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

[gamerprinter]

I know I hyper-focus when doing activities like cartography, and I am able to stop and hyper-focus on the next activity as need calls for it, even very complex tasks that differ from the other activity. So I can go from one very complex process, stop and move to another complex activity easily enough - I do that all the time. I'd rather hyperfocus than multi-task as a preference, but I don't know that I cannot multi-task...

Since I was the one that introduced the fact that some players are crocheting while gaming. I have to qualiify my point. The gal doing the crocheting primarily only plays a Fighter, which doesn't have a lot of complex tasks, as far as running a character goes, yet, being one of the newer players, she never knows her BAB in any attack. On her turn, she has to stop crocheting, look at her character sheet, and recalculate what her BAB is so she can attack. If she proved she effectively run her fighter as easily as she does crocheting, there wouldn't be a need to ban that activity. This female cannot seem to multi-task well. It is that reason, we don't allow her to do it, while gaming.

Perhaps that's different for other folks, but apparently not for her.

 

[Umbran]

but I don't know that I cannot multi-task...

Multi-tasking is not digital - can or cannot. It is a spectrum of performance. How much better do you do if you concentrate on one thing at a time, as opposed to swapping between tasks?

 

[Lwaxy]

When I watch a movie or something, better don't disturb me, because I am into the story or whatever sport I happen to watch, and you will think better about disturbing me after I've torn your head off a few times because of it. I do not even answer the door unless I am expecting a package (which usually means I'm not watching anything).

I hyperfocus a lot, but that doesn't mean, weird enough, that I can't do 2 things at once still. I sometimes play a solitaire game while watching something, or maintain my browser games. Anything that's routine. Mainly to keep my hands busy.

 

[gamerprinter]

Multi-taking is not digital - can or cannot. It is a spectrum of performance. How much better do you do if you concentrate on one thing at a time, as opposed to swapping between tasks?

I believe I do better concentrating on a single activity than having to switch. But since I run a graphics shop, and I have to cater to each new customer that comes through the door - forcing me to switch activities constantly. It does deter my performance on any one activity, but is a situation I cannot escape. When I do have time, and not require to switch my attentions, I am more successful in the completion of each complex task.

Although I tend to avoid web design work these days, back when I did do that fairly often, I found the switch from graphic design to web design as a completely different design paradigm - and the switch was very difficult to do. I almost need time to psyche myself up to doing the switch - as my thinking process has to completely change, as to me, web design is a completely different animal to graphic design. Still I was able to do it, even if uncomfortably so.

 

[Mallus]

Except, as previously noted, "bored" or "not compelling" is not necessarily the issue.

There's lots of people out there who are, for lack of a better word, conditioned to poke at the internet. For such people, it has nothing to do with their interest in your game, any more than a smoker's desire to step out for a cigarette is a sign they are bored.

While that's true for some individuals, I think they're corner cases (there can't be that many bona fide Internet addicts, can there??). The larger issue of distracted players is really just a reflection of the basic structure of traditional RPGs, ie a single GM serving multiple players. A GM who can't give equal attention at all times.

Regardless of how well a GM manages their attention, there are going to be times when individual players are out of the action. This has always been true. Before smartphones and laptops, it was players leafing through rule books, or their friends books/comic collection, etc. Side-conversations about Monty Python and The Princess Bride. Facebook, Candy Crush Saga, and even WoW during a session are only newfangled ways of addressing an old issue, one baked into the very set-up of these games.

Then there's the added issue of gamers who a mainly at a session to hang out w/friends. They've always been with us, too, and banning their devices isn't going to change them.

To be fair, I have a general bias against blanket bans of, well, anything. They say to me, "we can't figure out a more nuanced or targeted solution to a specific problem". I'm also coming at this as someone who mostly GMs/DMs. Asking players to focus on the game is really saying "pay more attention to to me, damnit!". It strikes me as vain. Players will listen with rapt attention when I'm doing a good job. If their attention wanders... that's valuable feedback.

(We're also a pretty laid-back group. We play on Friday nights, so we're often tired, if not haggard after a week of careers and families. It doesn't feel right for me to demand they treat the game as SERIOUS BUSINESS. If my players reach for Candy Crush, I'll just reach for another glass of wine. I'm confident something will happen that'll draw them back in.)

 

[Umbran]

While that's true for some individuals, I think they're corner cases (there can't be that many bona fide Internet addicts, can there??).

I will refrain from using the word "addiction", but, it isn't like this is something that is specific to gamers. You can look around, and find instances of folks complaining about the politeness and propriety of mobile phone use all over the place. Folks saying that they have to ban smartphones from their business meetings, dinner tables, and regular social gatherings, seem pretty easy to find.

Thus, I think, "easily distracted by bright and shiny data sources," is a pretty common human affliction. Not scientific, by any means, but enough for me to say that such table rules don't sound like a weird social convention.

 

[gamerprinter]

To be fair, I have a general bias against blanket bans of, well, anything. They say to me, "we can't figure out a more nuanced or targeted solution to a specific problem". I'm also coming at this as someone who mostly GMs/DMs. Asking players to focus on the game is really saying "pay more attention to to me, damnit!". It strikes me as vain. Players will listen with rapt attention when I'm doing a good job. If their attention wanders... that's valuable feedback.

I guess I didn't mention all the details, but in the case of those players causing distracting behaviour with their electronic devices, that eventually led to a ban. Prior to that ban, the issue was discussed before the entire table, privately with each individual, asking them to curtail that activity. Other avenues to alleviate the situation were tried first. It was only after repeated "infractions" that someone asked if we just vote for a ban. After some discussion with the players, a vote was put to the table, and the ban applied. A ban wasn't imposed arbitrarily.

It was nothing like the problem rose its head, so we initiated a ban without forethought. To our table a ban is the last possible solution to reasonable discussion and every other possible option. When all other courses could not alleviate the problem, the ban was imposed (by vote). We tried many options for different solutions, but all seemed to fail. The ban works and all players, including the problem ones, have complied and the problems have gone away.

 

[Jhaelen]

When a guy watches TV, he's watching TV. ain't a whole lot else going on up there.

I beg to differ. I rarely watch TV exclusively. Most often I'm playing video games at the same time. TV shows / movies that require my undivided attention are a rare exception. Generally, I only have a problem to follow if there is little to no dialogue. Then I start to lose track of what's going on. Also, when there's a sequence of intense action in the video game, I may have to rewind the movie/show a short bit and watch it again. But considering the kind of video games I prefer, that's rarely necessary.

I've also participated in (online)chats and read books while watching TV (or both!) - but that's a lot harder, so I tend to miss a lot. I only do that if I realize I already know the movie/show or the movie/show is rather boring - but I still want to know how it ends.

 

[Lwaxy]

I found smartphones the biggest offenders anywhere.

 

[sheadunne]

When I taught at the university I'd always demonstrate the issue with multitasking by using this example.

Time yourself.
Count to 26.
Recite the alphabet.
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. It gets more difficult when you ask them to do it backwards (26-1, Z-A, switching). And then asking them to count 1-26 and then Z-A. The more complex the task the more devoted attention needs to be paid to the task.

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.

Now youtube videos. Forget it! Those gotta go at the table!