Matthew Hayward wrote: Allowing children accompanied by a guardian to play TD is not the same as asking volunteers to babysit.
I don't think TD should ask volunteers to babysit.
I guess this is the locust of our disagreement. Perhaps it would have been clearer if your post had just said: "I think whenever someone under age X is in the dungeon it is equivalent to asking volunteers to babysit, and volunteers shouldn't babysit, please let me know if you agree."
Okay.
I think whenever someone under age X is in the dungeon it is equivalent to asking volunteers to babysit, and volunteers shouldn't babysit, please let me know if you agree or disagree.
As one example, a few years ago a well-known forumite brought their underage child for a run (but they bought out the run, so
of course it was okay!).
Just like in Druegar's movie anecdote, the child was incredibly irritating because they were constantly asking me (the DM) questions. The child also had a "look at me! look at me!" mentality and constantly wanted to be the center of attention. It was extremely frustrating and distracting, and I wasn't able to give the rest of the group the full attention they deserved as a result. It definitely felt like babysitting to me!
My comment about you having the wrong perspective related to your assessment that TD could only change age rules with the consent of the volunteers.
I maintain that volunteers do not have veto power over TD's age restrictions.
I maintain that people who think TD must get permission from their volunteers before changing age attendance policies have the wrong perspective on that issue.
I'm not saying that volunteers should have "veto power". What I *am* saying is:
Before volunteers are chosen (or applications submitted), TD is welcome to unilaterally change the rules or guidelines. People are then aware of those before deciding whether or not to volunteer.
Once volunteers are confirmed, if TD changes any rules or guidelines that affect the scope of the volunteering duties, then volunteers should be allowed to withdraw or modify their volunteer commitment because TD has changed the initial working terms.
It gets more complicated if TD wants to change rules or guidelines at the actual con. I don't think any volunteers should be forced to do something they are not comfortable with or did not agree to do (especially because, you know, they are "volunteers"). If TD wants them to do something that is outside the scope of what was originally agreed upon, the volunteer should be allowed the opportunity to withdraw (though that may make things complex with free badge, hotel room, and other compensation) because TD is changing the terms. It would be like bait-and-switch.
This is especially relevant because TD's own explicit policies establish an Age Limit and specifically state that "Infants & toddlers are absolutely not allowed to go in the dungeon." Also, DM training emphasizes "consistency."
I am not a lawyer, but there theoretically could be liability issues if TD is not abiding by its own policies and rules.
I broadly agree with your assessments of the impacts children can have on people around them. However I think your demonization of parents (self-centered, narrow-minded) is beside the point and unhelpful to your argument to boot. We should argue policy based on its impact on the game, not on the negative character traits of the players.
As I've argued before, it *is* self-centered and narrow-minded to think "as long as my group is okay with it, then it's okay to do it" precisely because it is not considering the perspectives of anyone outside of your group.
I feel slightly differently about babies who are carried. I think it's OK to permit this, under the clear understanding that if the baby begins to cry or be disruptive the guardian and baby will be escorted out with no refund. It might be too much hassle to administer such a program for the benefit it's going to bring.
If there are kids or babies on the run, should the rest of the party members be forced to moderate their language? For example, no adult topics, no "swearing," no talk of violence, no talk of religion, etc.
You can't talk about religion in front of babies?
Players should behave within some reasonable bounds of decorum at all times. The presence of a baby changes nothing.
Uh, young children might not be able to handle discussion of the afterlife (or whether there is one or whether there exists some sort of punishment for bad people). Or some parents might not want their children exposed to beliefs other than their own.
In TDC, we had DEATH show up in the final room. You wanna explain DEATH to some little kids? That'll be fun to watch!
Apparently, nowadays, even some innocuous comments about the non-existence of Santa / Easter Bunny / Tooth Fairy could end up "horribly scarring some kids for life." (Here's another case where I'd love to use that eye-rolling red panda emoticon).
You are setting up and knocking down a straw man.
If you read the comment you quoted, you can see my comments pertain to babies who are carried.
No one proposed a workshop where the existential realities of death and speculation about the nature of the afterlife is discussed with small children except you. I think we can all agree that would be a bad idea.
Well, you didn't address my broader point (about both kids and babies, and about many types of language, not just religion). So I didn't know what you meant by "You can't talk about religion in front of babies?"
This is a genuine question: Is it okay to swear in front of babies, especially because they probably won't understand it? Is it okay to maturely talk about adult topics in front of either babies or young children?
Your comment was simply about "behave[ing] within some reasonable bounds of decorum" but there are plenty of adult discussions that can be had within the bounds of decorum, that nonetheless would not be appropriate for young children (or possibly babies) to hear.
