No Harry Potter RPG?

[wingsandsword]

I can't imagine she's got The Queen beaten on that count.

Believe it, she's much richer than the personal fortune of Queen Elizabeth II.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2979033.stm (A BBC article talking about it)

Now, remember, that's personal fortune. The entire wealth of the UK government isn't counted, just her own wealth, not wealth of the state.

JK Rowling has a fortune worth an estimated £280,000,000
Queen Elizabeth II has a fortune worth an estimated £250,000,000

 

[mhacdebhandia]

You can't imagine . . . correctly . . . I think.

In terms of personal wealth, she beats the Queen easily.

Of course, the Queen has rights of access to a lot of properties which represent a lot of wealth.

 

[Teflon Billy]

JK Rowling has a fortune worth an estimated £280,000,000
Queen Elizabeth II has a fortune worth an estimated £250,000,000

What the...?

I thought land was at a premium in England!

When a flat goes for a million pounds in London, I find it hard to beleive that, say, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle alone couldn't generate more than 250 million.

bizarre.

 

[Teflon Billy]

You can't imagine . . . correctly . . . I think.

In terms of personal wealth, she beats the Queen easily.

Of course, the Queen has rights of access to a lot of properties which represent a lot of wealth.

So you mean not counting all of the queen "non-liquid currency" property, Rowling can out together moe Pound Notes than The Queen?

 

[wingsandsword]

When a flat goes for a million pounds in London, I find it hard to beleive that, say, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle alone couldn't generate more than 250 million.

That's not her personal property. That's her state property.

For example, the Queen couldn't put Buckingham Palace or the Crown Jewels on the market and sell it any more than the President of the US could sell the White House or Air Force One because he was in the mood to.

Technically, she is the Soveriegn and thus everything that is part of the government theoretically belongs to her, but her abilty to treat that as personal property is removed by various acts of Parliament.

That fortune represents assets and accounts that are at her disposal and are not tied to her being the Soveriegn. For example, if she abdicated they are the things she'd still have, or things she could sell/give away without being directly accountable to Parliament.

So you mean not counting all of the queen "non-liquid currency" property, Rowling can out together moe Pound Notes than The Queen?

Yes, roughly 30 million more pounds.

 

[shaylon]

Isn't Harry Potter technically geared toward elementary and middle-school children? If that's the case, in my mind, elementary school children aren't quite developed to really understand RPGs (although they could play a supporting role in other's campaigns with a bit of guidance).

It was geared towards elementary children. She has stated that the novels have gotten darker, and that her audience is growing up. I don't think she intended the last 3 or 4 books for elementary age kids.

I personally would not allow my kid (I don't have kids, if I did, rather) to read past book 3 if they were in elementary school. Middle school, possibly. I think the books are great and I really like the idea that she got kids reading again but the novels are too serious a subject matter. They deal with death, murder, betrayal, and worse in some cases. I'm not sure that an 8 year old is ready to deal with that kind of thing.

All that said I think by the end of elementary school/beginning of middle school rpg's are something that kids can understand and play. They might not get all of the rules completely but they can get a basic game going. We played at that age.

-Shay

 

[Cergorach]

I personally would not allow my kid (I don't have kids, if I did, rather) to read past book 3 if they were in elementary school. Middle school, possibly. I think the books are great and I really like the idea that she got kids reading again but the novels are too serious a subject matter. They deal with death, murder, betrayal, and worse in some cases. I'm not sure that an 8 year old is ready to deal with that kind of thing.

Why not let them deal with such concepts in terms they can understand? The'll hear about them anyway from the conversations they pick up from their elders, with the difference that it's not explained, nor does good triumph over evil...

 

[Ripzerai]

Kids are ready for more than you give them credit for. Children's stories used to be a lot more bloody and violent before adults started getting so overprotective.

The relationship and dating parts of the later Harry Potter books might be a bit over some young childrens' heads, though, at least the boys.

 

[ZombieButch]

Kids are ready for more than you give them credit for.

I think the emotional level of children varies more than you're taking into account.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

I think the HP books are a perfect way to introduce these concepts to children and adolecents.

First off, these ideas (murder, betrayle, evil) arent really thrown in there face like your average fantasy story or movie.

Yes the first book starts with the death of his parents, but that fact is eased in later on.

The gradual increase of seriousness and maturity in the books are the perfect way to introduce kids to these ideas and morality and such things. Not only do they latch on to a favorite character (Harry, Hermione, Ron, Albus, Hagrid, etc) but these characters and their actions/mistakes/ideals make them very clear role models that the kids learn from.

If you ask me, I'll be reading the HP series to my own kids by the time they are in Kindergarden. Hopefully by the time they can read big books on their own I'll be able to hand them off so they read them to me :-D