Hi,

I am somewhat confused by the causes of death table. Either I am missing something or there is a discrepancy with the yearly survival table on the previous page, on the subject of age and childbirth

Age categories
The yearly survival table lists five age categories and lists the age in years for each: infant, child, adult, elder, very old. The causes of death table lists four age categories of which some, but not all, match the yearly table: child, young, adult, elder. No corresponding age in years is shown.

I guess that the infant category is omitted since they just die of natural causes? And the same could be said for the elder category? Which leaves the subject of the 'young' category since that does not exist on the other table. I would venture at a guess:

Child: 2-14
Young: 15-20
Adult: 21-45


(NB. The yearly survival table has overlapping years for infant, child and adult, but that is easily fixed...)

Female causes of death
Under the 'violent' category, 7-20 are all related to pregnancy/childbirth. However that is already determined separately under the yearly survival table. (rolling a '2' on the first roll and a '1-10' on the second) Also, it seems odd that this would be a significant cause of death even for the elderly... In my campaign I will probably just roll a d6 on this table instead.

Hi,

I am somewhat confused by the causes of death table. Either I am missing something or there is a discrepancy with the yearly survival table on the previous page, on the subject of age and childbirth.

Based on v1.2 (the current version is 1.3.2, I think), a child was 0-7 and a young was 8-20 years. You could use those, or you could use what you have. I would be tempted to have young starting from 14 to 20, since that would correspond to our new 'squire years'. At the same time, I would have Child's 6 = Other, to have some tragic accidents being possible. Illness would be the sole source for infants, yes. (I think in one of our previous drafts Child was Young and Infant = Child, keeping the old labels. I forget why that was changed, assuming I even remember correctly.)

As for the Violent, Female table, I have a vague recollection that a change was being discussed to remove the pregnancy from the Violent causes. However, if you look at the probabilities, the cause has 1/3 chance of a violent cause, and then about 2/3 chance of it being about childbirth, so about 20% of the deaths (on top of the other 100% childbirth deaths from rolling a 2 and 1-10). I can't recall if the 1d6 roll you suggest was on the table for unmarried women or over 40, but it would be a nice, elegant solution to the problem.

EDIT: I should improve on my reading skills before responding!

Thanks for the (very!) quick response and clarification. Guess that's the risk of improving things, other stuff may break ;)

Regarding the childbirth risks, the duplicate risk seems excessive. For married females of childbearing age the way I understand it (as written) is:
- first roll: 1 -> roll again, 11-20: death -> roll cause 5-6 due to violence -> 7-20 due to pregnancy/childbirth
- first roll: 2 -> roll again, 11-20: death in childbirth -> no need to roll cause

So in effect 63% of all deaths would now be due to childbirth, where I guess this was not the intent. With my suggestion of rolling a d6 it would become 50%. And yes, I would then apply this for _all_ ladies.

NB. According to this website (http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/) around 20% of women died in association with childbirth

Regarding the childbirth risks, the duplicate risk seems excessive. For married females of childbearing age the way I understand it (as written) is:
- first roll: 1 -> roll again, 11-20: death -> roll cause 5-6 due to violence -> 7-20 due to pregnancy/childbirth
- first roll: 2 -> roll again, 11-20: death in childbirth -> no need to roll cause

So in effect 63% of all deaths would now be due to childbirth, where I guess this was not the intent. With my suggestion of rolling a d6 it would become 50%. And yes, I would then apply this for _all_ ladies.


You are correct in the way that the rolls are supposed to work at the moment. Yes, the 63% (I get 62% from my calculation?) is deliberate. This is actually 62% of 5%, so 3.1%. I have a feeling that this was based on the New Childbirth tables I and Thijs were tinkering with ( http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2155-New-Childbirth-Table-amp-Blessed-Birth ) which has about 65% * 5% = 3.25% chance of something going wrong at birth (although not always resulting in the mother's death, admittedly).

It is starting to come back to me... I think the idea was to roll for 1d20 for violent death even for the unmarried women, but if the roll came up as a childbirth death, it would be ignored (no death). In effect, a built-in mechanism ensuring that the death chance of the women is lower than that of the men, if they avoid the risks of childbirth. Alas, that explanation must have fell from the loop (assuming I recall correctly in the first place).

However, doing it in the way you describe would work, too. It is not that big of a deal. :) I might shift 5 to Other causes in that case, though, or the women would get murdered at an alarming rate. Household accidents should probably be much more common than they are now (one of the big killers of women after childbirth and epidemics in the pre-modern stoves)... Heck, I would be fine having that as a result of 5 in the first cause roll, and just distribute that slot in the Other causes a bit differently.



NB. According to this website (http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/) around 20% of women died in association with childbirth

Yeah, we are aware of it. It has been discussed (amongst others) in this thread (the parent thread of the one above):
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2143-Childbirth-and-Women-s-survival

On further thought the same applies to the male violent causes of death - since battle already is rolled for separately, are the 'battle' results in violent causes of death an intentional duplicate? Or are they in reference to minor skirmishes that never made it to the headlines?

On further thought the same applies to the male violent causes of death - since battle already is rolled for separately, are the 'battle' results in violent causes of death an intentional duplicate? Or are they in reference to minor skirmishes that never made it to the headlines?

Bit of both, I'd say. The point is that the individual battle rolls are used when we know with certainty that the NPC in question is in the Battle or Raid. For instance, he has been asked by a PK as a favor, or he is a household knight and his liege has brought him, too. However, most of the time, you wouldn't be tracking every battle and raid which impact only on the NPCs. For instance, if your cousin is a household knight at Malahaut, there is no point for the GM to agonize if there was a battle or not, a raid or not. These are all included in the main roll, which assumes that there is some level of raiding going on. (In Middle and Late Phases, I would replace those battle results with adventuring deaths, monsters and robber knights and such.)