Ars Magica Aging table result
From: qcifer Posted on: 12/26/2004 6:49 pm
To: ALL
Message: 463.1

Kind of weird, on page 170 of the AM5 book, is the aging table. The aging roll results for 13 are the same as the results for 22+. Is that right? isn't that a bit extreme? You basically gain enough aging points to give you your next Decrepitude, and then have to make a Crisis roll. At age 35, you could just drop dead, on a relatively low aging roll of 13. Is that the intention? At 21 you only gain 2 Decrepitude XP and an aging point in Int and Per.

What do you think?

From: FujiYakumo Posted on: 12/26/2004 11:10 pm
To: qcifer
Message: 463.2
in reply to: 463.1
I noticed that as well. I just took it that the 13 result took that you can have some harsh winters/times in the middle ages, even early on in the aging roll.
From: FujiYakumo Posted on: 12/26/2004 11:26 pm
To: qcifer
Message: 463.3
in reply to: 463.1

Oops, hadn't read all of the post. Barring decrepitude points from childhood illnesses, bad wounds, etc, it is impossible someone at age 35 to drop dead/gain a terminal illness. At absolute worst, they would gain 5 aging points in any one characteristic, 1 decrepitude point, and roll a 10 on the simple die for crisis, giving a total of 143- bedridden 1 month. Granted, if they rolled horibly each year, yes they would be dead a few months after they make the aging roll in their 39th winter, but it's very unlikely. Also note that, without any special bonuses or penalties for living conditions, it is only possible to get a thriteen by rolling a 1 and then a 5. For anyone with a +1 living condition bonus and no longevity potion, it is impossible to get a 13 (though they can get a 22) result until reaching the age of 40. This is because over 9, all results on a stress die are even, and any odd modifier to the age modifier will come out even as well.

So the bigger problem, I think, is that the wealthy have a chance of rolling that 13, where someone with worse living conditions (+1) cannot, assuming no longevity potions. In otherwords, better living conditions, generally speaking, make it slightly more likely you'll have the worse possible aging result.

From: Berengar Posted on: 12/27/2004 2:57 am
To: FujiYakumo
Message: 463.4
in reply to: 463.3

Yes, this result under 13 appears a little weird. And it is - as you hinted - easily circumvented by "gaming the rules" for magi and companions: spend or save on your living for a decade to make the modifier from longevity ritual, age/10 and living condition even, and you are safe from the 13 for that decade. One might even design a pseudo-medieval theory to explain why change of living conditions every decade is healthy, if done under control of a medicus.

I am close to completing the first rough analysis of the magic and character development rules (I might post it here later, given some more time to provide a systematic representation), and from this I conclude that the result under 13 is needed to make aging under a longevity potion less boringly predictable than it would be otherwise.
After all, the gist of the aging rules for a magus or protected companion is: no more adventures after you accumulate 50 aging points, and a few months to say bye to the world after you accumulate 75. Without the result under 13, you could predict your aging very precisely, as the sum of aging points over time would have a very low mean deviation.

Kind regards,

Berengar

From: spuwdsda2 Posted on: 12/27/2004 2:57 am
To: FujiYakumo
Message: 463.5
in reply to: 463.3


If anyone is interested. Here is an excel document with a VBA running the ArM5 model.

http://uk.geocities.com/spuwdsda/AgingCalcDW.zip

Iirc there is one histogram on there. To run the script you need to enable macros and install the analysis toolpack add-in. You can enter new numbers a check the results in a histogram.

You might need Excel 2000 or above, I don't know.

Regards

- David W