Better to be Old than Young

[Crasical]

So I was flipping through Modern20 for a game we're running, and in the disadvantage section it allows information for how to play an older or younger than average character. Pretty standard stuff. However...

For equivalent disadvantage, a player can be Venerable (71+ years old) for -6 to their physical stats and +3 to their mental stats, OR can be a Teenager (13 y. Old) for -4, -2, -4, -2, -2, -3. And thinking back on it, Every system that's had the option of having age effect your character leans this way, with being younger than average always having very stiff penalties while being old is something that can be worked around because of the bonuses it gives you. Like the topic says, It's better to be old than young, especially in systems that give you workarounds like classes and feats applying your intelligence rather than strength or dex to skill checks or attack rolls.

Do you agree? Do you have an idea why this might be? If you disagree, how come?

[erikun]

Or I could be 20 years old, with +0, +0, +0, +0, +0, +0 on my stats.

The reason young children get stat penalities is because they are physically, mentally, and emotionally less developed than adults. A 13 year old child could easily be half my height and weight, and isn't someone I would expect to be as good of a fighter as I could be.

Also, I don't like handing out mental bonuses due to old age. The logic behind it is that older people are more experienced - but experience is supposed to be what determines your experience, not age. More experienced people should have, well, more experience.

[beyond reality]

It helps if you remember that just about every character (especially in d20 games) is meant to be, to some degree or other, an action hero.

Realistically getting older doesn't make you smarter or wiser...but in action movie logic that's pretty much exactly how it works. Your old action hero is badass not because he can punch someone through plate glass but because he's seen it all and knows all the tricks. He's a cunning bastard who puts the whippersnappers in their place. And he does this not by ignoring his physical frailties but in spite of them.

[Crasical]

It helps if you remember that just about every character (especially in d20 games) is meant to be, to some degree or other, an action hero.

Because there's no history of plucky teenage heroes whatsoever?

[beyond reality]

Because there's no history of plucky teenage heroes whatsoever?

Well, keep in mind that those plucky teenage heroes are usually in the mid to late teens. The stats you posted are for 13 year old kids.

When you're a 13 year old kid in an action movie you aren't the plucky young upstart...you're short round.

EDIT: important note, hit girl is of course an exception.

[hangedman1984]

we always do away with age categories with bonuses/penalties and say whatever stats you have are the stats for the character whatever age they currently are

[Totally Guy]

I love the way Burning Wheel handles age at character creation.

You pick a number of lifepaths and that determines your age. Each path adds years and skills. Your age determines the number of points you get to spend on your mental and physical stats.

Spoiler

Show

Just as an example lets say I pick:
Villager: Born in a village
Villager: Conscript
Soldier: Foot Soldier (+1 physical)
Soldier: Sergeant (+1 mental or physical)

I end up at 20 years old. I have 7 mental points to share between my 2 mental stats. I have 18 physical points to share between my 4 physical stats. I have 14 skill points to spend on the skills that are available from the chosen lifepaths.

If I pick:
Villager: Born in a village
Villager: Wizard's Apprentice (+1 mental)
Villager: Hedge Wizard (+1 mental)
Outcast: Mad Summoner (+1 mental or physical)

I end up at 35 years old. I have 10 points to share between my 2 mental stats. I have 15 points to share between my 4 physical stats. I have 19 skill points to spend on the skills that are available from the chosen lifepaths.

[Trekkin]

I love how Deadlands handles age: kids are just universally worse (although they do get more points for things) and old guys are mostly bad but get more Knowledge skills. It's also stated that it has less to do with actual age and more with physical condition, and both of them affect stats that aren't universally important.

[graymachine]

Being older is a common exploit in D&D 3.x when building a powerhouse caster; the benefits to your casting stat far outweigh the physical penalties, especially when you can counteract then with magic, if you're really concerned about it.

[ClockShock]

If you wait long enough, those young characters have their penalties erased.
The old characters die.

Time is the great equaliser?

[rayne_dragon]

I've always felt that Ars Magica handles this rather well. Your age (as well as other factors) determines the amount of points you get to put into skills, which cover doing everything in the game from fighting to crafts to magic, so the older you are the more skills you have and the more powerful you can be... up to a certain point.

After a certain point (35 usually) you have to start making aging rolls every year which can start causing you to gain decrepitude (reducing your stats and making you worse at many things, often at a rate faster than can be balanced by skill gains) and may suffer aging crisises which are basically: "you get sick 'cause you're old, now save or die." As you get older it becomes harder and harder to avoid bad results on your aging rolls and the crisises get more severe to the point where you eventually just die, probably after ending up a withered, demented geezer.

Plus, since ars magica is a game about wizards, who are best off studying or working in their labs for months, if not years, at a time aging can happend quite rapidly. Although aging tends not to be too bad for wizards or supernatural-ish characters, they all tend to suffer from their own individual kind of mystical radiation-poisoning-type thing which magical exposure slowly accumulates in their system eventually leads to them dying/effectively dying/not being playable anymore. It usually isn't as bad as aging is for regular people, though.

[Kaun]

I love the way Burning Wheel handles age at character creation.

You pick a number of lifepaths and that determines your age. Each path adds years and skills. Your age determines the number of points you get to spend on your mental and physical stats.

Spoiler

Show

Just as an example lets say I pick:
Villager: Born in a village
Villager: Conscript
Soldier: Foot Soldier (+1 physical)
Soldier: Sergeant (+1 mental or physical)

I end up at 20 years old. I have 7 mental points to share between my 2 mental stats. I have 18 physical points to share between my 4 physical stats. I have 14 skill points to spend on the skills that are available from the chosen lifepaths.

If I pick:
Villager: Born in a village
Villager: Wizard's Apprentice (+1 mental)
Villager: Hedge Wizard (+1 mental)
Outcast: Mad Summoner (+1 mental or physical)

I end up at 35 years old. I have 10 points to share between my 2 mental stats. I have 15 points to share between my 4 physical stats. I have 19 skill points to spend on the skills that are available from the chosen lifepaths.

Mutant chronicles did it similar to this and it was really interesting. A few players would be in their 40's before the game started. Hell some chars died before they got through character gen.

It added a lot of spice to the game tho, at the start you had hopes of your chr becoming a Doomtrooper but he ends up being kicked out of the Capitol military after 4 years doing a stint of unemployment then becoming a beat cop for the extra cash.

[Dr.Epic]

Or I could be 20 years old, with +0, +0, +0, +0, +0, +0 on my stats.

Sure, if you want to just make a character that functions and isn't a burden.

Back on topic, it does make sense: as a old person you're more experienced and wouldn't suffer such a penalty. You'd still be disadvantaged, but you'd still be more powerful than some kid.

[Crasical]

I love how Deadlands handles age: kids are just universally worse (although they do get more points for things) and old guys are mostly bad but get more Knowledge skills. It's also stated that it has less to do with actual age and more with physical condition, and both of them affect stats that aren't universally important.

Being older is a common exploit in D&D 3.x when building a powerhouse caster; the benefits to your casting stat far outweigh the physical penalties, especially when you can counteract then with magic, if you're really concerned about it.

Back on topic, it does make sense: as a old person you're more experienced and wouldn't suffer such a penalty. You'd still be disadvantaged, but you'd still be more powerful than some kid.

That all looks like more and more of the 'Kids just suck, but being old is a disadvantage that is also an advantage' I've been talking about.

[graymachine]

Well, think that they age advantage for primary casters is perfectly fine in D&D 3.x due to it being genre consistent. When we think of wizards, or even clerics, we tend to think of older people. The bonuses are good, but not game-breaking, and the physical penalties can be good roleplaying fodder. For fighters, rogues, etc. the physical penalties are crippling, which keeps with those classes being traditionally younger. If someone with a concept for an old, grizzled fighter came to me as a DM, I would probably wave the physical penalties as well as the bonuses.

[WarKitty]

Though on the topic of physical scores...there's a reason that gymnastics has such issues with age falsification, and that a lot of places used to use children for certain types of thievery. Children are lightweight and more flexible than adults, and could reasonably be statted as more dextrous.

[Tengu_temp]

They're also much clumsier and less coordinated, so it evens out.

[Cieyrin]

BoEF gives Adolescents a bonus to Appearance, so there is that for 3.5...