RPGPundit Reviews: Doctor Who, the Roleplaying Game

This is a review of Cubicle 7's Doctor Who roleplaying game, the latest Doctor Who themed RPG, released as a brilliant boxed set after some delay. I should note before going on that I was a playtester on this game, and played a significant role in the early development of the game's system, so I may not be the most impartial reviewer. You could say the same thing about my absolute fanaticism for Doctor Who, but that could really swing either way, since it means I'll hold a Doctor Who RPG to a very high standard.

And does this game meet that high standard? Well, I think it'd be difficult for any Doctor Who RPG to be so ideal that I would consider it perfect, and Doctor Who has some particularly difficult elements to convert into the standard RPG format, but I can certainly say that of the three different RPGs made for this show, Cubicle 7's treatment of the Doctor is by far the best.

The original Doctor Who RPG by FASA was essentially a fairly crunchy generic sci-fi mechanic that was utterly tacked on to Doctor Who.  It did have a lot of great setting info, but as an overall product it was somewhat flawed.
Next came the Time Lord RPG, which was very good in a different and more practical way at detailing the RPG setting; less focus in trying to create definitive timelines of the Doctor Who universe or technological elements, and more on the characters and the practical elements of emulating the Doctor Who style; but the system was... well, incomplete to say the least. And you could say "crap", if you wanted to say more than that.

Cubicle 7's Doctor Who RPG kicks both these older games' asses in a few ways. It has all the player-focused orientation of Time Lord and enough of the larger universal-focus that the old FASA game had, it has a system that is a very decent attempt to directly emulate the feeling of the Doctor Who world, and it comes in a kick-ass boxed set.

You get, for your cash (and Doctor Who isn't exactly cheap; while not being out-of-their-minds expensive, it would have been nice if there'd have been a way to keep all the great stuff it has and make it a titch more affordable for the newbie player to feel less apprehensive about the buy-in price) a great selection of stuff, both useful and fun: First, there's the two main books, a player's guide and a Gamemaster's Guide. Both are glossy full-colour affairs, the first clocking in at 86 pages, the latter at 140.
Next you get a smaller (32 page), cover-less booklet-style Adventures Book. This book includes a full-length adventure ("Arrowdown").  I actually playtested this game with Federico, The Wench and the Wench's friend; the latter two of which are not regular gamers. Both really enjoyed the character creation elements, and the adventure turned out to be quite fun and fast-paced.  It felt a lot like a Doctor Who episode.
You get a smaller adventure too ("Judoon"), and then 24 adventure "seeds" over the space of a dozen pages; these are little more than outlines with very general ideas. They could be good for making into adventures, but they are in no way adventures in their own right.

Next you get a bunch of full-colour character sheets. These come in three types: first, blank sheets for making your own characters. Second, archetype-sheets where the mechanical parts are filled out (focused on careers, like "journalist", "musician", UNIT soldier, TORCHWOOD operative, scientist, etc etc. Third, you get character sheets for some of the major characters of the new series: the Doctor, Captain Jack, Rose, Donna, Martha, Sarah Jane, even K-9 is there.

There's also a two-page pamphlet entitled "read this first!- how to play".  This turned out to be a very useful reference sheet, particularly for first-time gamers. It explains only the very basics, but basically everything that a brand new gamer needs to know about how to handle his PC.

But wait, we're not done yet.  You also get item cards (punched out from a card-sheet).  These are for gadgets, like the sonic screwdriver, psychic paper, the universal cellphone, Captain Jack's time-bracelet thingy, Sarah Jane's sonic lipstick, etc.

You also get a big stock sheet full of punch-out chits to help you keep track of story points.  Given that story tend to get spent and gained in the course of this game like crazy, this was an extremely useful prop to have; much moreso than the item-punchcards, which were really more for decoration than anything.

Last but not least, there's six very nice D6s, transparent dice with the pips coloured in blue. They're not quite as doctor-who themed as one might expect (back in the playtest, we were dreaming of dice with a little tardis on one side, but I guess that would have rocketed the price into the ridiculous zone), but everyone who's seen them agrees that they're really awesome looking D6s.

If I had one real complaint about the packaging, it would be that the box-element of the box set is not a two-part box, but a single package with a lid that opens on the side; I've found that this is difficult when it comes to stuffing everything back into it, and doesn't seem like it'll hold up well to several years of wear and tear. It'll probably be really easy for all those story point chits and gadget cards to end up being lost over time too.

The overall aesthetics of the box set (including the books) is spectacular, but I will also say this: David Tennant is all over this product. Which, you know, would have been great a year ago, but now, with the new season a couple of episodes along, it makes the whole product seem just slightly dated. I have heard that Cubicle 7 plans to release a new version with updated images from the new season, and that should be fine as long as they release it sometime before the next Doctor comes along to replace Matt Smith, and this issue in no way affects the quality of the game, but I think that the particular release date (which, typical to C7, was badly delayed) ended up being rather unfortunately timed.

So, how does the game actually get played?  One of the challenges of a Doctor Who RPG in general is that you are stuck with a dilemma of Oscar Wilde-paraphrasing proportions: one tragedy in life is not getting what you want, and another is getting what you want. In the Doctor Who RPG, one difficulty is playing a game with the Doctor, the other is playing a game without the Doctor. Running a Doctor-centered Doctor Who game means that you have to handle running a game where either a) the Doctor is a GM-run NPC with the potential to turn into the ultimate player-protagonism killing Mary-Sue powers, or b) the Doctor is run by a player, creating the potential for a single player to dominate the game badly (not to mention potentially running the Doctor terribly).  The alternative is playing a game called "Doctor Who", without any Doctor.
The creator of this game was well aware of this dilemma, and he chose to make two conscious design decisions to try to address this issue.
First, he made the game equally playable with or without the Doctor. There is a ton of material in the game for running a campaign with the Doctor. There's also a ton of material for running the game with a different Time Lord who isn't the Doctor, avoiding at least some of the Doctor's potential Mary-sueness. Finally, there's a decent amount of material for playing a non-Doctor game, where the PCs are a group of UNIT soldiers, Torchwood Operatives, Time Agents from the 52nd century, or maybe something different (LINDA, anyone?).

Second, in the matter of trying to weigh the importance of emulating the Doctor's Cosmic Awesomeness with the necessity of creating a game where every character gets to actually fucking do something and not just act as a cheerleader for the plucky Gallifreyan, this game opts to make weigh the system a little more toward the side of making everyone generally competent.  This means that maybe a few elements of emulation, those truly Cosmic Entity moments the Doc sometimes has, couldn't really be replicated within the boundaries of the rules; but on the other hand, it is not something that entirely breaks emulation; Time Lords are still very powerful, and in the series the other people around the Doctor (particularly in the new series) tend to be fairly competent and heroic in their own right.
The mechanical awesomeness of the Doctor (and other timelords, and guys like Captain Jack) is pretty effectively emulated by giving characters like this access to a plethora of special powers.  But other characters, more on the human scale, get more Story Points, which allow them to do the things they are good at doing quite well, and to more often break through the limits of their skills into great heroic actions. Overall, the system balance is pretty good.
In the play-test I chose to play the Doctor as a GM character, and I do not think that any of the players felt particularly overwhelmed by his presence. One of the three players chose to play Captain Jack, who is quite powerful in his own way; and I don't think that the other two players felt useless in comparison to him either. I'm still not totally convinced that a player could interpret the Doctor in a way that would really do him justice (at least not the more Cosmic Know-it-All doctor that you saw fairly often with Tennant, and McCoy, and such), at least not without some serious GM-collusion, but I don't know if any game system that could really call itself an RPG would have been able to really do that perfectly.

So looking at the rules, we find first of all that the players' guide and GM's guide repeat themselves in several areas. You could see this as a rip-off, or you could get that this means the GM basically doesn't have to be the one to have the players guide at his side; the Players can do their thing and the GM has what he needs in his book, to do his.

Did I already mention the aesthetics of these two books? I'll do it again, because they are gorgeous. Full colour, glossy paper, and filled to the brim with images from the TV series (again, mostly from Tennant's run; none, at this time, from Smith's).

Character creation is the first really important thing (after all the standard "what is roleplaying" stuff, not really veering from the RPG book norm here, but oriented with a few specific points at young Doctor Who fans). Here you learn that Character creation comes in three steps: character points, skill points and story points. This seems a bit awkward, not the most elegant design, but it was done that way in the interest of balance.
Compounding the confusion, "Character Points" are used to purchase BOTH attributes and "traits" (special abilities). And if that wasn't enough, any Character points you have left over can be turned into skill points!
So again, this was all a framework, a very rickety and unattractive framework, based entirely on the reality that highlights the weakness of point-buy as a system of character creation; namely, that if the author had just said "here's 54 points, with which to buy everything", the end result would have been an orgy of min-maxing that would have rendered the game useless. Instead, the author has to implement the equivalent of government regulation.

Ah well. On the plus side, character creation is relatively uncomplicated, for a point-buy system. It would have been far less complicated if they had used a random generation system, but as it stands, its not too bad. Attributes are purchased on a one-for-one basis, which is good. There is no "dump stat", per se; the stats are Awareness, Co-ordination, Ingenuity, Presence, Resolve and Strength, and basically all of them are important (though if you're doing a Dr. Who style game, the typical character will likely want to have more awareness and co-ordination than they will strength).
Traits are a bit more complicated, with most traits (the minor ones) costing one point, while most of the rest (the "major" traits) cost two points. But there are some traits that are "special" traits, and those cost a variable amount of points AND they reduce your starting story point value. There are also "bad traits" (which only worsens the point-buy quagmire), which of course give you extra points if you cross-your-heart promise to roleplay certain things like being a coward, or argumentative or impulsive. Though to be fair to the author, the majority of bad traits do offer an actual mechanical penalty, even though its all too easy in pointbuy to minmax those away too (by taking "bad traits" about things you don't care about in the least and have no intention of ever using).

The traits, good and bad, are taken in most cases directly from some kind of example within the tv series. In many cases you can directly point out which companion, alien, doctor, or character is the cause for a given trait being present. For the most part this is good, because it adds flavour, though in a couple of cases I was asking myself "really? we really need to have that?" Likewise, there are one or two that don't really seem to connect to anything, and are there I think mostly because they're standard RPG "feat" fare (like "Animal Friendship").

The special traits are how you create alien characters, especially Time Lords, though not only them.  The "Alien" trait is a special trait that simply designates you as an alien (and removes the normal attribute maximum limit of 6) and is required in order to purchase any of the further non-human traits. There is also a trait, "Experienced" that allows you to play characters with some more attribute and skill points in exchange for having less story points (and also an "inexperienced" trait if you want to play very young characters). There's two kinds of immortal there (both the "won't age and die naturally type" and the Captain Jack "comes back to life and is unkillable" type). The "Time Agent", "Time Lord" and "Time Lord -Experienced" traits round out the potential for creating special characters.
Those last two are special packages. If you take "Time Lord" you get a whole bunch of special traits included in the deal, which non-timelord alien characters can buy individually (Feel the Turn of the Universe, Vortex, Code of Conduct, and a Major Gadget, plus a +2 bonus to their Ingenuity and the power of regeneration).  They do not automatically get a TARDIS, the "major gadget" is a personal gadget on the level of a Sonic Screwdriver (which frankly, I find kind of silly, I don't think every timelord will automatically be carrying around a gadget).   In exchange for all this stuff, Time Lords must spend 2 character points and reduce their story points by 4. They must also have at least 2 bad traits (to simulate the eccentricity caused by viewing the Untempered Schism).  An Experienced Time Lord is one who has already used up one of his regenerations, in exchange for 4 extra skill points and more familiarity with different time periods.

I remember the process by which this system came about, it was one of the last things discussed during the Playtest phase. The original rules were something of a mess. I had pointed out to the team that, in the original rules, a time lord on his sixth or seventh regeneration would be a cripple. Instead, the system that ended up coming out of the process turns out to be very well done, and allows for the creation of powerful time lords that at the same time do not overwhelm the rest of the party.

The skills section details the 12 skills of the doctor who game. That's right, there's only 12 skills. Athletics, convince, craft, fighting, knowledge, marksman, medicine, science, subterfuge, survival, technology and transport.  That's all of them. There are optional rules to allow characters to have "areas of expertise" (which allow you to purchase a specialized +3 bonus for only one point, but only in skills already at 3 or above), essentially specializations, but in the default rules there's not even that. So yeah, "knowledge" is not a cascade skill like in D20, its just how much information your character knows in general.
The author had a good reason for wanting to keep skills to a minimum; we didn't want the Palladium system here. This is an introductory RPG, and its also emulating a setting which is vaguely pulp-like in that it seems characters are generally good at a great many things. A ton of Dr.Who scientists are, for example, "SCIENTISTS": they are as good at fixing electronics as they are at knowing about quantum physics. So making a "scientist" character have to spend his meager skill points on biology, chemistry, physics and electronics/repair skills would have been contrary to emulation of genre.
There are a few skills I would have liked to have seen (and said so in the playtest); I was a big advocate for there being a Perception and/or skill, but the author felt that perception, like "dodging" is not so much a learned skill as an instinct and that investigation is better covered within other skills.
So most actions in the game are rolled by adding an attribute plus a skill. Punching someone, for example, is done by Strength + Fighting. Something like Dodging can be done using Coordination + Fighting, or Awareness + Coordination. Yes, those are two attributes.  So most of the time you're using attribute + skill, but sometimes you're using attribute+attribute. Perception checks can be Awareness + a relevant skill, or they can be Awareness + ingenuity. Its all a bit arbitrary. I don't think that the kids will have any problem with it; D&D basic was loads more arbitrary, and I never had a problem as a newbie running that, so I think the Doctor Who system will work out fine, but its not exactly elegant.

This being a time-travel themed game, there is the question of just how to apply skills across different time periods. This is resolved with Tech Levels. Characters have a home time/space, and this has a tech level. If you are trying to make use of technology (or do a few other things) outside your tech level, you have a penalty, and the further away from your tech level the bigger the penalty. This is pretty elegant, on the other hand, but its not always logical. The penalty does apply more to higher tech than your own, then it does to lower tech than your own (its easier to use something you actually read about in the history books at least), but while I can certainly see a 20th century middle class girl having serious trouble managing a medieval loom, I have trouble thinking that the -2 penalty she would incur for trying to manage a goddamn loom should also apply to a 20th century girl trying to use a medieval sword. There's harder tech to master and easier tech to master, and so again here I foresee a lot of GM arbitration deciding exactly what things from the past or future incur a penalty for the PCs and which do not.

So I was saying, the basic mechanic for task resolution is attribute + skill (+miscellaneous) + 2d6. The result is compared to a difficulty level. Fun fact: in the earliest stages of playtesting, it was going to be 1d6, but I and a few others lobbied for the argument that 1d6 wasn't as fun, and 2d6 also provided a much better spread.
Unskilled rolls incur a penalty (unless the GM says so). A normal task (ie. driving, swimming) has a difficulty 12. A "tricky" task has difficulty 15 (examples are climbing a building or shooting at a moving target). A "very difficult" task would be difficulty 24 (example: recalling an entire speech from a Shakespearian play... huh, fancy that, I perform "very difficult" tasks on a regular basis!).
Results are not straight pass/fail; the amount you succeed or fail by determines whether you've had a basic result, or some kind of bad or disastrous failure or good or fantastic success.
In any situation of opposition, players roll the same way, but results are compared to the opposition roll instead of a static difficulty level.
The combat system is not much more difficult than that. It adds only a question of initiative and damage. The initiative method was one of my big contributions to the playtest process, and I was inspired in it by classic D&D (which also inspired the initiative method I used in Forward... to Adventure!).  Instead of people acting solely on the basis of their personal speed, what they are choosing to do has an effect on who goes when.  Talkers always go first, if you are making a speech, you get to act before anyone else. "Movers" are next, so if you're spending the round running somewhere, you go early.  After that go the "Doers", people taking special actions that aren't simple attacks. Finally, the "Fighters" go last, those just shooting or punching. I think that this brilliantly emulates how these sorts of conflicts tend to go in the Doctor Who show, and encourages characters to consider actions other than just fighting.
Damage is based on strength for melee weapons (with bonuses for different types of weapons) and on a fixed value for other kinds of weapons. The value of damage is modified by the margin of success, so a mild success will only do partial damage, and a fantastic success does extra damage. Some weapons have, instead of a number value, an "S" result, or "L" result. The "S" stands for stun, and the "L" for Lethal. You can guess what these mean.
Damage is applied directly to attributes, in the same style as the Traveller RPG (unless the damage is "L" damage, then you're just disintegrated). Thus, injured characters become less able to do certain things until they recover.

The section on conflict resolution is pretty clearly written in the final edition, and its generally easy to wrap one's head around. There is quite a bit of preachiness in it, about how combat is bad and should be avoided. Some level of this is understandable, given the nature of the game. Doctor Who characters should not be Rambo, running around using guns to solve everything in front of them. However, at some points (and far less so in the final version of the rules, fortunately, than was the original author intent) this moves into Swine territory. The main example is that killing someone can lead the GM to take away ALL your story points (fortunately, the author has conceded that this should be for killing someone who is defenseless, in cold blood). Three whole pages are dedicated to how players shouldn't fight if they have an alternative. Yes, fine, that's well and good, but I will note that Doctor Who is far from a Love-fest. The Doctor himself has, from time to time, used physical violence. And if you're playing a UNIT soldier, or a Torchwood operative, or any number of other potential characters, I don't see why you wouldn't look at violence as a perfectly logical option. There's nothing wrong with encouraging the emulation of genre by encouraging non-violent options (like the way the initiative order does, or the very clever idea to award a Story Point to any character who surrenders himself), just don't force it down the player's throats.

Speaking of clever ideas, and emulation of genre, the game keeps in mind that the average Companion doesn't leave the TARDIS in a coffin. You are as likely to have to make a new character from death in the game as you are from losing the will to travel. In game mechanic terms, this is resolved by having characters who are in a situation where their character ought to die be offered the option of survival in exchange for gaining the Unadventurous Trait. The second time this happens, they gain it as a major trait, giving them certain penalties. If it happens a third time, the character will choose to leave the TARDIS/group/retire to a life of peace & quiet at the end of the adventure. This is a very effective way of emulating the series, and the more normal way that companions in the series come and go. Time Lords, of course, have a different option: they regenerate.

I haven't talked about what Story Points do yet.  You can use story points in a variety of ways. The most basic is that spending a story point before you roll allows you to get a +2d6 bonus to your result. After you roll, if you failed your roll, you can use a story point to modify the result by one level of margin of success (turning a terrible failure into only a bad one, a bad failure into a regular failure, or a regular failure into a regular success). You can also spend a story point at any time to gain some kind of clue during an investigation, or to heal some damage. It is also considered possible in the rules that characters might be able to spend multiple story points at once to do something totally outside the normal context of the mechanics of the rules (the example given is when the Doctor imprisons the Family of Blood). Gadgets also have their own story points, which can be tapped into to do things beyond the regular specifications of the gadget (ie. to make the sonic screwdriver, which is really just supposed to be a fancy kind of lockpick, do all the freaking insane stuff the 10th doctor used it for).
Interestingly, players can also choose to "donate" their story points, to use them to allow other players to do any of the aforementioned things. Given that in the system, humans have way more story points than Time Lords as a rule, this may be the real reason why the Doctor likes to hang out with human companions!

Characters can gain story points by a variety of actions: I already mentioned that surrendering themselves to an opponent gives them a story point. So does doing anything the GM considers generally heroic or cool roleplaying. In particular, playing out bad traits merits extra story points. Characters can gain more story points than their regular starting amount, but from one adventure to the next these points do not carry over.

The GM's Guide contains useful information about what specific levels of attributes mean, additional details on traits and skills, a repeat of the conflict resolution details with some added info, some good rules on running chases of all kinds (a must for Doctor Who emulation, particularly in the new series), and rules for character progression. There are no "experience points" or the like in the game. Instead, attributes can theoretically increase very rarely (once in a dozen adventures or so) if the player is making a serious effort to develop the attribute, skills can raise the same way (but can happen more frequently), bad traits can be lost if the circumstances that cause them are removed and good traits are gained if the character does things that leads the GM to think the character should gain them (meaning that some traits are much easier to gain or lose than others), and every once in a while a character's story point total might go up. In my opinion, this "freeform" method of advancement is a much more sensible way to do things than using some kind of points-system. It was a good call.

The GM guide also includes extensive rules about gadgets, time travel (and the very loose "rules" of time travel in the Doctor Who universe), extra details about Time Lords (including rules on regeneration), and information about the TARDIS and its systems and features (and yes, the TARDIS does actually have a list of stats, as its pretty clear that on at least some level, the TARDIS is closer to a living thing than a gadget).

Next you have the "monsters" section, where you get stats for Autons, Carrionites, Catkind, Clockwork Robots, Cybermen, Daleks, Judoon, Krilitane, Ood, Roboforms, Slitheen, Sontarans, Sycorax and Toclafane.  There are rules for making other kinds of aliens, and more Alien Traits to assist in this design.

There's some good basic gamemaster advice oriented toward the beginner, including my favorite advice: The Gamemaster is Always Right.  While at some points this game does veer a little bit toward the airy-fairy mentality that is popular with the Swine crowd, at its core, the GM is the central authority, and this makes sure that fundamentally, the game plays as it should. The game should satisfy a wide variety of tastes, however, as that GM authority, plus the way the rules are presented (and optional rules), means that you can run Doctor Who slightly more orthodox or slightly more innovative, depending on what you like. Can players use Story Points to affect the reality of the emulated universe? The answer is "If the GM wants to let them".

In summary, the Doctor Who game is not quite perfect. It would be really hard for anyone to be able to design a Doctor Who RPG that I'd consider "perfect". But it does a very good job at what it sets out to do: it is approachable enough for new players, sophisticated enough that it won't bore experienced gamers. It allows for a variety of GMing and playing styles, and for a variety of campaigns. It handles the issue of balance between Time Lord and human quite well, I think.
It is, as I already said, easily the best Doctor Who game we've seen yet.

So yes, if you are a Doctor Who fan, you will definitely be wanting to buy this game.

RPGPundit

Currently Smoking: Raleigh Freehand + C&D's Pirate Kake

The only thing keeping me from buying this is the price (and the fact that it's already obsolete).

This sounds really good, and like there's a lot of Traveller in it (though, to be honest, I think I'll wait until the 11th Doctor trade dress update before buying it). How hard do you think it would be to house-rule char-gen to be more random -- perhaps rolling 1d6 for each stat + rolling on a table to get traits; skill-points could remain point-buy, and is sounds like story points are more or a derived than purchased value anyway? I really can't stand point-buy char-gen systems, but everything else about the game sounds pretty much amazing

man I hate to derail the thread but my question is probably not worth a whole new thread. I don't "get" the appeal of Dr. Who. Never have. But I've been looking for a system for Buffy the VS and Dr. Who seems to present a lot of the same inherent problems --that of an insanely overpowered central character surrounded by a supporting cast. Can the system be easily adapted or is it too tied to the DWho setting to be worth the effort?

Pete

Quote from: brettmb;375671The only thing keeping me from buying this is the price (and the fact that it's already obsolete).

Well, the only sense in which its "obsolete" is artistically. I doubt that the next version is actually going to make any rules changes.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;375760Well, the only sense in which its "obsolete" is artistically. I doubt that the next version is actually going to make any rules changes.

I know. It just bothers me. Call it a pet peeve and why I don't normally like TV licenses. Still, I'm too cheap to spend the money.

Quote from: pspahn;375715man I hate to derail the thread but my question is probably not worth a whole new thread. I don't "get" the appeal of Dr. Who. Never have. But I've been looking for a system for Buffy the VS and Dr. Who seems to present a lot of the same inherent problems --that of an insanely overpowered central character surrounded by a supporting cast. Can the system be easily adapted or is it too tied to the DWho setting to be worth the effort?

Pete

I don't know, I guess it could be viable; I know that Buffy (the RPG) was a direct inspiration in terms of how they wanted to handle that kind of power-disparity.  You'd probably be best off going with Buffy for this, but if you really don't dig some of the aspects of the buffy system, or really dig some of these, I think you could certainly use the same dynamics of timelord-companion to handle slayer-scoobies.

RPGPundit

Quote from: brettmb;375671The only thing keeping me from buying this is the price (and the fact that it's already obsolete).

Oh, it's not that expensive for what you get (esp. when you pick it up from amazon ) and I personally think it's worth every penny and then some.

(which probably explains why I've got five copies )

Any game over $30 is too expensive.

Quote from: brettmb;375826Any game over $30 is too expensive.

OK, well whatever. My personal cut-off point is £50, and DWAITAS slides under that price point very comfortably.

Quote from: brettmb;375826Any game over $30 is too expensive.

Does that mean that Lords of Olympus is going to be a great value for the pagecount?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;376813Does that mean that Lords of Olympus is going to be a great value for the pagecount?

RPGPundit

:hmm: I'm sure of it.