rpgdad
Cardboard Collector
Posts: 11
|
Post by rpgdad on Nov 19, 2012 17:07:33 GMT -5
I just started an RPG campagin with my four year old daughter, using the RPGkids rules. I've started making a cave using Scotty's techniques, but I carved out a grid on the floor. I'm not really happy with the results and I was wondering if anybody had some thoughts about playing gridless with small kids.
The grid makes it easier to play with a four-year-old, but I was wondering if there might be an easy way to play without the grid.
|
|
|
Post by matakishi on Nov 19, 2012 18:13:16 GMT -5
Personally I'd lose the grid and just let them go where they want. After all, they're only 4, how rulsey do you want to get?
The tile forms a natural barrier to any childish excesses anyway.
|
|
|
Post by hideousprime on Nov 19, 2012 18:38:06 GMT -5
Nice reply! 4 is young just spending time with them is the only thing they really care about! kudos to you dad for not being selfish and she can even have a princess character!! Really cool of you.
|
|
|
Post by dm1scotty on Nov 19, 2012 20:21:20 GMT -5
I would just let them move where they want. keep the rules in the background so the kid only sees the story elements.
|
|
|
Post by hasbinbad on Nov 19, 2012 22:45:30 GMT -5
I am going to swoop in with a dissenting opinion.
Kids are WAY, WAY smarter and (more importantly) more able to learn than adults ever give them credit for.
The secret is keeping their interest.
One thing that is constant with kids is that they will completely lose interest the second they get what they want.
Another way to lose their interest is to lie to them. They sense when they are not getting the whole deal, even if they aren't able to articulate that sensation.
Thirdly, you can easily lose a childs interest by forcing stuff on them. It would be much better to play with them until they lose interest, and then not mention it until they ask again. In the meantime, make a big deal about how much fund YOU have when you play, and make a point of trying not to mention it to them. This is a cheap and dirty trick to pull on a poor unsuspecting kid, but..
Rules and systems will appeal to kids if you can deliver it in doses they can handle. Don't be afraid to stop in the middle of the game and move on to other stuff. Measuring sticks will come in handy for your specific problem, especially if you let them be involved in making them with cool paint and feathers or something. Let them be involved at every level, and don't pull punches as far as complexity. You need to explain things in terms they can understand ("the pink pointy one" not "the pink d4"), but other than that, I think you will be surprised what they grasp, and the speed at which they get on your level.
If you let them do whatever they want, that is fun, but also dishonest, and they will sense that and lose interest over time. If you're trying to occupy a couple hours and take some cute pictures, let them play pretend, but if you're trying to convey the joys of a hobby, let them come to you with it, don't pull punches, and be honest yet understandable.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Nov 20, 2012 0:11:21 GMT -5
*Pops knuckles*
Alright, I'm going to try to provide my personal expertise on this. Hopefully it works...
hasbinbad is right on some levels, but a bit off on others. Yes, kids ARE smarter than we usually give them credit for. But smart does not mean capable. A good example of what I mean is baby sign language. Children very very young can understand and even express thoughts (sometimes very complex ones) through baby sign language, but their manual dexterity doesn't allow them to do so with full ability (The sign for Dog in actual ASL is vastly different from baby sign language because children can't make the complex motions with each individual finger at very young ages). Furthermore, children can't always grasp a concept (like time) without the context. The actual meaning of time doesn't kick in until roughly the age of four. Children may notice that time passes, but the concept of day/week/month or even hour/minute/second is beyond them. Their attention span is (generally speaking) about the same as peanut butter until the age of 6.
Now, trying to teach a child as young as four a game as complex as D&D (even simplified) is going to have mixed results. Some concepts are going to make sense, but others aren't. the concept of distances-inches, or even squared units-won't stick very well simply because any distance to a child that age falls into a few very simple categories: small/short, big/long, and far far away (are we there yet?). trying to explain the concept of what a unit is *can* work, but it can also backfire.
So let's actually point out one of the most successful Role Playing Games ever made that was designed for very young children: Candy Land. Why does this game work?
Well, it does because not only is it segmented, but it is differentiated by color. Children are very reactive to stimuli, and color is the best stimuli at that age (ever wonder why cartoons are so colorful? How about cereal box characters...yep, millions of dollars to figure that stuff out and then market it). And how about the rules? Very loose. You don't move "5 squares." That would assume the child has counting ability, and at age four that isn't *always* the case. Even if your child *can* count, the concept of what counting means is in it's trial stages, moving forward to proficiency. So instead Candy land uses a very arbitrary system, but one that is VERY concise. Move to the next square that looks like this <insert color>. Have fun moving through adventureland with no seeming purpose except to reach the goal. Read the story...wow, sounds alot like D&D in simplified terms.
So, coming back to actual D&D, and going gridless, how do you do this?
Well, a few ideas: -Rather than using gridless, or even squares, come up with three short sticks (measured to whatever different lengths you like) and paint them a bright color. Appropriate the matching color cards from candy land or make your own. When it's time to move, tell your child that they have to get a card, then get the stick that matches the color, and move the character along the map the same distance as the stick. Demonstrate often (using your own character or theirs if necessary). That accomplishes the movement.
-Stick to simple mechanics. Tell them they can swing their sword (don't bother with trying to give options like an axe or a spear or whatever), or cast a spell (if they are a wizard) only if they are touching the bad guy. If you insist on having a long distance spell, make a different colored stick for it, and tell them they can only cast the spell if they can make the stick touch the bad guy while also touching their character. Damage should be either set or used with one die (no variation on die types until they understand math better). Also, represent health with beads, not numbers. Kids are VERY visual, so saying "He has 6 health and you did 4 damage, so 6 minus 4 is two," won't work as well as "you did 4 damage, so lets take away four beads. Now he only has 2 left!" Simple. Keep-it-simple. Can't be said enough.
...I want to rephrase that. Keep it CLEAR. Simple is relative to age and understanding, so making things CLEAR is the point. In this case, a simplified and abbreviated rules set will work better.
-A word about plot: Stick to something easy, and use pictorals, or be expressive with your own descriptions. A simple beginning, a simple middle (with a challenge your child can overcome without thinking too hard...remember, attention span of peanut butter. Try a hands on simple excercise, like putting different shapped blocks in order), and an ending that shows that the child has accomplished something. I can't stress that prasing accomplsihment is big.
Also, in regards to losing interest: if you see your child losing interest, then acknowledge that the child isn't interested, and move on. Something like, "I see that this isn't very fun for you. Do you want to do something else?" If the child says yes, then fine, don't get upset. Don't force the child to sit in the chair until the game is done. Simply say, "Ok, maybe we can play this game another time."
Also, praising personal accomplishment for what they DID accomplish ("Wow, that was really cool how you solved that puzzle," or ,"You really smashed that snake monster good.") is important. If they can't meet the puzzle, solve the problem, deus ex machina it, and say, "I'm glad you did your best." Remember, the point here is to allow the child to succeed, and if they have a small failure, TPKing the child just makes them not want to play. Accept the failure but don't make it result in *total* failure.
Now, sure, this seems really simplified. And it is. Why? hasbinbad's statement that rules appeal to kids is true...after the age of 5 (and usually only by the age of 7). Kids don't enter the stage of understanding rules systems until about that age. Before them, "letting them do what they want," is generally better. You can set boundaries and limitations, but ultimately at the age of 4 success and accomplishment as a person, getting your praise for doing their best and giving the game a try, is more important. And if the child just doesn't like the game...accept it. You can try again when they're older, but children don't always want to do what their parent wants them to do.
So, hope that getting some pointers from a Parenting Instructor helps out.
|
|
|
Post by hasbinbad on Nov 20, 2012 3:10:55 GMT -5
I think you're hitting a lot of really good points that expand on what i said for sure, but i still think you're selling kids short (tho giving them more credit than many).
It comes down to building an understanding. If you can finagle them into a bunch of short games over time, they will be little rules-masters by the time they are 7. They will have picked up most of the important shit on their own. It's pretty rad to watch what can happen when parents dont say "a kid cant do that."
|
|
|
Post by hasbinbad on Nov 20, 2012 3:11:40 GMT -5
Other than you generally saying "they cant do x" tho, i agree with everything you said!
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Nov 20, 2012 3:54:55 GMT -5
Hmm, perhaps I should clarify in that I didn't mean to imply "kids can't do X." That obviously isn't always true. However...not knowing this specific 4 year old, the only way to resolve the unknowns is to base all of my statements on what is generally known and static in our understanding of children. My 6 year old niece (whom for all intents and purposes I am raising) I am always surprised at because she is "beyond the curve" as they say. Her grasp of time, for instance, developed alot earlier than what children are assumed to be able to.
So, yes, children *can* do alot of things we don't always realize they can do. But any parent knows more about their kid than anyone else does (at least you would hope), and should take any advice with their own understanding of their children's capabilities in mind. Don't be offended by my presumption that 4 year olds will respond better to bright colors and simplified explanations (and all else I implied) if your own 4 year old can do 2nd grade level math. Just realize that even with all that said, you still need to account for appropriate understanding at any age level. I have never spoken to my niece in what is called "baby speak." It has developed a better sense of respect between us, and she is very mature because of it. However, I still have to realize that she doesn't understand concepts I think are very basic, and it pertains to context and experience in life. Telling her that we are going to play a sort of a board game where she pretends to be a character, and then expecting her to come up with a well rounded character concept is unrealistic (It seems very obvious, but some people have expectations of children that are similarly far fetched...I know, I deal with parents who do it all the time). However, telling her she can pretend to be any kind of character she wants, and *not* getting knee-jerk upset when she wants to be Rapunzel, despite my GM training to insta-kill any player that presents an obviously unorginal character (Dr'zzt clone anyone?)...well, that's a realistic expectation. Children *generally don't* (rather than "can't") develop original creativity the way we as adults percieve it until their teen years. They can be very original and very creative, but they usually don't pull an idea out of thin air...they usually model their ideas very closely towards what they have seen on television. That's because they are exploring boundaries on what they can achieve in their imaginations...starts off as a very "safe" form of creativity because it is modeled on something they know (Rapunzel) and then expands until they have their own original concept...a process that is a lifetime in the development.
And similarly, children *generally don't* have the ability to think of concepts in any context other than "right now." And they *generally don't* conform to rules unless they are clear as a whistle and easy to understand (oversimplification to the extreme).
So yeah...well, mostly just clarifying my statement here to say that it's a generalization based off of studied "normalicies" of child behavior. Take it with a grain of salt and apply to your child knowing that they may very likely more capable than that generalization seems.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Nov 20, 2012 3:59:22 GMT -5
...if that makes any sense to anyone, they get a digital cookie. I sometimes go in circles with what I say, and it's not until after I've said it that I realized that it isn't as simple to understand as I thought. My apolgies if I confused anyone
|
|
|
Post by matakishi on Nov 20, 2012 7:18:43 GMT -5
You want to help the op interest his children in roll playing, a hobby based on imagination and creativity, and you're getting hung up about how best to impose movement restrictions on them? Really?
How about emphasising what they can do not what they can't?
If you really think that letting them move from one end of a room to another would somehow break the game and remove all boundaries from their life then keep a grid and they can learn to count.
This is, however, patently ridiculous.
Roleplaying is about telling a story or having an adventure, not the hideous micro management min/maxing hell that marketing and splat books have tried to turn it into. Distances and dice are there to facilitate this not govern it.
Why even have tiles? We managed once with just imagination.
|
|
|
Post by hasbinbad on Nov 20, 2012 13:58:28 GMT -5
matakishi: Tiles, measuring sticks, and the technical aspects of the game are all a great way to teach things like spatial awareness, basic counting and math, abstract thought, etc..
onethatwas: I disagree strongly that "parents know best" for their kids. I think it is systemic throughout our culture that children are coddled and treated like little imbeciles. Even the vast majority of well meaning parents. I also disagree that modern science has "figured out" what kids can and cannot achieve. As a medical professional, I both respect your position and humbly beg to differ. The seal is just now beginning to be broken. Baby sign language is still in it's infancy (mind the pun) as far as a developing communications medium, and we still haven't figured out everything babies are able to convey. The problem is that babies are actually quite able to have complex thoughts, but they get SO frustrated after a year or two of not being able to communicate that they shut down and quit trying (except the one thing that works for everything, crying their heads off) until later in life when they begin to be able to parrot the sounds you make. At that point they have gone through - what amounts to - a period of mental illness wherein they have been unable to communicate with the people around them. This was all explained to me by a child psychologist on our baby sign language lecture. So, while I do in fact respect your opinion, things are not as cut and dry as "kids can do abc, but not xyz." The fact is that we have NO IDEA what kids can do. What we do know is that you can take any given 2 year old and teach it the fundamentals of kung fu and 6 languages at once, and by the time they are 4, they will be multilingual badasses. Kids are also basically scientists once they learn how to manipulate their fingers and then again when they learn how to say "why?" It's just that parents don't think it's possible, so it never happens. Which is sad.
I think you can teach you kid all the complexities of D&D given enough time and enough interest from your kid. The real secret is getting the kid interested (by displaying how much fun you have doing it), staying honest - but understandable, and then picking up on disinterest cues even before the kid realizes it's bored.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Nov 20, 2012 23:36:33 GMT -5
I think we agree on many points but have seemingly slight disagreements in others. I won't argue that the study of psychology, and especially child psychology, is still in progress and there is alot to know about the human mind and it's development over age. However, there *is* data current that is both practical and useful, and that is where I base my career off of. while it is a wonderful concept to pioneer new ideas and concepts, in my line of work it isn't practical because I work with (specifically) Parents who *DON'T* know what is best for their kids. My job is to help them get to a base line of understanding of what the rest of us know *now* about child development and, for instance, not to beat their children (truly, that's what I do for a living).
So, yes, children are certainly more capable than we give them credit for. I would never advocate you ever treat a child as an imbecile. In fact that goes against what I teach in it's entirety. Rather, the goal, for me, is to teach a parent how to be responsible and respectful of their children as *people* and to help their own child learn that trait (respect and responsibility) as well.
One thing I would argue against is what is possible VS what is in the best interest of a child. It is *possible* to teach a child 6 languages before 4 years of age, teach them higher level mathmatics, and critical thinking skills. That sounds good and wonderful, right? Well, it is time consuming, and it also has a tendancy to take the child and put them into a position where they can't relate to their peers. Which can lead to emotional damage and immaturity, and at the age of 21 they have an emotional breakdown and go a little crazy. They already tested this out sometime during the 1800's. Brilliant guy (can't for the life of me remember his name), was a great thinker of his time because his father made him learn all this by the time of age 4...and at 21 he kinda cracked.
So is it possible? Yes. Is it a good idea? Not always. That gets to the heart of what is being asked here. Yes, this parent can teach his 4 year old how to play D&D, and at a level all of us, as adults, understand. But would doing so take away from the point, which is to have fun? I'd say so, because children have to adapt their ways of thinking based on their experience, which is limited. a 4 year old doesn't have the context that we as adults do, and in order to get the context, they need the passage of time.
Which is where a braod view of when it is appropriate to learn something comes into play. Would you try to teach your two year old how to ride a bicycle? Most likely not, because they don't have the muscle capacity (I also used to teach snowboarding, so I have experience in knowing the physical limitation of age) nor the balance (That big ole head of theirs isn't fully adapted to the size of their bodies, which results in a balance issue, hence the trials of learning how to walk...which is also a prerequisite of learning to ride a bike to begin with, one which the child may not even have at this stage).
Similarly, based on what we *currently* know, children at the age of 1 don't have a concept of hidden objects...if they can't see it, it's not there. Hard to teach abstract thinking concepts when the child doesn't have the awareness capacity (again based on studied, scientific results) to abstract the idea away that just because an object isn't seen there it can still exist. Similarly, it follows that what we are aware of *currently,* based off of the science that is available now, we can safely say that at the age of 4 some concepts do need simplification simply because the child needs the time to adapt to the concept before it can develop a higher understanding. Therefore, abstracting distances through simple means, then introducing different forms of measurement...well, over time you can get a child to really grasp a skill, but simply starting by saying , "Yes they can," well....no, they can't. The context *doesn't exist*. Maybe in a week the context will exist, and then sure, by all means toss in another rule to make it more like what D&D is in *our* adult context.
It's not a matter of me not realizing the point you're getting across hasbinbad. I actually think, as I said, that we agree in alot more ways than is immediately apparent. It's just that, again, in the context of this discussion, without knowing if the child is brilliant, ADHD, has an RAD, is autistic, is for all intents and perposes normal, is ahead in classes, is home schooled, lives with both a mother and a father (which is important)...well, then generic advice is the best I can give. I would hope that I don't need to give a lesson on how to be respectful and responsible as a parent to anyone here, and so I won't, but my hope was to give some insight into what is *generally* understood about children at that age. Again, take it with a grain of salt and realize that your child may be the exception to the rule (and often is, in my experience with kids).
So, I hope that clarifies my perspective on it. And if there is still disagreement between us on this matter (which I hope is minimal in any case), then I think that based on our different backgrounds we should agree to disagree in a respectful way. No hard feelings if this is the case.
PS to the Topic Creator: I mean absolutely no offense regarding the actual abilities of your child in saying any of this, but am merely bringing up the matter of what is unknown about your child to indicate why I am giving a more generalized perspective. My apologies if any of this is offending.
|
|
|
Post by danielc on Nov 21, 2012 1:29:48 GMT -5
I started my son out on "wargames" first to help him get used to the ideas of movement. We each built small Legomen armies and fought using a very simple set of rules. Eveyone moved 4 " (the length of the stick I made) and each person rolled a six sided die. Higher number "won". Ties just sat there until next combat. Over time I added a flag for us to capture. Then we began to have a couple of named legomen. Over time we added the use of an eight sider for the named guys. More goals. Monsters, horses, bows, all with the legos to keep it light.
Sometimes he asked about adding things and sometimes I would suggest them. But by allowing him to work up to "RPG' through simple wargames it made it smoother for him.
Daniel
PS: Yes I still have my Lego Orc army and Lego Evil Knight army. It was great being a little kid again for a while. LOL
EDIT: Fixed couple of typos...
|
|
|
Post by hasbinbad on Nov 21, 2012 2:00:37 GMT -5
onethatwas i feel like you've set up a false dichotomy where on the one hand you have "generic education" and on the other you have "north korean style forced education."
I propose neither, in fact what I laid out is a more laissez-faire system of encouraging interest and a policy of keeping it real.
I dunno who you're disagreeing with, but it's not me.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Nov 21, 2012 2:11:49 GMT -5
Well, in the interest of preventing this whole conversation from getting any further out of proportion, I won't discuss it any further, although I do feel that some of your statements can be misconstrued and/or misunderstood to set up a false expectation. I'm sure you feel similarly about some of my posts (as you've pointed out). That being said, I think there is more than sufficient suggestions here to *hopefully* help out rpgdad, even if that help comes from somebody elses posts.
|
|
|
Post by madladdesigns on Nov 21, 2012 7:37:55 GMT -5
I guess you guys will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for keeping the thread amicable.
|
|
rpgdad
Cardboard Collector
Posts: 11
|
Post by rpgdad on Nov 24, 2012 23:32:26 GMT -5
Many thanks for the VERY interesting discussion.
I am going to try gridless next and keeping some of the advice in mind from this thread. It takes me a while to build terrain, so I'm letting my daughter help make the scenery and help with the story. She's already made some suggestions that are going to be integrated into the campaign.
It's probably going to be a bit before we play, but I'll post an update on how it went once we do.
Again, many thanks, everyone.
|
|
|
Post by noblebrick on Nov 30, 2012 14:06:21 GMT -5
Very good discussion. I'll chime in with what I do for my kids. I run two different games for 3rd-6th graders. They enjoy it a ton. Of course we play very modified, simplified rules, which are geared for keeping them engaged. As they have gotten more and more comfortable, they have asked to make things more complicated. I really think being flexible enough to add in rules is an important thing to keep in mind. We started off using gridded maps, which made learning how to move and take 'actions' easier for them. Now we do things without any scenery, use gridded maps, and use non-gridded tiles similar to what DMScotty has shown(they like the non gridded tiles best. Now my kids are a bit older than a 4 year old of course, but I think a mixture of things is important and of course keeping them interested is as well. You guys have a lot of great ideas on all these things, and if anyone is interested I could go into more detail on what I do to address these issues. Unfortunately, the answer lies in what is available to you. I don't have a ton of stuff, so we use what I have. Now that I have been learning to make tiles, I'll get more and more (and my kids have started making tiles too, its awesome). I am so pleased to hear of the success you have had with a young child, I can't wait till my son is a bit older so he can play with me(he is just 1). Cheers all!
|
|
|
Post by hideousprime on Nov 30, 2012 20:36:00 GMT -5
I played dungeon Command with my girls for the first time today, moira is 11and lena is 7, we had a blast! I just made sure to help them read each card and made sure they could or couldn't prevent damage with their order cards. the only thing we changed was we had a set morale and didn't place any treasure tokens. This just sped the game up some.
|
|