I set myself up for this one, and now I need some advice.

I told my 5.5e PbP table that they could re-flavor any character feature without changing the mechanics. Now I have an adult player who wants their Level 1 character to be an 11-year old human child. The 2024 Players Handbook doesn’t have any Age info (does it?), but it does allow Human species to select small size. So mechanically that works.

Call me a prude but I’m more concerned about the “ick” factor. I don’t run 18+ or Mature games but I’m still kinda creeped out about a player choosing to RP a child in harm’s way, not to mention all the other dark and dangerous stuff a typical campaign encounters.

I was surprised to find that DnD as a game is rated Age 6+. But most campaign modules don’t seem to have age ranges unless they’re Mature/18+. 

Anyone have experience with this? Any advice?

think it might come down to the campaign details, story and what the player wants out of being 11yrs old, are they aiming to be like arya stark from GoT or thorfinn from vinland saga or something similar

also think the 11yr old character would be quite traumatised with a few loose screws unless they grow into an adult over the course of the campaign  

I played this game as a child and had characters that were my age at the time.  I think it does require some thought and some care with subject matter, but also I don't see how Stranger Things can be so popular if people get the ick over kids being in scary or dangerous situations.

I have DMed a game where all the PCs were children and the point was to avoid direct combat, sneak around and through wits, mishceif and shenanigans to foil an evil cultist.

Most of the time though, i want all PCs to be adults. I have allowed some mixed parties before (3 people were playing an adventurer and his 2 kids) and lets just say that things happened with player 4 that are not cool with me.
I wouldn't again unless i had a good grip on the players personalities.

I think how I'd feel about it would depend on the campaign, and the makeup of the rest of the party. 

But if you're not comfortable with it, just say no. Just because you said they could reflavor it if they wanted doesn't mean you have to allow ANY reflavor. You can just say, no, that's not comfortable for me, to put a child in harm's way in a group of adult adventurers.

My initial gut reaction is Absolutely Not.  The "ick" factor is a big part of that. But also consider the things an adventuring party has to deal with - trekking through wilderness, exploring dungeons, fighting monsters, sometimes even engaging in complex political diplomacy - how helpful could an 11 y/o child really be with any of that. I don't care if the kid has magic, I don't care if the kid eats his vegetables, there is just no way a child could possibly have the physical stamina or the emotional maturity to withstand the daily rigors of adventuring life. 

Plus, there's the "ick" factor. 

Now, I'm willing to accept that all tables are different. My table are all experienced players between 30 and 56 years of age. My table rule is that all characters have to be adults and all players have to be adults. But even if there's a table of teenagers out there, I would have to seriously question why any of them would even want to play an 11 year old. Aren't teenagers usually eager to prove themselves as capable grownups, rather then regressing? 

Sure, D&D is rated as 6+, but if there's a player out there who is 6 years old, then one or both of their parents had gosh darn better be at the table with them! And if there's an 11 year old player at a table, either one of their parents or at the very least an older sibling had better be at that table with them. 

But yeah... no. If you're an adult, then your characters have to be adults. Otherwise it's just creepy.  Just... ick. 

So, the short answer is it's completely up to you. So points I'd consider:

- The nature of your campaign. If it's Wild Beyond the Witchlight and there's likely to be no combat, I'd have a different mentality to if it's a hack 'n' slash mixed with brutal horror.

- Everyone at the table has to be comfortable. I'm a strong proponent of letting players do what they like and I generally consider it wrong when the DM tries to impose their own preferences on the players. However, everyone has to feel comfortable at the table, including the DM, and violence to children (especially when you have to be the initiator) is very understandably potentially over the line. If it makes anyone uncomfortable, including you as DM, then it shouldn't happen.

- It doesn't necessarily have to be an eleven year old to be able to RP certain aspects of naïvety etc associated with youth. You can compromise - often, people are more comfortable with fifteen or sixteen year olds and they can still be very naïve. Obviously, I can't tell you where your line is, but consider what you would be comfortable given the circumstances of the campaign, maturity of the player, etc.

You don't sound comfortable and happy with this idea of a young character, so the bottom line is that, in its present form, it should be sunk. That's the end of that. The next move should be to learn what it is about that character that interests the player, then a counteroffer that hopefully preserves what's of interest to the player while making the character comfortable for you to have at the table.

NB: What I allow at my table is irrelevant to the discussion. You (nor anyone else) are not me, nor are we you. What's acceptable at our tables doesn't it have to to be, nor should automatically be, acceptable at anyone else's. Do what's right for your table, and that table includes the DM. In fact, I think the DM is the most important one to be comfortable, because they're the most likely person to have to interact with the various situations that arise. A player can in theory just sit back and zone out for a bad bit (not that makes it ok to have things offensive to them in the game, but the DM is in a rougher spot when it comes to these things).

If a player approached me with a character concept that involved playing a minor, I'd be concerned about two things; context and intent.

Context
A minor can make sense as a character depending on the nature of the group and the campaign. For example say you're playing Wilds Beyond the Witchlight and you want to theme it around more of a fairytale vibe, perhaps with a little bit of the classic D&D cartoon thrown in? That could make sense and be appropriate. Or how Critical Role recently did a mini-adventure themed around a summer camp for adventuring. There are situations where playing a minor would make sense and be appropriate, provided everyone is on board with the expectations of the campaign.

Intent
If the campaign doesn't implicitly or explicitly incentivise playing a minor, that begs the question as to why they want to play such a character? Every character design choice that matters does so for a reason, and any that don't can be changed. Someone might want to play a child because the campaign is one themed around war and politics and they want to play a war orphan growing up amidst the conflict. Provided everyone is comfortable with such a theme, that could be something your table explores. Or perhaps they want to play a wizard prodigy or a sorcerous child on the run from those that would exploit their power. There are valid (in the sense that the table could see fit to entertain them) motives and themes for a child character.
But there are also reasons that are not valid, which do not need to be discussed in any specifics. However, it can be easy to spot if a player has such intents in mind. If they're cagey or vague about why they want to play a minor, but also very adamant, that should be a red flag.

Context and intent is something I apply to any sensitive theme within character creation, not just playing minors. If a player wants to play a character with a disability for example, or play a character who is transgender. D&D can be a place to grow empathy through exploration, but only if done in the right context and with noble intent. Because without those things, you can easily do harm.

I agree with Davyd, why does this person want an 11 year old?  Why not 13 or 17 or 19?   1e listed age +/- to abilities as well depending on age.  If you are semi convinced to let this character in, you could have him modify the abilities.  e.g. give 18 points in a point buy creation vice 27.

While in the history of man kind underage people were subjected to unspeakable horrors and might have needed to "grow up" fast, that is not a reason to allow an 11 year old.  One famous child is Jon Of Arc, but she was still 14.  In WWII there where several minors that joined up, but still they where 16 or 17 years old.  You can find child aged veterans in the US wars since the start but again, these were teenagers.  The person on a US $20 dollar bill was a POW at 14.   So there are stories of teenagers going to war, but they are all older than 11.

I remember back in the days someone playing a teenage Human Thief inspired by Ladyhawke character Philippe Gaston but wasn't that young.

11 is a bit low, but if it's what the player really want and for good reasons, I'd just wish it'd be mature for it's age because in the end we don't want any immaturity.

But i'd make sure this is not a soft or hard limit for anyone else at the table.

Speaking just for myself, I have an extremely high tolerance for imaginary child abuse - but I try child abuse cases, so I interface with worse child abuse on a daily basis than most folks can imagine.  I know that, as a DM, this would not bother me and as a player, I could take whatever the DM tossed my direction.  

But it is not the DM’s job to think only of themselves and a single player - it is their job to think of everyone at the table. Many folks do have an aversion to roleplaying situations involving child abuse, either do to their own lived experiences or the general “ick” many on this thread share.  Allowing such a character very easily could make one of your players uncomfortable - which puts you in the situation of having to treat the child player differently in order to maintain harmony or risk upsetting the harmony at the table.  This was my experience the one time I was in a game where another player used a child character - the DM and a couple other players simply found the situation a bit uncomfortable and used kid gloves on a player that prefers risky games.

There are two general ways you should consider proceeding.

First, and easiest, you can tell them that they cannot play a minor, and their character has to at least be an adult (or, as a US example, drinking age if you want to set something a little older).  This does not mean they have to abandon their character idea - they can work whatever they want into their backstory, including whatever set them on their adventure at such a young age, and then they spent the intervening years growing from a low level NPC to a level 1 (or whatever starting level you use) player character.

Second, you can have a conversation with the entire group and see what they want to do.  However, I will say this - child abuse is one of those things where players might consent to it in an abstract setting like a rule zero conversation… and then immediately regret that consent once they actually find themselves facing it in game.  For this reason, I likely would not try this option - there is too much risk of players changing their mind, and it is a lot easier to say “you cannot play this character concept” than “you need to stop playing this actualized character.”

Quote from Davyd >>

If a player approached me with a character concept that involved playing a minor, I'd be concerned about two things; context and intent.

Context
A minor can make sense as a character depending on the nature of the group and the campaign. For example say you're playing Wilds Beyond the Witchlight and you want to theme it around more of a fairytale vibe, perhaps with a little bit of the classic D&D cartoon thrown in? That could make sense and be appropriate. Or how Critical Role recently did a mini-adventure themed around a summer camp for adventuring. There are situations where playing a minor would make sense and be appropriate, provided everyone is on board with the expectations of the campaign.

Intent
If the campaign doesn't implicitly or explicitly incentivise playing a minor, that begs the question as to why they want to play such a character? Every character design choice that matters does so for a reason, and any that don't can be changed. Someone might want to play a child because the campaign is one themed around war and politics and they want to play a war orphan growing up amidst the conflict. Provided everyone is comfortable with such a theme, that could be something your table explores. Or perhaps they want to play a wizard prodigy or a sorcerous child on the run from those that would exploit their power. There are valid (in the sense that the table could see fit to entertain them) motives and themes for a child character.
But there are also reasons that are not valid, which do not need to be discussed in any specifics. However, it can be easy to spot if a player has such intents in mind. If they're cagey or vague about why they want to play a minor, but also very adamant, that should be a red flag.

Context and intent is something I apply to any sensitive theme within character creation, not just playing minors. If a player wants to play a character with a disability for example, or play a character who is transgender. D&D can be a place to grow empathy through exploration, but only if done in the right context and with noble intent. Because without those things, you can easily do harm.

 This is the way

Thanks, everyone. I really appreciate the thoughtful responses and variety of takes. Super helpful!

Other players for the campaign in question have expressed concern, so I think it will be a table-wide decision for this game to just say "no minors, please".

My opinion is it possible if the story will be enoughly "family-friendly" at the same level of a cartoon show in TV or the plot of a "Endless Quest" gamebook. You could in Witchlight but you shouldn't in Ravenloft or Dark Sun. 

Several folks mentioned Witchlight. I've never heard of it, but it sounds like it is geared to younger audiences. Which is super cool. Now I want to check it out. Thanks

If I were a DM in this position, I would decide on a few factors.

1. If this the player's first character with you? If yes, probably not until you get a feel for the player.

2. The Maturity level of the Player. Maybe this is my experience working several summer at a boy scout summer camp, but I have met children that were ages in their maturity level and adults that hadn't grown up since Freshman year of high school. Is this guy going to be mature or "Mature." the former sure go ahead. The latter is only mature in the same way South Park or Family Guy is. In the latter case my first instinct.

3. Depending on the maturity level of the player, ask what they intend to do with the child if some situations pop up to get a barometer if you want to give them a chance. If you get squiked (Squee+Ick) out at any moment, even if its a snap of the finger length of time, the answer is still no. 

As for the content, it doesn't really matter to me how dark the story is with kids as characters. Stories often have kids going through terrible if not dangerous scenarios (Jurassic Park, An American Tail, Olier Twist, the D&D cartoon,  any given Disney Princess, classic Pete's Dragon, Hunter x Hunter, Pokemon, Terminator 2, ect). Heck, Game of Thrones is Grim Dark and kids are forced into hellish situations all the time. But depending on what happens to them tends to be what is questionable. Combine this with question 2 is the kind of thing I would want to know.

Just out of curiosity, what is the campaign background and some of the things one can expect if they were to participate in it while sticking to Forum rules?

Most of the people I play with generally prefer playing older characters (at least adventurer age 20+) but I don't see the issue with somebody playing a child character provided that they are played appropriately. Also I am not particularly squeamish about putting a child character in harm's way in an imaginary scenario and most of the people I play with are generally mature enough to handle darker scenarios than most of the people on these forums would care for.

Of course if it is some weird age play fetish thing then I don't think I would be as cool with it but generally I try not to shy away from the more horrible and gruesome realities of a campaign and if a child finds themselves in the middle of a dangerous situation I don't think they should have plot armour because of a taboo about hurting kids, the kid would be just as vulnerable as everyone else if not more so.

It is a medium to hard NO at the tables I play at, a player had better have a well planned and thought out arc for playing a child character, it often ends up causing to many issues because "it's what my character would do" when actually that character would be dead or jailed unless the party is willing to "save" the child PC. Basically it is little different than a Rouge that wants to steal loot from the party while they are sleeping.  Though I have played and Dm'd more than 1 game that a child PC was played and it was an amazing game, but not many.

if i know the people in the game ye if not I'd want to avoid the potential issues