Laptops at the table..and recent research showing how bad it is in education..does it carry over to gaming?

[Zhaleskra]

Anyway, we use electronics at our table. At any given time, someone at the table is answering text messages and phone calls from work, spouses, kids, friends, and others. The game isn't that important to introduce conflict. I feel lucky that as busy adults we even find the time to get together and play for 4 hours given all the craziness in our lives.

I take the opposite side on the socialization: we're at the game to interact with the people present. As far as I'm concerned, unless it's an emergency your spouse or kids should not be calling, IMing, or texting you while you're at the game. Same opinion for friends. The game is the important reason for being together for me. While there is some bull, once we get going, I prefer that concentration be on the game. This is part of the reason I was originally opposed the ides of both the "casual" and "hardcore" gamers.

 

[Lwaxy]

Now do both switching from one to another (1-A-2-B-3-C, etc).

For most people it takes longer to switch between tasks than doing each task individually and switching between tasks usually generates more errors in the process.

The reason this happens is because you know both the alphabet and numbers by heart. You might as well ask someone to recite Shakespeare and Schiller that way, same result. It is a lot harder to change with stuff you always do the same way.

Now if you do the same with having them read words from two different groups, something they don't know all their lives, I doubt it would take that much longer.

 

[sheadunne]

The reason this happens is because you know both the alphabet and numbers by heart. You might as well ask someone to recite Shakespeare and Schiller that way, same result. It is a lot harder to change with stuff you always do the same way.

Now if you do the same with having them read words from two different groups, something they don't know all their lives, I doubt it would take that much longer.

Length of time isn't that significant between switching groups (we're not talking hours here it's just ABC, 123), it's the errors generated because the individuals are focused on two different tasks simultaneously (and there will be errors, that's the point of the example). The error between saying G instead of H doesn't take much time to fix, compared to the errors generated when writing a term paper and texting six friends, while watching Game of Thrones. Each of those tasks individually will result in less errors and less time will be taking correcting those errors. The person won't have to rewatch GoT because they missed a death scene or rewrite two paragraphs because they mis-quoted their source, or apologize to their GF because they texted the wrong message to her instead of his friend.

The example is merely to show that even doing two simple tasks together will result in errors, while I doubt a single person will mess up on the counting or ABCs individually.

Now with entertainment (playing D&D and texting your friend), does it really matter if errors are generated? Or that it takes a few minutes longer to resolve your turn during combat? Not particularly, at least for me and those I tend to game with. If someone was trying to write a business report while playing D&D, I'd probably advise him against it. The same with a call from the significant other or an important client. Step outside and resolve it, then come back to the table. We're not going anywhere.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I take the opposite side on the socialization: we're at the game to interact with the people present. As far as I'm concerned, unless it's an emergency your spouse or kids should not be calling, IMing, or texting you while you're at the game. Same opinion for friends. The game is the important reason for being together for me. While there is some bull, once we get going, I prefer that concentration be on the game. This is part of the reason I was originally opposed the ides of both the "casual" and "hardcore" gamers.

That introduces conflict, though, as he said. If someone is only allowed to come to your game if they forswear communication with their SO/kids/employer/employees etc. unless it is an "emergency", that potentially puts them in conflict with those people, and gives them a pretty good reason not to come, when, in actuality, the trouble/distraction caused is likely minor at most.

Concentration being largely on the game is not incompatible with some other activities. Only if you require total exclusivity is that the case. "Hardcore" is a good term for that, because that's using it in the same way as "Hardcore" tends to be used in computer gaming - i.e. for people who put treat the game as a serious job, rather than merely playing for fun (which often involves excluding normal social relationships and so on whilst). Nothing strictly wrong with that, but it's often not practical for busy adults.

 

[gamerprinter]

That introduces conflict, though, as he said. If someone is only allowed to come to your game if they forswear communication with their SO/kids/employer/employees etc. unless it is an "emergency", that potentially puts them in conflict with those people, and gives them a pretty good reason not to come, when, in actuality, the trouble/distraction caused is likely minor at most.

I think I'm the first responder to this thread that used the word "ban" in this conversation regard the use of electronics. I do have to qualify myself, in saying that for a short duration, a few months. A new player to our group that didn't stay a player for more than 3 months operated a pizza place, and required access to his cell phone, for instances when his employees might call for questions to the boss. Despite maintaining a ban, we did allow this person access to his phone, because indeed, when issues with one's business comes up, especially during a game, that person shouldn't be prevented from speaking with employees. So while our group certainly does enforce a ban on electronics - it isn't ironclad. If an individual has some important need - checking status of a sick child in the family, expectations of important news (on a case by case basis), or might need contact from an employee during game, we do allow it only for that individual, while the ban remains enforced for everyone else. We do allow exceptions to the ban, when that is justified - our group's policies aren't unreasonable.

 

[Umbran]

The reason this happens is because you know both the alphabet and numbers by heart.

That amplifies the disparity, so that it becomes obvious in a demonstration that takes 90 seconds. But, the effect is still there.

You might as well ask someone to recite Shakespeare and Schiller that way, same result. It is a lot harder to change with stuff you always do the same way.

Try this as a demonstration, then. Take two books off your shelf at random. Sit them side by side, and copy the first page of each.

In one trial, copy first one page, then the other page.
In the second trial, copy the first line of one page, then the first line of the second. Then the second line of one, and the second line of the other, and so forth.

Or, have the material read aloud, in the same fashion. I can pretty much guarantee you that the second trial will be slower, even after usign the first to familiarize yourself with the texts!

You'll say, "But now it is because they have to switch documents!" Yes. That's part of the point. You have to switch documents and re-find your position when you switch from Facebook to your character sheet, too.

The effect can be made apparent in other ways - create something like a test you'd see in grade school. The first page is a multi-part math problem. The second page is reading comprehension and the following questions.

Now, create a second test - questions are alternated: One bit of the math, one bit of the reading comp. Another bit of math, another bit of reading comp - all on one paper. And again, you'll see the reduced performance in trying to swap between different kinds of tasks, having to refer back to different bases of mental action.

 

[Umbran]

That introduces conflict, though, as he said. If someone is only allowed to come to your game if they forswear communication with their SO/kids/employer/employees etc. unless it is an "emergency", that potentially puts them in conflict with those people, and gives them a pretty good reason not to come, when, in actuality, the trouble/distraction caused is likely minor at most.

See previous statements about being thoughtful about it.

I think we can put away the "absolute complete and utter ban" example away now, please. It is a poor strawman.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

See previous statements about being thoughtful about it.

I think we can put away the "absolute complete and utter ban" example away now, please. It is a poor strawman.

The very fact that people have to ask to be permitted to have things with them that they would have, and have access to, at work and in similar environments, introduces a rather bizarre dynamic, in my opinion, and not one a lot of people would be happy with. It's one thing to say "We ask that people don't play with their phones or watch Youtube during the game", and quite another to say "We ban electronics at the table". Isn't it?

Further, I'm pretty sure some people do run a complete and utter ban, so I'm not sure that's actually a strawman. Certainly computer gamers who use the term "hardcore" operate bans that hard.

 

[Janx]

That introduces conflict, though, as he said. If someone is only allowed to come to your game if they forswear communication with their SO/kids/employer/employees etc. unless it is an "emergency", that potentially puts them in conflict with those people, and gives them a pretty good reason not to come, when, in actuality, the trouble/distraction caused is likely minor at most.

conflict, seems a bit strong of a phrase.

I think, that if you agree to meet me at an event, like a movie, sporting event, bowling alley, D&D game, that you should generally be paying attention to me and the event, not your SO/kids, etc.

To me, that doesn't mean not answering any calls, but it does mean that if your SO calls every ten minutes to ask when you're coming home, you'll be flagged as the hen-pecked eunuch in the group.

Any conflict that arises out of that, is one that already existed in an imbalanced relationship where the SO can't handle having the other one's planned absence.


I think most smart people can handle the concept of "you're here to game" without being hardcore. And they can allow for a business owner needing to deal with issues that come up at work that failing to handle means bad things. And they can handle taking the call to find out your kid just got rushed to the hospital for swalllowing the family dog again.

What most of these kind of rules don't accept is that people need to be texting and facebooking constantly during the game, when we all survived just fine without them 10 years ago.

 

[Janx]

The very fact that people have to ask to be permitted to have things with them that they would have, and have access to, at work and in similar environments, introduces a rather bizarre dynamic, in my opinion, and not one a lot of people would be happy with. It's one thing to say "We ask that people don't play with their phones or watch Youtube during the game", and quite another to say "We ban electronics at the table". Isn't it?

Further, I'm pretty sure some people do run a complete and utter ban, so I'm not sure that's actually a strawman. Certainly computer gamers who use the term "hardcore" operate bans that hard.

I wouldn't assume those things are permitted at all work sites either...

I've been to meetings where laptops were banned because people weren't paying attention to the meeting (this was before smartphones, but after wifi became prevalent).

and we block social media sites categorically on our network at work.

And if I ran a meeting where everybody was always looking at the phones, i'd ban those as well. Probably with a simple "phones on the table" rule.