Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012698I play an offline game with a lot of IRL friends, and it is mostly a social gathering.

It sounds like the game session isn't very engaging.

My personal tolerance is pretty high, as long as everyone is enjoying themselves. My only expectation is when I talk in my GM voice is that my players listen. Gathering is a social activity for me and the game's competitive seriousness is non-existent for me. For that there's Org Play and Cons, and those don't interest me. I can slip into immersiveness quickly as necessary.

It's also one reason I don't play boardgames or CCGs too easily, especially with "serious people who came to seriously game!" Most games are ridiculously easy to manipulate the players to get your desired result and ignore the game's mechanics. So the less serious and competitive the table is, the more I can get into the pleasure of RPG immersion.

It's not the wolf I want to feed. I got enough of that from my video game and CCG years, particularly from tournaments. It is one of the reasons I also try to explore suboptimal strategies, and go with the flow of random generation. I'd rather be personally challenged at most, pleasantly engaged at best.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012698The question is, how rare is this sort of thing?

Not as rare as I would like it to be. I think that it is easier for people to tune out, nod off, or distract themselves with a device when

• people are not gaming in person i.e. via text, chat, or video
• one or more players spend a long time waiting for their next action or turn in the game
• a lot of planning occurs (where "a lot" just means more than one or more players enjoy).

To put nodding off in context, I've seen highly paid execs nod off in work meetings either just after lunch (food coma) or during late night, time-zone shifted video conferences.

It could be 3am after a buffet meal and the execs wouldn't nod off if they were negotiating their bonus for this year.

If the topic is engaging for you, you pay attention. Thus, if your players aren't engaged enough for you, make things more engaging. Likewise if the player is unhappy with how engaging the game is, they should try to do more interesting things, and be more interesting.

Step on up, or step on out.

Depends.

Is this a Friend Group with some gaming or a Gaming Group with some friends?

If its a Gaming Group, then make the Gaming the priority.

If its a Friend Group, then make the Friend social stuff the priority.

But either way, the phones stay in pockets.

That generally doesn't happen with the people I game with. If they're too tired, boring, or distracted to play, they probably shouldn't be playing, at least not in a way that their participation is required.

I do have ways to make use of occasional input from people who aren't regularly participating, but I get them away from the game when they're not, and they aren't used for anything necessary for play to continue. Like, they could roleplay a character when they're around if detailed explanations aren't necessary. Or they could add flavor to NPC or adversary behavior when they are around.

I'm pretty easygoing. Most of my players tend to want to pay attention during the game, even in moments where their PCs aren't present. But I don't care if they don't pay attention, so long as whatever they're doing doesn't become so disruptive that it gets in the way of the people who are currently playing.

Same rules as everything else. There's no wrong way to game except to disrupt other people's fun. If this is a group where people are there to shoot the breeze and don't mind getting sidetracked, then it is fine. If people want to get on with the game, then don't be disruptive. If the group is genuinely split, then it needs to address this difference in expectations.

Like much of this whole adult-ing business, it really just boils down to 'don't be a jerk.'

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013671Same rules as everything else. There's no wrong way to game except to disrupt other people's fun. If this is a group where people are there to shoot the breeze and don't mind getting sidetracked, then it is fine. If people want to get on with the game, then don't be disruptive. If the group is genuinely split, then it needs to address this difference in expectations.

Like much of this whole adult-ing business, it really just boils down to 'don't be a jerk.'

In this case, we have a core of friends playing the game who are there to play.

Then we have 3-4 friends who are playing because they want to hang out with everyone else. I let them play because they're my friends and I like having them around, the more the merrier. So normally, there's a mix of both "focused gaming" and "hanging out." The problem is when their hanging out disrupts the game, which it has gotten to recently.

8 people?  No wonder.

When gaming.
1is a thief or assisan.
2 or 3 is a strike team
4 is a party
5 is a mob
And 6 is a shit show.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013679The problem is when their hanging out disrupts the game, which it has gotten to recently.

Pretty much what I suspected when I read the original post. Not much we can really say though. That's where the "address this difference in expectations" comes in, and that's just a calm, reasonable, adult conversation.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013679In this case, we have a core of friends playing the game who are there to play.

Then we have 3-4 friends who are playing because they want to hang out with everyone else. I let them play because they're my friends and I like having them around, the more the merrier. So normally, there's a mix of both "focused gaming" and "hanging out." The problem is when their hanging out disrupts the game, which it has gotten to recently.

I've dealt with that mix often.  What we eventually decided was that there was game time and there was hangout time.  We made sure to have some of each, and the group agreed roughly what it would be.  We aren't complete sticklers.  If everyone is into the game heavy and time is precious, we'll focus more.  If we surprisingly get done earlier than we thought, hey more time to shoot the breeze.  So that only leaves two problems for me to manage, which are doable under that framework:

A. Keeping an eye on things. See if we need a social break.  Make sure when we on game, we have something worth being on game with.

B. Managing the transitions.  You can't always say, "Bzzt, the clock chimes the hour, time to switch."  Generally, I'll give players 5 minutes to make the transition themselves.  If they don't, I'll start gently pulling them around.  On the few occasions where even that doesn't take, I'll put on the Viking Hat for a few seconds.  

It also doesn't hurt to give the more social players something social to do within the game.  That tends to make them more engaged.  Try to cultivate situations and characters such that the PCs are engaged in discussion in character.  It's a good idea for a large group, in any case.  For example, let some rivalries and intra-party friction develop.  To compensate, make some of the challenges a little less tough, so that the party need not be a well-honed machine to survive.  Don't merely do that.  Discuss with the players that you are going to do it, and exactly why you are going to do it.  In a mixed gamer/social group, this is the activity that everyone will enjoy to some extent.

They already do have lots of discussion. That part, everyone enjoys. The problem there is that (as I've discussed in threads here before), some people never want to move on and discuss decisions forever, while others want to just settle on something and move on. Or someone who is outnumbered will never stop arguing their case, and everyone is just stuck. Then that's when people start getting bored and tuning out.

That or someone kicks the door down and starts a fight to move things on, but the decision isn't settled and the instant there's a chance to contest it again, the whole thing restarts.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013710They already do have lots of discussion. That part, everyone enjoys. The problem there is that (as I've discussed in threads here before), some people never want to move on and discuss decisions forever, while others want to just settle on something and move on. Or someone who is outnumbered will never stop arguing their case, and everyone is just stuck. Then that's when people start getting bored and tuning out.

That or someone kicks the door down and starts a fight to move things on, but the decision isn't settled and the instant there's a chance to contest it again, the whole thing restarts.

Not all discussions are created equal.  There are discussions that are moving things along, creating an interesting picture, and so forth.  Then there are discussions that are just hashing the same old thing.  When the are socializing out of character, do they get into long-winded discussions that feature an hour of, "I'm right", "No, I'm right"?  Of do they move things along?  I the former, and the people involved actually like that kind of thing, boot them from the gaming sessions.  They can't even socialize right, so why would casual gaming work for them?  If they have their characters constantly do things that they as people wouldn't tolerate in a social situation, call them on it.

"I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" is pretty much what it is, though for us it's not disruptive, in a sense, since it's how the people in question are outside of the game with each other too. It's like those situations where you have people who always end up arguing with each other in every situation no matter what, eternal opponents. Except now it's in the game. We find it rather funny and enjoy their antics, normally, but the problem is when it stalls the game since neither side will give up.

Or they're forced to move on because the group ignores them, but then they drag their feet or point out every setback that follows is because "you didn't listen to me," etc.

I've tried implementing an out of game voting system I enforced, to force a vote and move things along as well, and it worked decently, but it didn't stop people from trying to undermine the eventual decision in more subtle ways.