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

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.

That bolded bit seems rather extremely sexist and kind of nasty. Not sure how to address that.

When I've been bowling, or to sporting events, people have mostly certainly been on their cellphones, tablets and so on. Not constantly, but many people regularly check their texts, make texts, pull up other match results (including footage), or even comment regularly on Twitter. So that seems like it rather undermines the argument. Movies are obviously a different matter, because quiet-ness/silence is required.

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.

I don't think you need a formal ban or "phones on the table" or "no laptops" or anything approaching that, though, if you are dealing with smart, reasonable people. I mean, no-one starts playing Youtube stuff at my table, or Facebook-checking, but I've never had to say "Youtube is banned!" or the like, and would be uncomfortable if I came to group and they had a bunch of "Don't do this, don't bring that..."-type deals.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I don't think you need a formal ban or "phones on the table" or "no laptops" or anything approaching that, though, if you are dealing with smart, reasonable people.

Ah. So, common sense is actually common in your area? :)

I mean, no-one starts playing Youtube stuff at my table, or Facebook-checking, but I've never had to say "Youtube is banned!" or the like

"I don't need it, so you don't need it?" Is that your argument? Your personal experience hasn't required it, so nobody else has a call for it?

and would be uncomfortable if I came to group and they had a bunch of "Don't do this, don't bring that..."-type deals.

Where did the "bunch of" come from?

Are you sure you're arguing against what we are talking about? Or are you inflating it into the worst version you can imagine, and arguing against that?
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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.

First off, it isn't "have things with them". It is "use at the table". I don't care if your laptop is in your backpack, and your smartphone is in your pocket.

Some years ago, my mother came to visit me in Boston. I had to ask her to not smoke in my apartment. She was used to smoking at home all the time, and it didn't occur to her that my home might now be different. But when I asked her, she didn't make a big deal out of it. She didn't ask me to justify the rule at length, didn't question my right to make it. Even though it meant having to overcome the pangs of a mildly addictive substance, she held to it, and went outside when she wanted to smoke. There was nothing "bizarre" about this - it was a simple request, and she complied without problems.

If there's something bizarre, it is the sense of entitlement behind the idea that a host or organizer cannot set some basic ground rules. Because, OMG, how horrible it is to be asked to live without your smartphone or laptop for a few hours!
 

Ah. So, common sense is actually common in your area? :)

Amazingly so, it is albeit only in certain ways!

"I don't need it, so you don't need it?" Is that your argument? Your personal experience hasn't required it, so nobody else has a call for it?

Not quite, I'm just responding to the "smart people" element of the argument, wherein he appeared to be saying "smart people" had no problem following such a ban - my response is that, equally, in my experience with "smart people", my experience is that they don't need such a ban at all.

(I'm taking "smart people" to mean "businesslike people" more than "intelligent people" from the context here.)

I guess for me such a formal ban might look like a warning sign that a group potentially had other issues (also, if they didn't make an allowance for me and my ADHD, I'd certainly be all "BYE!", because I went long enough with people denying that was an issue! But I suspect most would).

Where did the "bunch of" come from?

Are you sure you're arguing against what we are talking about? Or are you inflating it into the worst version you can imagine, and arguing against that?

I can't be sure-sure of anything, I can only go on what's been said. Some people appeared to be suggesting they had strict bans on electronics, and/or on some kinds of behaviour. Obviously I can't tell how seriously to take that. If that's not actually happening, well, good! :)

First off, it isn't "have things with them". It is "use at the table". I don't care if your laptop is in your backpack, and your smartphone is in your pocket.

Some years ago, my mother came to visit me in Boston. I had to ask her to not smoke in my apartment. She was used to smoking at home all the time, and it didn't occur to her that my home might now be different. But when I asked her, she didn't make a big deal out of it. She didn't ask me to justify the rule at length, didn't question my right to make it. Even though it meant having to overcome the pangs of a mildly addictive substance, she held to it, and went outside when she wanted to smoke. There was nothing "bizarre" about this - it was a simple request, and she complied without problems.

If there's something bizarre, it is the sense of entitlement behind the idea that a host or organizer cannot set some basic ground rules. Because, OMG, how horrible it is to be asked to live without your smartphone or laptop for a few hours!

See, I would definitely describe equating smoking a noxious, cancer-causing, addictive substance which can permanently damage furniture and/or stink out the place and/or set off alarms with "using a laptop or smartphone during a gaming session" as "bizarre".

That seems like two completely different categories of things. Saying they're the same is precisely the sort thing which would make me think "Uh-oh..." about a group.

We have a player who smokes - he goes outside to smoke - that is far more disruptive than all devices ever.

If someone is taking a phone call of more than a few seconds, they're likely to leave the room, for obvious reasons, but we don't ban them from having the phone out to take the call, or ban them from reading texts or the like. That's not disruptive, in my experience.

By the way, I didn't say that the host wasn't entitled to, did I? I shouldn't have, if so. I'm saying that I find it odd and slightly concerning that they would feel the need to go that far. I have a group where half the players use dice-rollers on their phones/tablets, and two use virtual character sheets. This causes less disruption, as noted, than the smoker (I can't think of a session in the last few months where we didn't have to decide whether to wait on him or run his PC for him - I wish he was back on the e-cigs, that was much less disruptive!).
 
Last edited:


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
See, I would definitely describe equating smoking a noxious, cancer-causing, addictive substance which can permanently damage furniture and/or stink out the place and/or set off alarms with "using a laptop or smartphone during a gaming session" as "bizarre".

Okay, you see the overstatements in there?

I have never had cigarette smoke set off a smoke alarm. Nor does the second-hand smoke from the few cigarettes my mom would smoke on a visit pose a real risk for cancer or addiction. Nor is the risk of "permanent damage" to furniture realistic in this instance - it isn't like her furniture at home was laced with cigarette burns. Noxious, however, I'll give you. The rest of those are non-issues in this case, that would be but rationalizations for the rule, rather than rational basis for the rule. It being noxious, however, we can agree upon.

I find incessant checking of Facebook while in company with others to be pretty noxious. Obnoxious, even.

That seems like two completely different categories of things. Saying they're the same is precisely the sort thing which would make me think "Uh-oh..." about a group.

Since when, in the history of the English language, does an analogy mean, "these things are precisely the same sort of thing,"?

Really, dude. Strawman.

We have a player who smokes - he goes outside to smoke - that is far more disruptive than all devices ever.

I played with - I wasn't running the game, so I didn't set the rules - someone who both smoked and had a serious laptop problem. She went outside to smoke, but didn't ever put her laptop away. The latter was more disruptive, for us. When she went out to smoke, we all just took a break, got drinks, and such. In an 8-our session, some breaks are called for anyway, so it was not a big deal. We couldn't all just take a break when she couldn't keep track of what was going on because of her messageboard, facebook, and corgi video habits.

That's not disruptive, in my experience.

And, since your personal experience hasn't happened to me, why should I take it as a relevant point? We aren't asking why you haven't instituted such a rule, you know. So why do I care what's happened to you in this matter? In fact, doesn't your non-experience mean you are inexperienced with this particular problem?

I'm saying that I find it odd and slightly concerning

You went beyond "odd" or "slightly concerning". You went to "bizarre". The language has been taking the usual slide upwards in strength as the discussion has continued. I suspect this is largely because this isn't really a discussion.
 

Janx

Hero
That bolded bit seems rather extremely sexist and kind of nasty. Not sure how to address that.

The simplest thing for me to do then is apologize for the bad analogy.


For either gender, if your SO is calling every 10 minutes asking when you're going to be home (I've seen it), you are losing points with the group. For a guy, the longer it persists, the more he is being views as exactly what I said. For a girl, it means she needs to dump her SO's butt after punching him in the junk for being a controlling, jealous twit. I don't think that's sexist. That's a bad relationship ruining the perception of the group.
 


Okay, you see the overstatements in there?

I have never had cigarette smoke set off a smoke alarm. Nor does the second-hand smoke from the few cigarettes my mom would smoke on a visit pose a real risk for cancer or addiction. Nor is the risk of "permanent damage" to furniture realistic in this instance - it isn't like her furniture at home was laced with cigarette burns. Noxious, however, I'll give you. The rest of those are non-issues in this case, that would be but rationalizations for the rule, rather than rational basis for the rule. It being noxious, however, we can agree upon.

My mother smoked for most of my life. I've seen cigarettes set off smoke alarms (I understand that they're not supposed to, but I've witnessed it more than once). I've seen them damage furniture (doesn't have to be burn - ash that accidentally falls off can be hell to get out of some materials) and/or quickly leave a stink that you can't get out without expensive cleaning. I'm told my lungs are likely damaged from exposure to second-hand smoke when I was growing up (no idea if this is true, doctor says so).

As for addictive, the issue is a real one - not that they will magically addict non-smokers, but they cause cravings in ex-smokers or "social" smokers (we have both in my group). I don't think it's an "overstatement", just something I needed to be clearer on.

I find incessant checking of Facebook while in company with others to be pretty noxious. Obnoxious, even.

Me too. I would never compare it to smoking, though, even in analogy. It's an entirely different kind of disruption, and one that anyone with any self-awareness is going to notice is causing a problem (I would think), really quickly.

Since when, in the history of the English language, does an analogy mean, "these things are precisely the same sort of thing,"?

Okay, put it this way, I think that's an awful analogy! :)

I played with - I wasn't running the game, so I didn't set the rules - someone who both smoked and had a serious laptop problem. She went outside to smoke, but didn't ever put her laptop away. The latter was more disruptive, for us. When she went out to smoke, we all just took a break, got drinks, and such. In an 8-our session, some breaks are called for anyway, so it was not a big deal. We couldn't all just take a break when she couldn't keep track of what was going on because of her messageboard, facebook, and corgi video habits.

Sounds like she smoked infrequently enough for that to work ("smoke as break"). I have two "current" smokers in my group. One is capable of going eight hours without smoking, and you often forget he even does. The other can barely make it an hour (esp. w/beer, for whatever reason), usually less. We usually do 3-4 hour sessions, and if we broke around Smokey Joe, who is not the world's swiftest smoker, we'd be wasting too much time, the group feels (though occasionally we have to).

And, since your personal experience hasn't happened to me, why should I take it as a relevant point? We aren't asking why you haven't instituted such a rule, you know. So why do I care what's happened to you in this matter? In fact, doesn't your non-experience mean you are inexperienced with this particular problem?

That's a fair point, but, if you check back in this and the other thread, you'll note that I have experienced problems, but didn't need to institute bans to deal with them, and felt that they were relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, and that the benefits offered by tech outweighed them.

Specifically, every time a new communication tech has appeared, that's popular, it caused some disruption, initially, then the disruption died down over a period of months. At most I had to frown, "Seriously?", and grouse a bit. Examples (probably not in chronological order):

1) Wireless internet access! OMG INTERNETS ON MY LAPTOP IN YER HOUSE. I'm checking my email! Look at this Youtube! Died down rapidly, because it was obviously disruptive.

2) Text Messages! OMG BIG JIM JUST TEXTED ME ABOUT THE AWESOME GIG HE IS AT! People still send, check and receive these, but they've learned to prioritize them (one has to, in the modern world). When this shiz was new it was an issue, but a couple of years later? (Which is before they even became a thing in most of the US, I note) Etiquette was established.

3) Facebooks! Similar pattern - when this first got on mobile phones, this was an issue (not on laptops, oddly enough). I know at least one player still checks it very briefly about once an hour (or gets some kind of notifications from it), but I wouldn't call it disruptive these days, because people stopped being obsessed by it fairly quickly. It's not usually a fast-moving medium.

4) Twitter! Two of my players have some kind of phone app that means they see their respective SO's tweets/DMs. This actually never caused a disruption, and I've never even heard this mentioned outside of actual breaks.

One thing I should say is that laptops basically disappeared except for the host's one (which is usually used solely for DDI Compendium lookups, because the tablet/phone compendium apps universally blow goats), replaced by phones, phablets and tablets. Which pretty much everyone uses for some aspect of their gaming (except one guy).

With stuff like watching Youtube or making Facebook posts or the like, during a game, I don't really see those as tech problems - those seem more like personality issues to me. I don't mean that as some criticism, but rather the reason people don't do it in my group isn't because it isn't available, but rather because it would be as weird and rude to do that as to suddenly go over to the TV and start watching it or whatever, or to get out a book and start reading.

With texts and the like, I don't have a problem with people looking at them when/after they get them (so long as it's not their turn, but that goes without saying, doesn't it?), because it's not a disruption, and it's not continuous. It's not like they hold up their phone, awaiting more texts, and obviously they don't text back and forth constantly, because that'd be rude in a fairly obvious way.

One thing that might be an issue, though, and tell me if this is part of it for you (not just Umbran, others with the problems with electronics), is that I pretty much only play with friends. Not necessarily all "old friends", though most are, but people who I could happily hang out with doing other things, and who largely share my social mores and so on. If I was gaming with strangers who were of a different background and who might have different ideas about what was socially acceptable, maybe I'd have to say "Hey, no Facebook, keep the texts/twitter for breaks, please!", or something.

I suspect this is largely because this isn't really a discussion.

I don't know what your criteria for a "discussion" is. You seem to be keen to dismiss my experiences of smoking as "overstatement", for example, and to suggest I know nothing, generally, of the ills of tech at the table, even though I've had tech at the table since there was tech to be had. I'm pretty sure if there is no "discussion", it's not me alone causing the issue. ;)

For either gender, if your SO is calling every 10 minutes asking when you're going to be home (I've seen it), you are losing points with the group. For a guy, the longer it persists, the more he is being views as exactly what I said. For a girl, it means she needs to dump her SO's butt after punching him in the junk for being a controlling, jealous twit. I don't think that's sexist. That's a bad relationship ruining the perception of the group.

I agree, but that's not what I'm describing, nor have I ever seen that. Short phonecall every 2-3 hours, I have seen. How do you rate that? Said SO is somewhat needy, but it's not like some sort of monitoring deal (rather an "I need reassurance" deal - I won't comment on my opinion of that ;) ).

One thing I will note is, if he was, say, banned from taking these phonecalls, he basically wouldn't be able to play with us (because he'd have to do some alternate social activity where he could, as quite reasonably he values his relationship with his SO over gaming), which given he is a very keen player, great at getting everyone organised, and generally fun to be around, would be a huge loss.

Thus I see benefits outweighing disadvantages, there.

Also we can now have the hilarity of the "Cursed Dice-Rolling App" (one of my friends has about three of them as a result) or "Cursed Smartphone" to go along with "Cursed Dice"! :D
 
Last edited:

Further thoughts:

I feel like technology which is successful is generally moving AWAY from disrupting normal social gatherings, rather than towards disrupting it more. Smartphones cause less of a disruption than laptops, or even really mobiles (because the options for none-immediate communication are better).

Laptops were disruptive, in my experience, less because of what was on them, and more because of their physical presence and requirements - they were relatively large, taking up a lot of tablespace (even netbooks), they were fragile (requiring a lot more care around them than other devices), and they were very power-hungry - if they weren't plugged in they were often running out of batteries, or had to be constantly opened/closed to keep their charge, and if they were plugged in, they suddenly had a trip-inducing lead which, unless you had one with a quick-release (and even those aren't 100% - I've seen an Apple one fail to release leading to flying laptop, before), meant even more care and annoyance.

So their largely being replaced by phones and tablets which can easily outlast our normal sessions has been a huge benefit. Modern stuff like Twitter seems to be less disruptive than texts.

Further examples, albeit more theoretical. I think one reason Google Glass has failed (ignoring privacy/creeper stuff) is that it's disruptive to normal social stuff, in that it's this big thing on your face (very unlike actual glasses in shape), and which you can't easily share with others in the way you can with handing round a phone with a picture or whatever, so it disrupts the experience. Whereas I reckon the Android Watches, which make it even easier to get notifications without getting one's phone out, will actually reduce disruption further.

My brother lives in Australia, and we've tried to have him join us in games via Skype, but that's been a huge disruption, because we constantly have to move around the laptop or tablet (and balance the latter) so he can see/hear stuff properly. If he had some kind of actual telepresence thing, where he could move a camera himself, and with better sound pickup, I think that'd be actually vastly less disruptive, even though it's "more tech", as it were.

On multitasking - I'm sure it does reduce ability, but I don't find people switch back and forth to the point of causing an issue. One could also make an interesting argument that 4E's "Look at your powers on your sheet" design causes multi-tasking issues (I don't know that I'd agree, but I think the same issue is potentially occurring).
 

Remove ads

Top