The Dysfunctional Adventures of a Pre-Teen

[lachek]

My 12-year old son has finally started taking interest in role-playing games. Not because his mom and dad plays them every week, organizes conventions and events, even write and design their own - no, because one of the kids in his school who he plays HeroClix with decided to run a mashup of heavily butchered D&D and Naruto, with the catchy title "NaRPG". This kid, hereafter referred to as the "GM", is the same age as my son, albeit quite a bit more mature in his mannerism and speech.

My son's friend (hereafter referred to as the "friend") is also involved in the game. The three of them are really into Naruto, and recently Bleach, as well as various other licensed properties like Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, and so on. The friend has been very mildly interested in RPGs in general prior to this recent development, and as mentioned it has not been straightforward to interest my son in the hobby either, although he's always been passionate for CCGs and miniature skirmish games. Now the three of them play whenever they get together - during recess, after school, at sleepovers, in the backyard, wherever and whenever.

I never knew much about how this "NaRPG" worked, assuming it was kind of D&D 3.x-like, until some issues started cropping up with the friend. Apparently the friend was losing some popularity with my son and the GM, to the point where he was no longer being invited to games. I heard some angry phone conversations and decided to investigate further.

It turns out that the friend was

• not a good player
• he did stupid stuff in game
• he always wanted stuff for free
• he would always 'take back' whenever something bad happened to his character
• and he would get angry with you personally for things that clearly just happened in the game

Boy, did those warning bells start ringing! So in best Forge style, I asked for some actual play examples. Here's two.

NaRPG, mini-AP report #1:
"So Friend asked me for some gold and silver and bronze and stuff, so he could get better armour. And I said, because my character has two flaws to make him more interesting, one is that he's incredibly selfish and the other that he <something about snakes and blood>, so I said that 'chances are my character would just tell you to go get it himself because he's really selfish'. And then Friend got really angry and said 'I bet you would say that if you were actually your character too because you would never do anything for me even though I asked you to go to Canada's Wonderland before I asked anyone else'."

"Chances are" was one of two terms my son used very frequently in our conversation about his game. It was typically used like this: "Chances are <subjective, often highly dubious claim about a perceived fact in a wholly fictional setting>, therefore <highly specific outcome>". Example: "a ninja of the Hidden Leaf Village would never accept someone who was stealing, therefore they had to attack him".

The other one was "don't you think?", as in "<subjective, dubious claim about some fact in a fictional setting>, don't you think?". Example: "a really young dragon wouldn't be very good at flying, don't you think?".

The differences in perception here is interesting. My son honestly believes the issue exist wholly in game, and gets angry with his friend for bringing it out of game. The friend obviously thinks the problems they have in game is fundamentally grounded in a problem with their real-life relationship.

NaRPG, mini-AP report #2:
"Friend does really stupid things, like for example, yesterday he was flying on his pet dragon and he saw these elephants on the ground, but they were like too big to be elephants even though they were small because he was so high up, so he decided to fly down and have a closer look. But they were actually Mumakils, you know like the oliphaunts with the fortresses on it in Lord of the Rings, so they fired arrows on him."
"Hold on. All the archers noticed this little dragon and fired on him at once?"
"Well no, the GM said the captain saw him and screamed 'Fire volley!' at the archers, so there were like one thousand arrows coming his way..."
"Wait, so all of the archers fired on the dragon perfectly?"
"Well, they're like really good archers. And either way, when they fired the volley he said he was going to fly up to avoid the arrows!"
"Okay. What was wrong with that?"
"Well, because he didn't say like how far up he was going to fly, or tell his dragon to stop or anything, so the GM said he was going to pass out from oxygen deprivation!"
"How far up do you think archers can fire arrows with any amount of accuracy, anyway?"
"I don't know. 5200 feet?"

It may be that I'm really stupid too, but I find diving down to investigate further, than veering upwards to avoid the resultant volley of arrows to be a perfectly reasonable course of action. To my son, it was utter insanity. Of course, it didn't appear as utter insanity until after the outcome was delivered by the GM, at which point the friend wanted to 'take back'. This 'take back' problem has become such an issue that my son and the GM has devised a ritual to prevent it from occurring - after some phrase like "game start, no takebacks" nobody (namely, the friend) is allowed to change their mind about an action their character takes, even if they'd never have taken that action if they'd had any idea of what the possible repercussions may be.

The presumably slim line between the distance of accurate bowmanship and the lack of atmospheric oxygen (in Middle Earth, nonetheless) is amusing, but typical - realism is called upon as the deciding factor between a stupid and smart solution, but realism is either misrepresented or entirely up for grabs (how well does a young dragon fly?).

It is interesting to study this situation as it essentially mirrors what goes on at our own table, but in a much more blatant fashion. There are popularity games, conflicting agendas, confusion surrounding narrative authority, and concerns about incomplete or misunderstood resolution systems. However, as much as it intrigues me, I'd like to try to sort out their play before the friend gets any more ostracized than he already is. One possible solution might be to run a game for them with some heavily structured but light-weight rule system, to show them how playing with a system other than "GM decides what happens" can allow everyone around the table to have fun on the same terms. Having a serious talk with my son is another possibility, but has only met with limited success so far - he's of the age where he places blind trust in his friends and questions everything his parents say, so the first-time GM's interpretation of what's going on will always win out over the gaming parents'.

What methods could one take to try to improve their play, to ensure everyone is having a decent time? If running a game for them and leading by example is a good option, what system would you use - seeing how they're used to the "GM makes shit up on the fly" method, which is very low-demand from a player point of view?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Heh, this is an interesting case to be sure. Scattershot options:

• Children mature by learning to handle their own problems. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad to give clear advice but let them make their own calls on who to be friends with. We have no idea of what goes on in the hearts of others, so who knows - your son might actually be slightly embarrassed by his friend and want to drop his acquaintance, but lack the honesty to say so directly to even himself. Alternatively he'll realize at some point how foolish it is to fight over some game.
• Teaching the kids to play games that are less arbitrary and less dependant on social dynamics (read: sucking up to the GM) is an interesting route, but it'll only work if the kids themselves find ostracism among them a problem. Choosing a good game is a challenge as well, as there are clear tradeoffs in most games for not having a strong GM; they don't offer the same values as a game with a strong GM does. I'd probably start by playing some boardgames and learning about what the children like in games, how they handle challenges and negotiation and so on, which would then help in choosing between options.
• Running some games for them is probably the choice I'd make, but that's mostly because my cultural interaction with preteens and teens happens in the role of an "adult friend" rather than as a parent - I have no immediate idea if a parent works in that context. But my experience during the last five years has been that adult participation in preteen and teen hobbies is a positive factor on many ways. Simply playing a GM-full game with them and showing a good example will do much for their social dynamics, as will not standing for childish social power plays at the game table. Extensive contact with adult ways of doing things will teach them restraint and good social practices they can fall back on when playing amongst themselves as well. All part of socialization into the community.
• Introducing new people to their game group might also work, perhaps even better than playing with them yourself. In practice you could have a teenage or young adult friend with a head on his shoulders arrange some games for them. Adding children is an option as well, although that would probably only work if you made it a small gaming club of sorts with some older leadership and an expectation of meeting new people. It's pretty easy for people in nerd hobbies to form closed cliques that develop such strong ways of doing things that adapting out of them later can become a problem; most of us have probably learned roleplaying this way, for example. Mixing it up by having children play different games with different people could be pretty interesting as an experiment.

In any case a rich cultural landscape is a good thing, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to try out many different games with the kids (either playing with them or giving them game texts and short lectures), letting them see the options that are out there.

[Beatboy]

That´s a truly interesting case and vividly presented, too. Thanks for sharing, lachek.

Eero´s comments make a lot of sense to me. As the tespecially the third point corresponds well with my own socialization in gaming, I dare adding a little bit.

Back in the early 8Ts we we being introduced to D&D by the father of a friend. Besides irregularly playing with said father, we busily had our own games running and were equally busy confusing ingame and outgame topics similar to your son and his pals. Nevertheless, during the afternoons with the father we had a fine role model for further orientation. The potential negative disruption of an adult playing with us from time to time did not happen in our case and I assume that this 25-year old case still holds some validity.

Without having experienced this from the kid´s perspective back then, I would probably have refrained from giving you the advice to play with the kids because I would have overestimated the danger of spoiling or negatively effecting the kid´s own sessions and/or further development. But, at least according to my personal experience, that was definitely not the case. Therefore: go play with them :-)

[Callan S.]

I'm not even sure alot of adults can handle this. For example, if the agreement is that the GM decides it all (or has rule zero or whatever), then it doesn't matter if it seems a perfectly reasonable course of action. If the GM says your shot full of arrows or passing out from lack of oxygen, then that's what happens and you accept that politely as part of forfilling the agreement between you that the GM decides it all. And most adult roleplayers, from many accounts I've read, don't seem to be able to keep up this sort of bargain either. They all seem to sign without reading the contract first, so to speak.

I think perhaps it's because by agreeing to 'the GM decides' (or rule zero or similar) we didn't specifically agree to be on the sharp end of someones ego. But at the same time, the sharp end of someones ego can be expressed through such an agreement, without breaking that agreement at all.

I think it's worth teaching how people can play out their ego, without breaking an agreement. And horrible as it is, to argue about their choices is actually breaking the agreement to abide by their, by agreement, absolute choice. Even though they're playing out their ego, the person who argues against ego is the bad guy. That's a difficult lesson. Though of course, seeing in advance that the agreement can facilitate ego play and declining to play under such rules, is also a great get around.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Quite true, Callan. The difficult bit, though, is that traditional play effectively stands on a basis of "GM decides - he is just presumed to do so according to certain criteria". It's not so much that anybody has agreed to a carte blanche of abuse from the GM, but rather that the specific procedures and spirit of the GM's action are entirely social and difficult to gauge objectively. So when you give seemingly the same rules to a bunch of children, it's no wonder at all if they fulfill the form of the game (GM decides all, suck it up) without fulfilling the spirit.

Perhaps the key to the conundrum is to ask how we should socialize young people into this hobby in general. There are different strategies to overcome the above problem. An established one is to lead by example and show what it means to be a caring, considerate GM - it seems to me that most roleplayers learn what it means to not be a jerk without ever having to verbalize it, so perhaps this is how they've learned it. Another way would be to give lectures about the matter, I guess. And yet another is to try to design a game that provides the same value in an explicit package that removes or lessens the potential for abuse.

Perhaps the best method for schooling kids in this regard would combine all three: choose a game that brings the methods of GM decision-making to the surface to prevent arbitrary abuse, play the game with the children to give a good example of how you deal with the social aspects of creating together, and speak frankly about how GMs and players should deal with each other.

[Beatboy]

Perhaps the best method for schooling kids in this regard would combine all three: choose a game that brings the methods of GM decision-making to the surface to prevent arbitrary abuse, play the game with the children to give a good example of how you deal with the social aspects of creating together, and speak frankly about how GMs and players should deal with each other.

...and reinforce desired behavior.

[Callan S.]

"GM decides - he is just presumed to do so according to certain criteria". It's not so much that anybody has agreed to a carte blanche of abuse

That they didn't follow certain criteria or that they didn't follow the spirit of the game. It can always be the other persons fault, like this. This can go on forever and it can always be the other guys fault. One never has to self correct or be in the wrong, because it can always be the other guys fault. What stops the 'spirit of the game' or 'certain conditions' from always meaning the other guy was at fault?

I don't think you can start heading toward decent games, where someone can always pull a 'not in the spirit of the game' as if someone else rather than themselves has to correct their behaviour/choices. Sirlin talks about something similar, where someone might call throws in streetfighter 'cheap' (almost the same as 'not in the spirit of the game'). Ie, they don't have to get better and find a way around throws, because the other person is in the wrong, at fault and 'cheap'.

[FredGarber]

Some of the things that I'd ask your Son to consider about the Friend in the game group:

One of the 'features' of Bleach and especially Naruto is that there's a large amount of comedic damage and failure, even amongst the main characters.  Maybe the friend isn't happy with the idea that his 'Super Dragon Attack" is often going to fail miserably.  It may be that the GM and your Son are playing a more Sim based game, where Effectiveness is related more to GM whim and story pacing, than to the actual points and 'rules' on the sheet (a Gamist outlook)

Another feature is that Naruto sometimes and Bleach literally has a main hero character where the rules don't apply.  Ichiko routinely does things that everyone else says are impossible, and Naruto has an advanced power (and a larger power source) as a low level character than everybody else.  If the Friend wants to be that guy and isn't, there can be some major problems in the group.

More likely, Anime often has a main character and then several sidekicks of dubious power. If your son is in the role of "Harry Potter" character, the Friend may be unwilling to be the "Ron Weasely" (being the comic relief) or some other support role. 

On the other hand, it may be exactly as the son describes, and the Friend is invested so deeply into the characer as an avatar of self that he can't separate things done to his character and things done to himself.  Not only does he create the in-character relationships from out-of-play relationships, but he might be "Turtling" to avoid conflict, feeling that the GM's attacks against his character are attacks against him personally.

But I think that it generally sounds like the Friend wanted to be Captain Kirk, and ended up as Ensign Chekov.

-Fred

[Frank Tarcikowski]

Hi there!

One possible solution might be to run a game for them with some heavily structured but light-weight rule system, to show them how playing with a system other than "GM decides what happens" can allow everyone around the table to have fun on the same terms.

I suggest that this will not work because it does not solve the problem, the problem being that not everybody agrees on what "fits" or "makes sense" in the game world.

I'm not a parent myself and have limited experience with 12-year-olds. That said, I think since the GM and your Son are wrongly assuming that the Friend "should known better" and therefore must not "take back" his stated actions, the best thing would be for them to realize their mistake. Whether it's in your capacity to make them, I cannot say. Probably the best way is to show, not tell: If you GM for them, you will certainly get to the point where they misinterpret the situation, and then you can explain how they misinterpreted, and encourage them to restate their action. The point is transparency.

One line that has worked with grown-ups: "<Name of character> would not misjudge the situation that way, would he?"

- Frank

[JoyWriter]

What should he have done? Clearly he should have rabidly attacked some guys he never met before because of a misunderstanding, leading to an action scene. (Judging by the genre at least) But because he had little confidence in the risks he tried to minimise them, or perhaps he just thought that inhumane/over-reacting. Either way he tried to follow the momentum of the GMs imagination, who was already imagining battle music!

It won't totally solve the problem of differing genre expectations but my first rule would be no stupidity unless specifically said. Characters should be given the benefit of the doubt when not specified, and any action that is potentially stupid should get flagged up. I must note also (genre again) he was flying on a dragon and flew up, if the GM has read "the colour of magic" and didn't think about it, he probably assumed that that is what happens when you fly up, and is an obvious thing to watch out for! In his world there were only two ways to fly up, with or without asphyxiation, and they could be distinguished because one was higher than the other. So woe betide anyone who flys up high! In contrast, some GM who played earlier editions of warhammer or pokemon might consider flying high to be equivalent to invincibility. Perhaps some mix of the two applied!

The really surreal bit is that he was already high up enough that elephants looked really small, he should by all rights have been able to fly back to where he was! Shifting perspective (the GM's view was on the mumaks), would the GM have said that the tiny spots could hit him? In these kinds of games reframing can be ridiculously effective! And when people start to see how powerful it is, they start to consider being more objective, in fact objectivity almost comes from trying to find frame independent descriptions.

But enough GM predicting what about the friend? He sounds like he is playing for the social part, like it's a means to an end, and is putting the same motivation onto other people. Perhaps he is literally playing as "GM's friend" and isn't first invested in the imaginary world, whereas the other two are quite capable of doing that. So with reduced interest and confidence in the SIS, he's getting clobbered by sim arguments. So how could you resolve this? Perhaps if the GM plays two characters with totally opposite opinions of his character? But that GM would probably have to be you! On the other hand, it could just be that he has been gaming his freedom and has had it reduced, accentuating the other problems, in that case it might be best if he played in some game that gave you benefits for loosing, something like Fate's "fate points", so he could get used to the idea, and warnings that he was taking risks (But hopefully he wouldn't mind any more). You'd really have to play to check.

My attitude when dealing with situations like this from afar has been to ask questions from a distance, taking a friendly but very different perspective, so that my brother, or in your case your son, can find routes to a solution that he had not considered, or hear arguments the other arguer could not articulate, generally one per conversation, with slight encouragement of their position. When you become a participant the situation changes dramatically, but seen as in this case you may have a perfect way in, depending on how the GM responds to someone else GMing, it might be quite a good option.

If you did play an rpg, it might be good to make it very different from their's, but still drawing on their interests. I suspect everyone should have times where they can be ridiculous, which is why a fate-type system might be perfect, as it could power their crazy powers, allowing them to get beaten, beaten, beaten, COME BACK WITH ULTIMATE POWER! Giving a safe and fairly non-lethal system, with the occasional power to disobey the rules thanks to fate points could be pretty nice, and give people an idea of value of slightly more explicit rules systems. Little things like max ranges and running speeds might solve a lot of hassle.