How to make the game exciting for someone playing a child character?

I will be running a game of Dark Ages: Mage for a friend. She says that she has trouble associating herself with a character when the character is immediately thrown into the adventure. After some discussion, I decided to make her play as a ten-year-old character who has recently inherited a barony from her father. I have never run a game with a child character before so I wanted to come here and ask about it.

For clarifications sake. The campaign is set at the principality of Leon in the year of 913. As for the player the player wishes to become a master of intrigue rising up in the ranks of nobility with some warfare added into the mix. Also the player has confirmed the fact that she wanted to play as a child character though she decided to play a male character.

How can I make the game exciting for the player playing that character?

To what extent would using the initiative system from Edge of the Empire in 5e break the game?

I’ve been checking out Star Wars – Edge of the Empire and I really like the initiative system used in it.

… Once all Initiative checks have been made, the CM notes down the results of each check and ranks them in order, from highest number of successes to lowest number of successes.

STEP 2: ASSIGN INITIATIVE SLOTS

Once the GM has determined the Initiative order, he notes which results were generated by Player Characters, and which results were generated by NPCs. The results generated by Player Characters become Player Character Initiative slots. The results generated by NPCs become NPC Initiative slots.

STEP 3: PARTICIPANTS TAKE TURNS

Beginning at the top of the Initiative order, the players and CM fill each Initiative slot one at a time with a character turn. If the Initiative slot is a Player Character Initiative slot, then the players agree on one Player Character to fill the slot from amongst the Player Characters who have not acted that round. That Player Character then takes this turn. If the Initiative slot is an NPC Initiative slot, then the CM chooses one NPC to fill the slot from amongst the NPCs who have not acted that round. That NPC then takes this turn.

In essence, players roll initiative ‘slots’ that can then be used by any player to take their turns each round.

I’m considering implementing this in my 5e campaign, as I’m not a huge fan of the static initiative rules they currently have. Players would roll for initiative as normal, but then would be able to freely choose their turn order within the rolled slots.

I realize this would be a significant step up in power for the PCs, as they would be able to much more consistently pull off synergies between classes that are highly dependent on turn order (eg. barbarian knocks enemy prone and rogue can get the sneak attack before the enemy stands back up), as well as increasing the potential effects of ‘until end of next turn’ features (eg. monk going first on round 1, using stunning strike, then going last on turn 2 so the enemy is effectively stunned for 2 rounds). However, I plan to combat this by having enemies able to use the same system to gain similar advantages.

My aim is to enable tactical choices regarding turn order and initiative, beyond those of the base rules.

Considering the above, to what extent would using this initiative system break/unbalance the game? I’m fine with an overall increase in power level, as I can adjust encounters etc. to suit but I’d like to avoid upsetting the class balance if possible.

Is there any evidence for or against consent forms in game? [on hold]

The new hype this year seems to be consent forms for RPG Sessions. I’m all in on having a safe game, and keeping an eye open for players feeling bad during a game. Therefore, even my Kult sessions are tame because I don’t think that exploitation is a valid way to generate tension. But other people might have different experiences.

In my layman’s view, the consent forms seems to be at least not effective or at most being damaging. If someone is comfortable enough to make their triggers known in an impersonal form, a summary of the possible topics plus a conversation with each player prior to a particularly heavy setting should suffice for the GM that have some grasp of their players (this does not remove the responsibility of keeping and eye open DURING and AFTER the game for any inconveniences or problems).

And if someone ISN’T comfortable filling a form (peer pressure, unresolved traumas, lack of knowledge of what might trigger they, etc), then a session might end up abusing its theme because no one ticked that particular box in the form and the tension that the GM sees in the table they could assume is due to the setting and not something that is triggering a player.

I tried to find something to support or rebuke those ideas, but had no luck. So, if someone has any pointers in that direction, or has some formal training/experience in psychology and trauma, please, chime in.