BattleMaster Community
Community => Background => Topic started by: Azerax on August 14, 2013, 03:14:12 PM
-
Perhaps if you have 2 characters on the same island, their mortality rate is increased as the impact of that characters death is less impactful. Personally, I'd flag all my characters for mortality as it reflects the time period they lived in. (Life expectancy didn't reach 40 until the 18th century)
cheers,
Scott
-
(Life expectancy didn't reach 40 until the 18th century)
Two issues with that though that doesn't apply to BM, child mortality being a big issue and we are nobles, not commoners.
-
Right—remember that's average life expectancy, and mainly dragged down due to infant mortality and childhood diseases.
If you made it to 21, you were likely to make it to 60 or so.
-
Average life expectancy doesn't accurately show when people would die from old age. With so many people dying due to violence in those days the average gets dragged down. I think the most ideal way of figuring that out (if possible) would be to look at the life expectancy of priest and nuns since they were typically protected from violence.
-
Being a noble certain does raise the age, though constantly fighting in wars certainly lowers it.
What about a flag you can set so that your character has an increased mortality rate after 30-90 days? I give the range that way you yourself won't know when or how they will die. Perhaps with that flag, a battle wound would kill your character, or could be an infiltrator, or anything else that may kill your character (which I don't know)
-
Average life expectancy doesn't accurately show when people would die from old age. With so many people dying due to violence in those days the average gets dragged down. I think the most ideal way of figuring that out (if possible) would be to look at the life expectancy of priest and nuns since they were typically protected from violence.
It's difficult to find good sources for medieval life expectancy, since you really need to know what are the assumptions. We should completely discount child mortality, for example, because the characters start at 16. I found an interesting one that says that in the 13th century, members of the royal family of Wales (which were of similar social classes as most nobles in BM) that reached adulthood had an average and median life expectancy of 49:
http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/
This include those who were killed in warfare and women who died in childbirth, but even if you discount those, the average life expectancy is still 49.
Also, from the same source:
“Anglo-Saxons back in the Early Middle Ages (400 to 1000 A.D.) lived short lives and were buried in cemeteries, much like Englishmen today. Field workers unearthed 65 burials (400 to 1000 A.D.) from Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in England and found none who lived past 45.
Kings did better. The mean life expectancy of kings of Scotland and England, reigning from 1000 A.D. to 1600 A.D. were 51 and 48 years, respectively. Their monks did not fare as well. In the Carmelite Abbey, only five percent survived past 45.”
-
So you're taking information from a source purely pertaining to the British Isles, and applying it to all of Medieval Europe?
I'm pretty sure that during this time period Continental Europe had much more contact and trade with the east, and thus were much more likely to have longer lifespans than those living in the British Isles.
Furthermore, your 'source' is a blog by a historical fiction and fantasy writer, not a true historian. Shall I continue?
-
Shall I continue?
Yep, please do.
Alternatively, you could spend your time trying to find a better source, but I don't see the fun in that.
-
Furthermore, your 'source' is a blog by a historical fiction and fantasy writer, not a true historian.
http://www.animalsimulation.org/publications/MacLennan_WJ_1999_Ageing_through_the_ages.pdf
Proceedings of the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh, Vol. 29 pages 71-75.
The numbers cited are in the "Late middle ages" section.
-
Interesting reading! So the 'Standard' population would life to 45... Although some very few 'privileged' could reach 60-70.
I suppose for the sake of the players the usual death could be around this age: 60-70, with maybe some really lucky noble reaching 80?
-
It's worth remembering that whilst BattleMaster is a game set in the middle ages, it is not a simulator. If we started adding in realistic middle-ages life expectancies, diseases etc. this game would not be as much fun. We can already see from instances of rapacious looting that a realm recovering from massive depopulation and death is not something that adds a lot of enjoyment to the BattleMaster experience. It's nice to know what life expectancy in the middle ages was like, but we shouldn't take too much from it.
-
It's nice to know what life expectancy in the middle ages was like, but we shouldn't take too much from it.
I fully agree - gameplay should come first. If reasonable ageing clashes with design decisions, however, then the ageing can be tweaked. The 84 days/year rate is not set in stone, and if mortality is ever implented, I'd rather see it changed so that whatever timer has been deemed appropriate for game-play reasons creates reasonable ages than seeing character die of old age at 32 years old (or 130 for that matter).
-
This whole post sounds like it belongs in "feature requests".
-
Reads like it belongs in Background to me.
-
I ended up going through the King/Queens of England from about 1600-1800 and was very shocked to see they commonly lived into their 70-80s.
-
That's because you start to see a lot of the medical science from the Islamic world start to transfer to the Christian world.