My entries on this blog are going to expand in scope a bit more because my daughter and I are now involved in a Dungeons and Dragons campaign with my husband and his friend. My daughter has played in a RPG prior to this with her father, but as he wrote in his own blog and I reported here a while back, she became very attached to her character and when adventures got intense, she worried, so she stopped playing. My husband's friend will be the GM and my husband, daughter and I each created two characters to play in the adventure, so that if anything happened to any of them, we still had another to play.
Tonight, instead of playing our D&D campaign, the group decided to play the board game Risk 2210 AD. We really like playing Risk and my daughter got interested in it through Risk God Storm and the mythology angle. My daughter came in first (34), my husband in second (30), me in third (9) and the family friend in fourth (8). Our friend brought up a good point - did she win because we refrained from attacking her when we could? Were we soft on her because she's 11 years old? My first response was no, because in Year 5, the final round, I swept in and broke her recently acquired monopoly of Asia and Europe. (She took it back but at least I tried.) I didn't attack her before because she wasn't in the areas I wanted to overthrow. However, does what he suggest have merit? I'll have to think about that the next time we play.