Learn Hardcore German: Am Lagerfeuer erzählen wir Geschichten, und die Kleinen rösten Brot über der Flamme. - At the campfire we tell stories, and the little ones roast bread over the flames.

Im Lagerfeuer: in the campfire – this would suggest you are inside the fire; that’s wrong.
Beim Lagerfeuer: from bei dem, “near / by the campfire.” This is not impossible, but am Lagerfeuer is the idiomatic phrase for the situation of sitting around a campfire.

So am Lagerfeuer is the natural, idiomatic way to say “at the campfire” in German.

What exactly is am grammatically?

am is a contraction:

an + dem → am

Details:

an is a two-way preposition (Wechselpräposition) that can take dative (location, “where?”) or accusative (direction, “where to?”).
Here it’s location: an + dem Lagerfeuer → am Lagerfeuer.
Lagerfeuer is neuter: das Lagerfeuer. Dative singular neuter is dem Lagerfeuer, so an dem contracts to am.

So am here means “at the” with dative.

Why does the sentence start with Am Lagerfeuer instead of Wir erzählen?

German main clauses follow the verb-second rule (V2):

The finite verb (here: erzählen) must be in second position in the sentence.
The first position can be filled by different elements for emphasis or style: subject, time phrase, place phrase, etc.

Two correct versions:

Wir erzählen am Lagerfeuer Geschichten …
Am Lagerfeuer erzählen wir Geschichten …

Both are grammatical. The difference is emphasis:

Wir erzählen ... → slightly more focus on we.
Am Lagerfeuer erzählen wir ... → sets the scene first; more focus on at the campfire.

The sentence chooses the second version to highlight the setting.

Why is Geschichten used without any article?

Geschichten is the plural of Geschichte (story).

In German, indefinite plural nouns often appear without an article when talking in a general or non-specific way:

Wir erzählen Geschichten. = “We tell stories.” (some stories, stories in general)
Compare:
- Wir erzählen die Geschichten. = “We tell the stories.” (specific stories already known)
- Wir erzählen keine Geschichten. = “We don’t tell any stories.”

So Geschichten without an article here means “stories (in general), some stories”, not a particular set of stories.

What does die Kleinen mean exactly, and why is Kleinen capitalized?

die Kleinen literally = “the little ones”.

Grammar points:

klein is originally an adjective: kleine Kinder = “small children.”
In die Kleinen, the adjective is nominalized – it is used as a noun.
In German, nouns and nominalized adjectives are capitalized, so: die Kleinen.

Meaning:

In context, die Kleinen usually refers to small children.
It’s a common, affectionate way to say “the little ones / the kids”.

Form:

die = definite article, nominative plural.
Kleinen = adjective with -en ending in the weak declension pattern after a definite article in the plural (same form in nominative and accusative plural: die Kleinen).

Why is Kleinen ending in -en and not kleine?

Because it behaves like an adjective after a definite article (even though the noun is omitted):

With a noun: die kleinen Kinder (the little children)
Without the noun (nominalized): die Kleinen (the little ones)

In the weak declension after a definite article:

Plural nominative: die kleinen Kinder
Plural accusative: die kleinen Kinder

When the noun is dropped, the adjective keeps the same ending:

die kleinen (Kinder) → die Kleinen

So -en is the normal ending in this pattern.

Why is Brot also used without an article?

Brot is often a mass noun in German, like “bread” in English.

With mass nouns, you frequently omit the article for a non-specific amount:

Wir essen Brot. = “We eat bread.”
Sie trinken Wasser. = “They drink water.”

Here:

die Kleinen rösten Brot = “the little ones roast bread” (some bread, pieces of bread).

You could add an article in special cases:

Sie rösten das Brot über der Flamme. = “They roast the bread over the flame.” (a specific loaf/piece of bread already known)
Sie rösten ein Brot. = “They roast a (whole) loaf of bread.”

But for the general activity, Brot without an article is natural.

Does rösten mean the same as English “to roast”? Could you also say grillen here?

rösten and English “to roast” have overlap, but usage differs a bit.

rösten in German:
- to roast / toast by dry heat, often from above or from an open fire.
- common with: Kaffee rösten (roast coffee), Nüsse rösten (roast nuts), Brot rösten (toast bread).
grillen:
- to grill / barbecue, usually on a grill.
- common with meat or sausages: Würstchen grillen, Fleisch grillen.

In this context:

Brot über der Flamme rösten fits very well: you hold bread over an open flame to toast it.
Brot über der Flamme grillen sounds less typical; grillen suggests a grill rather than just the flame.

So rösten is the best verb here.

Why is it über der Flamme and not über die Flamme?

über is a two-way preposition (Wechselpräposition) and can take:

dative for location (where?)
accusative for direction / movement (where to?)

Here, the bread is held above the flame, not moved to a new position:

Brot über der Flamme rösten → dative, static location: “roast bread over the flame (located above it).”

If there were movement to a point above the flame, it would be accusative:

Er hält das Brot über die Flamme. = “He moves/holds the bread (down) over the flame.” (focus on moving it into position)

In your sentence, the focus is on the position during roasting, so dative: über der Flamme is correct.

Why do we see der in über der Flamme, even though Flamme is feminine?

Because der here is dative singular feminine.

Declension of die Flamme:

Nominative: die Flamme
Accusative: die Flamme
Dative: der Flamme
Genitive: der Flamme

So in über der Flamme, we have:

über
- dative (location) → der Flamme.
That’s why der appears; it’s the correct dative form of the feminine article.

Could we say über dem Feuer instead of über der Flamme? Is there a difference?

Yes, you could say über dem Feuer, and it would be understandable and natural.

Nuance:

über der Flamme focuses on the visible flame itself – the little ones are holding the bread right above the actual flame.
über dem Feuer is a bit more general – “above the fire,” including the hot area; maybe not as close to the visible flame.

Both are fine; über der Flamme just paints a slightly more vivid, concrete image of the bread over the flickering flame.

What is Lagerfeuer exactly? Is it just Lager + Feuer?

Yes, Lagerfeuer is a compound noun:

Lager = camp
Feuer = fire
Lagerfeuer = campfire

Grammar:

Gender: neuter – das Lagerfeuer
Dative singular: dem Lagerfeuer → contracted with an to am Lagerfeuer
Plural: die Lagerfeuer (same form in singular and plural; article changes)

It is the standard word for a campfire in German.

Why is there a comma before und in this sentence? Is it necessary?

The sentence has two main clauses:

Am Lagerfeuer erzählen wir Geschichten
die Kleinen rösten Brot über der Flamme

They are joined by und.

In standard written German:

A comma is normally used between two independent main clauses joined by und, especially when they have different subjects (wir vs. die Kleinen).
So: Am Lagerfeuer erzählen wir Geschichten, und die Kleinen rösten Brot über der Flamme.

Using the comma here is correct and recommended in formal writing.