Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

Favor of the Pharaoh» Forums » General

Subject: 13 and up... why? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
William Wilting
Netherlands
Vught
flag msg tools
This game came in yesterday and I was really looking forward to play it. I started reading everthing in the sheets and the box immediately. And then I became very surprised about the recommended age to play this game.

Literally, my reaction was: "13 and up... Huh?!" I have to say that I neither find the theme of the game violent, horrifying or misunderstandable enough, nor the game itself to difficult to play it with people that are 10, 11 or 12 years old. The age of 8 or 9 would not be appropriate because of the understanding of the combining different effects of tiles, but 13 and up is pretty high.

The pool/deck building mechanism of a game like Dominion is more complicated, but that game is already played by people with ages from 8 and up. I might add that the theme of certain cards in Dominion, especially names like Torturer, Possession, Grave Robber, etc., are more confrontational than the theme in this game.

I'm just very surprised about this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm surprised that anyone here looks at the age ratings on game boxes.

Age ratings tend to be high because the only people who are looking at them are the people who know literally nothing about the game, except, "I want to buy a present for my grandson who is 12." And so publishers are going to bias to higher age ratings because they don't want unhappy people who can't figure out how to play.

It's got nothing to do with anyone who would be a BGG member or poster.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana (IN)
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would honestly say it isn't far off. I think perhaps 9 or 10 might work but only if they are already experienced gamers. Non-gamers I would say 12 is about correct.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Lehmann
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
0616william wrote:
"13 and up... Huh?!"

This is an unfortunate effect of a law passed by the US Congress a few years ago. Games with a lower age range now have to receive much more rigorous safety certification. This can be a lengthy process, involving testing, certification of materials, etc. which can be quite expensive.

So, typically, non-mass market games that might have been listed for ages 10+ previously are now listed for 13+ or 14+.
20 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olli Juhala
Finland
Turku
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's a "secret": in many countries products aimed at younger age groups require additional safety testing to get on the market. These tests incur additional costs on publishers. Stating your game is not aimed at these groups absolves you from those costs, and shifts responsibility to the purchaser should the product cause problems. I don't know if that is a case with Favor, but I do know of cases where the age suggestion on the box *has* been determined by such factors.

EDIT: And I just saw my suspicion confirmed at the post above!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Business--Manufacturing/Business-Educ...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Effectively, the US consumer safety regulators (or perhaps I should say "Congress") believe that 12-year-olds might try to swallow game components, so any game advertised for that age person must be tested to make sure the components aren't harmful if swallowed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eric Brosius wrote:
Effectively, the US consumer safety regulators (or perhaps I should say "Congress") believe that 12-year-olds might try to swallow game components


That's just wrong. The "small parts" rules only apply to products intended for use by infants or toddlers. However, there are a number of other rules that children's products do have to be tested for compliance with.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Wilting
Netherlands
Vught
flag msg tools
That's just hilariously wrong. If 12-year olds would even swallow those parts, of which I find very hard to believe that a single person of that age does, then why wouldn't a 13-year old, or a 16-year old, for that matter. Seems they're just looking for a way to earn money by searching for a reason to complain about something they can accept a law for. Really, are American law enforcers that harsh? What a shame.

There can always be someone that is mentally disordered that COULD do such a thing, but who says he or she WOULD? They too, maybe, if they're 80 years old. Is the law destimulating them to own or play a game like that then? No. This is so awful.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
0616william wrote:
That's just hilariously wrong. If 12-year olds would even swallow those parts, of which I find very hard to believe that a single person of that age does, then why wouldn't a 13-year old, or a 16-year old, for that matter.


Why would you post this AFTER I explained that children's products (not infant/toddler products) are NOT subject to the "small parts" choking test? Did you just not read the thread?

The testing here is for a variety of other issues, such as lead contamination (which would be is a serious issue for children of any age).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olli Juhala
Finland
Turku
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
0616william wrote:
That's just hilariously wrong. If 12-year olds would even swallow those parts, of which I find very hard to believe that a single person of that age does, then why wouldn't a 13-year old, or a 16-year old, for that matter.


Why would you post this AFTER I explained that children's products (not infant/toddler products) are NOT subject to the "small parts" choking test? Did you just not read the thread?

The testing here is for a variety of other issues, such as lead contamination (which would be is a serious issue for children of any age).


Oh I do 't know, I bet manny folks eyes just glaze over your posts.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Wilting
Netherlands
Vught
flag msg tools
Eric Brosius wrote:
Effectively, the US consumer safety regulators (or perhaps I should say "Congress") believe that 12-year-olds might try to swallow game components, so any game advertised for that age person must be tested to make sure the components aren't harmful if swallowed.


This is what my answer was based on, not your explanation.

Especially the word "believe" sounds somehow funny to me (not in a positive manner, I might add). Nothing personal to you, Eric. But if the safety regulators really believe that possibility of 12-year olds tending to swallow game components is that high, then that is the part that I would call "hilariously wrong".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
0616william wrote:
Especially the word "believe" sounds somehow funny to me (not in a positive manner, I might add). Nothing personal to you, Eric. But if the safety regulators really believe that possibility of 12-year olds tending to swallow game components is that high, then that is the part that I would call "hilariously wrong".


Eric wrote this as a denigration of the regulations, so his intended impression is the same one you got. But his facts are wrong.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Geller
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
0616william wrote:
Eric Brosius wrote:
Effectively, the US consumer safety regulators (or perhaps I should say "Congress") believe that 12-year-olds might try to swallow game components, so any game advertised for that age person must be tested to make sure the components aren't harmful if swallowed.


This is what my answer was based on, not your explanation.

Especially the word "believe" sounds somehow funny to me (not in a positive manner, I might add). Nothing personal to you, Eric. But if the safety regulators really believe that possibility of 12-year olds tending to swallow game components is that high, then that is the part that I would call "hilariously wrong".


Well, Eric was just wrong. The swallowing small parts restriction is for age 3 and below.

The "age appropriate" standard is different. There are a lot of other considerations, the application of which I don't really understand. The point is, if you want to classify a game as appropriate for 9-12, you have to show that you meet these requirements (complexity of content, length of time required, etc.). You don't have to classify the game as appropriate for that age, but if you want to do so, you have to make that showing.

It may be stupid, but it doesn't have anything to do with 12-year olds swallowing small parts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shmello50 wrote:
The "age appropriate" standard is different. There are a lot of other considerations, the application of which I don't really understand. The point is, if you want to classify a game as appropriate for 9-12, you have to show that you meet these requirements (complexity of content, length of time required, etc.). You don't have to classify the game as appropriate for that age, but if you want to do so, you have to make that showing.


This is kind of backwards, still. Manufacturers don't want to classify their products as children's products, because then they have to do a bunch of extra testing. The criteria you mention are used in determining whether a product is actually aimed at children. The manufacturer's statement "13 and up" is a factor in the determination, but if the product is obviously intended for children, the manufacturer can't avoid it being classified as a children's product just by putting a "13 and up" label on the box.

BTW, here's a long list of actual testing requirements. Most of these don't apply to board games, but because board games are "toys" some regulations that aren't really aimed at board games do apply to them.

http://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Testing-Certific...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Lehmann
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
The "small parts" rules only apply to products intended for use by infants or toddlers.

I don't believe this is accurate. My understanding is that 16 CFR 1500.19 now groups all toys and games for ages 12 and under into a single category for testing and certification under CPSIA 2008 and its amendments.

Then there are a bunch of additional requirements for a number of specific products (bicycles, helmets, toy chests, pacifiers, etc.)

It didn't used to be this way. Lead was handled separately under various acts until those standards were merged into CPSIA in 2008. Similarly for swallowed objects.

But, now these are all bundled together, along with testing for phthalates.

For more info, see the CPSIA FAQ on the UL website.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Geller
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In case anyone is still interested, my information came from:

https://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/113962/adg.pdf
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tom Lehmann wrote:
I don't believe this is accurate. My understanding is that 16 CFR 1500.19 now groups all toys and games for ages 12 and under into a single category for testing and certification under CPSIA 2008 and its amendments.


I think you have this slightly wrong. Children's products do require testing and certification, but 16 CFR 1500.19 ("Misbranded toys") is not one of the regulations for which testing and certification is required. You can find the list here:

http://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Testing-Certific...

Certification of compliance with 16 CFR 1501 ("Small Parts") is required, but any product not intended for use by children under 3 automatically complies with 1501. 1500 contains rules that apply to all children's products (e.g., if they contain latex balloons there must be a label to that effect, presumably because products used by older children may be left where younger children could get access to them), but, again, it's not on the list of regulations for which third-party testing and certification is required.

As a practical matter, I wouldn't be surprised if the testing and certification firms include that in a single service that they offer for a fixed fee. Obviously, for liability reasons, firms would want to make sure to follow the labeling regulations, even if third-party certification is not strictly required. And looking in the box to see if there are any latex balloons wouldn't add much to the cost.

Maybe this is too much of a tangent, but I've learned a few things.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.