Those D*mned Laptops!

[JamesDJIII]

I've noticed that when our group runs a game, there's a lot of people who like to read rulebooks (for other games and the current one) and have their laptops open, etc.

Now, normally I would just ignore this (if I'm running the game). I recalled during the last game something I read on the Forge about these activities indicating a level of disconnect from the game at hand.

It bothers me. I seem to be missing the mark when running the game or not enjoying it when it's being run. (For the games that I've not been "into" I've gone so far to tell the group I wont play them again - and the reactions were good - but that's another post.)

Back to the open books and latpops - what the heck is going on here? What is "thing" that's happening? Anyone recall the term?

Thanks in advance?

[Matt Machell]

Well, I can't recall earler discussion, but it sounds to me like players are not finding the game interesting when they're not directly involved. So much so that they'd rather read the rulebook than watch what's going on.

There might be any number of reasons for this. If you're running a game where out of character knowledge is frowned upon, players might feel that they shouldn't be listening to events they're not present at.

Alternatively, if you're focusing too much on one player and what they're doing is of no interest to the others, they will probably tune out. If this is the case then remembering that the other players are an audience, is a good place to start for solving the problem. Learning when to cut between players may help here too (and can add a cinematic feel to games) as it will keep up the pace.

-Matt

[Scourge108]

I can relate.  My usual gaming group has been diminished to a married couple who rarely if ever leave the house, and whoever drops by.  They are both really into online roleplaying chatrooms, which I can't stand.  One reason I hate them is that, to be really involved in the roleplay, you pretty much have to spend a huge glut of your time in the chatroom to respond to whatever happens.  This is why they rarely leave, they're too busy on the chatrooms.  When we play, it has to be at their house and they have to be at the computer, just in case.  And of course, they can't remember what was happening 20 minutes ago, because they had to respond to some instant message and somebody in Philadelphia having a crisis with their girlfriend, they get the abilities of their online characters mixed up with their pen and paper characters, and never know anything about the background of the game.  My decision was to tell them that we have very different roleplaying agendas that do not mesh, and while I still value their friendship, I have to place certain standards on my gaming group.  I'm pretty tolerant, but I must insist A) that you actually be IN the game, not on the computer, watching TV, talking on the cell phone, reading a book, etc.  Getting sidetracked and off on a tangent is one thing, but actively doing something else is just plain rude.  Show some common courtesy people.  Also, B) show a little effort and enthusiasm by, at the very least, coming up with a new character instead of one from a different game, or at least glancing at the background material.  If it really doesn't interest you enough to give it a glance, what on earth makes you think it will interest you enough to play it?  I could have spent that time watching reruns of That 70s Show instead of preparing an adventure nobody wanted to play.  Don't waste our time.

So my advice is to find a way to politely explain that the gaming table is for gaming, and other areas of the house are for laptops, books, and cell phones.

[rafial]

I agree that looking at books/laptops etc can signal boredom (I know I've been guilty of it myself), but I've also noticed that in more complex games (for example the TROS game I'm in right now), I'll spend my time between getting the spotlight in planning and researching what I'm going to do next, which often involves reference to the book.  This is especially true in this case since I'm playing a sorcerer.

So "book open" is not always bad, but if the players seem confused and unengaged when you swing the spotlight their way, then I think you do have a problem.

[JamesDJIII]

Thanks guys, all good advice. I should have been clearer: does anyone remember the term for this behavior used here at the Forge?

Incongruence?

Was that it?

[Bob McNamee]

Disengagment?

[Bankuei]

Hi James,

I'm a very visual person, so often I'll either be drawing or flipping through something with artwork while playing, but still be totally engaged in the game.  It's a habit/skill I picked up from school.  The key point to look for in disengagement is if you have to repeat yourself, or if you find that when you switch the spotlight, players going, "Huh?"

Chris

[Malechi]

we have a player in our group.. he's a strange one.  he'll make up a really interesting character, get all involved in the discussions about the game, but then just sit there like a mullet (stunned, not stirred) tapping away on his laptop.. argh

so annoying..

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think we aren't talking about anything that needs a jargon term. Either people are engaged in the social activity called "role-playing" in such a way that they are enjoying themselves with one another, or they're not.

I don't think any kind of special "giveaway" or common standard for recognizing when people aren't interested is necessary - it's the same kind of perceptions that you'd use to see whether anyone is interested or engaged in anything.

This whole issue is exactly why I place the imaginative and procedural features of role-playing inside the Social Contract category. If people can't get it together to be actually communicating and committed to whatever minimal degree makes the others' participation worthwhile, then they simply aren't playing in the first place.

No rules, no techniques, no system, no features of the role-playing itself whatsoever can "fix" problems of this kind. None of those things will function unless the fundamental, social, engaged, and participatory aspect of the activity is already in place.

I think Chris (bankuei) is absolutely right, though, in that different people display their engagement and enjoyment differently ... it's not like everyone has to have so-much-percent eye contact or so-much-inflection in their voices. It's the absence of the engagement/enjoyment that indicates the problem.

What I do not understand, at all, is why anyone permits anyone else who demonstrates such behavior to play with them. Analogize to other activities:

"We're in a band, but the drummer keeps leaving his kit and wandering off to make sandwiches in the middle of songs. We're trying to come up with songs that keep his attention focused."

"We love each other, except that for some reason she's always talking to mother on the phone while we have sex, and that sort of weirds me out ... do you think I need to get a conference line so I can participate in the conversation too?"

The above examples are intended to illustrate that the speaker is trying to fix the problem in exactly the wrong way. The problem person is already way, way, way past the "gone" point. There's no fixing it. There's no compromise behavior available. The only solution is exactly the solution practiced by band members and relationship-partners worldwide: evict the problem person from the activity.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

What I do not understand, at all, is why anyone permits anyone else who demonstrates such behavior to play with them.
...
The above examples are intended to illustrate that the speaker is trying to fix the problem in exactly the wrong way. The problem person is already way, way, way past the "gone" point. There's no fixing it. There's no compromise behavior available. The only solution is exactly the solution practiced by band members and relationship-partners worldwide: evict the problem person from the activity.

Hm.  I haven't had a huge amount of experience with this, but I'll at least question this.  Robin Laws in his game mastering book, includes a special seventh category of gamer after his other types, as follows:

The Casual Gamer is often forgotten in discussions of this sort, but almost every group has one.  Casual gamers tend to be low key folks who are uncomfortable taking center stage even in a small group.  Often, they're present to hang out with the group, and game just because it happens to be the activity everyone else has chosen.  Though they're elusive creatures, casual gamers can be vitally important to a gaming group's survival.  They fill out the ranks, which is especially important in games that spread vital PC abilities across a wide number of character types or classes.  Especially if they're present mostly for social reasons, they may fill an important role in the group's interpersonal dynamic.  Often they're the mellow, moderating types who keep the more assertive personalities from each other's throats -- in or out of character.  I mention the casual player because the thing he most fervently wants is to remain in the background.  He doesn't want to have to learn rules or come up with a plot hook for his character or engage in detailed planning.  You may think it's a bad thing that he sits there for much of the session thumbing through your latest purchases from the comic book store, but hey, that's what he wants.  The last thing you want to do is to force him into a greater degree of participation than he's comfortable with.  (Of course, if everybody in the group is sitting there reading your comic books, you've definitely got a problem...)

OK, so what Robin is saying is that problems comes more from the expectation that the casual gamer has to come in and participate.  In his opinion, it doesn't necessarily hurt to have an extra person sitting in the room during the game.  To use Ron's band example: the flaw may be in entrusting that person with lead guitar or drums.  But it can be OK to have people who aren't full band members around -- and they can help with sound, or occaisionally hitting the big gong, or fetching coffee or such.  

I haven't personally had a lot of experience with regularly passive players.  I guess the case I've seen is the significant other: Heather's girlfriend Sandy in my Vinland game, and Gen's boyfriend Tyler in the Buffy game.  I think their being passive isn't a huge problem.  On the other hand, in the last session of my Vinland game, Bill (who is normally a fairly engaged player) had started to browse on his laptop.  I complained to him afterwards, and he apologized.

[Sean]

Laptops?

Fuck, man. People turn off their cell phones and beepers when they come into my games. I'd make an exception for an MD on call, but that's about it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

John, one of these days I think I'll have to write up a piece which illustrates where Robin and I agree, and where we disagree - neither of which I think will be very obvious to folks who haven't seen us interact together with troubled/confused/bitter role-players in one of his Troubleshooting con panels.

But more to the point, I think that your "casual participant" is different from the laptoppers (to coin a term, I suppose) being described here. The casual participant is still participating - although their input may not be intense in imaginative terms, it still contributes to others' engagement with what's going on. Such input is extremely valuable and might even represent a kind of social glue that's more necessary than most people might imagine.

Whereas the laptopper, as James is seeing, is a whole 'nother animal - physically present but not engaged. When turned to, requiring all sorts of orientation. I'm reminded of the text describing the Befuddle spell in old RuneQuest ... roughly, "Where are we? Who is that troll?"

It's a fine line! During our last session of Extreme Vengeance (the game getting most of my attention at the moment), I consulted the rulebooks about ten times. Why? Because I wanted to check on a rule or two, and I wanted a bit of "inspirational enthusiasm" which the text provides. This enhanced my participation, and got me fired up for my character's next action - and it also explains the entertaining bickering over holding the rulebooks which occasionally erupted among us during play. It's hard to explain, but in our case, all of this fires up the role-playing, rather than diminishes it.

But what didn't happen was the "Huh? Who? Ummm, I ... uh, OK, I hit her. What? She's the princess? Oh ..." reaction you get from a laptopper when everyone turns to them.

Best,
Ron

[JamesDJIII]

It is interestin that one of the laptopers needed very little orientation, and the other required a  bit more than I was pleased to give.

Afterwards, in fact, the one who needed less pointed out that he was engaged (and I forget his exact words, but the evidence was that he closed the latop only when the "scene wasn't on me").

One of these days, I'd like to see a GM who is really good at keeping the players into the game even when the "party" has spllit into separate threads. I keep reading a lot about people talking about this, but I'd really like to see it in action!

Again, thanks one and all for the help.

[Bob McNamee]

One problem I had in a game from a Players standpoint with laptop using players...

They were between me and the GM... and acted as barriers, with screens up etc. Player activity on the laptop was distracting to those who could see it (especially when a game was running on it).

On the plus side...there was a great deal of appropriate 'theme music' available for most any situation that occurred, when the laptoppers were engaged in play.

[Andrew Norris]

We've talked about how to engage players when the focus isn't on them in a few threads here and there in the past.

I've been very fortunate that I've not had this problem, but starting from the first session of my new campaign I had insisted that I trusted everyone to keep player and character knowledge separate. I made an attempt to cut back and forth at dramatic times, and to keep various threads of an mystery be revealed in parallel (so, for instance, one subgroup is learning information about the macguffin, while the other has just found it but doesn't know what it is... both groups watch in tension as the other deals with the other piece of the puzzle.)

With groups that have a social contract in which players intentionally 'tune out' during scenes where their characters are not present, I think it would be must harder to do this kind of thing. You really have to have a conversation with the group to explain to them you'd like them to be the audience for scenes in which they don't participate.