L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Perhaps. But I would likely *position* it differently. See above - I was not going to run a game in which 13-year-olds end up on the wrong side of the moral argument. If I'm going to present the non-combatants as a challenge to kids, I'd position it clearly as a, "Well, nuts, you have to get around this without hurting anyone."
Heck, in games for my adults, if the PCs choose the wrong side of the moral argument, they are apt to be treated by the world like the monsters they have become - meaning that they have made it moral and ethical for others to kill the PCs and take their stuff!
So why did you assume this was the reason behind the discomfort? If it wasn't?
I think kids could also handle consequences to their actions, if they make a questionable choice.
Makes me wonder if you actually understand the arguments in this thread, or in that other one that shall not be named. .
Also others on the thread brought up this topic so figured might as well weigh in on that point.
I think this question deserves some refining.
Also, because DMs don't reward non-combat solutions or situations.
One other problem I encountered when running RPGs for 5 year olds, is that the players (my children) refused to make choices that would put them in danger. If a house in the neighborhood was said to be haunted, well that was more than sufficient reason not to go into a run down house. Besides, going into an abandoned house was dangerous in itself, and it was trespassing.
Sanitized violence has been acceptable for a long time. Most parents don't have a problem with their kids watching hordes of Storm Troopers mowed down in Star Wars but they might have a problem with those same kids watching John Wick 3.
I'm just ... curious ... as to what other people think. I mean, I understand WHY (IMO) violence is part of the scene (legacy of wargaming, advancement through XP, fantasy tropes, etc.), but I'm curious as to what people think of it now?