TOPIC: Time to Revisit Age Policy?

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: I wonder if that means the Sunday True Dungeon Auction might return.

Now that would be a sight to behold!

I would be down to bid on treasure cat

From a volunteers standpoint.


I feel like this discussion has expanded beyond the original point made, one which I understand.

I was a room DM at TDC, and I do remember the baby bard. Said infant was chill, and didn't disrupt room. I don't know how the rest of the dungeon went.

By contrast. Last year at Gencon, someone in our run (A friend of ours actually) had her infant in a carrier, and in the training room the little guy decided to absolutely lose it. Our friend made the correct decision and left the run so the rest of us didn't have to worry about the screaming child.

Now, while I hope MOST parents would do the right thing, you know that there are some who would balk at losing the cost of the ticket, and would insist on continuing. This would not only disrupt the run of the party, but of everyone within earshot of the particular room of the screaming child. It doesn't matter if you bought out the run, the DM of that particular room and all others within a certain radius would be affected.

So. The rule of "No infants or toddlers" seems pretty cut and dry. While we do have one instance from TDC where it was NOT a problem, one particular instance does not speak for the overall issue. It could have just as well not turned out that way.


As far as the actual age limit of 13....we're not a bar or government agency. We don't check ID's or birth certificates. It's like the movie theatres. With the exception of the rare NC-17 movie, they don't do a hard check of IDs, they merely recommend the appropriate age, and can question anyone that they feel doesn't meet the age standard.

At gencon 2016, I encountered a number of "young adventurers" on various runs. Some of them were absolutely great. I'm a horrible judge of age, especially in the dark, some of them may have been younger than 13. But they paid attention, were quick to slide in combat, and were engaging in discussion when it came to puzzles. I had no issue with them.

There were one or two however, that were downright annoying. They occupied my attention during a combat room (I'm pretty sure I had to fudge some of the damage numbers because of it), and in one of the puzzle rooms, they were playing with the props, some of which were required for the solving of the puzzle. I'm pretty sure some of the members of the run weren't amused.


So, since we can't hard check, the only thing that really makes sense to me would be a disclaimer that "We reserve the right to remove anyone from the event, regardless of age, who is being disruptive". Or something to that nature. I wish such a thing weren't necessary, but parents do need to be held accountable for the behavior of their children. Worst case scenario, GMs do have a radio, if there's an issue they can call for backup. I hope we have enough trust in our DMs to be a judge of what's overboard, and what's expected youthly mischief.

This takes age out of the question, and also covers the situation of any adults that come in sloshed from the bar, who get disruptive in that manner.

Leave age out of it. If the kid looks reasonably close to 13, trust the parents unless otherwise obvious. Keep it to a matter of behavior, and no one gets unnecessarily blocked.

Adam Pillari wrote: From a volunteers standpoint.


I feel like this discussion has expanded beyond the original point made, one which I understand.

I was a room DM at TDC, and I do remember the baby bard. Said infant was chill, and didn't disrupt room. I don't know how the rest of the dungeon went.

By contrast. Last year at Gencon, someone in our run (A friend of ours actually) had her infant in a carrier, and in the training room the little guy decided to absolutely lose it. Our friend made the correct decision and left the run so the rest of us didn't have to worry about the screaming child.

Now, while I hope MOST parents would do the right thing, you know that there are some who would balk at losing the cost of the ticket, and would insist on continuing. This would not only disrupt the run of the party, but of everyone within earshot of the particular room of the screaming child. It doesn't matter if you bought out the run, the DM of that particular room and all others within a certain radius would be affected.

So. The rule of "No infants or toddlers" seems pretty cut and dry. While we do have one instance from TDC where it was NOT a problem, one particular instance does not speak for the overall issue. It could have just as well not turned out that way.


As far as the actual age limit of 13....we're not a bar or government agency. We don't check ID's or birth certificates. It's like the movie theatres. With the exception of the rare NC-17 movie, they don't do a hard check of IDs, they merely recommend the appropriate age, and can question anyone that they feel doesn't meet the age standard.

At gencon 2016, I encountered a number of "young adventurers" on various runs. Some of them were absolutely great. I'm a horrible judge of age, especially in the dark, some of them may have been younger than 13. But they paid attention, were quick to slide in combat, and were engaging in discussion when it came to puzzles. I had no issue with them.

There were one or two however, that were downright annoying. They occupied my attention during a combat room (I'm pretty sure I had to fudge some of the damage numbers because of it), and in one of the puzzle rooms, they were playing with the props, some of which were required for the solving of the puzzle. I'm pretty sure some of the members of the run weren't amused.


So, since we can't hard check, the only thing that really makes sense to me would be a disclaimer that "We reserve the right to remove anyone from the event, regardless of age, who is being disruptive". Or something to that nature. I wish such a thing weren't necessary, but parents do need to be held accountable for the behavior of their children. Worst case scenario, GMs do have a radio, if there's an issue they can call for backup. I hope we have enough trust in our DMs to be a judge of what's overboard, and what's expected youthly mischief.

This takes age out of the question, and also covers the situation of any adults that come in sloshed from the bar, who get disruptive in that manner.

Leave age out of it. If the kid looks reasonably close to 13, trust the parents unless otherwise obvious. Keep it to a matter of behavior, and no one gets unnecessarily blocked.

I tend to agree with this. If the child appears in the ballpark of 13, I'd let it slide. But, per the rules, any babies or toddlers should not be allowed in the Dungeon, whether they have a ticket or are just accompanying their parent or guardian. In that case, it doesn't seem like it's necessary to revisit the policy, just to enforce it.

IMHO, if a parent wishes to perjure him/herself by saying their son/daughter is 13 and is just small for their age, I don't think the volunteers should have to worry about enforcing anything... let it go. They have enough on their mind. Who has identification on ages for their kids? I would hate to have to bring along birth certificates, and having 9 kids, I could just say "this Birth Certificate is that child's", who are they to know without finger prints or photos?

However, a I like the idea of a disclaimer saying something to the effect that "We reserve the right to refuse service or escort out of the event anyone (of any age!) who is being a distraction to our GM's or other players". And then have a policy for the GM's that if they have a concern with someone's behavior, don't confront, just call an AC to take care of it, and keep the party moving.

I am more concerned with my "escaping reality" for a couple hours of fantasy fun... and I would hate to see a GM in an argument with a parent or unruly so-called "adult".

My 12 year old is very mature for his age and wouldn't' be a distraction. However, my word is my honor so I also would not lie saying he was 13 just to get him in the event. But, this is me, and I won't judge other people who would lie, er, exaggerate. That is their prerogative. again, see the "disclaimer".

Last time I took the family to Disney Land, a few of my kids were refused service on a few rides because they were "very slightly" under the required height. I could have put a slice of paper or two in their shoe and then they would be tall enough... but that defeats the purpose of the reason they have those requirements -- SAFETY.

I feel the rules are there for both safety of the participants AND enhancing the enjoyment for all... including the DM's.

I don't care how well behaved an infant would be... that is just too much. Sorry parents!

That's what I'm saying. I don't want to be an age police. If the kid is being cooperative, playing well with the rest of the group, their age doesn't matter. Since we can't enforce the age outside of the obvious, you can only base it on behavior.

Adam Pillari wrote: That's what I'm saying. I don't want to be an age police. If the kid is being cooperative, playing well with the rest of the group, their age doesn't matter. Since we can't enforce the age outside of the obvious, you can only base it on behavior.

Are you saying you think there should be no age limit, even for a baby or toddler?

Adam, as my father would say, "if you want an argument, change the subject!" LOL!!!

No, really, I agree with you!

Lets enjoy the game! Encourage honesty! Like Jeff said elsewhere, "Gamer's will game the system".

It is too bad Jeff keeps having to create rules to stop gaming the system, which I feels means taking advantage of a good thing.

I don't think Adam was saying that...

He wrote:

"Leave age out of it. If the kid looks reasonably close to 13, trust the parents unless otherwise obvious. Keep it to a matter of behavior, and no one gets unnecessarily blocked."

Nothing about someone looking obviously WAY younger than 13.

GM's, and any volunteer for that matter, have much better things to do...

Mike Steele wrote:

Adam Pillari wrote: That's what I'm saying. I don't want to be an age police. If the kid is being cooperative, playing well with the rest of the group, their age doesn't matter. Since we can't enforce the age outside of the obvious, you can only base it on behavior.

Are you saying you think there should be no age limit, even for a baby or toddler?

If you see my first post, no, that's not what I'm saying. Infants and toddlers shouldn't be in there. I'm saying that if they look reasonably close to 13 or older, we trust the word of the parent as to their maturity level. Example: I doubt I could tell the difference between a 11, 12, or 13 year old. If they act appropriately for the run, then I don't need to be able to tell the difference.

FYI, 12 year olds are allowed per the coach's guide. Younger than 12 are not.

See my post #3 in the thread for the wording.

Just thought I'd mention it because 13 was brought up multiple times.

Adam Pillari wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Adam Pillari wrote: That's what I'm saying. I don't want to be an age police. If the kid is being cooperative, playing well with the rest of the group, their age doesn't matter. Since we can't enforce the age outside of the obvious, you can only base it on behavior.

Are you saying you think there should be no age limit, even for a baby or toddler?

If you see my first post, no, that's not what I'm saying. Infants and toddlers shouldn't be in there. I'm saying that if they look reasonably close to 13 or older, we trust the word of the parent as to their maturity level. Example: I doubt I could tell the difference between a 11, 12, or 13 year old. If they act appropriately for the run, then I don't need to be able to tell the difference.

In that case we're in agreement.

Ah, then redact 13 for 12.

Either way. If I can't tell they're younger, especially in terms of behavior and maturity, I'm not going to card them, as it were.