D&D 5E D&D, for kids?
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
D&D can be played by pre-teens.
I don't think that means that it should be "designed" for them.
If most of the games players are now in their 30 or 40s, it (at least the "main/core game") needs to reflect that.
Of course, the irony is that in D&Ds heyday, it was written for a relatively sophisticated audience. Even Moldvay basic didn't really talk down to its audience.
Which is why certain "kids" liked it so much...
I don't think that means that it should be "designed" for them.
If most of the games players are now in their 30 or 40s, it (at least the "main/core game") needs to reflect that.
Of course, the irony is that in D&Ds heyday, it was written for a relatively sophisticated audience. Even Moldvay basic didn't really talk down to its audience.
Which is why certain "kids" liked it so much...
cmbarona
First Post
I hope I'm able to play D&D with my daughter when she gets older. You just have to scale back the content to their level. There are fairy tales designed for kids with a splash of violence here and there - slay the dragon, fell the black knight, what have you. And kids' imaginations are incredible. So yes, I would very much like to foster that.
That being said, those are decisions made on the DM's side of everything. I think the PHB should be kid-accessible. Let the scary monsters and dark gods lie elsewhere. Kids who are too young to DM themselves can still play with an adult DM, usually a parent. When they are old enough to DM, chances are they are ready to be introduced to some more serious material by then.
That being said, those are decisions made on the DM's side of everything. I think the PHB should be kid-accessible. Let the scary monsters and dark gods lie elsewhere. Kids who are too young to DM themselves can still play with an adult DM, usually a parent. When they are old enough to DM, chances are they are ready to be introduced to some more serious material by then.
Jester David
Hero
I got into D&D when I was thirteen, although I would have started even earlier had I been exposed earlier. But, like most kids that age, I didn't actually get the books until I was 14-15 as I slowly made my purchases over many months of birthdays and Christmases.
Children are not a particularly reliable market for a business.
D&D should be aimed at, designed for, and marketed to teens and up. However, it should not be inherently inappropriate for preteens. This isn't that hard and is a matter of euphemisms for adult topics, dealing with said topics maturely and delicately.
It's a matter of remembering that the best way to make things appropriate for adults is not to make it inappropriate for kids.
Children are not a particularly reliable market for a business.
D&D should be aimed at, designed for, and marketed to teens and up. However, it should not be inherently inappropriate for preteens. This isn't that hard and is a matter of euphemisms for adult topics, dealing with said topics maturely and delicately.
It's a matter of remembering that the best way to make things appropriate for adults is not to make it inappropriate for kids.
innerdude
Legend
My experience with D&D is that it has fairly consistently taken a "PG-13" approach to the actual presentation material. It's then up to the individual groups to decide if they want to drift into "PG" or "R" mode. This seems to me to be a reasonably balanced approach that works for the majority of the game's core audience.
RedShirtNo5.1
Explorer
What I would hope for is a basic box that is aimed for 9-12 yrs, and for the full rule books to be 13+.
Well, do remember - "teenagers" covers almost a decade of life, and that's a decade with a *lot* of changes. "Teenagers" includes 17 and 18 year olds. "Kids" covers 8, 10, and 12 year olds. Those groups are worlds apart in terms of what they can handle appropriately.
I, personally, have little problem with having the core rules be kid-appropriate. D&D violence is not all that far from cops-and-robbers that kids are playing from, what, age 5? ("Bang! You're dead!" "No I'm not!" - rules lawyers even then!). D&D sex, as far as rules are concerned, doesn't really exist. So, we're good so far.
That leaves the artwork as a consideration. I, myself, have no real desire for cheesecake art in my game books - if I want cheesecake fantasy art, I can get it so many other places in so much volume, my game books just don't need it! There are better venues, honestly. Given the double-win of making the game more kid-friendly and less sexist, getting rid of cheesecake art in the core rules seems a no-brainer to me.
Last edited:
innerdude
Legend
Can't XP, Umbran, but I wholly agree.
Stormonu
Legend
I started playingback when I was 9-10 myself, and have been running my own kids through D&D Games since they were about six. The depiction of the game in the books is fine as it is; I have no resrvations about my kids perusing the books (unlike my various White Wolf and some of my 40K books).
However, I would like to see a D&D game book aimed for the younger crowd. The old Moldvay and Mentzer sets were perfect in this regard. The Pathfinder beginner set is a good one in this regard as well.
However, I would like to see a D&D game book aimed for the younger crowd. The old Moldvay and Mentzer sets were perfect in this regard. The Pathfinder beginner set is a good one in this regard as well.
Li Shenron
Legend
I have children, and I wish D&D would be educational.
Now, I don't pretend that to mean, that D&D shouldn't have combat. It is possible to play a game of D&D without any combat, but that makes the game a little bit unusual to say the least. I assume that if you decide to play D&D with your children, you're fine with letting them play a game that includes combat.
However, I think presentation is the key for a children-friendly product. That includes both description and illustration.
Personally, I think D&D could be better in terms of description, but are still a long way to being children-friendly in terms of illustration.
---
In terms of description, if they wanted to be more children friendly, all that would be needed is to avoid the details. Avoid describing injuries in details, avoid descriptions of pain, disease and poison effects... normally this is not a big issues, but occasionally some authors have indulged in needless details of a spell's effects, that could have been left to the imagination.
Still related to description, one thing that would really help, would be to put a simple rule (at least in the Basic game) that whenever a character/monster drops to 0 HP, the DM (or the player) decides exactly what happens: it doesn't have to die, maybe it's just knocked-out, maybe the player chooses to capture it, maybe it flees... the DM can even rule that the "end" is a comic relief effect (maybe the evil eye drops his pants and runs away in shame). In all cases, in a children's game the effect is the same: the PCs win the adventure (or the fight, at least)!
The only criticism possible for such rule, is that the consequences of different "defeats" can be very different. A fleeing foe or a captured foe, is not necessarily defeated forever, not-killing is usually a non-efficient solution. This is however something I do not want to teach my children! It's a very military mindset that is acceptable in a real war, but it is not something you want your children to have in mind when they are still growing up, and may not be able to understand that it's very different in a normal civilized context! All in all, this is a very adult theme IMO, and anyway a child is not going to raise this sort of criticism.
---
In terms of illustration, first of all just avoid gory details in the Basic books. Monsters are rarely a problem, unless a particularly frightening image is used. But blood, wounds, severed body parts could be so easily avoided... and really there is little reason to have them illustrated for adults too.
Then there is of course the sexualization of characters. This is where D&D is currently really coming short, and largely unsuitable for children. It doesn't matter that images aren't explicit, it's the subtle messages that are non-educational.
I think the 3e corebooks were fine with this, there were few sexualized images after all. But later artwork, and most especially artwork in non-WotC books (WotC itself has done overall a much more moderate job than other publishers...), was really bad.
---
In conclusion, I think D&D as a game is totally suitable to children, even of very young age (eventually with some parental control).
But it is the books and their presentation that bothers me a bit.
I am not worried tho... I will play D&D with my children. I'll just make sure the books themselves are off-limits for them until later. I'll be their first DM anyway
Now, I don't pretend that to mean, that D&D shouldn't have combat. It is possible to play a game of D&D without any combat, but that makes the game a little bit unusual to say the least. I assume that if you decide to play D&D with your children, you're fine with letting them play a game that includes combat.
However, I think presentation is the key for a children-friendly product. That includes both description and illustration.
Personally, I think D&D could be better in terms of description, but are still a long way to being children-friendly in terms of illustration.
---
In terms of description, if they wanted to be more children friendly, all that would be needed is to avoid the details. Avoid describing injuries in details, avoid descriptions of pain, disease and poison effects... normally this is not a big issues, but occasionally some authors have indulged in needless details of a spell's effects, that could have been left to the imagination.
Still related to description, one thing that would really help, would be to put a simple rule (at least in the Basic game) that whenever a character/monster drops to 0 HP, the DM (or the player) decides exactly what happens: it doesn't have to die, maybe it's just knocked-out, maybe the player chooses to capture it, maybe it flees... the DM can even rule that the "end" is a comic relief effect (maybe the evil eye drops his pants and runs away in shame). In all cases, in a children's game the effect is the same: the PCs win the adventure (or the fight, at least)!
The only criticism possible for such rule, is that the consequences of different "defeats" can be very different. A fleeing foe or a captured foe, is not necessarily defeated forever, not-killing is usually a non-efficient solution. This is however something I do not want to teach my children! It's a very military mindset that is acceptable in a real war, but it is not something you want your children to have in mind when they are still growing up, and may not be able to understand that it's very different in a normal civilized context! All in all, this is a very adult theme IMO, and anyway a child is not going to raise this sort of criticism.
---
In terms of illustration, first of all just avoid gory details in the Basic books. Monsters are rarely a problem, unless a particularly frightening image is used. But blood, wounds, severed body parts could be so easily avoided... and really there is little reason to have them illustrated for adults too.
Then there is of course the sexualization of characters. This is where D&D is currently really coming short, and largely unsuitable for children. It doesn't matter that images aren't explicit, it's the subtle messages that are non-educational.
I think the 3e corebooks were fine with this, there were few sexualized images after all. But later artwork, and most especially artwork in non-WotC books (WotC itself has done overall a much more moderate job than other publishers...), was really bad.
---
In conclusion, I think D&D as a game is totally suitable to children, even of very young age (eventually with some parental control).
But it is the books and their presentation that bothers me a bit.
I am not worried tho... I will play D&D with my children. I'll just make sure the books themselves are off-limits for them until later. I'll be their first DM anyway
Similar Threads
