Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9388643" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, whatever.When I was talking about &quot;new players&quot; I was thinking generally along the lines of &quot;new to my table&quot; and not necessarily whether they've played the game before.&nbsp; I have probably had 50 or so players in my time in various groups, short games, and campaigns.&nbsp; Kids are some of the best RPers there are, because they generally only want to play make believe.&nbsp; They are generally better than adults who have been playing RPGs for 10 or 20 years.&nbsp; And if you know the kid - or really any person well -as you would with your daughter, then you can assess whether the reasons for the character are functional or dysfunctional because you know their heart and motives.&nbsp; So sure, with a small child some you know well, you could make an exception to the guidelines that I gave.That said, I taught my kids to play RPGs when they were about 5 years old.&nbsp; I have no idea what age you mean by &quot;young daughter&quot;, but if it's younger than say a precocious 10 year old, a really crunchy game like 3.5e D&amp;D might not be the best introduction to the RPing.&nbsp;&nbsp; You might for example try the SIPS rules that I wrote for my five-year-olds at that age, and even then I find they really are better off with just make believe until they are eight or so.&nbsp;&nbsp; And precisely because they can't figure out how to make the character that they want in a game that crunchy, even at eight or ten or twelve, the process of character creation for a kid that young needs to be guided because something like 3.5e D&amp;D has &quot;Challenge&quot; as a principle aesthetic of play and well, you really should be helping that player put themselves on a sound footing to overcome challenges.&nbsp; And that said, I have a 600 page house rule document for 3.x D&amp;D that I think I could use to help a 10 year old make just about any character that they wanted which did not break the rule that your concept can't be about being impressive -&nbsp; promising and talented is just fine but impressive is something in D&amp;D you earn through play.&nbsp; So, I had a first time player say to me, &quot;I want to ride a dinosaur that shoots lasers out of their eyes.&quot;, and I said, &quot;Ok, so unlike some games, you can't start as a character in this game that has a dinosaur that shoots lasers from their eyes, but what I can do is show you how to make a character that can tame dinosaurs.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp; And in some games like a supers game or Monsters and Other Childish things, a character that rides a dinosaur that shoots lasers from its eyes might be perfectly appropriate as a starting character.&nbsp; But, you aren't under any obligation as a GM to try to accommodate any request to be any sort of character, and indeed I would say that part of your duty as a GM that is teaching a new player of any age is how to create appropriate characters to the game and setting.&nbsp; There isn't nothing wrong with a bit of reasonable gatekeeping and reasonable judgement.&nbsp; Every community has to exercise that.&nbsp;&nbsp; It keeps everyone at the table happier in the long run.&nbsp;&nbsp; I really hate that word &quot;gatekeeping&quot; because as a term of art people keep missing what's important about it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Gatekeeping is a fine and necessary thing, the important point that was trying to be made is that when gatekeeping you shouldn't discriminate on the basis of categories like gender, race, and so forth which are not reasonable basis for judgment and discrimination.&nbsp; But sometimes you just have to tell a player, &quot;That's a fine and creative idea for a character, but it doesn't fit this game or setting.&quot; or even, &quot;That character would be perfectly fine in a story where they were the principle character in the story, but I don't see how that character is going to work in a story of a group where no one in the group is the main character.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9388643, member: 4937"] Ok, whatever. When I was talking about "new players" I was thinking generally along the lines of "new to my table" and not necessarily whether they've played the game before. I have probably had 50 or so players in my time in various groups, short games, and campaigns. Kids are some of the best RPers there are, because they generally only want to play make believe. They are generally better than adults who have been playing RPGs for 10 or 20 years. And if you know the kid - or really any person well -as you would with your daughter, then you can assess whether the reasons for the character are functional or dysfunctional because you know their heart and motives. So sure, with a small child some you know well, you could make an exception to the guidelines that I gave. That said, I taught my kids to play RPGs when they were about 5 years old. I have no idea what age you mean by "young daughter", but if it's younger than say a precocious 10 year old, a really crunchy game like 3.5e D&D might not be the best introduction to the RPing. You might for example try the SIPS rules that I wrote for my five-year-olds at that age, and even then I find they really are better off with just make believe until they are eight or so. And precisely because they can't figure out how to make the character that they want in a game that crunchy, even at eight or ten or twelve, the process of character creation for a kid that young needs to be guided because something like 3.5e D&D has "Challenge" as a principle aesthetic of play and well, you really should be helping that player put themselves on a sound footing to overcome challenges. And that said, I have a 600 page house rule document for 3.x D&D that I think I could use to help a 10 year old make just about any character that they wanted which did not break the rule that your concept can't be about being impressive - promising and talented is just fine but impressive is something in D&D you earn through play. So, I had a first time player say to me, "I want to ride a dinosaur that shoots lasers out of their eyes.", and I said, "Ok, so unlike some games, you can't start as a character in this game that has a dinosaur that shoots lasers from their eyes, but what I can do is show you how to make a character that can tame dinosaurs." And in some games like a supers game or Monsters and Other Childish things, a character that rides a dinosaur that shoots lasers from its eyes might be perfectly appropriate as a starting character. But, you aren't under any obligation as a GM to try to accommodate any request to be any sort of character, and indeed I would say that part of your duty as a GM that is teaching a new player of any age is how to create appropriate characters to the game and setting. There isn't nothing wrong with a bit of reasonable gatekeeping and reasonable judgement. Every community has to exercise that. It keeps everyone at the table happier in the long run. I really hate that word "gatekeeping" because as a term of art people keep missing what's important about it. Gatekeeping is a fine and necessary thing, the important point that was trying to be made is that when gatekeeping you shouldn't discriminate on the basis of categories like gender, race, and so forth which are not reasonable basis for judgment and discrimination. But sometimes you just have to tell a player, "That's a fine and creative idea for a character, but it doesn't fit this game or setting." or even, "That character would be perfectly fine in a story where they were the principle character in the story, but I don't see how that character is going to work in a story of a group where no one in the group is the main character." [/QUOTE]

Verification