gateway game for little people

i realised i didnt go into detail on the cards (and i only have a rough paper prototype so no pics yet).

they are all very simple and similar.
they all have the safe option of +y points (y= the face showing on the small die)

stone cards add/take points depending on the state of the tower "+y. +1 per wood in this tower,-2 per metal in this tower"

wood cards add/take depending on the card above them
"y x2, if the card above is red. if not this card is worth 0 points"

metal cards add/take depending on the outcome of the small dice "y x3 if even. -y if odd"

glass cards have instant effects. before drawing the next card " re roll the lowest value die in this column"

ok lets see if i can make it a little clearer (hopefully)
a (rather pointless) 0 player game would be completely random (monkey dice decide everything).

a solo/monkey game would be a human doing 1 action (ie placing) and the monkey doing the other (ie choosing)

if you have a very small child they can roll the dice- admittedly this isn't really playing but preschool children are stupid and think snakes and ladders is a game of skill (at least if they win). so a child this young is just a randomiser.

a true solo game would just be a human deciding everything, like a game of patients. a child can do this easily enough (depending on age) but might need a little help with reading if they are preschoolers just so they know what they are gambling.

in a 2 player game with an adult and a child the child makes meaningful decisions (where to place or weather to gamble) but the adult can take advantage of or mitigate the results.
a small childs choice probably wont be the best move, but it won't be as random as a dice roll.
i know my niece would gamble most of the time because she doesn't understand probability. so if i am placing first i would try to put it in a place to win the gamble, but if she was placing she would make pretty patterns regardless of how i play so i need to take this into account when i choose to gamble. (when they are older and playing games they are considered big and it becomes more co-opertive)

my reasoning for the game is for an adult it is harder to predict a child than fixed odds but still with some "logic". for a child the fun is "helping" even if they are more of a hinderence.

the child doesn't need to be able to read to play with an adult because the adult can read. they would if they are playing alone, but then they are considered "big" for game purposes.
i will add the rule "no big human alpha gaming- you may read for your child but may not make decicions."

i hope this clears it up a little

i think my problem is that kids have an annoying tendency to grow up, and I'll admit im only an uncle.
i was trying to build a game that:

can be "played" by a very young child (2 years old) by just rolling. no real input but helping

can be played by a preschooler (under 5). old enough to understand rules and taking turns with a basic understanding of risk/reward. kids this age can play stratergy games but, for most, planning ahead and being consistant (i dont think thats the word i mean) is difficult.- a 5 year old can learn how the chess pieces move but they are unlikely to be a challenge to beat

after school age (5+) they should be able to read (altohough some help could be needed if they're still just starting) and their strategy should improve, at which point the game switches to a much less random game.

i think some of the confusion in my explanation is i have made to much of the age/reading ability of the child.
to summarize: if they're to young to understand they can roll a random dice (no real input but helping) once they do understand they can play just like an adult. the more they understand the less the adult has to augment/compensate the childs bad choices.

maybe its better to say its a solo game (with a helper) until they are school age then its a co-op.