D&D 5E What does this photo say to you? [Project: Morningstar)

[Sword of Spirit]

Honestly, some people without mental health issues concentrate slightly better when they are multitasking as well.

Another good point I had forgotten about. If I recall my psychology courses, one scale of human psychology (something on an extraversion to introversion type of scale) tells us that some people's focus is improved by a greater amount of stimuli, while other people's is improved by less stimuli.

This is why some people are better at studying when listening to music, and others can't concentrate with the music playing. Another good reason to allow some people to multitask.

The big problem I haven't figured out a solution for is how they can do it without distracting those on the other end of the scale. Because it can be really annoying to other players and DMs alike to see some people apparently tuning out. Regardless of psychology, if someone in your group is wearing ear buds and nodding their head to the music coming through their mp3 player, it's probably not going to enhance your game experience.

 

[Umbran]

Honestly, some people without mental health issues concentrate slightly better when they are multitasking as well.

Some people may. The majority of geeks will probably say they they do.

The majority of them are *wrong*. This has nothing to do with computers, specifically. Humans don't multitask well, in general. There are individuals who may multitask very well, but it isn't a common trait.

 

[Dannager]

I wouldn't say "completely."

Yes it is a peer reviewed journal.

Yes, it was based on actual study.

Yes, it was involved in communal learning (lecture, ask, test, repeat) that we all had in school (unless you went to an alternate school).

Any GM that works behind a screen and reads read-aloud text will have their group negatively affected by people who are on their laptops, and people behind them will be even less attentive.

Please don't be offended if you are a laptopper just because I posted this study. It's not personal. Its just some people doing research. If you have questions about their study, I recommend that you ask THEM and not attack me.

Thanks,

jh

I don't think he was attacking you for the content of their study. I think his primary concern was with the way you represented the results of the study to us ("proven to wreck the communal experience"). Your characterization was unsupported - there's really no way that you can claim an 11-17% drop in lecture retention translates to wrecking any sort of communal experience. It seems reasonable, then, to ask why you chose to characterize the study in a way that appears to distort its findings.

I'm going to go a step further and challenge your claim that the article supports the notion that electronics "significantly reduce or eliminate a person's ability to participate in a group," which I see no evidence of in the study. The study finds that electronics use (and electronics adjacency) reduces (and in no way eliminates) a person's ability to retain lecture content. Again, you have chosen to both inappropriately generalize (from lecture content retention to group activity participation) and exaggerate (from "reduce" to "reduce or eliminate") the findings of the study, and I'm probably not the only one here who would like to know why you have chosen to do so.

 

[Dannager]

Some people may. The majority of geeks will probably say they they do.

The majority of them are *wrong*. This has nothing to do with computers, specifically. Humans don't multitask well, in general. There are individuals who may multitask very well, but it isn't a common trait.

This is actually a really interesting angle that we should be exploring: Are D&D players not multitasking when they play without electronics present? In my experience, players continue to do things other than sit and listen (or speak) even if they don't have a phone, laptop, or tablet - they look up things in a book, they adjust something on their character sheet, they make jokes to those next to them, etc. It seems to me that the key here is not to get caught up in the reactionary "Electronics bad, everything else good!" fever, but rather to focus on whittling away at the time players spend multitasking, regardless of how they do it. If players spend an average of 30 minutes each per session looking up information in a book, and if switching to a tablet with a searchable database reduces that total lookup time to 15 minutes, isn't that an improvement? If players spend ten minutes after each encounter healing up, adjusting spell slots, renewing buffs, and swapping out equipment, and if a digital character sheet can automate some of those processes and reduce it to five minutes after each encounter instead, why not focus on that?

 

[Emirikol]

I shared what I found in my groups and the results of that study. People jump out of the woodwork to attack me b/c I said that electronics in that study and in my groups have been harmful to people being able to stay engaged.

I suspect that the hostility on this issue has to do with people's obsession (including mine) with electronics and we are quick to jump all over anyone who questions that perhaps electronics aren't the cat's meow and that elecronics have a harmful effect on human interaction and learning. I put the two together. So sue me.

I'm not going to go any further with posting on this subject, so feel free to discuss amongst yourselves on this issue as I'm not here to defend what you guys feel is my badwrongfun for stating my experiences.

Have a nice day

jh

 

[Dannager]

I suspect that the hostility on this issue has to do with people's obsession (including mine) with electronics and we are quick to jump all over anyone who questions

No. You didn't question anything. You literally said that the study proves that electronics use hinders or destroys a person's ability to function in a group environment. The study didn't say anything like that, and now we're trying to figure out why you characterized it that way. And, of course, now that people are wondering why you are deliberately misrepresenting research to make a point, you're backing out of the thread. Because when you "question" something it's fine, but when we question you "questioning" it (and with damn good reason), it's suddenly hostility and a great excuse to abandon thread.

Wow.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Some people may. The majority of geeks will probably say they they do.

The majority of them are *wrong*. This has nothing to do with computers, specifically. Humans don't multitask well, in general. There are individuals who may multitask very well, but it isn't a common trait.

I agree, and am surprised more people haven't brought this up.Research has tended to demonstrate that in general most people perform poorly when multitasking. It's more effective to focus on one thing at a time.

Of course, there are exceptions. But the number of people who think they are the exceptions (in anything) tend to outnumber the actual exceptional by a large margin.

This is actually a really interesting angle that we should be exploring: Are D&D players not multitasking when they play without electronics present? In my experience, players continue to do things other than sit and listen (or speak) even if they don't have a phone, laptop, or tablet - they look up things in a book, they adjust something on their character sheet, they make jokes to those next to them, etc. It seems to me that the key here is not to get caught up in the reactionary "Electronics bad, everything else good!" fever, but rather to focus on whittling away at the time players spend multitasking, regardless of how they do it. If players spend an average of 30 minutes each per session looking up information in a book, and if switching to a tablet with a searchable database reduces that total lookup time to 15 minutes, isn't that an improvement? If players spend ten minutes after each encounter healing up, adjusting spell slots, renewing buffs, and swapping out equipment, and if a digital character sheet can automate some of those processes and reduce it to five minutes after each encounter instead, why not focus on that?

I think the problem with electronics is that it is a lot easier to do things completely unrelated to the game. Sure, it's great to be able to get the spell or feat description you need in a few second rather than going through a couple of books and taking several minutes. I use an online SRD all the time when playing in 3e games, for exactly that reason.

But if people are shuffling through papers, it is going to be fairly obvious if they are looking at things completely unrelated to D&D (or whatever you are playing). It's quite a bit easier with a laptop, cellphone, or even tablet to be doing something completely unrelated.

Okay, new thought. Generally a carrot is better than a stick. What are some ideas to give players positive incentives to focus on the game to the exclusion of other activities?

 

[Umbran]

It seems to me that the key here is not to get caught up in the reactionary "Electronics bad, everything else good!" fever, but rather to focus on whittling away at the time players spend multitasking, regardless of how they do it. If players spend an average of 30 minutes each per session looking up information in a book, and if switching to a tablet with a searchable database reduces that total lookup time to 15 minutes, isn't that an improvement? If players spend ten minutes after each encounter healing up, adjusting spell slots, renewing buffs, and swapping out equipment, and if a digital character sheet can automate some of those processes and reduce it to five minutes after each encounter instead, why not focus on that?

I can't speak for others, but with laptops at the table have been the only times when I have had to repeatedly address a player to bring their attention back to the game, multiple times in a session. Everyone gets distracted now and again. That's okay - I don't require laser focus. But when we have to do several minutes of recap for a player multiple times a session, there's an issue.

So, while players may be multitasking without electronics, the only time I, personally, have had it become problematic is with electronics. I submit that electronics (and the click-bait social networking, e-mail, and the like that come with it) provides more opportunity for more sources of and deeper distraction than a player generally gets without electronics.

The click-bait nature of modern electronics is not to be dismissed. There is a positive reinforcement loop in, say, checking facebook. Seeing a new post or response gives a little bitty boost. If you don't see one, you then immediate look ahead to the next time you check, because maybe then you'll see one. It is sometimes called intermittent positive reinforcement, or variable-ratio positive reinforcement, and once it forms a habit, that habit can be rather difficult to extinguish. It follows much the same pattern as gambling or playing the lottery - you know for sure there's a reward out there, if you just keep checking!

It is important to note that this kind of habit has nothing to do with your game, and being a "better DM" will not fix it, because it is not related to boredom. It is created out in the everyday world, and then brought into your game - it has less to do with the game being boring, and more in how the user is trained to be looking at the internet, in general.

 

[Agamon]

RC is a physical product, not digital.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rules-Compendium-Essential-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956216

Mixing up my acronyms. I have that on the shelf beside me, so I know of it.

As for the other editions, those were the errata they got, not the errata they needed. That's my concern with 5E - that it will get the errata it gets, not the errata it needs (I agree that it will be less vital than 4E, but I think it's going to be more vital than other editions).

I'm no expert on the AD&D editions (I was, once upon a time, but that was long ago). If you are, I'll take your word for it, but I have been to DF quite a bit over the past few years, and no one there complains that the game they've been playing for 30+ years doesn't have the errata it needs.

I'm not trying to be anti-4e, here. Its one of the games I'm happily playing in. The huge list of errata is one of the things I don't think is cool about it, though. Good playtesting and editing can minimize that, if not eliminate it. Minimizing mistakes should be the goal before sending it to the printers.

 

[Lanefan]

As for the other editions, those were the errata they got, not the errata they needed. That's my concern with 5E - that it will get the errata it gets, not the errata it needs (I agree that it will be less vital than 4E, but I think it's going to be more vital than other editions).

As 5e is intentionally designed to be a kitbasher's edition anyway, "official" errata become mostly irrelevant (unless you're involved in officially-organized play - I can't help you there) as you-as-DM can fix what you don't like right off the hop whether it's an actual "error" or not.

Now if they try to fine-tune the 3e- and-or 4e-replicating options to the point where the system is as unforgiving as those two then errata do become an issue. I'd rather they left it coarse-tuned, and let DMs fine-tune it on their own if so desired.

Lanefan