Adding children to the group


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Pretty smart Greywolflord. Yeah, no need to force it now. The child is going to grow up, which means plenty of time to get him into games in the future. Which means everyone can be prepped for this.

I would be a fair bit worried about bias to be honest. Popupjoe, if your son was foolhardy and as you look at the dice their character died horribly in a trap, would you give them a free pass? If so, how many times would you give them a free pass?

good question! First the player who left NEVER dies! Why? He gets really upset and threatens to leave or deride the game and my GMing skills. So....ive taken to sparing him all the time in hopes of keeping the story going much to some other players dismay. My son. Still cries but fights it bravely when his characters get close to death. I thought i was torturing the poor kid but afterward he apologized and wanted to continue playing. He was very embarrassed by his behavior. So... i don't know, ill kill one of his guys eventually and i hope to use it as a teaching lesson. but i as a rule don't kill very often.

Grand Lodge

Lune wrote:

DM Under The Bridge: I respectfully disagree with you. I believe if the player believes his son is mature enough to play in the game then he deserves the reason they do not wish to play with him be told to his face. The other players are behaving like petulant childish cowards and I believe that if the situation were forced on them to explain their actions to an actual child they would likely see how petty they are acting. I think that as a parent you need to set a good example to your child both as a parent and a gamer.

As an aside this is something that tends to work with all bigots, not just the players in the OP's game. I would recommend anyone try it the next time you are faced with bigotry. Get one of the subjects of their bigotry, put it in front of them and tell them they need to explain the reason for their distaste TO THAT PERSON. One of two things will happen: either they will not be able to do it and realize how petty their supposed beliefs about that person were (this is preferable) or they will out themselves as the bigot that they are. If it is the latter then you have to ask yourself if you really wanted to associate yourself with that kind of person in the first place.

I would tell you to believe me because I have tried it before several times. I might even be a little messed up for enjoying watching a bigot squirm or a person evolve before my eyes. But I have found that it really helps in my life. I don't have to walk around with a self-imposed blindfold on and pretend that I don't know of my friends' bigotry and it also allows me to keep open-minded, level headed, like-minded, non-bigitous friends. It really leads to a lot less chaos in my life just by getting over that first slightly turbulent hurdle. So rather than saying, "believe me, I've done it" I will instead say, "Try it for yourself, I think you will like the outcome. I did."

wow my friends head would explode if i had him do this! Hes never said more the a few sentences to my son. He intracts more with my dog. His reaction is a lot like others on this post,as he has no idea who my son is. Thats ok though id like him to meet him as there play styles are similar.


Don't let players push you around, ever. There is a lot of touchy-feely dming advice, and it has its place and input, but don't let whiners control your game.

Deriding the game and your skills, well, you should be very clear that simply isn't tolerated by whiners trying to get their way, or come back from the dead for free. Don't kill him as a lesson, let it happen by the rules and explain they aren't up for debate, his char is dead as a door-nail, this isn't a negotiation. But I can't speak up for you here, you run the game (or do you?).

Grand Lodge

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Don't let players push you around, ever. There is a lot of touchy-feely dming advice, and it has its place and input, but don't let whiners control your game.

Deriding the game and your skills, well, you should be very clear that simply isn't tolerated by whiners trying to get their way, or come back from the dead for free. Don't kill him as a lesson, let it happen by the rules and explain they aren't up for debate, his char is dead as a door-nail, this isn't a negotiation. But I can't speak up for you here, you run the game (or do you?).

Lol sometimes i wonder? Most of the games we've played in the past were rules lite or storyteller. So everything was debateable, i was also more worried about keeping story, group and friendship together. It has not helped things

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personal Opinion:

As someone currently running a game for several 10-11 year old kids...I can absolutely understand not wanting to add a kid about that age to a game with primarily adult players.

It comes down to two things:

#1-Play Style: Having a group of people who want many of the same things out of a game is pretty important. Some games may have goals inconsistent with those of most (though not all) children and young teenagers. This can be either style (long, serious, plots wouldn't exactly be something I'd try with the kids I'm running for), or content (if your game involves a lot of rated R or more mature stuff).

#2-Peer Group: A lot of gaming groups are also friend groups, and bringing in someone who won't fit in can be pretty disruptive. Likewise, in some groups, it's important for players to regard themselves as more or less equals, something adding in someone of a vastly different age or experience level can definitely mess up if handled improperly.

Neither of these is universally applicable in the least, but both are possible and valid reasons to object.

Now, as someone who's been gaming with adults since I was about 14 and seen people of similar ages manage to pull doing so off with no problems, I also definitely think that doing so is very workable under the right circumstances. Of course, most of those adults were in college, making the age difference quite a bit smaller than some possible ones, but still.

In short, forbidding kids from playing in a particular game seems reasonable to me...but that's certainly not a universal rule or anything.

For the OP...I'd ask why the other players are so unwilling to let your son join. The answers to that might go a long way towards finding some sort of compromise solution. Or reveal them as idiots you should be glad to be rid of. :)


The players need to grow up. Roleplaying and other gaming ability is not about age.
I have run games for school groups for over 30 years introducing hundreds to the hobby. I see the same mix of distracted, good and poor players in yound groups, adult groups and mixed groups.
I ran a convention for just over 20 years until we lost our venue. In the days before the ongoing campaigns took over we ran a three round elimination open tournament. We had children playing in that and often progessing to the second round in front of adult players. The last year we ran that format the whole event was won by a 13 year old playing in his second final.
During the years of living Greyhawk we ran monthly games days where the players ranged in age from 12 to 40's and the DM's from 14 to 40's.
We need new players to keep the hobby going (and even a home campaign from time to time will lose a player and want someone new). The only way we can see if a new player of ANY age will cope and fit in is to give them a try out. If you are uncertain is a player will fit into a longstanding group run someone off games, rather than your normal campaign. If the group then finds they don't fit then don't invite them into the regular campaign - but GIVE THEM A CHANCE.
My son was playing role games by the time he was 6, playing a regular campaign with players since he was 9 and in adult/mixed groups occaisionaly from 10 and regularly from 13. As a youth he also ran and taught other games to all ages at official demo days run by TSR and Hobby games. Not all young players are going to be that good and confident but then neither are a lot of adults.


Lune wrote:
To my mind that is better than pretending like your friends aren't bigots towards your own child. I would rather them admit their bigotry upfront so that I could make an informed decision about whether I would want to be their friend in the first place. Personally, I do not keep friends who are bigots. At least not on serious issues and definitely not an issue that has to do with my own family. I do not think that is unreasonable.

The irony of that aside, this be a big reason why I would hesitate in accepting a child to join his/her parent's game. I would certainly not be ok having that unspoken "ultimatum" looming over my gaming table, it would put quite a damper on my fun.


NobodysHome: Was the older guy fat? Did he have a beard? ;) I know what you mean. I think you know what I mean. It isn't about age, it is about maturity. Even among adults there are various maturity levels at any table and between different tables. This has always been. It will always be.

I see other people making the "a kid is still a kid" argument. This is false. It is bigitous, in fact. To say that there are not different maturity levels among children as much as there are among adults is beyond false. My 12 year old son is more mature than many adults that I know. He is also more well studied than them. He has a couple of friends that are as well.

Now, do I recognize that they are the exception to the rule? Yes. Does that have any relevancy here or change my opinion at all? No. My opinion stands. I gave the advice for the OP to judge the maturity level of his son before he goes forward. That is no less a vital step now.

Weirdo wrote:
I don't think it's anywhere near universal for people to start playing in adult-child mixed groups.

I disagree. I bet it is the norm. If you would like, though, start a poll. I would be interested in seeing the outcome as well.

I also disagree that a parent is not a good judge of what their child is capable of. In fact, I do not think there is a better judge. There is no one more involved in their upbringing and no one more experienced with that individual. To think that casual friends are a better judge defies logic.

DM Under The Bridge: I did not suggest guilt tripping the other players. And while I may have come across as insulting (it was purposeful as I would feel insulted as a parent by their remarks) I did not suggest that the OP do so to the other players.

Your table's maturity level and types of jokes do not differ from mine. My son can keep up with the raunchy jokes and tells a few good ones of his own. Again, this is NOT an age issue. It is a maturity issue. You say that your lady friends despise children. That is one thing. If I heard someone say they despise MY CHILD, that is another thing entirely. I would be willing to bet that your lady friends would not have the appropriate reproductive organs to say that to your child's face. Personally, if they did that would be an perfectly reasonable reason for me to end a friendship. And if they didn't they would probably realize their own bigotry and be willing to give it a try.

Your statement of "why would I do that to them" concerns me as it seems to me like you are putting the bigitous emotional comfort of your hateful friends ahead of setting a positive example of not tolerating bigotry and supporting your family. While I am really trying to not be disrespectful to you personally (as far as I know you didn't do this, it is hypothetical), that IS how I see the situation.

Charon's Little Helper: I am fully aware of the definition of the word and am using it in the proper context. There is a difference in maturity level between different people and age has nothing to do with it. It is the same as saying there there is a difference in maturity levels between different people and race, religion, cultural background, sexual preference, etc. has nothing to do with it. These are all forms of bigotry.

knightnday wrote:
It isn't bigotry to not want to play with your own or someone else's children any more than it is bigotry to not want to play with that one guy that cannot shut up or those other people or the questionable people at the gaming store. It's just a choice.

That is a correct statement. It isn't any MORE bigotry. It is still bigotry. And the situations are similar, in fact. You don't know those people at the gaming store. You are operating on a preconceived notion that you wouldn't like them based on unfair judgements. It is just like the players the OP is referring to. One of them actually said that they would not want to play with his kid due to the "age gap". He didn't mention maturity. It is ageist. He wasn't even willing to give it a try. He is so convinced that his preconceived notions are correct even though it is based on bigotry.

It seems that there are people who may not know what this word means. I am, in fact, being accused of bigotry. I haven't accused anyone on these boards of that. Only others based on descriptions here or hypothetical situations. However, for clarity:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot wrote:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

And to be specific, as I said before, it doesn't have to be just racial or ethnic. It can be against age, religion, sexual orientation or a number of different things. So let me ask: would you play with someone you knew was racist against your child? Would you play with someone you knew was strictly opposed to playing with your child based on their religion? If they are completely intolerant of your child for these bigotous reasons I do not see a reason to even associate with them. Perhaps I am a bit too choosy in my friends... but I doubt it. It has worked out pretty well so far. I do not have a bigitous friend at all so I call that success. I also call it success that I do not allow people (much less my friends) to have bigitous opinions about my family and think they can still hang around us. YMMV

So am I bigitous towards bigots? Damn straight. As it should be IMO. That is basically like saying "I am intolerant of racists."

Popupjoe wrote:
wow my friends head would explode if i had him do this! Hes never said more the a few sentences to my son. He intracts more with my dog. His reaction is a lot like others on this post,as he has no idea who my son is. Thats ok though id like him to meet him as there play styles are similar.

Wow, wait... what? I think everyone was operating under the assumption that because you play at your house that your friends have met your kids. It is kinda weird that they haven't. All of my friends know my family. How on earth have they not met? Have you purposefully kept them apart?

I think we need to back up some here. My opinions still stand but I question your friends' motives even more now. He doesn't even have any background to base his opinion on other than age. He definitely needs to meet your kid to make any sound judgement here. If he is unwilling to do even that... well, I stand by my statements even moreso now.

Sovereign Court

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Lune wrote:
I also disagree that a parent is not a good judge of what their child is capable of. In fact, I do not think there is a better judge. There is no one more involved in their upbringing and no one more experienced with that individual. To think that casual friends are a better judge defies logic.

I know teachers who disagree. Every parent thinks that their kid is a special snowflake. I'm not saying that casual friends are better - but you can't say that parents are unbiased.

Lune wrote:
DM Under The Bridge: I did not suggest guilt tripping the other players.

Yes you did. What do you think putting them on the spot would be doing?

Lune wrote:


I haven't accused anyone on these boards of that(bigotry).

Yes you did. You accused anyone who didn't want to play Pathfinder with kids of bigotry.

Lune wrote:


There is a difference in maturity level between different people and age has nothing to do with it.

Age has nothing to do with it? Really? Because we should totally ignore brain chemistry/psychology etc?

I'm not saying there aren't extremely immature adults. But while I sometimes like to play Pathfinder with kids, I never want to play with said extremely immature adults if I can help it. So bringing up said immature adults in no way proves that people should have to/want to play with kids.

Webster def. of Bigot wrote:


a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In no hypothetical talked about here is anyone saying that we should outlaw being a child, throw rocks at them, burn them at the stake, or even call them names.

Some people are just saying that they'd rather not play a game with them.

I don't think that you (incorrectly) calling people bigots makes you a bigot. But it does make you an ass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Besides not wanting to play with children below the age of 18 myself (mostly because I'm really, really bad with children, including my own nephews who I just can't connect to), one thing to consider is maybe the following (in now way related to OP's friends, really. Just a general consideration):

Some people, men and women alike, might feel uncomfortable around children below legal age (interpret this however you like) because they try to actively avoid children. For maybe not so obvious reasons. Interacting with children proves a more or less big problem, especially around something with mature themes (more so of a sexual nature). It's a kind of test of will.

Again, this is in no way related to the friends of the OP. But I think it might be a problem for some people.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

quick
everyone start battling specific circumstances with generalities
go


Lamontius: Too late to the party with that statement. ;) I have tried to stay on topic by continually pointing back to the OP's situation. It doesn't always work.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Lune wrote:
I also disagree that a parent is not a good judge of what their child is capable of. In fact, I do not think there is a better judge. There is no one more involved in their upbringing and no one more experienced with that individual. To think that casual friends are a better judge defies logic.
I know teachers who disagree. Every parent thinks that their kid is a special snowflake. I'm not saying that casual friends are better - but you can't say that parents are unbiased.

As a teacher I must confirm this statement.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Before this thread gets closed, I want to point out that the OP was asking for advice, not a community endorsed decision of whether or not children or minors should be allowed in gaming groups.


Anyway, and back on track, I'd be interested in the OP's players thoughts on the matter (which may have been entered but lost in the resulting war above.)

Whether you or I would play with a child wasn't the point; why they may not and if he could convince them otherwise was. If they are dead set against it you risk losing some or all of them for the sake of your son. If you want to strip blood out of it, would you make your group play with someone else they didn't want to?


He stated further upthread:

Popupjoe wrote:
Hes never said more the a few sentences to my son. He intracts more with my dog. His reaction is a lot like others on this post,as he has no idea who my son is.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Before this thread gets closed, I want to point out that the OP was asking for advice, not a community endorsed decision of whether or not children or minors should be allowed in gaming groups.

Agreed, the problem of course is that the two are related. In the end it really depends on the individuals involved. What everyone wants out of the game, what everyone is capable of, etc.

For instance, for me, gaming is a significant portion of my social time as an adult. It isn't just about the game, its about hanging out with my friends. A child, is not my peer, I can have a relationship with a friend's child, but it isnt the same thing as what I have with my friends, who are my peers. Even if the child is intelligent, well spoken, polite, engaged in the game, and well behaved, the social dynamic changes when a non-peer is present. Pretty much no one behaves the same hanging out with their buddies, as they do when their child is present.

Obviously, if what you want is purely a matter of the game itself, then it all depends on the OPs child, and if they can maturely participate without being disruptive. Without knowing everyones motivations and capabilities advice is pretty hard to come by.


Kolokotroni: I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't have to be that way. My friends do act the same way around me as they do when my kid is present. Saying that pretty much no one does is false. The social dynamic does not need to change. It doesn't for us.

Others do not have the same hang up that you do. Many of them have even posted here.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lune wrote:

Kolokotroni: I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't have to be that way. My friends do act the same way around me as they do when my kid is present. Saying that pretty much no one does is false. The social dynamic does not need to change. It doesn't for us.

Others do not have the same hang up that you do. Many of them have even posted here.

You behave in exactly the same way around your child as you do in a bar with your friends? I will admit, I cannot relate to that. I can understand in a purely gaming setting, nothing changing depending on the social dynamics of the group. But the idea that there is literally no difference in your behavior when you are only among your peers as you are when you are among children is quite baffling to me.


Lune wrote:

He stated further upthread:

Popupjoe wrote:
Hes never said more the a few sentences to my son. He intracts more with my dog. His reaction is a lot like others on this post,as he has no idea who my son is.

Yes I saw that and it indicates one of the people, not the entire group. Unless this guy is the leader, do any of them have anything to say about what is going on or are they following his lead? The OP mentioned that half the group wasn't interested, which makes me wonder how the group is split and why. That might go a ways to answering what is up.

Ending a group or changing it in this way is hard; no matter what you do, someone is going to be disappointed/angry/not understand. Perhaps the OP can find a similarly aged group for his son to play in and/or find another group more accepting of people his age. That might satisfy everyone.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The Man Upstairs: You know the rules, this isn't a toy!
Finn: Um... it kind of is.
The Man Upstairs: No, actually it's a highly sophisticated inter-locking brick system.
Finn: But we bought it at the toy store.
The Man Upstairs: We did, but the way I'm using it makes it an adult thing.
Finn: The box for this one said "Ages 8 to 14"!
The Man Upstairs: That's a suggestion. They have to put that on there.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Before this thread gets closed, I want to point out that the OP was asking for advice, not a community endorsed decision of whether or not children or minors should be allowed in gaming groups.

Agreed, the problem of course is that the two are related. In the end it really depends on the individuals involved. What everyone wants out of the game, what everyone is capable of, etc.

For instance, for me, gaming is a significant portion of my social time as an adult. It isn't just about the game, its about hanging out with my friends. A child, is not my peer, I can have a relationship with a friend's child, but it isnt the same thing as what I have with my friends, who are my peers. Even if the child is intelligent, well spoken, polite, engaged in the game, and well behaved, the social dynamic changes when a non-peer is present. Pretty much no one behaves the same hanging out with their buddies, as they do when their child is present.

Obviously, if what you want is purely a matter of the game itself, then it all depends on the OPs child, and if they can maturely participate without being disruptive. Without knowing everyones motivations and capabilities advice is pretty hard to come by.

That is a very interesting way of putting it. Peer or non-peer. Of course if a peer brings a son or daughter, yes, it changes behaviour and the game. The friends and equals arrangement is altered.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Southeast Jerome wrote:
If a 12 year old wants to spend time socializing with grown ups, that's a good thing to be encouraged. He might even need some hand-holding, just like you would with an apprentice in real life. Historically, 12 years old is when a "child" would go to work with a master to learn a profession. Work that into the story.

Historically, 12-year olds were almost adults, in many cultures. To take one example, the Jewish bar mitzvah (and bat mitzvah) take place as soon as possible after the thirteenth (or twelfth) birthday, after which the child becomes an adult in the eyes of the law.

Teenagers are a recent invention, a luxury that couldn't be afforded in the low life-expectancy of the time periods most often emulated in RPGs. Why would you wait till 18, to begin adult life, when that was practically middle age?

It's food for thought that the OP's 12 year old son is far closer to the age of most PF PCs than the objectors.
Which one would be better at portraying such a character more believably?

Shadow Lodge

Lune wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
I don't think it's anywhere near universal for people to start playing in adult-child mixed groups.
I disagree. I bet it is the norm. If you would like, though, start a poll. I would be interested in seeing the outcome as well.

Sure, poll. I will quantify my "not anywhere universal" statement by predicting that no more than half of respondents will have learned as kids in a mixed-age group, and no more than one quarter will have been kids in a primarily adult group (the main concern of the OP).

Paizo Glitterati Robot

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some back and forth posts. Keep in mind that we welcome all kinds of gamers on our messageboards, and their experiences will likely differ from your own. There aren't absolutes when it comes to gaming, so please stick to providing advice or insight into your own experiences, rather than negatively dissecting/attacking each others. Thanks!


Weirdo wrote:
Lune wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
I don't think it's anywhere near universal for people to start playing in adult-child mixed groups.
I disagree. I bet it is the norm. If you would like, though, start a poll. I would be interested in seeing the outcome as well.
Sure, poll. I will quantify my "not anywhere universal" statement by predicting that no more than half of respondents will have learned as kids in a mixed-age group, and no more than one quarter will have been kids in a primarily adult group (the main concern of the OP).

I played my first game as a kid in summer camp. A bunch of kids GM'd by an adult - who was probably actually an older teen. I was 12 or something. I think we managed to make characters, buy gear and get to the dungeon entrance before we ran out of time. I was hooked.

After that one adventure, I bought the AD&D books (after saving) and started playing with kids roughly my age. Other than con-games and the like, we played for quite a few years with the son of one of our fellow gamers. Besides that it's been peers.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
Lune wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
I don't think it's anywhere near universal for people to start playing in adult-child mixed groups.
I disagree. I bet it is the norm. If you would like, though, start a poll. I would be interested in seeing the outcome as well.
Sure, poll. I will quantify my "not anywhere universal" statement by predicting that no more than half of respondents will have learned as kids in a mixed-age group, and no more than one quarter will have been kids in a primarily adult group (the main concern of the OP).

I learned via peers but the GM was an adult and an old veteran, but the game was for us little ones at the time.

I have to agree with the peer to non-peer statement, not enjoying playing games with non-peers is what does it for me, now that I think about it. I find it in some way distracting or requiring more mental detail or exhaustion. I don't feel the ability to "let loose" around non-peers let alone children without it feeling more taxing.

people literally have multiple personalities they put on for different circumstances, there is noticeable brain activity changes. when you're with your boss you're probably more reserved than with your friends at a bar. So, I can also say that acting universally the same around children or non-peers or randoms, is simply baffling to me, and probably hyperbole or is simply unaware of the change.

My advise, ask them if it really matters, and if they really want things to not change, then let them not change. find another avenue to add the child into a game with you.

Grand Lodge

I'd like to respond to some of the questions and comments. Yes i have my answer, i know what i will do. I really wanted to have a discussion with my fellow enthusiasts about this tough situation and its been good as i feel less alone now so thank you.

I could have should have used my son as a cogm having him play npcs and monsters. Now its too late hes made a characters a back story and future plans for where his war priest will go.

The friend who left has physically seen my son many times but doesn't say much to him certainly nothing of significance. I think he is weirded out by youngsters perhaps because he used to be one. But really i think he feels he has to act differently...but he doesn't have to! My son can take it, treat him like any noob.

The thing is the same player acted much like this when i first started to bring girlfriends to the game. Hed bemoaned having girls around heck now that i think of it he has never affirmatively voted to add anyone ever!

I understand my friends hesitation, i wouldn't rush to play with kids either, but if its the only game in town well that be a horse of a different color. Also if a friend had to include their kid id at least give it a try in the name of friendship.

Grand Lodge

The game we were playing was Wrath of the righteous. Which i thought with the demons and extra rules would be too much for him turns out i was wrong. Kids been playing Skyrim and Oblivion for almost a year at his moms. My players are burned out with the extra rules and high level play plus at high levels I've discovered i can kill! Mahaha! But really i kill they pay money and come back its great or i think so. Regardless my players were done with WotR they wanted to move to something else. 1 vote WoD, 1 vote anything not fantasy, 1 vote Pathfinder and 1 vote less fing complicated. I felt with my 13 hour days all i could run would be Pathfinder adventure paths so Skulls and Shackles it is.

Scarab Sages

How about Pathfinder Society scenarios?

They're short, don't tend to use masses of optional rules (or if they do, they repeat them in the statblocks), and best of all, given your circumstances, are designed to be modular, with the expectation of a floating player pool.

It allows everyone to play together on a trial basis, and see how they get along, prove your son knows the rules, and can play a non-evil PC with instructions from the NPC mentors that everyone should 'Explore, Report, Cooperate'. If your son is playing responsibly, and one of the adults tries to grief him, fail his mission, push his buttons, guess which one gets carpeted by the Society leaders, and it's in-game, in-character, canon consequences, not favoritism.

If things don't work, anyone can bow out gracefully, and it's easily explained in-game, that they are off doing missions elsewhere. It hasn't been a waste of time, because if the PC is PFS-legal, he can take it to another group at a store or convention, and continue where he left off.

It doesn't bring the campaign to a halt, the way it would if a core PC dropped out of a long-running campaign, where the expectation is they meet at level 1 and stick together, joined at the hip, till level 15+.

It's good for players whose schedules don't match; if players A, B, C, D and E can only meet once a fortnight, but players C, D, E, F, and G are available the intervening week, players C, D and E don't have to be bored, they can play in both. Maybe keep their PCs levels compatible by building a larger pool of potential PCs. And if players A and B don't get along with F and G, they never have to meet.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

You can love your kids more than anything in the world, it doesn't mean others have too. If your player don't want to play with your kid they're not "a%++#!!s", they're not "childish" or "immature" or any of the other stuff I read in this thread, they just don't want to play with a kid. Plenty of people don't like kids, don't want to play with them, hang out with them or have discussion with them, you want to force them to play with your kid, yah, expect some to leave or be pissed at you for forcing them to do something they don't want to do...

101 to 150 of 184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Adding children to the group All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.