer-cook is more of a survivalist, cooking things he can find out in the forest and knowing which mushrooms are poisonous and which aren't. Similarly, regardless of how many years you've been living, if you have no experience adventuring and surviving out in the dangerous world all by your lonesome, you aren't an experienced adventurer.

 

Looking at everything from a survivalist/adventurer perspective allows you to still have extremely detailed backstories for your characters, who have just -until now- never adventured outside of their communities.

 

Fair enough like I said. I did have one player once who played an archmage who had lost his memory after a backfired spell and thus had to re-learn everything at basically gandalf age, and that was interesting and worked out well. But more often than not it's just characters wanting to start off cool, instead of working to get there, I'm not saying that's what you would be doing, but I certainly see the potential for it.

[Hormalakh]

Fair enough like I said. I did have one player once who played an archmage who had lost his memory after a backfired spell and thus had to re-learn everything at basically gandalf age, and that was interesting and worked out well. But more often than not it's just characters wanting to start off cool, instead of working to get there, I'm not saying that's what you would be doing, but I certainly see the potential for it.

 

Mary Sue characters suck. I'm glad we both agree on this point.

[Falkon Swiftblade]

This is an interesting and relevant topic for my game I'm currently working on. It's still too early in development to decide if the player will get to choose his/her own avatar, but I specifically wanted to tell at least 3 perspectives of the same story, and admittedly initially my main protagonist was a young child who would change through the story line, in a 3 act story arc where a lot of time had occurred. However I've been having reservations on doing that, because it limits the story's I can tell with him, and shows his mortality and makes me nervous that I may be treading on dangerous ground. However lots of games have gone back and forth with the hero's age like Link in the Zelda games for example. Usually they purposefully try to keep the hero as unchanging as they can like Mario. Also even though in my games current state one of the side kicks is much more mature than the main protagonist, I face a similar issue of if I make him perceived old, then the connotation is he may be less useful than someone else, unless I use some type of magic mechanic and make him like a Gandalf type of NPC, which I feel is a little bit too cliche'd by this point. My goal is to mix up encounters and game play mechanics, but to try and avoid too many cliche's or stereotypes. I've never played a game like what I'm making exactly, so it's kind of fun to experiment, but it comes down to am I designing a game for you to be the hero, or sharing space in my world and inviting you to come along and witness someone else's story. I certainly have a story I want to tell, but do I want to present it like a Commander Shepherd or Batman, or as someone you create... I think both are appropriate, but not needed in every type of game.

[DCParry]

The only argument that needs to be used is that it increases the range of role playing experience for the player. If it does this, does not cost more zots (or significantly more zots for the pay off), does not interfere with the creative vision of the creators, then there is no reason not to add it. Now, these are admittedly some big caveats, but I think we can reasonably say that it would indeed increase the range of role playing experiences for the overall audience, even if you, in particular, wouldn't use it. From what we know of how the game starts, it wouldn't interfere with the creative vision (or at least seriously interfere). The questions then are the labor/design investment and how it might play out later in the game.

 

As for previous experience, that is all encapsulated in the starting skills and load out. In most cRPGs you don't start out completely incapable of doing anything. So I wanted to play a grizzled woodsman. In his youth he was conscripted by the local baron to fight in some border war. While away, his village, with his wife and child, was burned to the ground by raiders because the baron was too worried about protecting the his vineyards than his peasants. After returning, he lived as a near hermit, dealing with people on to trade with when necessary. Cue traumatic spiritual event, start game.

 

So, my PC is either a ranger or warrior, depending how much I want to play up the woodsman angle. In rangers are all druidy and tree hugging, I go with warrior. Regardless as far as stats I drop charisma down, since he, you know, hates people. Second, for skills I concentrate on survival/hunting/wilderness skills. For weapons, I throw in a spear as a proficiency (if they exist, proficiencies that it). Perhaps there is something like a perk system, so I could pick something for flavor, like anarchistic type trait to represent his hatred of established feudal government or some such. Viola, I have my grizzled, 40 year old woodsman. Functionally, not a lot different from any other character creation. I think if Obsidian provides use the tools to do minor customization like this, then I think it will be better for everyone. No mucking with boni or mali for being aged (also, I doubt many of us are full time adventurers, so we might not be entirely familiar with how a life of goblin killing, troll burning, spelunking or whatever would affect our physical state.

 

Hey dude. I've got your character portrait for you and his name. Ron Swanson.

 

 

You are my hero.

 

 

Back on topic. People, some of you of losing roleplaying in the mechanics. As have been said, mechanics are completely arbitrary. They are used to set the stage and are supposed to tools to enabling a rewarding roleplaying experience. Not straight-jackets that have to be slavishly followed.

 

Point is, you could spend your entire life as a cobbler. You can make the hell out of shoes. A bunch of drunk goblins burn your house down and you can start your adventuring at whatever age as a level 1 Warrior. Perhaps you were a level 43 cobbler, but those skills are of little relevance.

 

Think about it like duel classing in 2nd edition. You could be whatever you want for most of your life, and then bam, one day you start over at level 1 of a new class. It just so happens that the skills of your previous profession are no longer relevant or mechanically re-presentable in the game.