AGING
Dealing with aging is a nightmare in KAP, especially for the large number of NPC any campaign will have. I revised aging and made the revision apply to all characters. Humans stop growing at about age 30 and the body regenerates most it's cell every seven years. Characters can still improve stats to age 34 and they are capped thereafter. An appearance of: 3 ( -3 years/cycle); 4-6 (-2 years per cycle); 7-8 (-1 year/cycle); 13-14 (+1 year/cycle); 15-17 (+2 years/cycle); 18 (+3 years per cycle). No adjustment to aging for culture or sex.

Ordinary appearance characters start rolling for death at age 65 and thereafter. Roll APP and CON: one failure bed ridden: both failed character dies; roll again each new year any roll that succeeded until both have failed. A character who arrives at age 65 (adjusted by APP) with any attribute 2 or less automatically fails the constitution roll. For each point a character is below 3, they're disabled, adjusting all skill rolls by -1/ point below 3 (add all losses together and adjust all skills by that penalty, any skill above 20 automatically lost. The GM may declare that the onset of decline is decreased to age 30 if the area is cursed or increased to age 44 if the area is blessed.

AGE (each 7 years of aging after 30 -1/attribute.)
37 -1
44 -2
51 -3
58 -4
65 -5
72 -6
79 -7
86 -8
93 -9
100 -10

I make it easy on me and the players I count age as 1 year per adventuring year and they age 1 year with no penalties or aging effects till the winter phase unless they have been exposed to a magic force ie magicians who cast spells or knight's affected by such spells them this adds 1d6 to the aging roll with a -1 penilty for the next year per year of aging which is affected their combat skills ie a pc roll 6 he ages 6 years and all his combat skills are now at -6 and most pc's in my campaign are retired by age 40 any ways, that how i handle aging effects i mostly don't worry about it.

That works, but the big problem is not PK, but NPC.

From previous campaigns, we found that the family events table callously murdered most of the NPC's that we actually cared out, the rest were just slowly written out of the game.

Also, NPC's completely outside of a PC's sphere of influence, i.e. not a part of the player's house holds or retinue, don't even need a complex method for aging.
It's perfectly reasonable for them to die of old age when you feel that it's appropriate. The players shouldn't have access to their statistics to double check your math.
If you feel a need for an element of randomness, determine a sensible life span randomly and have them fall ill a year or three before they die.

For NPC's who are within a PC's sphere of influence, the players can handle the rolling for aging normally if they're worth it, i.e. for their wives and close family members.
Stewards and members of the retinue have a chance of either dying or leaving service randomly each year and house hold knights are generally interchangeable.

Lastly, with this being more of an opinion and less based on experience, the whole approach of treating aging simply as a 7 year cycle feels a bit off.
Not only will it evoke a sense of immunity during the inter-rim years, it also ignores common causes of death such as cancer, disease, infection, life threatening accidents, malnutrition and falling coconuts.

From previous campaigns, we found that the family events table callously murdered most of the NPC's that we actually cared out, the rest were just slowly written out of the game.

Also, NPC's completely outside of a PC's sphere of influence, i.e. not a part of the player's house holds or retinue, don't even need a complex method for aging.
It's perfectly reasonable for them to die of old age when you feel that it's appropriate. The players shouldn't have access to their statistics to double check your math.
If you feel a need for an element of randomness, determine a sensible life span randomly and have them fall ill a year or three before they die.

For NPC's who are within a PC's sphere of influence, the players can handle the rolling for aging normally if they're worth it, i.e. for their wives and close family members.
Stewards and members of the retinue have a chance of either dying or leaving service randomly each year and house hold knights are generally interchangeable.

Lastly, with this being more of an opinion and less based on experience, the whole approach of treating aging simply as a 7 year cycle feels a bit off.
Not only will it evoke a sense of immunity during the inter-rim years, it also ignores common causes of death such as cancer, disease, infection, life threatening accidents, malnutrition and falling coconuts.


Falling Coconuts and swinging swords are not death by old age.
Appearance = good nutrition, good health and good genes. It Should influence ones longevity.

if one has a full enough setting scenarios write themselves and one always has to deal with NPC's aging in a full setting.

That works, but the big problem is not PK, but NPC.

If I make an npc with full stats I use the same methad as I mentioned in my above posting if I don't have stats on him I don't worry about it to much!
and believe me when i say I have full stats on my knights I have about 35 Character Sheets of Knights and Noble Lady's to match and I use the same method on all of them.

4 are Vassal Knights who own land and have full family history's, of which 3 are rich, 1 is surperalative which happens to be my main character a Penneth King Vassal of no one and Hates the Pendragon's both Unthur for killing his Grandfather and Arthur for killing his father. I have stats on the following officers and their family's Castellan, Chansellor butler Senechal or Steward's (All Steward's in my campaign are all noble lady's who are married to my land holding knights and or are the wives of the Officer's and my queen handles the steward ship of my Kingdom as well as her castle) Chamberlain's are also cortisone lady's of court Constable, Marshal, Justicer, and Sheriff the sheriff's house hold is fully fleshed out with about a dozen bachlor knights serving as deputy's Plus Various household knights. So you see I don't have the time to worry about ageing to much and sense most of the elder generation's was killed off 1st gen in the war against Vortigan, 2nd in the war against Unthur and 3rd Killed by Arthur at the Battle of Bedigraine Leaves me and my knights being the 4th generation at age 42, I really don't worry about aging my characters that much.

I rarely make stats for a NPC. Most are irrelevant during play so I spare me the trouble. If I need stats usually the description of the character determines his stats. If he is small means low SIZ, boils on his face is low APP, etc.

To determine whether they die I use the following rules:
If the NPC is between 15 and 35. Roll 1d20. On a 1 roll on the miscellaneous death table.
If the NPC is older than 35 Roll 1d20. If the score is age-50 (minimum of 3) the character is ill. If the score is lower than age-60 (minimum) the character dies. If a character is ill 2 years in a row it dies.
Sometimes I use a modifier to the roll if for instance the NPC is a knight and a large battle occurred during the year.

I use this mainly because of the random factor, but may deviate from it if it suits the story better.

Now might be a good time to tease the new Family Survival Tables coming in the Book of the Estate, now in the final stages of production. The table encourages rolling for all family members and important hirelings (basically anyone in a knight's entourage who contributes additional Skill rolls). They not only redefine the chance of death in a year, but also help you determine the cause of death. Yes, separate tables for men and women!


T.

While I understand your connection of 'health' to APP (fluctuating asymmetry and all that), CON would seem like a more obvious trait to define health.

While I understand your connection of 'health' to APP (fluctuating asymmetry and all that), CON would seem like a more obvious trait to define health.



I'm not sure about that Eothar. How are those attributes defined in the Rules?

Oh Look,
"Constitution (CON) Reflects the Health of your Character."

Gee, I guess you are right. ;)

While I understand your connection of 'health' to APP (fluctuating asymmetry and all that), CON would seem like a more obvious trait to define health.




People use constitution without thinking what it really is. It's having a high metabolism that allows one to recover from illnesses and wounds faster. unfortunately having a high metabolism does the same thing to a human body that over clocking a computer does - it shortens life span and speeds aging. Dan, thus it's not health as far as longevity and not getting sick to start with, Appearance is a sign of general health and good nutrition (most fatal diseases are the result of bad nutrition).

I'm sorry but that just doesn't work for me. CON is specifically defined as the measure of 'health' within the game system. Moreover, it is defined as such in many dictionaries. Cambridge Dictionaries defines 'constitution' as "The general state of someone's health". Another dictionary definition is "a person's physical state with regard to vitality, health, and strength".

You might have APP aid a CON roll in regards to aging, but it makes no sense to leave CON out of the equation when it is defined as 'health' within the system and in general.

While in the real world there may be correlations between appearance and health, the KAP game system is more simple than that. All the various real world variables that influence a person's health are just wrapped up in CON.

Realistically, APP should probably be a derived trait calculated using all the other attributes. The ratio of STR to SIZ might indicate a spectrum of Fat to Fit while CON would give your overal state of health (immunity, allergies, etc). High DEX would indicate a more elegant form and presentation. Perhaps one would use some formula to derive a base APP then add 1d6 to it for 'facial beauty' on top of overal body form.

That said, whether you use APP or CON, I like the idea of using an attribute to influence the rate of aging. Healthy and robust characters would gain an advantage and age more slowly than ones you put more emphasis on SIZ or STR. In some ways, this is not unrealistic as over developing size and strength can lead to physical breakdowns later in life. Many (American) football players die young from things like heart problems.

E

I agree with Eothar on this one. CON is defined as the characters health in the book. It is not defined as the ability to heal faster. CON adds to the healing rate as a good health makes a person heal faster, but to me that does not mean that CON is related to a higher metabolism.

As a matter of fact I never related a high APP to health. It is defined as the physical attractiveness of the character. Attractiveness imo is mostly determined by the social ideas of beauty. those ideas are not always related to a good health. If the social idea is that a pale skin is more beautiful then a person with a blood disease may have a natural pale skin and thus seen as beautiful, but I would not give him or her a long lifespan. The statement that a high APP must be linked to longevity is based on the idea that high APP means a healthier body. I do not think that that is meant by the system in this.

I know that a low APP leads to a character be bedridden and death, but for me that is more a game mechanical way to have people keep their APP at an average level, and not linked to actual ideas of health

Healthy and robust characters would gain an advantage and age more slowly than ones you put more emphasis on SIZ or STR. In some ways, this is not unrealistic as over developing size and strength can lead to physical breakdowns later in life. Many (American) football players die young from things like heart problems.[/url]

Eothar not strength and size, but steroid use is causing those ex-football players problems. They got their added size and strength by using their magic potions and paid for it in the end.
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20050316/why-steroids-are-bad-for-you

[quote=Cornelius] Attractiveness imo is mostly determined by the social ideas of beauty. those ideas are not always related to a good health. If the social idea is that a pale skin is more beautiful then a person with a blood disease may have a natural pale skin and thus seen as beautiful, but I would not give him or her a long lifespan. The statement that a high APP must be linked to longevity is based on the idea that high APP means a healthier body. I do not think that that is meant by the system in this.

This is a false idea, it's been know for centuries that beauty = the Golden Ratio. Symmetry is cause by good health and also reflected in great skin. Beauty = health and nutrition. I explained in the real terms what the effects of constitution on ones health are. In the short term constitution+beauty=health, but not long term. Social ideas of beauty are just fashions and fashions don't change what is and is not beautiful is universal.

We will have to differ on this one.

You are confusing Indicators and Attributes. Indicators can be 'measured' to give some information on the state of an attribute. In the real world, appearance is an indicator of health, but constitution is the actual attribute. One is not healthy because one is pretty. One is pretty because one is healthy (among other things). Being pretty doesn't prevent you from getting a disease.

This is certainly the way concepts like fluctuating asymmetry and elaborate male traits are treated in the biological literature. Being highly symmetrical is an indicator of health (and fitness in the evolutionary sense). The individual, whether person or bird, has been able to avoid disease and obtain food allowing for 'good' development and a symmetrical face. Having a symmetrical face did not, however, enhance the person's immune system. The same is true for elaborate male traits in animals like birds. A male can support bright and elaborate plumage because he is healthy, not the other way around. This plumage indicates his health, and aspects of fitness not related to how pretty he is, to the female.

If one can quantify the actual attribute, CON in this case representing health as defined by the game system, one doesn't need to use the indicator. In the real world quantifying an attribute is often impossible, so we rely on indicators instead. In a game world, CON is the attribute and we don't need indicators.

Again, I'm all for including 'healthyness' as part of aging rolls and for avoiding permanent injury from major wounds. It just doesn't make sense to exclude CON from the process.

E

Attractiveness imo is mostly determined by the social ideas of beauty. those ideas are not always related to a good health. If the social idea is that a pale skin is more beautiful then a person with a blood disease may have a natural pale skin and thus seen as beautiful, but I would not give him or her a long lifespan. The statement that a high APP must be linked to longevity is based on the idea that high APP means a healthier body. I do not think that that is meant by the system in this.

This is a false idea, it's been know for centuries that beauty = the Golden Ratio. Symmetry is cause by good health and also reflected in great skin. Beauty = health and nutrition. I explained in the real terms what the effects of constitution on ones health are. In the short term constitution+beauty=health, but not long term. Social ideas of beauty are just fashions and fashions don't change what is and is not beautiful is universal.

Although there are several studies showing the idea of beauty is linked with the golden Ratio and symmetry, the studies in themselves do not link this again to a healthier live. there are claims that a more symmetrical body means less diseases and other growth issues, but this is not proven as far as I know. There is also a study that show that even personality traits determines if a person is seen as attractive. So your claim is as much debatable as is my own. We can discuss this into oblivion, but in the end it is how we want to define the statistics in the game. And yes the game is a simplification of reality.

Your claim that the CON means the person has a higher metabolism, I disagree with. CON constitutes the health of a person (as is mentioned in the core rulebook). And APP reflects the physical attractiveness. You are allowed to interpret this different. But in this I use the rules as is written.

I just wanted to put my input on something here.
First off, Charisma. Charisma has nothing to do with health, in my opinion. It's your appeal to attract another's attention. You can be unhealthy and still be rather charismatic. You can be crippled and still be charismatic. Charisma is based on sociability, you can pretty yourself up all you want or get the same charismatic affect just by putting out the right words. The appearance affect of charisma is shallow and not beneficial at all because as you get older, you have to work harder towards making yourself look pretty. If anything, it's a handicap towards overall health because if you miss out on one thing, it can ruin your appearance.
Physical abilities equate more to health because of many reasons. Those who are physically fit and always working are proved to have longer lifespans than those who don't. The more you work out, the easier it is to step it up. Again, it's harder to do as you get older, but not as hard as applying the right cosmetics towards your appearance. As you improve physical stats such as dexterity and strength, you gain a sort of natural beauty, keeping your body at the top of it's game anyways, and better preparing yourself against the many natural threats of the world like sickness and disease and, the most common and dangerous, weather. Charisma itself doesn't protect your body against these things, you can't look good and expect the flu to just avoid you all together, if anything it's more attracted to you and comes easier.
Granted, for appearance, charisma is a good factor, but then again, even beautiful people can have low charisma. Appearance alone doesn't win the pot. If prince charming walked to your door looking gorgeous and everything, but the second he starts talking he sounds like a raging 3rd grader you'd hear on the mic while playing call of duty, would that spice your interest of him more? I don't think so. Charisma is how you use what you have to gain the friendly view of others, a begger can come up, looking raggity, but if he says the right words to the right extent, if he says just what you want to hear and in a way that you think he can give it to you, you're more likely to accept him over prince 'camping the spawn point and saying noob every 5 seconds like it's hot'.

I would divide charisma into two aspects: passive and active. Passive charisma is beauty and in KAP is determined by your APP. Active charisma is determined by your social skills (courtesy, flirting, orate, romance)

I would divide charisma into two aspects: passive and active. Passive charisma is beauty and in KAP is determined by your APP. Active charisma is determined by your social skills (courtesy, flirting, orate, romance)

This is how me and my players play it out in our games.

My quick-n-dirty rule for NPCs:

Every PC is either rated either:

Spring (~0-20 years)
Summer (~21-40 years)
Autumn (~41-60 years)
Winter (~61+ years)

These are not hard and fast age ranges, but general ratings of health etc.

For each year, roll a d20. On a 1, they die of some random cause. On a 2, they move into the next age category. Optionally, on a 20 they have a child -- I use this for PC household knights, increasing the number of potential family knights by 1.