I am working part-time in an elementary after-school program with kindergartners through fifth graders. There are a few fifth grade boys who do what they call playing D&D. Essentially, this consists of one smart boy, a ringleader, sitting with the Monster Manual, the only book they tend to have and saying, "150 Githyanki are surrounding you, what do you do?"

The players describe their character's actions, often using beasts and spells from Final Fantasy. They do not roll any dice and sometimes arguments break out over who can do what. They play for 20-30 minutes at a time when nothing else is going on.

The DM goes through the Monster Manual in this manner, in no particular order but his buddies love it and have told me that he is an amazing DM.

I have to make up a kind of lesson plan by next Wednesday and starting up a Gaming Club is certainly an idea I would like to explore.

I'm eyeing Zak's games greedily about now but wanted to ask the forum at large what they reccommend. I could split the Game Clubs up into k-2 and 3-5 if I wished.

I could ask the program to buy some materials but nothing too nuts.

Ideas?

Games?

Thoughts?

Have you considered getting this group to design their own game?

EDIT: Let me rephrase that; they obviously already have designed their own game. What I mean is, get them to continue developing their game. END EDIT

I'm thinking something like, let them play in their usual way, and when an argument breaks out, ask them "what would be a good rule to make for how to decide who's right?" Suggest where they might use dice or currency. Let it build from there. Play, discuss problems or new possibilities, add or change rules to suit.

Only after that's gone pretty far, start showing them representative published game systems or core parts of systems.

The thought of kids that age learning and applying design and play principles (however basic) before getting exposed to any authoritative (good or bad) examples of "how it's supposed to be done" is intriguing and perhaps a bit scary.

- Walt

for that kind of play -- large groups, everyone in on the action -- i gotta recommend Universalis. The "GM" can still lay the 150 Githyanki smack down, and the players' retorts'll have some teeth.

I'd start 'em off with a prebuilt scenario based on their shared Final Fantasy/DnD world. Once they got the hang of having a resolution system to arbitrate their disputes, I'd move on to the shared world-building aspects of Uni.

I ran Marvel Superheroes for a group of kids about this age for a while. It was a glorious disaster. MSH does not help one defeat the bullying and cliques inherent to a boys group of that age.

Uni might be able to, so long as you can get them to stick to the coins and dice.

my two coins,
-L

abzu wrote: MSH does not help one defeat the bullying and cliques inherent to a boys group of that age.

Thanks for the suggestions.

I will certainly be reading over the following thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4799

with careful interest.

And

Zak Arnston's site (http://www.harlekin-maus.com/index.html) is pretty much pure gold waiting to be mined. Shadows and Monkey Wrench both look great.

There was a discussion of this elsewhere (The Place That Cannot Be Named). I will cull some of my responses there, and reproduce the remnants here.

You should consider encouraging them to add story elements. I would also like to suggest characterization. It should be easy to do. If all they do is have fights, it should be pretty easy to introduce these without even overtly doing so.

Just have a conversation with them. Ask what their characters look like. What makes them special. What they care about. Ask the DM what he thinks happens before and after the fights.

--

People could be encouraged to draw their characters. Or if they don't draw, maybe kids who like to draw but who are not interested in the game yet could be asked to draw for them, thereby spreading the interest around a little.

For that matter, gaming group or not, it might be a fun after-school program project for everyone to come up with a super-hero or character of some kind and talk about that character. Whether or not they play it.

You should consider encouraging them to add story elements. I would also like to suggest characterization. It should be easy to do. If all they do is have fights, it should be pretty easy to introduce these without even overtly doing so.

Seems to me like as far as conflict resolution and rules go, the kids have it down pretty good.

Maybe ask them where they are, where the fight is, what is around it. If nothing it the answers will get them stuff to use in the fight. After the fight they can wander around for a bit.

THen again, maybe they just like fighting :-)

hm,
i started rpg's when i was seven.
yes SEVEN!
all we had was a single freaking d20 and we sucked big time.
We id pretty much the same, only that there were no rulebooks.
Whenver we rolled the d20 it was like this:
"Hm, that's a pretty high number, you kick his booty"
Honestly, from my own experiences, those kids have to grow up to appreciate our kind of gaming.
As did I and my old gaming buddies dack home in good'ol Germany.

But since I know you're going for this anyway, i would do what was already said. Get them to a system slowly and step by step.
Or, teach how to play their roles.
But i am afraid, and again I speak from my own experiences, that you can't do both.

And yes, I know I always think waaaayyyyy to negative.

-Crack

Okay, why do we have to have this story crud and this 'get into your role' crud?

Sorry to get emphatic again, but fighting is good! Further, it sounds like the system their using is good, if unrefined.

It sounds like were missionaries who must go to those islands and bring all the pagan islanders under our religion...because surely they can't live like that!?

What are these suggestions for? We don't do this to other posters here 'Oh, you don't play nar? Here, let me help you with your problem'

The only concern I'd have for these kids is the long term potential of the material. And that might not even be a concern, since it is okay to do a hobby for awhile but not adopt it for life.

Well, the other concern is the occasional arguements. There are probably various ways of assisting this, though sneaking story into there or role isn't related to that assistance. I'd like to hear more on when their arguments come up and how much they are resolved.

But really, fighting is good. If you've ever noticed kids eat food, they often get a bit of bread and just put jam or honey or whatever on it, often going past the butter/margarine. Why don't they mix up all sorts of flavours...because they still enjoy the basics. The basics are very forfilling for them...it takes an adults more jaded tongue to seak out interesting mixes of flavour.

Personally I've been surprised at how much influence I have over my four year old sons opinion of TV shows, for example. Really, telling yong kids 'ah, you need some story and getting into role to have fun' will not only distract them from what their already having fun with, but influence them to pursue something that wont work for them.

Am I way out of sync with the rest of the forge on this? Does everyone else think there must be a problem when there's lots of fighting, no real in role stuff and no real story?

Hm, do you guys remember when you were kids? I'd say where there's fighting there's story. Fighting is story when you're a kid. Pure story. Like honey on toast, yup.

I'd like to hear more about that game they are playing on their own. Is it still going on? Is there a way you can just observe and learn? Asking questions might not even help that much, most rules in kids' spontaneous play are implicit - a true "social contract", always being negotiated and renegotiated, always evolving.

If you want to foster and teach in the background, running sessions for those interested using other easy-to-pick-up game systems might help. I'll take any bet that once some new play technique or coolness catches in "your" game, you'll see it all over the place mere instants later. There's no telling what this may do to their own game though - if you "inject" too much from your own experience with games, you may well kill off their creation. "Grown-up" thinking is a seductive poison, especially in that age range.

good points there,
however, couple of years ago i was one of those kids, and when I now look back at it, i missed a guiding hand through RPG's for a long time.
But showing them another way to play, doesn't mean you destroy theirs. In the end it's their decision when they say
"Nah, that's boring, I want the 150 Githyanki back."
There is a big difference between showing them alternatives and influencing their own opinion.

-Crack

Whoa! Parent freaking out here...violence is good?
These are kids we are talking about, not fully grown adults like you and I. A guiding hand is definitely something necessary here if their play consists of *bash* *slam* *break* *hurt* *kill* and that's all.

That's not just play, that's desensitization to enacting violence. Play, for children (even teenage "children"), is the testing and development of social and personal boundaries. It isn't "just play" -- it's psychological, it's character building. Yeah, that doesn't apply to you and I, as adults, but kids, it sure does. I'm not looking to have any arguments about that: anyone can go look up the studies themselves, anyone with kids can likely verify it in their own households.

Next consider, as a parent, I wouldn't look very kindly upon an adult-led Gaming Club for kids that catered to violence -- and that's something else to think about very seriously in running any sort of club for kids.

This isn't Gamism versus Narrativism here -- you can have bloody, lay-down, ass-kicking Narrativism as much as you can have it in Gamism. In the end, it isn't a matter of trying to force "the One True Way" of play upon anyone, so much as it is trying guide young minds towards healthier and more complex expressions of their imagination.

I worry that this general discussion is going to take Paka's thread off topic, Greyorm. Maybe it's worth an RPG theory thread on 'play with kids' if you want to go into more detail here. I'll just say for my part that when I was seven-ten years old I really got off on all the violent fantasizing that RPGs gave me the opportunity to do, and I'm thankful for it. I had a lot of nastiness in me anyway and I think killing orcs and the froghemoth was a better way to get some of that out of my system than say beating up other kids at school would have been. Many of the other kids in my neighborhood got out those urges through actual physical or sexual violence against other kids (and this is way more common than anyone likes to think about, speaking of statistics) and it was notable that the D&D/TFT/Microgame crowd at my grade school by and large did not participate in much of that except as the occasional victim.

Honestly, young boys are attracted to fighting like lion cubs fight with each other so as to practice taking a kill latter in life. It's instinctual. It'd also be rather perverse as an adult male, after having gone through a youth of fun wrestling, computer fighting games and other fun simulated conflicts, to say 'Oh no, I got the chance to form an opinion on fighting, and since I think it's bad, I'm making suure you don't get the same chance I did'.

Anyway, that sort of discussion can go on forever.

Personally I'm somewhat a pacifist myself and see senseless killing...or especially gleeful wanton killing, as quite repulsive. But the fun thing is, a 'You reduced him to 0 HP, now he's dead' is easily changed to 'You reduced him to 0 HP, now he's unconcious and ready to be sent to jail!'.

I really don't have a problem with young kids getting the message that bad guys should be knocked out/incapacitated and then dragged off to jail (or even left to nurse their bruises and think about not being so evil). Yes, this is a simplistic message and somewhat flawed. But really I'm not going to change on it, so that means I'm not going to mesh very well with anyone else who finds it unpleasant. If I'm failing to mesh so much that it's spoiling the thread I'll drop out (& perhaps start a new one). Basically boys are attracted to violence (which is one form of conflict, and were all exploring conflict here)...so funnel it to 'bad guys are stopped and sent to jail' violence.

StalkingBlue: I agree. I've been really surprised when I've quietly groaned at some awful bit in a kids show my 4 y.o. son is watching, but he's turned around and loudly said 'No, it's good, I like this!!'. The tone of how he said it was most important...the tone said 'I've just figured out some knowledge (this TV program is good) and I'm really worried I'm going to find out I'm wrong (because I pretty much accept my dads opinion without much question)'. God, I couldn't even grunt in disatisfaction without influencing him and making him feel his preference might be incorrect.

Manicrack: But from what I see, the guiding hand needs some guiding too. Imagine this was about sport...if they'd developed their own sport but were having arguements about it, you could tell them about how your own sport had the same problem and what processes you used to try and work it out. However, telling them to stop playing their sport and play the way you do so as to avoid arguements is a lot different, you'd have to agree?

We can talk about "oh, I think it was good for me" and "kids like violence" or "boys will be boys" all we'd like, but I'll stick to the facts put forth by studies of the subject of fantasy violence and real violence: which is that there is a very strong correlation between the two. This is generally considered to be a bad thing, though whatever a parent decides for their own kids is up to them.

Here's the thing: we're talking about children who are at an age where they don't know the difference between pretend violence and real violence; yes, they may be able to recite to you what the difference is, but for the developing mind, there literally isn't a real difference. A mind at that age is still trying to discover limits and boundaries, trying to figure out the world, categorize it, organize it, and fit itself into it -- psychologically, for a child's brain, all input is valued equally, including "fake" input from tv and such.

My main point with all that is that if Judd is going to run a Gaming Club for kids of ages K-5, he is suddenly the responsible adult, and thus responsible (in a very real and legal sense) for the club activities and the children's safety and health, mental and physical, regardless of how he, I, or you feel about the violence issue, and the above is what he's up against legally.

Now, I'm not saying, "Get rid of all the violence." I am saying, "Make consequences count. SHOW consequences, even if they're off-stage to the action. Offer options." Though, honestly, the howls of agony and horror at the suggestion that violence isn't good or acceptable, that guiding these kids towards stories and characterization (or even away from violence) is wrong, are causing me to wrinkle up my nose at the amount of testosterone being released into the air.

As I said, as a parent, I would be incredibly incensed to learn an adult was encouraging empty violence in any form with my kids -- yep, as an RPGer, as a video-gamer, as a guy who likes bloody fantasy violence, as someone involved with the martial arts, I say that. You can bet there are other parents out there like me, and that's a world of trouble for Judd if and when it happens (and I'd bet more on the when than an if).

It doesn't matter what you argue here, or how you argue it, about kids and violence. It simply doesn't matter whether or not you're right and I'm wrong. The only way for Judd to cover his ass in this situation is for him to make certain he creates a club that is about more than the violent slaughter-fests these kids have thus far engaged in. Whether you agree or not that it is harmful, if he doesn't do that, there's a world of legal hurt staring him down the nose from concerned and angry parents. I'm dead serious.

Knowlege of that should help him decide what sorts of RPGs and RPing habits the club should promote and (let's face it) teach.

About fantasy violence: imagine what happens when the first parent complains that the teacher is teaching their kid to kill things, and takes the issue to the principle. The teacher will be in an awfully tough spot.

(deleted post) - My apologoies for posting twice, my bandwith has slowed to a crawl. My reply is further down.

well, I guess there is one important thing to teach young gamers:
That games are not reality.
oh and by the way, 93% of all statistics are made up. :)

Noon wrote: Manicrack: But from what I see, the guiding hand needs some guiding too. Imagine this was about sport...if they'd developed their own sport but were having arguements about it, you could tell them about how your own sport had the same problem and what processes you used to try and work it out. However, telling them to stop playing their sport and play the way you do so as to avoid arguements is a lot different, you'd have to agree?

Violence debate aside,

I would definitely go with Walts initial suggestion. You could do something simple like introduce the character sheet, let them list their kewl powerz on there, and then give them a dice pool to distribute amongst the powerz.

The DM could just pick a resistance according to the description he reads of the monster and the players then have to roll with an appropriate power to beat it. Something like that. This sort of mimics the collection cards that they are all into.

However I would highly recommend at least trying some of Zak’s games so that they don’t become ‘conditioned’ by the muck that all role playing games are about killing monsters.

I have a niece who is the same age as your kids and whose teacher introduced them to D&D. I showed her Shadows and we had a lot of fun playing it-she really dug it. In fact I whipped up the game on the spur of the moment at breakfast time, so in the same way you could probably just say ‘let’s play a game’- zero prep time needed-and they would probably have no idea that they are playing a ‘role playing game’ or associate it with the one that they play.

Cheers,
Lorenzo.

well, I guess there is one important thing to teach young gamers:
That games are not reality.
oh and by the way, 93% of all statistics are made up. :)

Noon wrote: Manicrack: But from what I see, the guiding hand needs some guiding too. Imagine this was about sport...if they'd developed their own sport but were having arguements about it, you could tell them about how your own sport had the same problem and what processes you used to try and work it out. However, telling them to stop playing their sport and play the way you do so as to avoid arguements is a lot different, you'd have to agree?

Paka:
Are you sure you aren't looking through the wrong end of the microscope?

I mean, here are kids hashing out how to roleplay, largely by themselves.

You might be the one that can really benefit here by taking the opportunity to observe these little gamer-chimps in their natural habitat.

Rather than try to teach them how to roleplay, why don't you watch what they're already doing and see what ideas you can draw for your own system design.

Someone talked about the cliquishness of young boys, and dominance behavior. Doesn't this have something to say about system, and credibility, and imput into the SIS?

k-bob

Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro wrote:

However I would highly recommend at least trying some of Zak’s games so that they don’t become ‘conditioned’ by the muck that all role playing games are about killing monsters.

Hey greyorm,

Your working multiple angles at once here; There are studies (and I've heard of studies to the opposite), the kids are learning about the world and thus need not to learn about this subject, its a legal issue, were being too ballsy and testosterony, the parents will kick up a stink.

All I can say is these kids were enacting combat from final fantasy. Someone, somewhere let the genie out of the bottle already.

And I for one don't want to see 'Violence is bad...so we should get all our concepts of story and roleplay into their minds because the way were doing it is healthy'. I'm getting the feeling the enforcement of the play method is justified by the current violent content. About a thousand 'How do I make them roleplay and not just hack and slash?' questions from D&D, palladium and other boards come to mind where the GM has taken it upon himself to convert the heathens rather than get some sort of mix of his preferences and player preferences.

The issue of violence? Whatever. Instead of forcing our idea of story and roleplay in there, lets just assume a change of conflict. Say they are miners, mining at high speed into an alien planet, for diamonds, amidst billowing volcanos. Or they are round the planet speed racers, using ultra suped up racing vehicles. Plenty of nifty conflict there.

Just as long as the percieved violence problem isn't fixed by replacing parts of their play that aren't actually broken. Indeed, those parts could be in better condition than our own...it's just the content they revolve around is contentious. Scuse the irony, but it's a baby and bathwater situation. ;)

Hi Manicrack,
I think they already are drawing on other 'sports', like final fantasy. I think they will more happily warp that into what they want, than they will warp something an adult they respect shows them. Ones just a video game, the other is living breathing culture from another human, a grown up at that. Just as much as greyorm has suggested kids can be overly influenced by violence, I think kids can be overly influenced by the grown ups preferences. Indeed, I think greyorms claim has substance only in that kids will really absorb the way a respected grownup presents things. So you can't show them other methods of story or role...their just too easy to influence into accepting them until they, say, hit about 25 or so and find a forge like place of their own and have this same discussion.

Violence is a huge issue for this age-group and working out how to deal with it is important to me, as it was to Mithras in his informative and fascinating posts.

I do not want to have violent free-for-alls within my games at the after-school program. When the students are done playing at their diceless D&D/Final Fantasy hybrid they frequently choose which monsters they represent, go to the playgroud and pretend to battle. I frequently have to ask them to put down sticks and a wiffle ball bat that are routinely their imaginary swords and weapons.

Playing pretend has an effect on their behavior. I don't care that we all did it. I did it. I hear ya. I wasn't as young as these kids but these kids aren't me. I am not interested in a pro-violence argument for these games. If violence comes up and I am SURE it will, rest assured that I won't just jump on the kid's case, sweep it under the rug and be done with it. My method for confronting the issue will be creative and thorough.

However, I won't be running games with breaking down doors in dungeons, killing orcs and taking their stuff. They will have plenty of time to do that all night throughout junior high, will tweaked on caffeine.

This isn't a GNS issue. This isn't me being anti-Gamism or what-have-you.

Please know that violence will be dealt with and I would like more discussion about it.

Monkeywrench was perfect because it encourages team play, has adventure and action and even had some violence when I ran it but it wasn't thoughtless and I talked to the student about it afterwards.

Allow me to make it more clear, I am not going to stamp out any and all violence but when violence comes up it is going to be discussed and they will leave the table thinking about it and how it is used in stories and in life and the differences between the two and the similiarities.

How to do this in an adventure game and still have kids in the club is going to be the tricky part. We'll see how it goes.

Thanks again for the discussion on this thread as it has gotten me thinking about how I am going to have to set this all up.

The only professional psychologist I know, who does work in the area, says that the studies are inconclusive: you can find some suggesting a correlation and others that suggest there are none. But even though he's an expert, he's only one.

I think giving kids material to cope with their violent and sexual urges can be a good thing to do for them. As an adult doing this you do have to decide carefully how you're going to do it, because you can get in trouble with the uptight. Better to give them the means to do it for themselves surreptitiously, I guess.

That's the last thing I have to say on that subject here. Good luck, Paka; I already gave you my system thoughts on rpg.net. Zak's games of course seem like great choices as well.


Edit: Paka, I think that's good. You can let them work through the hard-core material on their own, which they'll be more comfortable with anyway and won't put you at any risk. In your role as an older person I think talking to them about what the violence etc. that sometimes occurs in-game in a responsible way without shying away from it or dumbing things down definitely sounds like the way to go.

They can go get the occult manuals and summon spirits at the graveyard on their own.

Cool, Paka, sounds good. I'd like to hear more about how you are going to manage it once you get it worked out. I'm trying to find ways to introduce my son to gaming without a driving focus on the violence -- since, as you've noted with the sticks on the playground, it tends to get acted out afterwards.

That's the same reason I don't let my kids watch, for example, Dragonball Z anymore (or play violent video games). After watching the show, "Dad, he HIT me!" and the response, "But we were just playing Dragonball Z!"

And that from kids who know better, who, if asked, "Is hitting wrong?" will answer, "Yes, hitting is wrong. It hurts other people." So, yeah, they "know" the difference...but it's really obvious that line isn't set yet for them. So, please keep us updated on your development, and your strategy. I, for one, am very interested.

You might wish to check out the APA's site (the American Psychological Association) for information on how to deal with exposure to violence and kids: they have a number of excellent suggestions about how to discuss the effects of violence with kids (as well as what a child of a given age can process and understand, which will be particularly important in game choice and scenario construction for the age ranges you're looking at).

Sean wrote: I think giving kids material to cope with their violent and sexual urges can be a good thing to do for them.

They can go get the occult manuals and summon spirits at the graveyard on their own.

Noon wrote: I think kids can be overly influenced by the grown ups preferences. Indeed, I think greyorms claim has substance only in that kids will really absorb the way a respected grownup presents things. So you can't show them other methods of story or role...their just too easy to influence into accepting them

Your working multiple angles at once here; There are studies (and I've heard of studies to the opposite), the kids are learning about the world and thus need not to learn about this subject, its a legal issue, were being too ballsy and testosterony, the parents will kick up a stink.

greyorm wrote: For those interested in exploring the subject, since 1992 every major health organization in the United States -- including the APA, the American Medical Association, the National Institutes of Mental Health, the Surgeon General's office, and the US CDC -- has stated the same conclusion after numerous, lengthy studies: that there is a strong correlation between fantasy violence and real aggressive behavior. Check it out if you're so inclined on the websites and journals of those organizations. Interesting stuff.

Raven, I really think we should have started a new thread for this stuff or taken it offline, but I guess we're reaching conclusion now anyway. Next time I guess I'll take the initiative in switching out.

You wrote: "Unfortunately, Sean, "coping" is far different a thing than "indulging." One cannot learn to cope with anything by simply indulging in it."

'Cannot' is too strong, but I agree with the first sentence, obviously. In my case I had so much anger and fury over my home life during the age period in question that having any outlet for it other than fighting and/or self-destruction was healthy for me. But the play was a way for me to get those feelings out there and look at them, not just to express them for the sheer sake of violent self-expression. I'm a naturally introspective person and was even then. Others may need more guidance.

It sounds like you've done the research so I'll cede my lone psychologist's assessment of 'mixed and unclear' to your better defended claim. I will say, though, that this is one of those issues that's a little like (mild) corporal punishment. It depends on how sensitive your kid is. I've seen kids who are absolutely harmed by all physical discipline and I've seen kids who are helped by it in moderate and judicious application. Even if a general policy that says 'don't do it' is better, that doesn't mean there aren't individual cases that form an exception.

Likewise, opportunities for play-violence will mean different things to different children. It especially will vary based on how those opportunities are followed up on. But as I said, I cede the general claim.


You wrote: "It sounds like Judd is trying to do exactly as I'd do in his situation, though, by limiting the amount and making sure it isn't empty of consequence or consideration by the kids when it does occur in a game."

Agreed 100%. Not that Judd needs our approval.


I wrote: "They can go get the occult manuals and summon spirits at the graveyard on their own. "

To which you replied: "Tangentially: that a vastly amusing choice of comment considering what faith of minister I am; however, to the current point, it certainly looks like a crack at me (or anyone else concerned by violent content): villification via absurdity. Even if it is not, I can't see its place in this discussion, nor its value in context."

OK: I'll explain then.

First of all, I'm aware of your faith, and I didn't think that graveyard spiritualism was part of the kind of solitary Wicca you practice. (Apologies if I'm remembering wrong and it's some other kind of neopaganism though.) So it's hard to see how I'd think this was a crack at you, and in any case I didn't.

I'm speaking rather out of my own experience here. I and my friends, partly inspired by our D&D experiences, obtained several occult manuals, principally Regardie and Crowley stuff, but some older materials as well. On several occasions we made amulets, etc. and went to the graveyard to try to contact ghosts and various other things, from about 5th grade through about 10th.

I consider these occult (well, mostly 'occult') experiences to be a valuable part of my growing up. They are, however, the sort of thing that a lot of adults would not have wanted me to be doing then. But I enjoyed them and derived some value from them.

Similarly with the shared violent and sexual fantasizing that RPGs helped me and my friends undertake. I think that this harmed me in some ways, but I think it helped in others. I know though that it's not something a lot of adults would have approved of.

So I was making a kind of analogy, between two things that a lot of people consider bad but which I consider to have been partly or mostly beneficial in my own case. I see how that might not have been clear in the abstract though.

On the other hand - and this, at long last, IS an important point for what Judd is doing - all the occult, violent, and sexual stuff I got into through RPGs through my youthful peer group would have felt wrong, invasive, and creepy if an adult had been anywhere near it. That stuff was 'for us'. If an adult had been involved with my youthful RPGing, I would have wanted him or her to take a role much more like the one Judd appears to be taking. As he himself I believe said, he can leave the violent slaughterfests for them to get to on their own, in the all-night caffeine-jolted junior high and high school sessions. (If they want that, of course; it goes both ways; not everyone's like me either.)

Adults told me not to do this stuff at the time, and some of my friends got their D&D manuals burned, and all that. I said fuck 'em, I'm going to burn my own damn fingers on my own damn stove and I don't want anyone's help with the thing. Now, I had an abusive home situation, and I recognize that this attitude is not always healthy - even if it sometimes is - and I keep my therapist in good money helping me try to develop a more nuanced and reasonable attitude towards authority, my own as well as others'. But if I tend to err on the side of letting the demons out in discussions concerning children, well, it's because there are times and places where they need to get out, and we've got a society full of adults who mostly pretend the demons aren't there rather than trying to do the really good thing, which I take it Judd is doing, and trying to help people understand them better, which I consider an important part of the first Delphic injunction.

I have a personal experience that may be germaine to this discussion...

I was raised in a fairly conservative christian environment, the values of which I still hold. My family did not have a TV, nor was I allowed to watch any movie with a rating of more than G (and some of those I wasn't allowed to watch). I had a experience similar to that of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien; I created my own world to have adventures in. No elves, no dwarves, no Pokemen or similar... I drew from my own imagination. HOWEVER, there was violence in that world (else I wouldn't have enjoyed it much), and it involved medieval weapons. (I was allowed to read "educational" books about knights, castles, etc. which I did with gusto. I was such a nerd...)

HOWEVER (again), the violence that I imagined (and acted out with my brother) was limited by my imagination. I didn't think about chopping off peoples limbs and watching their blood stream out. I simply stabbed them and went on. (Perhaps this was influenced by the fact that the only PG movies I was allowed to watch were Star Wars.)

The lessons that I see from these experiences is this:
There is a Veil that must be drawn in front of children to protect them from being desensitized to GRAPHIC violence, not to the fact that violence exists. I let my six year old watch Star Wars; if I let him watch Kill Bill, most of you would agree that I was being derelict in my duties as a parent. Yet, Luke and Anakin have both lost limbs in violent fashion in Star Wars, not unlike some of the characters in Kill Bill. The difference is evident even as to it's effects on adults. My wife watches Star Wars and loves it, watches Braveheart and tolerates it, watches Kill Bill and has to go puke....
Boys don't need encouragement to roleplay violence, they need encouragement to learn other social behaviors.

I like Nighttime Animals Save the World and Good Knights by Vincent Baker for my boys. They aren't overtly nonviolent, but I think the Veil is in the right place....

Cheers
Jonathan

See, now the cat's out of the bag. Everyone's talking about their own experiences.

When I was nine or ten my folks took me to see Excalibur in the theater. Man, was that a hoot. Humping in plate mail, innards hanging on lances - I loved it.

I've been in a faithful, committed relationship with the same woman for more than a decade. Several years of her childhood were spent with two mommies in a lesbian women's commune after her parents' divorce. Some of the best memories she has of her childhood are from that time; no apparent scarring there either.

We hold down our jobs, pay our mortgage and our taxes, all that stuff.

I don't know what's right or wrong for kids in general, but I do know that 95% of what we're taught about it is just false. I have two counterexamples right here in my own house to prove it.

It's interesting that we couldn't keep this discussion on Judd's issue. It's clear why: we all have such strong feelings about children and what's good or bad for them.

Edit: I just remembered, this is the Forge, and I'm setting a bad example by going along with the flow here. I won't delete the post now after posting it though. Everyone, please try to stay on topic.

Sean wrote: Raven, I really think we should have started a new thread for this stuff or taken it offline, but I guess we're reaching conclusion now anyway. Next time I guess I'll take the initiative in switching out.

this is one of those issues that's a little like (mild) corporal punishment. It depends on how sensitive your kid is...Even if a general policy that says 'don't do it' is better, that doesn't mean there aren't individual cases that form an exception.

First of all, I'm aware of your faith, and I didn't think that graveyard spiritualism was part of the kind of solitary Wicca you practice. (Apologies if I'm remembering wrong and it's some other kind of neopaganism though.) So it's hard to see how I'd think this was a crack at you, and in any case I didn't.

So I was making a kind of analogy, between two things that a lot of people consider bad but which I consider to have been partly or mostly beneficial in my own case. I see how that might not have been clear in the abstract though.

I don't believe that Socratically introducing the kids to some resolution methods or other role playing system concepts will suddenly shatter their fragile innate creativity. (As far as ruining their worth as natural study specimens, well, that depends on whose benefit we're concerned with here. Think of how much we could learn by, say, never teaching them math and observing what they figure out on their own!)

Nor do I believe that dropping 3eAD&D on them and whacking their hands with a ruler each time they break any of its rules would promote their having a better time with their play.

I don't believe that guiding young players through death-camp-management scenarios or scenes of occult ritual human sacrifice would be acceptable.

Nor do I believe that playing out scenes of knights killing dragons or rebels and stormtroopers blasting each other in spaceship corridors will make it one iota more likely that any of the kids will become a serial killer someday, or that the occurrence of such events in play requires punitive-in-disguise "let's all talk about how wrong it was that you enjoyed this" follow-up discussions.

Maybe I'm out of touch, or maybe I'm a knee-jerk moderate, but I have little sympathy for any of the extreme positions taken so far in this thread. Fortunately Paka appears more than capable of navigating them and finding the sensible compromises.

- Walt

Hello,

In fact - hey Judd! Moderate this thread, please. If you want the discussion of How I Feel About [x] to continue, that's cool, but if not, then kill it. Whichever, just say so.

Thanks,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

In fact - hey Judd! Moderate this thread, please. If you want the discussion of How I Feel About [x] to continue, that's cool, but if not, then kill it. Whichever, just say so.

Thanks,
Ron

In my previous campaign I had a 5th grade boy and I think a 5th grade girl (or perhaps she was a year younger or older, I don't think I ever got her actual age). This was a regular adult D&D campaign and they were children of adult players. I really didn't change anything, other than perhaps make an effort to avoid sexual jokes and stuff (not that I do much of that anyway), though the father of the girl did one time do some joking. I've never been very much into graphic descriptions of mayhem. The campaign tended to be a pretty straight forward monster bash and treasure grab.

Some things I observed:

The boy quickly got tired of characters and had a tendency to seek action and get them killed. After his first character died (the first death in the campaign, and mostly the other players fault), he asked for some dice and started rolling up a new character. He also sometimes burried his nose in a book when it wasn't his turn.

The girl never really got into the game that much, on the other hand, she didn't seem completely bored. I suspect she played to spend time with her dad.

One thing I really felt was that it would have been better to run a separate campaign for the kids. I think the gir especially would have benefitted from not having so many adults. One adult player might be good to provide some mentoring though.

Frank

I've tried cooking up a game and running it with my 4yo son. Basic roll dice to remove golbins from the board stuff. In fact, when I cooked it up I thought I had to make a little target for my son to roll dice at, to make it a practical exercise.

Here's the fun bit. Twice now, by himself, he's drawn a map with rooms, doors, treasure and monsters. He even cut out cardboard, folded it and drew really crude figures on either side. Made one for me and one for him

So we go through and he insists I must roll a dice (D6) every so often to move (err, I just moved a bit and checked to see if it was okay by his standard) and when we meet a monster. I'm not sure what beat a monster, but high was always good. We'd roll, and I'd keep asking if that was enough. Eventually he'd say it was. He didn't use any little target thing in his game...just rolled and was excited to do so.

So we'd sort of rock through. Basically I'd try to find out what he meant in game and was aiming for. He was definately looking for my hearty feedback, but by simply reacting to what I liked of his effort in a positive manor, I could influence him. I didn't have to impose my idea of story or role...I could just choose what I liked and respond positively, and that would be reinforced. Notice here I'm waiting for what I like and reinforcing it, not introducing what I like and reinforcing that into him.

That's why I play with adults as well. Because I want to be shown some of their contribution (and vise versa), and show my appreciation for certain elements. The contributing and levels of appreciation work together to produce play/something that couldn't have been made by any one individual involved. But, if I wanted to I could have easily pressed my ideas of role and story on the thing, because like any child he's impressionable. Why bother to do that, since I could just imagine exctly what I like by myself? Unless what I enjoy is simply implanting my own beliefs in others.

I think if your going to play with kids, you'd better be clear on whether you want to get something from the small amount of culture they have developed, or you want to set that culture to the same as your own. Personally, there are many reasons to shape their culture to be like your own. But I don't think gaming is the medium for that at all.


Thanks for the moderation, Judd. I was about to bow out, before your questions moved things on from what was being contributed.

Noon wrote:
I think if your going to play with kids, you'd better be clear on whether you want to get something from the small amount of culture they have developed, or you want to set that culture to the same as your own. Personally, there are many reasons to shape their culture to be like your own. But I don't think gaming is the medium for that at all.


Thanks for the moderation, Judd. I was about to bow out, before your questions moved things on from what was being contributed.

Noon wrote: So we'd sort of rock through. Basically I'd try to find out what he meant in game and was aiming for. He was definately looking for my hearty feedback, but by simply reacting to what I liked of his effort in a positive manor, I could influence him. I didn't have to impose my idea of story or role...I could just choose what I liked and respond positively, and that would be reinforced. Notice here I'm waiting for what I like and reinforcing it, not introducing what I like and reinforcing that into him.

I think if your going to play with kids, you'd better be clear on whether you want to get something from the small amount of culture they have developed, or you want to set that culture to the same as your own. Personally, there are many reasons to shape their culture to be like your own. But I don't think gaming is the medium for that at all.

Paka wrote:

Noon wrote:
I think if your going to play with kids, you'd better be clear on whether you want to get something from the small amount of culture they have developed, or you want to set that culture to the same as your own. Personally, there are many reasons to shape their culture to be like your own. But I don't think gaming is the medium for that at all.


Thanks for the moderation, Judd. I was about to bow out, before your questions moved things on from what was being contributed.

Thank you for staying with the thread and contributing.

Could you elaborate on your paragraph above? I'm not sure that I'm following you.

Are you saying that I should play D&D their way and leave them alone? Are you saying ....I just don't understand what you are saying and I want to.

Thanks.