And in any of those three situations, they leave the other players constantly avoiding the issue of “Why don’t we just be responsible and leave Little Timmy at an orphanage?” Plus, there’s nothing less fun than killing off a child, which leaves the DM either playing favorites or totally removing the stakes of combat for everyone.
Depends on the world and it's "in world" and "authorial conceit" notion/presumptions of childhood (will get to that in second). As far as you're claim of avoidance of the "responsible thing" maybe in the game world, like a lot of the real world, they realize that keeping "the kid" with them is a more responsible thing to do than turning them over to whatever church/state/community system they may be for children with no one to stand for them. I'm thinking of characters that travel with children in books like The Road, what a character like Amos might do with a child "foundling" based on his own childhood, how many characters are modeled after Batman. They may be wrong, or at least may not be entirely correct, but I could see lots of reasons for an adventurer group to conclude "the kids stays" as opposed to turning the kid over to "the system."
[Having said that, I think the Bad Batch is a sorta fizzly bad example of this, it doesn't work, and realistically
Rex at this point in the timeline I'm sure knows someone like Bail Organa who could find a good secure home for Omega.
]
If the kid is a fully functioning character in the party mechanically, the character is subject to all the risks as well. Yes a child dying in game is boundary some groups won't entertain, the other half of the equation is that children killing is equally horrific to anyone acquainted with child soldier phenomena or under age youth involved in gun violence. So clearly, whether a player or players get to play characters that "aren't adults" is probably something for the table to discuss. That said, there's two things to discuss, how the world treats children (again, maybe the orphanage is just the entryway to a life of exploitation) and the "authorial conceit" that is what the players and DM conceive of what children are. I always like to harken back to Fred Rogers thoughts on children and anger/sadness/etc. A lot of cultures believe children shouldn't get angry or be sad have "dark thoughts" etc. to the degree where what's actually going on in practice is that the prescription isn't being applied so much as the adults pretend those aspects of the child psyche aren't there (which is why Shazam is such a great movie). Mr. Rogers' big breakthrough (whether it was the innovation or popularization) is that it's important for adults to recognize those aspects of the child and to listen to those aspects not just make them go away. Now we're talking about playing a game and there isn't a mandate to have real psychology informing our escapist play. But for those that do, I feel the kids are all right, so to speak. Of course at my table, it won't be a immaturity pass or other license, in fact it might be more demanding on the role playing front.
I mean, really, what's Stranger Things but watching a narrative centered on a group of kids being traumatized by the supernatural. Would playing those kids in a TTRPG be inappropriate? So it's ok to watch ... just not to perform...
And in any of those three situations, they leave the other players constantly avoiding the issue of “Why don’t we just be responsible and leave Little Timmy at an orphanage?” Plus, there’s nothing less fun than killing off a child, which leaves the DM either playing favorites or totally removing the stakes of combat for everyone.
Depends on the world and it's "in world" and "authorial conceit" notion/presumptions of childhood (will get to that in second). As far as you're claim of avoidance of the "responsible thing" maybe in the game world, like a lot of the real world, they realize that keeping "the kid" with them is a more responsible thing to do than turning them over to whatever church/state/community system they may be for children with no one to stand for them. I'm thinking of characters that travel with children in books like The Road, what a character like Amos might do with a child "foundling" based on his own childhood, how many characters are modeled after Batman. They may be wrong, or at least may not be entirely correct, but I could see lots of reasons for an adventurer group to conclude "the kids stays" as opposed to turning the kid over to "the system."
[Having said that, I think the Bad Batch is a sorta fizzly bad example of this, it doesn't work, and realistically
Rex at this point in the timeline I'm sure knows someone like Bail Organa who could find a good secure home for Omega.
]
If the kid is a fully functioning character in the party mechanically, the character is subject to all the risks as well. Yes a child dying in game is boundary some groups won't entertain, the other half of the equation is that children killing is equally horrific to anyone acquainted with child soldier phenomena or under age youth involved in gun violence. So clearly, whether a player or players get to play characters that "aren't adults" is probably something for the table to discuss. That said, there's two things to discuss, how the world treats children (again, maybe the orphanage is just the entryway to a life of exploitation) and the "authorial conceit" that is what the players and DM conceive of what children are. I always like to harken back to Fred Rogers thoughts on children and anger/sadness/etc. A lot of cultures believe children shouldn't get angry or be sad have "dark thoughts" etc. to the degree where what's actually going on in practice is that the prescription isn't being applied so much as the adults pretend those aspects of the child psyche aren't there (which is why Shazam is such a great movie). Mr. Rogers' big breakthrough (whether it was the innovation or popularization) is that it's important for adults to recognize those aspects of the child and to listen to those aspects not just make them go away. Now we're talking about playing a game and there isn't a mandate to have real psychology informing our escapist play. But for those that do, I feel the kids are all right, so to speak. Of course at my table, it won't be a immaturity pass or other license, in fact it might be more demanding on the role playing front.
I mean, really, what's Stranger Things but watching a narrative centered on a group of kids being traumatized by the supernatural. Would playing those kids in a TTRPG be inappropriate? So it's ok to watch ... just not to perform...
]
There are situations in which I could see child characters working. A non-lethal game, a GoT-inspired game, a horror game (true horror, like Dread, Changeling, or Ten Candles, not “regular D&D but the enemies are Halloween characters,” horror). My comment was aimed at the 95% of campaigns which are neither light enough nor dark enough for child characters to work well.
Arya Stark is a great example that can be used of a child character forced to adventure, there is loads of young fiction with children and early teen hero’s and heroines, Percy Jackson is 12 when he finds out he is the son of a god.
You are inhabiting a world where people die violent deaths all the time, children will grow up quicker then modern society because violence happens around them. A sorceror might be forced out to the wilderness as an 8 yo because her magic is not understood, a barbarian tribe will expect children to fight, possibly to the death to prove themselves worthy.
It's very easy to imagine why a child might be an adventurer, the more difficult question is whether you want to include violence against children in your role-playing game.
For me it really isn’t an issue, I have spent my life roleplaying games like Cthulhu, vampire the masquerade with people who would happily be realistic in terms of accepting that children could be victims to if the story made sense. In DnD my players have had to stop a cult that kidnapped and sacrificed children as part of a ritual to a demon, it happens in movies, in books in tv, I don’t always have it graphically on camera. Cthulhu has taught me that leaving stuff to the players imagination can be far more effective then describing it real time. But my fantasy worlds are realistic, enough children get made orphans (the fantasy tripe of dead parents happens often enough to show that) that O find I have to accept that children get killed as well otherwise I am not being true to my world or story. It doesn’t mean the players come face to face with it all the time, but I know it happens in my world which shapes how I build my world.
In my experience, child characters end up one of three ways. They end up realistically traumatized, which is sad and unfun. They’re obnoxious anime Mary Sues, which is cringeworthy and unfun. Or they’re joke characters, which is annoying and unfun.
You realize all this also applies to normal aged characters too right? Have you honestly looked at what your doing in adventures and not sat back and said "damn.. my character should be an empty husk of a person by the end of this.. the stuff I've seen, death I've witnessed and horrors we've fought" I find long term campaigns where everyone's just all YAY and happy by the end are so fake, broken along the way or hardened by the trials faced hanging onto their party members in a family/support structure feels much more.. real. Not that everyone has to be miserable but there should be scars left from the sheer level of stuff endured along the way
Also mary sues and joke characters happen ad nauseum
For me it depends on the class, eg sorcerer and warlock can be any age since they get their magic from just existing and someone else respectively. If anything, a little tiefling warlock with their parent as their patron is so cute! But I wouldn't allow an 8 year old wizard for example, since they study to get their magic. Unless of course, the player is also young in which case they can do whatever they want lol.
I don't see why it should be a problem so long as it can be justified. Historically speaking, the idea or concept of a child or childhood is a very new thing. Not that long ago it was perfectly acceptable to have children as young as 5 working in coal mines or in cotton mills, and in many places in the world this still goes on. Similarly, child soldiers are unfortunately a thing too. As such, in a medievial fantasy setting, it could totally be acceptable for a child of 12+ to be an adventuerer. We used to frequently send children of that age to war as drummer boys or as cabin boys on ships.
I don't see why it should be a problem so long as it can be justified. Historically speaking, the idea or concept of a child or childhood is a very new thing. Not that long ago it was perfectly acceptable to have children as young as 5 working in coal mines or in cotton mills, and in many places in the world this still goes on. Similarly, child soldiers are unfortunately a thing too. As such, in a medievial fantasy setting, it could totally be acceptable for a child of 12+ to be an adventuerer. We used to frequently send children of that age to war as drummer boys or as cabin boys on ships.
No one is suggesting that it isn't realistic. The question is whether you want to include it in your game. In much the same way as many people choose to exclude things like torture and sexual violence, many people take issue with violence directed at children.
I don't see why it should be a problem so long as it can be justified. Historically speaking, the idea or concept of a child or childhood is a very new thing. Not that long ago it was perfectly acceptable to have children as young as 5 working in coal mines or in cotton mills, and in many places in the world this still goes on. Similarly, child soldiers are unfortunately a thing too. As such, in a medievial fantasy setting, it could totally be acceptable for a child of 12+ to be an adventuerer. We used to frequently send children of that age to war as drummer boys or as cabin boys on ships.
No one is suggesting that it isn't realistic. The question is whether you want to include it in your game. In much the same way as many people choose to exclude things like torture and sexual violence, many people take issue with violence directed at children.
Agree with this, ultimately is down to the DM and the players, not having it in the game doesn’t make for a worse game, and putting in these subjects doesn’t make the game better, it changes the tone a little bit, but again that is all relative, does the at stuff happen off screen and all the players get are descriptions of the aftermath, or do you vividly describe it to your players as their characters watch it take place.
I think to answer the original question the answer is there is no definitive answer every table and DM is different, and even a DM that would allow it, like me, I would need to make sure there was a plausible reason. I would need to know you could roleplay it the right way and I would need to know you where not just doing it for shock value. If you tick those boxes then it would still have to fit in with the campaign I was creating, and the style of game the other players wanted. I generally don’t run character ideas past the other players at the table, I much prefer things being secret and a surprise, but this is one of those things I would touch base and just give the players a heads up and ask us to all discuss how we plan to run it at the table, will the adults mollycoddle the character, be in awe of them, ignore them.
I don't see why it should be a problem so long as it can be justified. Historically speaking, the idea or concept of a child or childhood is a very new thing. Not that long ago it was perfectly acceptable to have children as young as 5 working in coal mines or in cotton mills, and in many places in the world this still goes on. Similarly, child soldiers are unfortunately a thing too. As such, in a medievial fantasy setting, it could totally be acceptable for a child of 12+ to be an adventuerer. We used to frequently send children of that age to war as drummer boys or as cabin boys on ships.
No one is suggesting that it isn't realistic. The question is whether you want to include it in your game. In much the same way as many people choose to exclude things like torture and sexual violence, many people take issue with violence directed at children.
Agree with this, ultimately is down to the DM and the players, not having it in the game doesn’t make for a worse game,
If one of the core ideas behind a player's chracter concept is that they are a young adventerer, and you don't allow it, then I would argue that would make the game worse for the player because they either have to change one of the fundamental aspects of their character or don't play.
I don't see why it should be a problem so long as it can be justified. Historically speaking, the idea or concept of a child or childhood is a very new thing. Not that long ago it was perfectly acceptable to have children as young as 5 working in coal mines or in cotton mills, and in many places in the world this still goes on. Similarly, child soldiers are unfortunately a thing too. As such, in a medievial fantasy setting, it could totally be acceptable for a child of 12+ to be an adventuerer. We used to frequently send children of that age to war as drummer boys or as cabin boys on ships.
No one is suggesting that it isn't realistic. The question is whether you want to include it in your game. In much the same way as many people choose to exclude things like torture and sexual violence, many people take issue with violence directed at children.
Agree with this, ultimately is down to the DM and the players, not having it in the game doesn’t make for a worse game,
If one of the core ideas behind a player's chracter concept is that they are a young adventerer, and you don't allow it, then I would argue that would make the game worse for the player because they either have to change one of the fundamental aspects of their character or don't play.
Totally disagree. If it doesn’t fit with the tone, it can make the game less fun for the DM and other players. It’s as if a player showed up to a Game of Thrones style game with a cyberpunk ninja. Plus, in my experience, players make characters after the campaign is chosen/created, not before, so they should know what’s up.
If one of the core ideas behind a player's chracter concept is that they are a young adventerer, and you don't allow it, then I would argue that would make the game worse for the player because they either have to change one of the fundamental aspects of their character or don't play.
Nope. Player agency does not grant absolute determination of what a player can bring to a table. While I happen to agree that there's room for "youth" characters in D&D, I say that knowing that's my D&D game, and other games have different boundaries. If I came to a table and the table was uncomfortable having a youth character involved, I am not going to argue the (game)world with them because I thought it would be cool to play one. I think the best tables before the start of campaign, either in session 0 or some other sort of coordinating communication prior to playing make clear what will and won't fly at the table. It's like showing up with a Drow or Kenku or custom lineage after the DM stipulated those are no goes. A player can always ask the DM, but what's ultimately introduced into the game tends to be a negotiated idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If one of the core ideas behind a player's chracter concept is that they are a young adventerer, and you don't allow it, then I would argue that would make the game worse for the player because they either have to change one of the fundamental aspects of their character or don't play.
Nope. Player agency does not grant absolute determination of what a player can bring to a table. While I happen to agree that there's room for "youth" characters in D&D, I say that knowing that's my D&D game, and other games have different boundaries. If I came to a table and the table was uncomfortable having a youth character involved, I am not going to argue the (game)world with them because I thought it would be cool to play one. I think the best tables before the start of campaign, either in session 0 or some other sort of coordinating communication prior to playing make clear what will and won't fly at the table. It's like showing up with a Drow or Kenku or custom lineage after the DM stipulated those are no goes. A player can always ask the DM, but what's ultimately introduced into the game tends to be a negotiated idea.
I'm not arguing that player agency trumps the DM. What I am saying, however, is that rejecting a player's character concept will make the game worse for that player. Of course, as a DM you have to make the judgement call on what is overall best for your table, but the original argument was that outright rejecting underage advertures had no drawbacks. That is subjective, because for people who want to play certain characters, it clearly does have a negative impact.
If as a DM you simply don't want young adventurers then just state that, but don't hide behind a lame excuse about it not being realistic etc.
Totally disagree. If it doesn’t fit with the tone, it can make the game less fun for the DM and other players. It’s as if a player showed up to a Game of Thrones style game with a cyberpunk ninja. Plus, in my experience, players make characters after the campaign is chosen/created, not before, so they should know what’s up.
Me and my 9-19 Characters (9 ready to play. 10 almost finished) and 119 WIP Character slots (most of which are just rolled stats with ideas for race/class) should be able to tell you that there are at least a few people who make characters just for fun, without knowing when/if they'll be able to use them.
Totally disagree. If it doesn’t fit with the tone, it can make the game less fun for the DM and other players. It’s as if a player showed up to a Game of Thrones style game with a cyberpunk ninja. Plus, in my experience, players make characters after the campaign is chosen/created, not before, so they should know what’s up.
Me and my 9-19 Characters (9 ready to play. 10 almost finished) and 119 WIP Character slots (most of which are just rolled stats with ideas for race/class) should be able to tell you that there are at least a few people who make characters just for fun, without knowing when/if they'll be able to use them.
Yea, but how often do you try to fit one of those already made characters into a campaign that doesn't suit it?
If one of the core ideas behind a player's chracter concept is that they are a young adventerer, and you don't allow it, then I would argue that would make the game worse for the player because they either have to change one of the fundamental aspects of their character or don't play.
Nope. Player agency does not grant absolute determination of what a player can bring to a table. While I happen to agree that there's room for "youth" characters in D&D, I say that knowing that's my D&D game, and other games have different boundaries. If I came to a table and the table was uncomfortable having a youth character involved, I am not going to argue the (game)world with them because I thought it would be cool to play one. I think the best tables before the start of campaign, either in session 0 or some other sort of coordinating communication prior to playing make clear what will and won't fly at the table. It's like showing up with a Drow or Kenku or custom lineage after the DM stipulated those are no goes. A player can always ask the DM, but what's ultimately introduced into the game tends to be a negotiated idea.
I'm not arguing that player agency trumps the DM. What I am saying, however, is that rejecting a player's character concept will make the game worse for that player. Of course, as a DM you have to make the judgement call on what is overall best for your table, but the original argument was that outright rejecting underage advertures had no drawbacks. That is subjective, because for people who want to play certain characters, it clearly does have a negative impact.
If as a DM you simply don't want young adventurers then just state that, but don't hide behind a lame excuse about it not being realistic etc.
I didn’t mention about realism in my comment I said it was down to the tone of the table.
If one of the core ideas behind a player's chracter concept is that they are a young adventerer, and you don't allow it, then I would argue that would make the game worse for the player because they either have to change one of the fundamental aspects of their character or don't play.
Nope. Player agency does not grant absolute determination of what a player can bring to a table. While I happen to agree that there's room for "youth" characters in D&D, I say that knowing that's my D&D game, and other games have different boundaries. If I came to a table and the table was uncomfortable having a youth character involved, I am not going to argue the (game)world with them because I thought it would be cool to play one. I think the best tables before the start of campaign, either in session 0 or some other sort of coordinating communication prior to playing make clear what will and won't fly at the table. It's like showing up with a Drow or Kenku or custom lineage after the DM stipulated those are no goes. A player can always ask the DM, but what's ultimately introduced into the game tends to be a negotiated idea.
I'm not arguing that player agency trumps the DM. What I am saying, however, is that rejecting a player's character concept will make the game worse for that player. Of course, as a DM you have to make the judgement call on what is overall best for your table, but the original argument was that outright rejecting underage advertures had no drawbacks. That is subjective, because for people who want to play certain characters, it clearly does have a negative impact.
If as a DM you simply don't want young adventurers then just state that, but don't hide behind a lame excuse about it not being realistic etc.
I didn’t mention about realism in my comment I said it was down to the tone of the table.
Which is absolutely true. So would you have a problem with a player's PC being a young adventerer if none of the other players had an issue with it?
If one of the core ideas behind a player's chracter concept is that they are a young adventerer, and you don't allow it, then I would argue that would make the game worse for the player because they either have to change one of the fundamental aspects of their character or don't play.
Nope. Player agency does not grant absolute determination of what a player can bring to a table. While I happen to agree that there's room for "youth" characters in D&D, I say that knowing that's my D&D game, and other games have different boundaries. If I came to a table and the table was uncomfortable having a youth character involved, I am not going to argue the (game)world with them because I thought it would be cool to play one. I think the best tables before the start of campaign, either in session 0 or some other sort of coordinating communication prior to playing make clear what will and won't fly at the table. It's like showing up with a Drow or Kenku or custom lineage after the DM stipulated those are no goes. A player can always ask the DM, but what's ultimately introduced into the game tends to be a negotiated idea.
I'm not arguing that player agency trumps the DM. What I am saying, however, is that rejecting a player's character concept will make the game worse for that player. Of course, as a DM you have to make the judgement call on what is overall best for your table, but the original argument was that outright rejecting underage advertures had no drawbacks. That is subjective, because for people who want to play certain characters, it clearly does have a negative impact.
If as a DM you simply don't want young adventurers then just state that, but don't hide behind a lame excuse about it not being realistic etc.
I didn’t mention about realism in my comment I said it was down to the tone of the table.
Which is absolutely true. So would you have a problem with a player's PC being a young adventerer if none of the other players had an issue with it?
Regarding boundaries at table (this is really just an instance of that larger set of considerations) best practices (recently actually codified into guidance in D&D in the VRGtR) suggest if any one member of the table, including the DM finds a particular subject matter or theme "crossing the line" it literally shouldn't be entertained. So, I'm not sure what you're pushing here. It's very clear in this thread that youth characters are just something a lot of tables won't entertain for perfectly respectable reasons, while other tables would consider it provided the table was in agreement that it should be entertained. Pressing one poster to say yea or nay seems to be missing the forest for one tree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If one of the core ideas behind a player's chracter concept is that they are a young adventerer, and you don't allow it, then I would argue that would make the game worse for the player because they either have to change one of the fundamental aspects of their character or don't play.
Nope. Player agency does not grant absolute determination of what a player can bring to a table. While I happen to agree that there's room for "youth" characters in D&D, I say that knowing that's my D&D game, and other games have different boundaries. If I came to a table and the table was uncomfortable having a youth character involved, I am not going to argue the (game)world with them because I thought it would be cool to play one. I think the best tables before the start of campaign, either in session 0 or some other sort of coordinating communication prior to playing make clear what will and won't fly at the table. It's like showing up with a Drow or Kenku or custom lineage after the DM stipulated those are no goes. A player can always ask the DM, but what's ultimately introduced into the game tends to be a negotiated idea.
I'm not arguing that player agency trumps the DM. What I am saying, however, is that rejecting a player's character concept will make the game worse for that player. Of course, as a DM you have to make the judgement call on what is overall best for your table, but the original argument was that outright rejecting underage advertures had no drawbacks. That is subjective, because for people who want to play certain characters, it clearly does have a negative impact.
If as a DM you simply don't want young adventurers then just state that, but don't hide behind a lame excuse about it not being realistic etc.
I didn’t mention about realism in my comment I said it was down to the tone of the table.
Which is absolutely true. So would you have a problem with a player's PC being a young adventerer if none of the other players had an issue with it?
In my answer I said I had no issues with it. I also previously said I had run adventures like that.
Short answer is no, and that's largely because I run 18+ only games and none of us are comfortable with underage characters anyway. Even if the other players were, I'm not comfortable with it, so no.
If I were running for teenagers or children, or some parents and their kids, it might be a different story, but that's not the age range of the table I run.
I just finished up a campaign with a 17 year old halfling fighter - and halflings are adults at 20. She was a teen runaway out to prove herself, who lied about her age for about half the campaign. She was also the most responsible, level-headed member in the party despite being a bit attitudinal like you are when you're 17. She quickly became the party leader (high INT) and moral center.
She ended up having a really dark storyline, though, (her boyfriend died from a mammoth attack, she got cursed with lycanthropy, was falsely accused of murders her possessed brother committed...) and then she died in a freak accident. It absolutely wrecked the party, who was fully aware that all this had happened to a child.
Now, we're all mature, adult players, and nothing squicky ever came up. I also built that character to be tough as nails and not let much drag her down. That helped a ton. (I chose to have the terrible things she suffered motivate her to defeat the BBEG, rather than traumatize her.) That said, her personal arc contributed to a pretty grim campaign until she was resurrected months later (real time) and given a chance to kill the BBEG. And the epilogue was 100% joy and victory and left us feeling great about the story we'd told.
If your players are comfortable with it and you yourself are comfortable with it, having a minor as an adventurer can be fun. Their age doesn't need to be highlighted, either. Most of the time, people forgot my fighter was still a kid, and she didn't view herself as one. Also, you can elect not to throw too dark of a plot at your players, and ignore the fridge horror. If you can't or don't want to, then maybe a kid adventurer is not right for your campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Depends on the world and it's "in world" and "authorial conceit" notion/presumptions of childhood (will get to that in second). As far as you're claim of avoidance of the "responsible thing" maybe in the game world, like a lot of the real world, they realize that keeping "the kid" with them is a more responsible thing to do than turning them over to whatever church/state/community system they may be for children with no one to stand for them. I'm thinking of characters that travel with children in books like The Road, what a character like Amos might do with a child "foundling" based on his own childhood, how many characters are modeled after Batman. They may be wrong, or at least may not be entirely correct, but I could see lots of reasons for an adventurer group to conclude "the kids stays" as opposed to turning the kid over to "the system."
[Having said that, I think the Bad Batch is a sorta fizzly bad example of this, it doesn't work, and realistically
Rex at this point in the timeline I'm sure knows someone like Bail Organa who could find a good secure home for Omega.
]
If the kid is a fully functioning character in the party mechanically, the character is subject to all the risks as well. Yes a child dying in game is boundary some groups won't entertain, the other half of the equation is that children killing is equally horrific to anyone acquainted with child soldier phenomena or under age youth involved in gun violence. So clearly, whether a player or players get to play characters that "aren't adults" is probably something for the table to discuss. That said, there's two things to discuss, how the world treats children (again, maybe the orphanage is just the entryway to a life of exploitation) and the "authorial conceit" that is what the players and DM conceive of what children are. I always like to harken back to Fred Rogers thoughts on children and anger/sadness/etc. A lot of cultures believe children shouldn't get angry or be sad have "dark thoughts" etc. to the degree where what's actually going on in practice is that the prescription isn't being applied so much as the adults pretend those aspects of the child psyche aren't there (which is why Shazam is such a great movie). Mr. Rogers' big breakthrough (whether it was the innovation or popularization) is that it's important for adults to recognize those aspects of the child and to listen to those aspects not just make them go away. Now we're talking about playing a game and there isn't a mandate to have real psychology informing our escapist play. But for those that do, I feel the kids are all right, so to speak. Of course at my table, it won't be a immaturity pass or other license, in fact it might be more demanding on the role playing front.
I mean, really, what's Stranger Things but watching a narrative centered on a group of kids being traumatized by the supernatural. Would playing those kids in a TTRPG be inappropriate? So it's ok to watch ... just not to perform...
]
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
There are situations in which I could see child characters working. A non-lethal game, a GoT-inspired game, a horror game (true horror, like Dread, Changeling, or Ten Candles, not “regular D&D but the enemies are Halloween characters,” horror). My comment was aimed at the 95% of campaigns which are neither light enough nor dark enough for child characters to work well.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
For me it really isn’t an issue, I have spent my life roleplaying games like Cthulhu, vampire the masquerade with people who would happily be realistic in terms of accepting that children could be victims to if the story made sense. In DnD my players have had to stop a cult that kidnapped and sacrificed children as part of a ritual to a demon, it happens in movies, in books in tv, I don’t always have it graphically on camera. Cthulhu has taught me that leaving stuff to the players imagination can be far more effective then describing it real time. But my fantasy worlds are realistic, enough children get made orphans (the fantasy tripe of dead parents happens often enough to show that) that O find I have to accept that children get killed as well otherwise I am not being true to my world or story. It doesn’t mean the players come face to face with it all the time, but I know it happens in my world which shapes how I build my world.
You realize all this also applies to normal aged characters too right? Have you honestly looked at what your doing in adventures and not sat back and said "damn.. my character should be an empty husk of a person by the end of this.. the stuff I've seen, death I've witnessed and horrors we've fought" I find long term campaigns where everyone's just all YAY and happy by the end are so fake, broken along the way or hardened by the trials faced hanging onto their party members in a family/support structure feels much more.. real. Not that everyone has to be miserable but there should be scars left from the sheer level of stuff endured along the way
Also mary sues and joke characters happen ad nauseum
For me it depends on the class, eg sorcerer and warlock can be any age since they get their magic from just existing and someone else respectively. If anything, a little tiefling warlock with their parent as their patron is so cute! But I wouldn't allow an 8 year old wizard for example, since they study to get their magic. Unless of course, the player is also young in which case they can do whatever they want lol.
I don't see why it should be a problem so long as it can be justified. Historically speaking, the idea or concept of a child or childhood is a very new thing. Not that long ago it was perfectly acceptable to have children as young as 5 working in coal mines or in cotton mills, and in many places in the world this still goes on. Similarly, child soldiers are unfortunately a thing too. As such, in a medievial fantasy setting, it could totally be acceptable for a child of 12+ to be an adventuerer. We used to frequently send children of that age to war as drummer boys or as cabin boys on ships.
No one is suggesting that it isn't realistic. The question is whether you want to include it in your game. In much the same way as many people choose to exclude things like torture and sexual violence, many people take issue with violence directed at children.
Agree with this, ultimately is down to the DM and the players, not having it in the game doesn’t make for a worse game, and putting in these subjects doesn’t make the game better, it changes the tone a little bit, but again that is all relative, does the at stuff happen off screen and all the players get are descriptions of the aftermath, or do you vividly describe it to your players as their characters watch it take place.
I think to answer the original question the answer is there is no definitive answer every table and DM is different, and even a DM that would allow it, like me, I would need to make sure there was a plausible reason. I would need to know you could roleplay it the right way and I would need to know you where not just doing it for shock value. If you tick those boxes then it would still have to fit in with the campaign I was creating, and the style of game the other players wanted. I generally don’t run character ideas past the other players at the table, I much prefer things being secret and a surprise, but this is one of those things I would touch base and just give the players a heads up and ask us to all discuss how we plan to run it at the table, will the adults mollycoddle the character, be in awe of them, ignore them.
If one of the core ideas behind a player's chracter concept is that they are a young adventerer, and you don't allow it, then I would argue that would make the game worse for the player because they either have to change one of the fundamental aspects of their character or don't play.
Totally disagree. If it doesn’t fit with the tone, it can make the game less fun for the DM and other players. It’s as if a player showed up to a Game of Thrones style game with a cyberpunk ninja. Plus, in my experience, players make characters after the campaign is chosen/created, not before, so they should know what’s up.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Nope. Player agency does not grant absolute determination of what a player can bring to a table. While I happen to agree that there's room for "youth" characters in D&D, I say that knowing that's my D&D game, and other games have different boundaries. If I came to a table and the table was uncomfortable having a youth character involved, I am not going to argue the (game)world with them because I thought it would be cool to play one. I think the best tables before the start of campaign, either in session 0 or some other sort of coordinating communication prior to playing make clear what will and won't fly at the table. It's like showing up with a Drow or Kenku or custom lineage after the DM stipulated those are no goes. A player can always ask the DM, but what's ultimately introduced into the game tends to be a negotiated idea.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm not arguing that player agency trumps the DM. What I am saying, however, is that rejecting a player's character concept will make the game worse for that player. Of course, as a DM you have to make the judgement call on what is overall best for your table, but the original argument was that outright rejecting underage advertures had no drawbacks. That is subjective, because for people who want to play certain characters, it clearly does have a negative impact.
If as a DM you simply don't want young adventurers then just state that, but don't hide behind a lame excuse about it not being realistic etc.
Me and my 9-19 Characters (9 ready to play. 10 almost finished) and 119 WIP Character slots (most of which are just rolled stats with ideas for race/class) should be able to tell you that there are at least a few people who make characters just for fun, without knowing when/if they'll be able to use them.
Yea, but how often do you try to fit one of those already made characters into a campaign that doesn't suit it?
I didn’t mention about realism in my comment I said it was down to the tone of the table.
Which is absolutely true. So would you have a problem with a player's PC being a young adventerer if none of the other players had an issue with it?
Regarding boundaries at table (this is really just an instance of that larger set of considerations) best practices (recently actually codified into guidance in D&D in the VRGtR) suggest if any one member of the table, including the DM finds a particular subject matter or theme "crossing the line" it literally shouldn't be entertained. So, I'm not sure what you're pushing here. It's very clear in this thread that youth characters are just something a lot of tables won't entertain for perfectly respectable reasons, while other tables would consider it provided the table was in agreement that it should be entertained. Pressing one poster to say yea or nay seems to be missing the forest for one tree.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
In my answer I said I had no issues with it. I also previously said I had run adventures like that.
Short answer is no, and that's largely because I run 18+ only games and none of us are comfortable with underage characters anyway. Even if the other players were, I'm not comfortable with it, so no.
If I were running for teenagers or children, or some parents and their kids, it might be a different story, but that's not the age range of the table I run.
I just finished up a campaign with a 17 year old halfling fighter - and halflings are adults at 20. She was a teen runaway out to prove herself, who lied about her age for about half the campaign. She was also the most responsible, level-headed member in the party despite being a bit attitudinal like you are when you're 17. She quickly became the party leader (high INT) and moral center.
She ended up having a really dark storyline, though, (her boyfriend died from a mammoth attack, she got cursed with lycanthropy, was falsely accused of murders her possessed brother committed...) and then she died in a freak accident. It absolutely wrecked the party, who was fully aware that all this had happened to a child.
Now, we're all mature, adult players, and nothing squicky ever came up. I also built that character to be tough as nails and not let much drag her down. That helped a ton. (I chose to have the terrible things she suffered motivate her to defeat the BBEG, rather than traumatize her.) That said, her personal arc contributed to a pretty grim campaign until she was resurrected months later (real time) and given a chance to kill the BBEG. And the epilogue was 100% joy and victory and left us feeling great about the story we'd told.
If your players are comfortable with it and you yourself are comfortable with it, having a minor as an adventurer can be fun. Their age doesn't need to be highlighted, either. Most of the time, people forgot my fighter was still a kid, and she didn't view herself as one. Also, you can elect not to throw too dark of a plot at your players, and ignore the fridge horror. If you can't or don't want to, then maybe a kid adventurer is not right for your campaign.