RPGs for kids

[Christopher Weeks]

Howdy all,

Over in This thread we started discussing kid-friendly RPGs.  The topic is threatening to dunk that thread, so I'm bringing it over here.  There was also a thread on Sorcerer for kids in which we addressed some issues.

What makes a game good for kids?  I've been playing free-form RPGs with my son for a couple of years.  Maybe since age seven.  Before that we did little snippets of play, but couldn't really call them games.  I have this sense that seven is really about the minimum age for kids who aren't extraordinarily smart, but Vincent's Elbow is fourish and Seth plays with three 2-5 year olds.  So I guess my age bias is just my own limitation.

I'd be interested in anyone's ideas whether they're based on theory or experience.

Items that might color how games should be designed for kids:

In my experience, kids (through their mid 20s) see things as fairly black and white.  But only sometimes.  Sometimes my son surprises me with interpolative analysis.

The social acceptability of "mature" topics.  I am open to my kids being exposed to sex, drugs, violence, etc. so long as it's realistic.  But most parents aren't, and I while I disagree with them, I can't reasonably be a marketing model.

Complex mechanics are not a good thing for kids.  Teens are OK with them, but kids aren't.  Not because they can't do it but because they aren't interested.  As Vincent noted in the first thread cited above, his kids thought the trivial effort of character creation and system explanation was kind of a burden.  My son only recently assented to playing games where we write stuff down at all.

Regulating and directing player emotion is a more central role when playing with kids.  Can the mechanics deal with that?  How, as a GM or the involved adult (if that's how it shakes out), can you work to keep things intense enough, but not too much?

Should the game be set up so that the kids can play among themselves or with adult participation?  I certainly see making it reasonable for them to play alone as an advantage in flexibility, but also somewhat harder.

I think it's OK to frame the plot in genre conventions that are of more interest to kids than adults (popular cartoon shows for instance) but not to make the plots simple or dull.  We occasionally encounter dull childrens' literature and they think it's dull too.  


What other considerations can you think of?

Chris

[Michael S. Miller]

Just another thread to look up. Make sure you check out Mithras' Sorcerer & Sword - Collaboration in Action post about his efforts to run games with his students. There may also be more information from his personal website, I'm not sure.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

My apologies for not replying more fully to your awesome post, but until I do, a quick reference installment:
Shadows - Harlekin-Maus April game
Shadows
Indie-netgaming Monday: Shadows!

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

I've got a post of my own idling about a design that fits kids ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10212 )

One thing I suggest is that 'oh look, a six came up on the dice instead of a five, get excited about it' or alike is crappy. Only adults can be stupid enough to get excited about numbers ;) , children want to see something happen.

In that link I suggest not just rolling the dice to get a number, but aimed to knock down a small cardboard target with the monster drawn on it. This gives very tangible feedback.

[M. J. Young]

I think that there are several distinctions that need to be made in this context. You've hinted at them, but I think they're rather critical to play.

The big one is whether you expect younger children to play in the game with adults and/or older kids, or whether you expect them to play entirely on their own.
I'm also interested in the problems of record keeping in the game, something teens do easily and younger children have a lot of trouble doing.

I've said before that my kids all started playing Dungeons & Dragons (OAD&D) as soon as they finished first grade, or as soon thereafter as there was a game available for them to join. This limitation was made specifically due to the records problem. The game requires that players be able to identify not only the numbers on their paper, but which one is what--what is your level? What is your armor class? Is that with or without a shield? What is your dexterity? I can run a game in which the players don't have to tell me these things but 1) it's a lot tougher and 2) it tends to reduce their own identification with their characters. That is, a kid can quickly understand that a 12 strength and a 17 dexterity means he's a lot more agile than he is strong, and that his character will succeed more readily if the solution relies on the dexterity.

I also think that kids have different strengths at different ages, and that everyone at the table needs to understand this. When my eldest was in third grade, a bunch of teenagers started playing in a game I ran, and he was the party leader. He had more experience playing role playing games (they were all first-time players, and he had played intermittently since second grade). He was also much more aware of setting and situation than most of us when we played--he could recognize things like that the thirty monsters that were just killed are now thirty bodies strewn on the floor making walking difficult, while everyone else ignored them as if they evaporated once they were stripped of their possessions. He also tended to promote discussion among the players about what he should decide, whereas older players tended to rely on their own judgment and simply tell everyone what they should do when they were in leadership positions. Overall, he had a lot of strengths because of his young age that they had lost as they grew older.

I love having kids in the group; they're more imaginative, in the main, and a lot more cooperative most of the time. (I've got five sons.)

Pokemon RPG is designed for preschoolers to play with their parents as referees; I haven't seen it, but have heard good things about it. Most of the games I have seen would work fine for any kid who can read and write complete sentences and do simple addition and subtraction. With Multiverser, I try to stall kids until they're a bit older--one of my sons started play at seven, and since your character is you and doesn't age, he's now a fifteen-year-old running a character who appears to be seven and stands a good chance of beating a dragon toe-to-toe. That, and the fact that young kids have major skill deficits, makes I game play more difficult. However, most games don't have that challenge, so it's not a problem.

--M. J. Young

[quozl]

Pokemon RPG is designed for preschoolers to play with their parents as referees; I haven't seen it, but have heard good things about it.

I have a copy of the Pokemon Adventure Game.  I think there are still copies available locally for $2 each.  If anyone wants one, let me know.

[daMoose_Neo]

Legos. Lots of Legos. (or visuals)

I'm no child expert, I'm just 20 and have none of my own. BUT, I did do some 'babysitting' (more like entertaining), and know a couple things.
One is they like things they can play with (hence the legos). My brother and I built a really simple miniature warfare game out of Legos and a six sided die when we were a LOT younger.
Having a piece of Full Armor meant he had like 3 Armor points. Having a Helmet meant he had two. A Sword was one Attack point. A Big Sword was like 2. The game needed no ref, we played it by ourselves (prolly cause we made it (wrote down the rules one time...can dig those out, that was quite fun)). But having the visual made life easy: Look at the Knight: He had a Mail Shirt and a Big Sword, so we could immedietly and easily know what his stats were. If he was on a Horse, he could do other things we agreed upon. Also had wizards on Dragon-back, that made life very interesting ^_^
By the same token, the same kind of trick worked when I was a teacher for my churches Vaction Bible School. We were doing a lot of stuff with the Old Testement about the same time they came out with the Egyptian legos, so I picked up some of those and we recreated the stories of the day with the legos.
Role Playing typically involves a lot of imagination, but average kids also like things that can keep their attention. And not all kids readily get into sitting around a table and 'talking'. Have two groups of kids: One playing a traditional pen and paper game and another, using the same system but with Legos for the characters and adversaries, and the kids will want to play at the table with the legos. It catches their eye and keeps their attention.
Maybe its just me~ But I've noticed the younger kids (first/second grade is what I dealt with in VBS and the 'babysitting') really enjoy having the visual to work with. I'm not saying they're not imaginative, but having the base visuals and things get them envisioning even more.

BTW, I'd like to see that Pokemon game ^_^

[quozl]

After thinking about this for a while, I have to wonder what definition of RPG you are thinking of when you ask about an RPG for kids.  I hinted before that Monopoly is an RPG (if you define an RPG only as a game where you play a role -- which is definitely not the definition that currently marketed RPGs use).  

Is the playing of roles important?  If so, then pretty much any game can do that (even Candyland).

If the creation of a story important?  Freeform roleplaying is probably best for younger kids.

Is gamist competition important?  The D&D boardgame might be best or maybe the Pokemon Adventure Game.

What kind of game are you trying to introduce kids to?  Or do you just want kids to play the adult RPGs?

[Christopher Weeks]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

The point M.J. makes about record-keeping is very good.  I should have thought of that when I was listing stuff.  On the one hand, my son thinks big character sheets with lots of crunch are unbearably silly.  I'm only now coming around to that point of view, myself, but I bet that he'll change his mind as he transitions into being a teen.  But at the same time, he's trans-engineered a paper-based war game from the Age of Wonders computer game franchise that includes a whole lot of records, each of which are fairly simple.

Conveniently, I have lots of LEGO elements.  Maybe 300 pounds or so.  I wonder how the suggestion of including toys to help with RPG modelling affects design efforts, rather than just play.  Your simple miniatures game sounds like the kind of thing that I play with my son, but we also play a more complicated game that is a simplification of Brikwars occasionally.  Tying LEGO into the above issue of recordkeeping, two years ago, I came up with a rough sketch of a design for a LEGO-based pseudo-RPG called All Brick Stories*.  Over on LUGNET, where I posted about it there was no interest generated, but one of the gimicks included the use of LEGO in three dimensions for the character sheet.  I wonder if a more tactile form would be appropriate even if you weren't altering the domain of the RPG.

Defining the goals is certainly an important step.  I wouldn't count Monopoly or Candyland as a role-playing game because the drive for verisimilitude on the part of the players and the system is insignificant at best.  I would dispute that playing Candyland involves role-play in any way and really, I can't think of anything good that it does.

I think that playing roles and creating story are both important tools for cognitive expansion, but more importantly having fun.  I think that freeform roleplaying might be best for some kids, but not in general.  People generally seem to thrive with a certain level of structure, and kids are no different.  We like rules to help us negotiate who's doing what when.

I do eventually want my kids to play the adult RPGs, but I'm sure they're not ready for most systems yet.  But more, I want them to want to.  And I want to share my joy with them to whatever extent is appropriate.  I play computer games with my kids.  I play with LEGO and DUPLO with my kids.  We have an extensive Playmobil collection with which we do free-form role-playing and (more often) battle simulations.  RPGs seem like a natural inclusion and there's pretty clear evidence that I'm not alone.  

What about the rest of you?  If you play with your kids, why?

Chris

* - Please note, I have not updated this in the two years since I posted it and many ideas might be differently implemented after being exposed to y'all.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Pokemon RPG is designed for preschoolers to play with their parents as referees; I haven't seen it, but have heard good things about it.

That is a weird one. The notable element of the game is that the parents do not tell the kids what they see, but ask the children to describe it.

Episode 1: I Choose You!

[*] You and your friends are all 10-year-old Pokémon Trainers. You want to become the best Pokémon Masters in the world! But first you need a Pokémon.

You go to Professor Oak's lab to choose your starting Pokémon.

The lab is part of a larger building. What does the lab look like?

There are computers and machines in the lab. What else do you see?"

Naturally, the kids will probably describe what they see on the show, but a creative child might be able to run with this more.

It's a pity they only had the one set AFAIK

[daMoose_Neo]

Actually, using characters for 3D character 'sheets' would be fairly cool. Plus, several things could be used!
Theres the legos, as I mentioned. They have a LOT of stuff, from the armor, several varieties of swords (could even paint some of the blades to make them different), a couple versions of axes, a variety of the bodies/shirts, helmets, wands, etc.
Too, look at the LOTR figures- you could probably do a good job canabalizing them for parts. Wait for the yard sales and clearance sales; I imagine you could easily pick them up cheap, a LOT cheaper than regular minis.
Or, even make a craft project out of it~ Bored one day, I picked up a dozen little wooden bodies and painted them up~ I ended up with a Knight, a Black Knight, an Ogre, a Dwarf, a Wizard, an Elvish Ranger, a King, and using some wood boards and pipe cleaners made a forest of Man-Eating Plants. Using some stuff (if they're a little older with some patience mind you) like toothpicks, pipe cleaners, a little of the model airplane wood you can easily make your own 'characters'.
And I agree. You don't neccesarily have to change the nature of the game to make it appeal to kids- you just have to give it a little more 'hands on' to it and reduce the number crunching. If you, as a GM, can look at a 7 year olds wooden/lego guy and tell what EQ they have or some basic stats, you can do all the number crunching right off and they won't be bored ^_^ Just keep the action coming!

And I took a look at some of that for Pokemon Jr. I used to hack the GB games inside and out, have all the formulas and stuff, it would be easy to expand and make 'supplements' to it that were true to the games and system. Hmmm...have to take a look around, WotC no longer has the rights and AFAIK, GameFreak's stance on 'derivative' content has been okay as long as its non-graphical, non-recreational of the GB games...Free suppliments just might be legal ^_^ Were they, anyone know of kids interested? Might just do it for the fun of it...

[quozl]

I do eventually want my kids to play the adult RPGs, but I'm sure they're not ready for most systems yet.  

What ages are we talking about here?  

I'm assuming we must be talking very young since most people I know started playing adult RPGs by themselves when they were 8-10 years old.

So are we looking at ages 3-7?  Something else?

[Ben Lehman]

Would just like to note, on the subject of "kids playing adult rpgs" that I started playing (with kids 1-4 years older, and a few parents) assort Basic D&D (red-box set, with the chalk-your-own-dice) games at age 4, by-and-large loved it, and it seems to have done my no irreperable harm other than the idea that Elmore art is really cool.

yrs--
--Ben

[M. J. Young]

I would dispute that playing Candyland involves role-play in any way and really, I can't think of anything good that it does.

Well, in defense of Candyland, it is intended as a game for preschoolers and was created in a time when no one but the very wealthy went to preschool. If I recall correctly, its benefits include:

[*]Color identification.[*]Number identification (one versus two, on the card and on the board).[*]Concept of taking turns.[*]Concept of rules-structured play.[/list:u]Obviously, it is intended for very young children, a sort of Baby's First Board Game, and with the modern emphasis on teaching kids in the cradle it may be less useful today than it was fifty years ago, but it did have educational value in its time.

I wouldn't say it's a role playing game, but then Jonathan sometimes takes a broad view of what constitutes "playing a role" in a game. Do we contribute something to a shared imaginary space? Maybe; probably not. It's hard to say, really, but somewhere there must be some minimum threshold to distinguish "role playing game" from "anything in which people are imagining similar things".

--M. J. Young