# Why the beer hate? (Forked Thread: What are the no-goes...)



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2009)

Forked from:  What are the no-goes for you? 
Now, it was far from everyone on the other thread, but I've seen more than a few object to any kind of alcohol at gaming whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong - I think complete drunkenness can disrupt any semi-serious game.  (With a caveat that being drunk makes games like Kobolds Ate My Baby _awesome._)  I'm on board with that being a deal-breaker - in fact, I uninvited a guy who'd down a six pack in the first 20 minutes every session.

But a six pack of a delicious microbrew (like anything by Three Floyds) shared among the group?  I don't get the objection, honestly.

Now, I can see "We're all underage" or "We game with a recovering alcoholic."  But otherwise, could you explain?

-O


----------



## malraux (Jul 8, 2009)

My gaming tradition is a blender full of margarita.  Some people don't drink, but no one drinks to excess, so I don't see the issue.  Like with anything, clearly it can be taken past the point of reasonableness, but a guy who chugs Mt Dew and goes all Great Cornholio is just as bad.


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 8, 2009)

*shrugs* I'm uncomfortable around people who are drinking, in general.  Even moreso when I'm at a game and wanting to play with sober people. Now, if someone's just having a beer and stretching it out over a few hours I would not see that as a big deal, I guess.


----------



## malraux (Jul 8, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> people who are drinking




I'd argue there's a difference between drinking and have a drink.  Over a 4 hour game though, two beers really won't move your BAC all that much.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 8, 2009)

There are people who drink to lower their inhibitions. Of those, some really shouldn't.

I don't game with anyone like that, so drinking is fine in my group. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. Sometimes some of us do and others don't. It's not a big deal either way.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 8, 2009)

My friends don't have a ban on alcohol and gaming, it just rarely happens. Honestly, it's never been practical for everyone to drink - even in my current game, with my wife and I living where the game happens and another player living about ten minutes' walk away, we still have plenty of people who need to be able to drive home, or who just don't drink much or at all, or who just don't feel the personal need to mix drinking and gaming.

It's like everyone chipping in to get a meal on game night - some groups do it, some don't. We've historically tended to order pizzas when everyone shows up, or whatever, but I've played in other games where the understanding was you'd eat dinner at home before you come, and/or that you can bring something to heat up in the microwave at the host's place.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 8, 2009)

I game with my friends, and we enjoy our intoxicants of choice whenever we get together---D&D day is just another social occasion.

And honestly, some of them are *much* more fun at the table if they've had a few beers (or puffs or whatever) than otherwise.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

It's not hate, any more than say, not wanting people to play with dangerous fireworks is hate.

I consider it prudence.

There may be people who can handle a drink or two.   Others cannot.  Others can't stop, and resent being told that they've had enough, or that they're causing problems.  And honestly, there are people who think they're more fun when they've had a drink, but I have never felt that to be the case.  They may think they're having more fun, but it's not necessarily the same for others.  And then they don't really care.   So what can you do?   

I haven't found much of anything.  And since I don't want to deal with that complication any more, I decline to deal with it at all.  I don't want the bother.  I prefer to avoid the problem by not being around folks who are drinking.

If you want to drink, go ahead, with your friends who like that activity.   Just leave me out of it.

And please don't think I'm a jerk about it.  When people converse about their alcohol consumption, whether it be a binge or a wine-tasting, I remain as silent as I would if they were conversing about professional golf.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

In my actual experience in games where alcohol was expressly banned, which admittedly is limited to two groups in 20 years, it's been a strange "push-back" against perceived "cool-factor."  The consumption of alcohol -- especially stuff like micro-brew -- is perceived to have a negative correlation with geeky activities like gaming, so in an effort to fully embrace the geek, alcohol is banned.

One guy was so blatant about this behavior -- not just related to alcohol -- that we'd yank his chain about it on a regular basis.

"How many sessions do you think it will be before we've got Dave convinced that 'Buffy' is too mainstream for him?"

To be clear, I'm not speculating -- at all -- on the motivations of people who've posted about this here.  I'm just sharing my actual, real-world experiences.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 8, 2009)

It's an issue of degree. Opening a beer like one would a coke, that's one thing.

Becoming inedbriated at the table? No thanks.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2009)

I figure I should answer.  Generally, we just don't drink because nobody's interested.  It depends on my ever-shifting group, really.  If someone brings beer, we'll drink.  If nobody does, we don't miss it.

On my 1/month Saturday game, someone generally brings a two six-packs of something.  We stay away from crap beers; much like good wine, it's usually a nice domestic craft beer, or a good import.  Nobody's drinking for the effect - we're drinking for the sociability and the enjoyment.

It has a potential for problems, but so do lots of things.  I can't understand banning it because it might cause problems; I think it's better to be open and confront any problems that appear.  I think it's a benefit to being mature, and playing with a mature group.

-O


----------



## Mallus (Jul 8, 2009)

I don't get it, either.

A question for the people who don't like being around even moderate alcohol consumption... do you ever dine out at restaurants? Where people typically drink a bottle of wine with dinner, or indulge in cocktails before and cordials after (actually, I prefer Calvados as my postprandial fire-water).


----------



## ggroy (Jul 8, 2009)

The main thing that I didn't like about having beer and other booze being around the game, is dealing with the shenanigans during the game and having to clean up afterward.  All kinds of stuff like beer being spilled, bottles falling onto the floor and shattering, players throwing bottle caps at one another, dumping beer over somebody's head, players passing out, etc ...

This sort of stuff happened frequently enough when I was gaming in college, that I development a profound distaste for having booze at the game table.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 8, 2009)

For me, I don't want beer at my gaming table because it's never been a positive experience or adder to the gaming, and has always been negative.

For much of my life I gamed at the Student Union at the UW, so there was ready access to beer. Every time we had a player (or the group as a whole) who  brought beer into the game, we got less gaming done, and someone would tend to drink more than they should, and that would make for bad decisions in (and out of) the game.

The thing is: on other nights the same group of people would get together and have a drink or two out on the Terrace, and there'd be no problems. The difference was that you were just shooting the breeze with friends in one case, and trying to do something that actually requires thought and concentration in the other.

I'm sure there are plenty of groups that can include drinking with their game, but *I've* never seen it as something positive or fun...and that means I like to avoid it where possible.

--Steve


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 8, 2009)

It's a thinking game. Not necessarily deep thinking, or solving puzzles, or what have you, but it _is_ a game where thinking occurs.

I've never been in a group where people drank alcohol at a game, presumably for the same reason you don't blare a loud TV show in a game, or why you try to get some sleep before showing up, etc.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Mallus said:


> A question for the people who don't like being around even moderate alcohol consumption... do you ever dine out at restaurants? Where people typically drink a bottle of wine with dinner, or indulge in cocktails before and cordials after (actually, I prefer Calvados as my postprandial fire-water).




As a rule, I don't go to such restaurants, but when I do, I'm not dining with those people, and if there is a problem with them, it's the staff of the restaurant's problem to deal with, not mine.   If the restaurant doesn't handle it well, I don't come back.  That said, I explicitly don't go to bars, nightclubs, or restaurants where I know there will be excessive alcohol consumption, such as around major holidays or sporting events.   I also avoid certain people's birthday parties or other celebrations.   It's far easier for me.  Why go somewhere I don't have fun?

And yes, I'm fine with somebody who says "well, I like to drink at games, and smoke, so I won't be coming" .  I may not agree, but I don't find myself especially bothered by trying to understand them.   Pro Golf fans are much more bewildering.


----------



## Dykstrav (Jul 8, 2009)

To me, having a drink at the game table is no different than having a drink at any other social event. I wouldn't mind if other people drank a beer or cocktail at a party or if we went out for supper, so I don't really see how gaming is different.

In the past, I've served several different drinks when I host games at my place. Martinis are my favorite, and I've also served Manhattans, Jack and lemonade, beer, and wine. I've taken to drinking vodka at games recently, but that's because my girlfriend had some orange twist. It was actually pretty tasty, and it's got me sampling those fruity vodkas now. I don't drink to to point of inebriation and I don't let others do it when I host... It's never been a problem.

I have also been to a game where there was a cookout scheduled afterward, so I offered to bring the beer. The host approved, I show up with a 24-pack of ale, and I got an icy reaction because of it. I drank two of them and took the rest home. If people have a problem with me drinking at the game, I respect it, but I expect a degree of communication about it beforehand.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jul 8, 2009)

Generally we don't drink except if we're having a fourteen hour game session (10am to 12pm), in which case we have a bbq for lunch and generally a beer each (because a bbq's not a bbq unless you have a beer).

However, we have two players who have been known to overindulge. For both Ed and Dave, drinking and gaming does not mix. Ed goes all quiet except for the odd silly comment while Dave has a few more issues. The thing is with Dave is that he always has issues overindulging in something. Like the time he ate 20 paddlepop icecreams within half an hour and then complained for the rest of the game that he felt sick. He even tried to blame the previous evening's dinner as the real culperate. Or the time he ate about 5 big chocolate bars, or of course the time he drank four bottles of beer in 10 minutes. This latter time, he just played silly before complaining once again about feeling sick. And so we have a 2 beer policy at most - which is really a Dave, don't-drink-until-your-sick rule.

Generally though, I prefer games where alcohol isn't consumed.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jul 8, 2009)

In my experience, it's always been a non-issue.  If someone broke out a six-pack or bottle of wine, great.  In one group, though, a couple players had very strong feelings about drinking, so we never drank.  That was cool, too.  I've only ever gamed with friends - people I already knew socially - so whether or not alcohol was allowed was just implicitly understood, I suppose. 

I _can_ understand someone's reservations, though - especially when gaming with new people they don't know so well.  Some people are truly bothersome if they're not responsible drinkers.  I don't want to deal with those issues while I'm trying to have fun gaming.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm a teetotaler and I don't want to be around anyone that's drinking.



Mallus said:


> I don't get it, either.
> 
> A question for the people who don't like being around even moderate alcohol consumption... do you ever dine out at restaurants? Where people typically drink a bottle of wine with dinner, or indulge in cocktails before and cordials after (actually, I prefer Calvados as my postprandial fire-water).




I think my annual trip to Red Lobster is about it.

Come to think of it, I just had this discussion a couple of weeks ago in a golf forum. I won't play with drinking/ smoking golfers either.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

Just out of curiosity for the gaming-and-booze-don't-mix folks ...

Let's say you're invited to the game.  Gm you like, game system you like, everything sounds swell.

Do you ask, "Is anybody going to have a drink during the game?"

Do you ask, "Is anybody going to get drunk during the game?"

Now let's say you attend the game, and it's a lot of fun.  Midway through the first session, a guy cracks open a beer.

Do you leave right then and there?

Do you ask him to stop drinking?

What if he goes on to drink, say, a beer an hour?

At what point do you leave?

If you don't leave, have you decided not to return?

Sorry for all the questions, but I just find this really interesting.  (FWIW, if someone lit a cigarette at the table, I'd politely explain that I can't be (and don't want to be) around it, and immediately gather my things and leave.)


----------



## Dedekind (Jul 8, 2009)

We actually enjoy beer enough at our games that we started a beer club. Every game two people are responsible for bringing a beer they haven't tried. Then we judge them after the game is over. Most of them aren't very good (no one has tried them for a reason!) but we have found some gems. 

Of course, I don't require it and would respect a group's request not to have any alcohol.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 8, 2009)

The beer is not the problem.  If a person is disruptive to the game HE is the problem.  If he's only disruptive when he drinks, HE is still the problem.  He shouldn't drink if he knows he's gonna be an ass.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Jul 8, 2009)

Invisible Stalker said:


> I'm a teetotaler and I don't want to be around anyone that's drinking.




I think that a lot of the 'beer hate' is some version of this.  Some folks don't engage in [X Activity], nor do they associate with people who do.  I don't really see anything wrong with that, though I do engage in [X Activity]...


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

The guys (and gals) in my old 4E LFR group often have beer, wine or some festive drink (margaritas on May 5, etc). Not everyone drinks, but no one's ever had a problem with it - maybe we just have a good group (no mean, loud, irritating drinkers).

I think once or twice someone drank too much and couldn't add up the dice, but it was more humorous than anything.

If you're hosting strangers, I could definitely see drinking rules getting tricky... Sure, I might know my friends are fine, but what about the new guy? Is he going to go ballistic in my living room after two glasses of wine? Touchy situation I guess. No hard and fast rule there. Just have to go case by case, I think.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Do you ask, "Is anybody going to have a drink during the game?"
> 
> Do you ask, "Is anybody going to get drunk during the game?"




When there's someone who doesn't know them already, I make my conditions known in advance, and ask them if they have any.  I even ask if all the other players are aware.   I even prefer to have it in writing along with the precis of the game itself(setting, allowed rule books, character generation methods) so there's less argument about it.  

And there's other important questions like "Does anybody have any allergies?" or "Is anybody expecting to have to change the times they will be available?" which it really helps to answer first.  Nothing that derails a game more than bickering before it truly begins.



> Now let's say you attend the game, and it's a lot of fun.  Midway through the first session, a guy cracks open a beer.
> 
> Do you leave right then and there?
> 
> Do you ask him to stop drinking?




If the person is unfamiliar, then I say "Excuse me, but I thought we'd agreed to not drink at these games" and if they say "Oh I'm sorry, I forgot" and put up their drink, well, then it's cool.  If there's an argument, well, I pass on that and I leave rather than prolong it.  Will I never return?  Not if the conditions I agreed to play under remain unmet.  

And if I'm hosting, it won't even get that far, because somebody won't normally get in the door with alcohol or cigarettes.  I ask before they come in.
And there's a sign.

Liars are just not acceptable.  I would much rather have somebody say "Oh, I forgot we weren't supposed to drink or smoke" or even "Y'know, I had a bad day, I really need a drink" as the first can be forgiven, the latter, well, I don't mind somebody skipping out if they tell me.  We can run a one-shot or something.


----------



## malraux (Jul 8, 2009)

I appreciate the honesty of making clear that alcohol is unwelcome, I just don't get it.  I mean, I dislike soda.  Not just drinking it, but its larger societal effects (related in with our agriculture policy).  But that doesn't mean I have to dislike someone because they have a soda.  I don't see how someone having alcohol (in reasonable amounts) affects you anymore than someone having soda affects me.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> The beer is not the problem.  If a person is disruptive to the game HE is the problem.  If he's only disruptive when he drinks, HE is still the problem.  He shouldn't drink if he knows he's gonna be an ass.




Absolutely, but what can I do?   I've found people to be less than responsive to the suggestion of "Hey, you have a drinking problem" so I go with what I can control, which is the slightly less offensive "Nobody gets to drink" which at least doesn't single anyone out.  

That way I don't feel like I'm judging anyone.



			
				Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> I'm a teetotaler and I don't want to be around anyone that's drinking.
> I think that a lot of the 'beer hate' is some version of this. Some folks don't engage in [X Activity], nor do they associate with people who do. I don't really see anything wrong with that, though I do engage in [X Activity]...




This sort of thinking can be applied to both sides.


----------



## RefinedBean (Jul 8, 2009)

Just a public service reminder:

There is no such thing as badwrongfun.

There IS such a thing as badwrongbeer.  

I like to have a few beers sometimes, but mainly I don't drink during gaming.  These days I can really only drink microbrews unless I'm being held upside down over a keg, so it helps save money, and many DMs and players I game with aren't comfortable with drinking at the table.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 8, 2009)

In our groups case (7 people)

4 of us are teetotalers for faith based reasons (our church requires us to be such*)
2 do it for health reasons.
1 drinks twice a year.

As I host, and I will not let any kind of alcohol into my home (nor anyone under the influence the same) it's sort of moot point, but the group is okay with that.


* Even before I joined that particular faith, I was a teetotaler. My father was an alcoholic, and it destroyed our family. So my views on alcohol are shaped by that.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Absolutely, but what can I do?   I've found people to be less than responsive to the suggestion of "Hey, you have a drinking problem" so I go with what I can control, which is the slightly less offensive "Nobody gets to drink" which at least doesn't single anyone out.
> 
> That way I don't feel like I'm judging anyone.




I think "No being an ass at the game," is less offensive than "No drinking at the game."  But I'm weird that way.  I don't even drink, but I think banning someone from having a couple of beers is no different than banning cokes or water, or wearing purple.  Ban the bad behaviour not inanimate objects.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 8, 2009)

Some of what's been written here is...well, scary is the only word that leaps to mind.  I feel like I've time-warped to the prohibition-crazed 1930's.

Don't want to drink at the game?  Fine.

Don't want me to drink at the game?  Not fine.  Not because I insist on drinking at every game I go to, but because the game to me is a place to relax (particularly if I'm not the DM) and sometimes relaxing includes a few tall cool ones.

And as for drinking causing players to make "bad decisions" in the game, *that's a feature, not a bug*.  Bad decisions inevitably lead to much more fun and adventure...and risk...than good safe boring decisions, so bring 'em on!  Don't take it so seriously! 

Lan-"they need to market a beer to gamers.  It'd be called 'Gonzo'."-efan


----------



## Mallus (Jul 8, 2009)

Invisible Stalker said:


> I'm a teetotaler and I don't want to be around anyone that's drinking.



Why? If they're not being rude or loud or disruptive, why would it faze you?



> I think my annual trip to Red Lobster is about it.



Have you gone yet this year? If not, consider finding a nice, local, independent seafood restaurant and have dinner there. Consult Zagat's or Yelp or ask some co-workers for suggestions. 

If you only dine out once a year it shouldn't be at Red Lobster. Those chain restaurants are like feeding troughs for the long pigs...

(can you tell I didn't enjoy my last meal at Red Lobster)


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 8, 2009)

malraux said:


> I appreciate the honesty of making clear that alcohol is unwelcome, I just don't get it.  I mean, I dislike soda.  Not just drinking it, but its larger societal effects (related in with our agriculture policy).  But that doesn't mean I have to dislike someone because they have a soda.  I don't see how someone having alcohol (in reasonable amounts) affects you anymore than someone having soda affects me.



This strikes me as a somewhat elaborate form of 'just not getting it'.

If it helps to clarify, I know some people who will not knowingly and willingly go anywhere near the consumption of alcohol. . . and they have their reasons. Personal reasons, so I'm not going to go into detail, especially here of all places. But they are real, valid, and arise from genuine life experiences.

I doubt it is that freakishly rare, either.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Do you ask, "Is anybody going to have a drink during the game?"
> 
> Do you ask, "Is anybody going to get drunk during the game?"




If I thought about it, I would. But I likely wouldn't have thought to do so.



> Now let's say you attend the game, and it's a lot of fun.  Midway through the first session, a guy cracks open a beer.
> 
> Do you leave right then and there?
> 
> Do you ask him to stop drinking?




I wouldn't do either, but at the end of the session, I would pull the GM aside and thank him for his time, and explain that I am really uncomfortable with drinking at a game, and as that is obvisouly something no one else has a problem with, so I won't be back to the group. All very politely.

If the drinking were everyone, and I was expected to participate, then I would leave right away. As politely as I could.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

malraux said:


> But that doesn't mean I have to dislike someone because they have a soda.




Saying this tells me one thing...you think people are being disliked.

That's not the case.  It's not that simple.  All I'm seeing is that you're not getting what I've said.



> I don't see how someone having alcohol (in reasonable amounts) affects you anymore than someone having soda affects me.




Because not everybody has the same idea of what's reasonable or not, so rather than engage in what I see as fruitless arguments over it, I set it at zero.  I feel it's less likely to be taken as a personal judgment.  Some people may still take it that way, but I can game without them.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 8, 2009)

Minor nitpick - Prohibition actually lasted from 1920-1933, so it was mostly the roaring 20s.  Sorry, I'm anal that way, lol.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Sorry for all the questions, but I just find this really interesting. (FWIW, if someone lit a cigarette at the table, I'd politely explain that I can't be (and don't want to be) around it, and immediately gather my things and leave.)




It's all part of the DM interview process, I'm going to know before I ever walk in there.

I'm as tolerant of drink as you are of cigarettes.

I'm far less tolerant of stuff like marijuana and chewing tobacco.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 8, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> I doubt it is that freakishly rare, either.



Probably not.

But neither is it common for embarrassing, inebriated behavior to break out every time adults drink some wine, say while they're at a proper restaurant. My wife and I can attest to this. We dine out all the time, in Philadelphia, no less, a city not known for its couth .


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I think "No being an ass at the game," is less offensive than "No drinking at the game."  But I'm weird that way.  I don't even drink, but I think banning someone from having a couple of beers is no different than banning cokes or water, or wearing purple.  Ban the bad behaviour not inanimate objects.




Well, you're still not allowed to be an ass at the game, but there's already enough argument over that which I can't avoid, that I prefer to take as many points of conflict out of it as possible.   Drinking, among others, is one I can avoid.   And for what it's worth, I do know folks who ban drinking in some rooms of their houses, so it's hardly unimaginable to me that somebody would possibly bring that up in a gaming situation.  Spills can be really bad to some collectible material, y'know?  Now if you are specifically banning water, I'd like to see your reason, as I see none.  At least with alcohol there are known effects which I would be very surprised if anybody was unaware of them.  If they are unaware, then they probably aren't informed enough to responsibly drink.  So I would expect to see some articulation of a reason if you said nobody can drink water, everything else is fine. And well, I don't know about the color purple, but dress codes are hardly rare in the world.  Sometimes for health reasons, sometimes for the consideration of others.  In fact, somebody else already mentioned it as one of theirs.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 8, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Probably not.
> 
> But neither is it common for embarrassing, inebriated behavior to break out every time adults drink some wine, say while they're at a proper restaurant. My wife and I can attest to this. We dine out all the time, in Philadelphia, no less, a city not known for its couth .



Yeah, I know. I don't mind a few drinks from time to time, either. As it so happens.

I might've come across a bit snippy before, and if so, sorry - in particular to _malraux_, to whom I was directly responding. Again, there are reasons. :/ I've felt compelled to defend IRL that choice I referred to, that a couple of friends of mine made, quite some time ago. And basically, because I felt that their choice was quite fine and shouldn't even need defending in the first place, the whole situation(s) bugged me a fair bit. So, maybe even vaguely similar statements still can, to some extent.

Gah, perhaps it's better I leave the subject well alone.


----------



## loki8481 (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm not sure I'd get along well with a DM or a player who was so uptight that they wouldn't allow any drinking whatsoever... I'm a big boy, I know my limits, a glass of wine or two isn't going to make me drunk but will help me relax a little more.

getting outright drunk, otoh, I agree is definitely disruptive to the gameplay experience. as a DM, I tend to give my players the benefit of the doubt if they want to drink while they play, but if they're getting drunk or make a habit of getting drunk, I'd definitely say something about it.

as far as smoking goes, it's just plain against my lease. I've got no problem if someone wants to step outside and grab a smoke when they're not actively involved in something.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Gah, perhaps it's better I leave the subject well alone.




We probably all should, it's a hot button issue I just don't see being resolved.  I don't know that I truly believe anything I say will serve any real purpose no matter what I say.



loki8481 said:


> I'm not sure I'd get along well with a DM or a player who was so uptight that they wouldn't allow any drinking whatsoever...




And I know I wouldn't get along well with a DM or player who was so uptight that they wouldn't accept my preference to avoid the consumption of alcohol or the effects it has on people.

I know my limits myself, and people drinking and gaming is one of them.  I have not found it effective to say something about it to a person with a particular issue, as that just leads to the same resentment I get from making it a rule upfront, with the problem of it feeling personal.

I'm far more comfortable saying "I don't trust any of you" than I am saying "I don't trust you" so I go with what's best for me.  This principle also applies to borrowing my things.  I say "Nobody gets to borrow my stuff" and I'm far happier with that than having to say to somebody that I have a problem with them.

I leave that to libraries.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jul 8, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Have you gone yet this year? If not, consider finding a nice, local, independent seafood restaurant and have dinner there. Consult Zagat's or Yelp or ask some co-workers for suggestions.
> 
> If you only dine out once a year it shouldn't be at Red Lobster. Those chain restaurants are like feeding troughs for the long pigs...
> 
> (can you tell I didn't enjoy my last meal at Red Lobster)





It's far enough just to get to Red Lobster from my little village.


----------



## Lancelot (Jul 8, 2009)

I have no problem with drinks at my games, but it's very rare that anyone will do it. We play late Thursday nights after work (every week, ending at 11pm-1am) so it's more likely we'll be chugging Coca-Cola, coffee and energy drinks to keep the spirits high.

Now, actually getting to sleep after a session... that's another story. Our record is going through 16 liters of Coca Cola (plus assorted energy drinks) in one session, between 5 of us. I don't think I slept that night at all.

We'll crack open a few beers or a bottle of rum every 3-6 months for a special occasion at one of our fortnightly (...that's every two weeks, for our American friends...) weekend sessions. Maybe somebody just got engaged, or it's their birthday. No issue for any of us.

However, it's something that I keep an eye on. The only time I've ended a session/group was because of alcohol. One of the players thought it'd be fun to go through a bottle of whiskey (just him and one other player drinking) over the course of 3 hours. He started getting combative (in a joking fashion) regarding the module, pointing out all the supposed plot holes and the "funny" NPC names. It ruined everybody's suspension of disbelief pretty rapidly, which meant the session became a real drag. What really pushed it over the edge, however, was his "humorous" antics in the car when I took some of the guys out to get a bite to eat. Pulling the handbrake on and taking my (manual) car out of gear while I was trying to drive nearly had me throwing him out of the car.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2009)

In response to some of the above - seriously, if one or more of the people at the table is a recovering alcoholic, I think it's sensible and responsible to ban drinking.  Again, it's a social event, and that's the kind of courtesy I'd expect from a group of friends.

That's a far cry from social phobias involving drinking, though.  Completely different situation, IMHO.

-O


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> > And for what it's worth, I do know folks who ban drinking in some rooms of their houses, so it's hardly unimaginable to me that somebody would possibly bring that up in a gaming situation.  Spills can be really bad to some collectible material, y'know?
> >
> > Yes, and soft drinks do just as much damage as beer, yet they are okay.
> 
> ...




I'm not aware of any effects.  I see no difference between alcohol and water here.  Both will ruin a 1974 Men and Monsters book if spilled upon it.  Neither will jump up and slap the dm in the mouth.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I'm not aware of any effects.




Ok, then that might be a problem.  I can only suggest you educate yourself.


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 8, 2009)

We've never drunk regularly at the game table, but largely because my group isn't much for social drinking outside of major holidays for the most part. The one time we did, the alcohol (seriously high grade imported rum) was also an in-game prop for a pirate themed game.

I wouldn't have a problem with players bringing alcohol so long as they were willing to share with everyone else. I don't have any players that would have a problem with drinking, be it for bad experiences (recovering alcoholic, etc) or religious prohibitions (Mormon, etc).


----------



## loki8481 (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> And I know I wouldn't get along well with a DM or player who was so uptight that they wouldn't accept my preference to avoid the consumption of alcohol or the effects it has on people.




fair enough, different strokes for different folks 

for me, the social aspect of hanging around a table with a bunch of friends is just as important as the game itself... if a DM didn't trust me with a glass of wine, it'd be a major distraction.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Ok, then that might be a problem.  I can only suggest you educate yourself.




Are you suggesting alcohol MAKES people act like an ass?  I disagree.  Again, I say blame the person not the alcohol, or the allergies, or the bad day he had at work.  If you display poor behaviour at my games, I could care less WHY you did it.  You are showing me and my players - and the rest of the household - a lack of respect.  And I'm certainly not kicking a good player out of the group because he dared to open a beer.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

loki8481 said:


> for me, the social aspect of hanging around a table with a bunch of friends is just as important as the game itself... if a DM didn't trust me with a glass of wine, it'd be a major distraction.




And a DM saying "Well, Person A can do this, but Person B can't" in regards to personal behavior would be a major distraction to me.  Heck, as the DM, it's confusing enough to keep the game's rules straight.  

To put it another way, I'm not distrusting you, I'm choosing to not trust anyone.  I find that to be far more fair.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 8, 2009)

A thought strikes:

How do you have a beer and pretzels game without the beer?

Or, to put it another way: for the no-drink crew, where do your games tend to fall on the serious-gonzo scale?  Is there perhaps a correlation between willingness to allow alcohol and relative gonzo-ness of the game?

Lanefan


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> How do you have a beer and pretzels game without the beer?




Root beer or other non-alcoholic beer is acceptable.


----------



## Rel (Jul 8, 2009)

I'll have a beer once in a while during the game.  Especially now that it is at my home.  Especially when I need a bottlecap to represent one of the bad guys on the battlemat.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> To put it another way, I'm not distrusting you, I'm choosing to not trust anyone.  I find that to be far more fair.



Assuming you're all friends outside the game, why not just choose to trust everyone and see how it goes? (and if you're not friends outside the game, why are you gaming together?)

Lanefan


----------



## malraux (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> And a DM saying "Well, Person A can do this, but Person B can't" in regards to personal behavior would be a major distraction to me.  Heck, as the DM, it's confusing enough to keep the game's rules straight.
> 
> To put it another way, I'm not distrusting you, I'm choosing to not trust anyone.  I find that to be far more fair.




As others have said, its odd to say that you don't trust people you hang out with.

And I'd say that person A and person B are both banned from being a jerk.  That said, if B combined with alcohol is a problem, then ok, ban alcohol for everyone and possibly start working on an intervention.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Assuming you're all friends outside the game, why not just choose to trust everyone and see how it goes? (and if you're not friends outside the game, why are you gaming together?)




My decision came from experience.  Hope that answers your question.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

malraux said:


> As others have said, its odd to say that you don't trust people you hang out with.




Ah, you know what, I don't need that long post , I'll just say, your way of expressing my side of things is not entirely accurate, and that your way of doing things, it probably seems equally odd to me.  

You want to have people drinking at games?  Fine, but dealing with it is a hassle I refuse to accept.   It's not worth it to me.  You can chalk it up to distrust if you like, but that's not entirely accurate.   It's not a distrust of individuals.  It's a distrust of human nature.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 8, 2009)

We occasionally have alcoholic drinks at our games.  Sometimes we drink beer, sometimes wine, sometimes whiskey.  Sometimes we don't drink at all, sometimes we drink a little, sometimes we drink a lot.  Sometimes (okay, once) people sleep on our couch the next morning.

It has never been a problem for us because we are all very close friends.  We have known each other for years, we look out for each other.  Nobody is going to let anyone get out of hand...if T tells me that I've had too many and takes my beer away, she's probably right.

Sure, it helps that none of us are recovering alcoholics, and that none of our beliefs require us to abstain from alcohol.  But the biggest reason, IMO, is that we trust each other.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 8, 2009)

Well, there's no banning of drinking with any of the games I'm playing with. The Thursday night game goes through about a 12-pack a week (we have a rotating schedule for who's bringing the beer) between 7-8 players depending on alternate weeks. The Sunday game, which my wife and I host, has a non-drinker but the rest of us drink a beer/cider or two. The non-drinker doesn't object, he just doesn't like alcohol.

Frankly, I still find the extent of the anti-alcohol stand a bit baffling. Personally eschewing alcohol, that I understand. Avoiding it because of a specific personal health issue (alcoholism), I understand. Refusing to associate around a gaming table because other people have a beer or wine in hand, aren't drinking to excess, aren't disrupting the game with it? That's just weird to me. It seems like an unfortunate barrier to construct when we could all benefit from having fewer barriers dividing us all...


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 8, 2009)

Well, I never drink outside the game, so are you trying to say I should inteh game?

But more seriously, I rather intensely dislike alcohol in any form so I would never promote alcohol at a game, but I don't mind if others have a bit to drink, though it is vanishingly rare in my group. 

I put alcohol up with TV, radio, computers, and etc that distract from the game. When I game, I am there to game, not multitask.


----------



## aurance (Jul 8, 2009)

I deal with it on a case by case basis. Some people are awful to game with while drinking. Others are perfectly fine.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

billd91 said:


> It seems like an unfortunate barrier to construct when we could all benefit from having fewer barriers dividing us all...




It is unfortunate, but necessary, as I've found that dealing with it in individual terms just doesn't work.  People get too upset and feel like they're being singled out.  At best, they realize their error when they sober up, at worst, they refuse to admit it and leave the game.  Either way, the damage is done.

It'd be one thing if I found it to be a simple matter to deal with the problem.  I haven't.  It's made things more complicated and disruptive.

It'd be like saying "Ok, everybody except Charles has to use these dice, he can use his lucky ones because well, he's a good chap, he won't cheat" or even the "Ok, Charles you have to roll using these dice in this shoebox because we can't trust you to roll fairly" .

There may be times the group is ok with that, or that Charles is, but I would continue to say they are the exception, and that I would honestly prefer to treat everybody the same.  So while it may seem to you like I'm creating a barrier, to me, it seems you're creating some barriers yourself, by putting people who don't want drinking in games outside the lines, people who can't handle drinking in their own lines and I just don't think the hassle is worth it for me.

I'd rather treat everybody the same.  If I wanted to choose who was a good risk and who wasn't, I'd be an actuary.

And I hope that analogy illustrates the issue for you, if not, then just say no rather than argue with it.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm a teetotaler. I don't go to bars or night clubs, but I've never had a problem with alcohol at the game table. There are a few reasons for this: 1) I often game in pizza joints that serve beer. Sometimes, a player decides to buy a beer with the pizza. 2) The only people who've ever had alcohol at my games are responsible adults. And 3) No one's ever been a bigger jerk than me at the table because of alcohol, so I've never felt there was a problem.

Personally, I don't mind being around drinking when it's not the main activity. I come from a family of heavy drinkers, so I'm used it.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Frankly, I still find the extent of the anti-alcohol stand a bit baffling.



Me, too, with all your qualifiers intact.

But I also find it _really_ interesting.  It's difficult to explain, but having someone tell me, as a 41 year old man, that I'm not allowed to drink a beer ... well, I think it's as strange as if my host for the night said, "Oh, and we're nudist gamers.  You can leave your clothes in the closet around the corner."

Well, okay, your house, your rules.  Depending on my mood, I might even stick around. But it's damned _peculiar_.

And being told that "it's not personal, I distrust _everyone_"?  Not really much of a mitigating statement, in terms of the peculiarity factor.

BTW, I've known many recovering alcoholics (we have at least one in our games), and not a single one begrudges anybody else alcohol.  Accepting one's addiction as one's own is a major part of most programs.


----------



## MichaelK (Jul 8, 2009)

I run my games off the top of my head which relies on quick thinking, careful choices and memorizing most of the books. So drinking isn't really compatible with my DMing.

As a player I usually avoid drinking because I'd probably lose the sense to keep myself from wisecracking and otherwise being disruptive.

Still, neither of those stops me enjoying a glass of scotch from time to time. A single standard drink won't affect me that much, as long as some time and drinks of water come between them.

None of us drink that much on D&D nights. We usually save that for poker nights or wrestling nights.

We haven't found any need to ban it though and I doubt we will in the future.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm very happy to be gaming at a pub (London D&D Meetup at The Ship) so this really doesn't come up.  My playing/GMing does suffer if I have more than 1 pint on an empty stomach, so I normally have 1 pint of London Pride, fish & chips, and a second pint, plus some water, over a 4-5 hour session, which seems ok.  I do remember playing in a game where I had 2 pints and got in an OOC verbal fight with a fellow player when my  PC wouldn't give their PC back their magic ring... Since then I watch my intake and food/alcohol ratio.

Edit: British culture is generally very tolerant of alcohol - especially the English, who seem to have higher alcohol tolerance than the Celts (I'm half of each).  AFAIK the driving limit is around 2.5 pints, which to my mind is far too much to be in charge of a vehicle.
Also, traditional English social life tends to centre around the pub, which encourages civilised drinking; although excessive Friday/Saturday night town-centre drinking by the young has been a problem for the past couple of decades.  American drinking norms seem more Scots-Irish, with either minimal drinking (1 can) or bingeing.


----------



## Enforcer (Jul 8, 2009)

We sometimes drink in our games. The Sunday afternoon game, generally not (though we made an exception last time to celebrate the finish of Thunderspire and one player's new job), the Wednesday night game, generally yes, though it's usually only one other player and myself (the third drinker moved away  and we miss him). One guy never drinks, though I haven't pried as to his reasons why. I honestly don't see the big deal.

I'm all for banning players who behave like jackasses, but alcohol consumption doesn't factor into that equation in my experience—it's usually an underlying character defect that can be exacerbated by booze. I'd find any game that sought to regulate my behavior with regards to alcohol unacceptable, especially if it's a game with food; I don't get drunk, but as food is usually part of gaming for me, so is wine or beer. To be fair, I have a pretty strong passion for alcohol: I work at a fine-dining restaurant and will be taking the next step of the Court of Master Sommeliers Exams soon.

I'm with others who have found the whole idea of "dry games" completely fascinating. I'll continue to read this thread with interest.


----------



## amethal (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> It's not a distrust of individuals.  It's a distrust of human nature.



Gaming is a social activity, and a personal experience.

I'm happy not to drink in front of my friends, if it makes them uncomfortable. I couldn't imagine them asking me not to drink because "in theory someone who has a single glass of wine could prove disruptive".

I admire the way you let people know where they stand up front. It just seems odd that you treat your closest friends and complete strangers the same way when it comes to alcohol.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 8, 2009)

It's not unusual for my group to have a few beers at a game session.  I haven't seen any appreciable difference between pre-beer and post-beer behavior.

I personally don't drink at all, but a few beers with a game isn't a no-go.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 8, 2009)

billd91 said:


> It seems like an unfortunate barrier to construct when we could all benefit from having fewer barriers dividing us all...



I've gotten much less kumbaya over the years.  I'm not interested in breaking down barriers between gamers anymore; I'm interested in finding gamers that are more compatible with me.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 8, 2009)

We're perfectly happy to have folks drinking during our game.  I don't tend to, but that's because I'm often driving.  Nobody gets drunk.

Then again, we also smoke around our gaming table.  

I can see how it would bother some poeple; but we're all fine with it, and so that's how it is.


----------



## bastrak (Jul 8, 2009)

I don't encourage alcohol consumption at my table on the basis that it can have negative effects such as players making poor decisions, accidentally knocking beer over the table top, contributing to inattention, etc.

I personally don't drink alcohol during games I run or when I am a player in someone else's game.

However saying that I don't object to those players who want to drink beer or wine doing so in what I consider a reasonable fashion at my table or in anyone else's game.


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 8, 2009)

I'd rather have them all totally wasted than have one bit of cigarette smoke in the room. I have pretty sensitive allergies. We do have a smoker in my game, and he's the only smoker I've known who wasn't a litterbug (he goes out for a smoke an hour, and he carries a container to take his butts home with him, god bless his heart!).  

Working through the logic on my side, w/regards to the drinking thing ... a) it really isn't practical given the driving nearly everyone has to do; b) I'm friends with - but not super-duper-BFFs with - my gamers, and I think even years into our relationships we are probably not at the "let my hair down and be a total doofus - or drink in front of each other" stage; c) I don't know that I would ever truly be able to be a super-duper-BFF friend with someone who drank more than occaisionally (I don't know that we would have the opportunity to even meet).  

I was at a game where one of the players was just little tipsy from a little drinking before the game.  The rest of us found it to be ... just ... awkward.  A faux-pas.  A social no-no.  None of us saw it as normal.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 8, 2009)

aurance said:


> I deal with it on a case by case basis. Some people are awful to game with while drinking. Others are perfectly fine.




This is reasonable.

The problem for me is that I don't want to find out who is awful to game with while drinking. 

I don't consume alcohol. I'm not a social drinker, I've never acquired a taste for it. I've tried it a few times but I cant remember the last time I've had an alcoholic beverage, it's most certainly been years. It's not that I'm a religious person or my faith requires me not to. I've spent more time that I wish I had around people who consumed alcohol and while not all of them acted like asses (happy drunks are AWESOME), the few who have have made it pretty much a deal breaker for me.

If we're playing in my place, there's no consumption of alcohol and if you want to smoke you've got to go outside. 

If I'm playing some place else and there's smoking inside the gaming location, I leave and I won't be back. If you want to poison yourself, that's fine. If you want to poison me, I have to option to not allow that to happen.

If people want to drink, that's fine. But I don't have to hang around you long enough to find out which one of you is going to start with the idiocy or the outbursts or the urinating into someone's book-bag when the leave the room. I understand that not everyone is going to act like that, but you cant tell me that alcohol doesn't aggravate the chance of otherwise rational people acting like idiots. 

Don't get me wrong, I'll walk away from sober people who act like idiots even faster.


----------



## Gilladian (Jul 8, 2009)

My friends and I play dnd to play dnd. We don't play to "hang out". We have one player who never drinks, because alcohol caused her serious family problems as a child; another player is diabetic, so he has to watch his sugar intake and alcohol can play havoc with that; the third and fourth players are father and 12-yr-old son - I'd be shocked if Scotty drank in front of Kyle; and my husband is number 5 - he's allergic to hopps, so it would have to be wine for him - and I'd kill him if he wasted our good Port drinking it up at the game table!! As the DM, I feel that drinking would impair my abilities too much - I get sleepy and silly when I'm tipsy.

I'm just as happy this way - the only drinking and gaming friend I had was fine with one beer, became a bit of an ass after two, and was unbearable with the third. But you could NOT explain it to him; he couldn't see his own behavior deteriorate. So we just quit gaming with him, and that was sad.


----------



## Somebloke (Jul 8, 2009)

Enforcer said:


> We sometimes drink in our games. The Sunday afternoon game, generally not (though we made an exception last time to celebrate the finish of Thunderspire and one player's new job), the Wednesday night game, generally yes, though it's usually only one other player and myself (the third drinker moved away  and we miss him). One guy never drinks, though I haven't pried as to his reasons why. I honestly don't see the big deal.
> 
> I'm all for banning players who behave like jackasses, but alcohol consumption doesn't factor into that equation in my experience—it's usually an underlying character defect that can be exacerbated by booze. I'd find any game that sought to regulate my behavior with regards to alcohol unacceptable, especially if it's a game with food; I don't get drunk, but as food is usually part of gaming for me, so is wine or beer. To be fair, I have a pretty strong passion for alcohol: I work at a fine-dining restaurant and will be taking the next step of the Court of Master Sommeliers Exams soon.
> 
> I'm with others who have found the whole idea of "dry games" completely fascinating. I'll continue to read this thread with interest.



I can attest to this. In Australia, all of the gaming groups I was part of didn't drink. When I moved to England all of the gaming groups I ran with either drank or gamed in a pub. Oh, and the one time we perceived that overdrinking was having a detrimental effect on the game, we all agreed to cut back. No further problems.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jul 8, 2009)

We almost always have a break for food and drinks. I love cooking and I always make up some finger food and maybe a light dish or two for the group. If they go well with alcohol sure, people will drink alcohol. At the gaming table itself noone seems to be drinking though, except for whatever was left over from our dinner break and then maybe water.
Smoking is banned in my house. Period.


----------



## Dausuul (Jul 8, 2009)

In my current gaming group, most of the participants drink moderately (a few beers) over the course of the evening. I don't drink myself, but I haven't seen any problems resulting from it, so I'm okay with it. If people were getting hammered, I wouldn't be - my experience of drunk people suggests that I wouldn't enjoy gaming with them in at least 90% of cases. But a few beers spread out over 4 hours or so don't seem to cause issues.

In most of my previous gaming groups, there has been no drinking at the table, not by any explicit rule but just because it wasn't the done thing. Of course, that was in social circles where a number of us simply didn't drink and most of the others drank quite rarely.

If a new player came in and got trashed and started being obnoxious, I expect our solution would be to not invite that player back... same as we'd do, and have done, for a player being obnoxious while sober.

My own preference, all things considered and all other things being equal, would be for a non-drinking table, but that's a very very long way down on my list of concerns and has more to do with my own personal quirks than anything else.



Gilladian said:


> I'm just as happy this way - the only drinking and gaming friend I had was fine with one beer, became a bit of an ass after two, and was unbearable with the third. But you could NOT explain it to him; he couldn't see his own behavior deteriorate. So we just quit gaming with him, and that was sad.




Yeah, I can see this. As I said, we don't ban alcohol in my current group, but I can understand why the groups that do so, do so. It's all very well to say "Ban the behavior, not the booze," but in practice that's not so easy to implement, especially when you've got somebody who's a perfectly good player except when they've had a couple. Good players are not easy to come by. Simply banning booze involves a whole lot less drama and may be the best solution for a given table.


----------



## HailToTheThief (Jul 8, 2009)

Just my two cents:

Our group (which has been gaming together for 9 years) has always mixed drinking and gaming. Gaming is just another social event for us, so it's come naturally. This has always been the case whether it was playing CCGs, board gaming or roleplaying. We've never had any problems: we all know eachother, all of us can hold our liquor and no one gets crazy. 

Granted, we occasionally over imbibe, but that is typically when we are playing the sillier games (typically while camping) and it works out well 

That being said, it's really a different matter with a gamer group that you don't know as well. If I were to join a new group I would hold off unless I got the feeling that it was a group that was comfortable with it. If they had a problem with it, no worries, I'd rather everyone enjoy the game and it's not a dealbreaker or anything.


----------



## Caliber (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm only part way through this thread, so I apologize if someone has asked this. But I'm struck wondering if this aversion to alcohol penetrates to within the game itself? Does in game drinking bother you? Curious (because the whole anti-drinking this is 100% bizarre to me)


----------



## avin (Jul 8, 2009)

Heh... beer, wine, whisky... most of my groups is made by adult men who have zero problem with alcohol. Nobody goes drunk. 

The only problem I have is smoke, cause I have a strong degree of alergy. If somebody need to smoke we insert small pauses on game and he goes outside.

I think we should try a tequila game next time \o/


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 8, 2009)

For not being much of a drinker myself, I feel I have some reasonable sense of the variables of alcohol tolerance because I've worked at White Wolf for over a decade. That'll teach you, particularly at the company functions.

People are just different. I really don't like being around disruptively drunk people at all. On the other hand, over the course of a game night I've watched two guys consume the better part of a twelve-pack of beer, or three people destroy two fairly large bottles of wind, and just not get drunk or disruptive. I know that for myself, a single glass of port isn't going to throw me off-key; some minor muscle relaxant, sure, but the inhibitions don't suddenly go away. My wife has a lower alcohol tolerance, but that means she starts to get silly after two drinks instead of one, and she almost always stops at one. (I say "almost" because my brother brought homemade mead to one game, and that stuff was good.) 

Now, I understand the desire not to find out at the table who's obnoxious with a couple of drinks and who isn't, but I'm fairly lucky in that I pretty much game with friends and relatives. I already know what their attitude toward drinking is, and what their life stresses likely are. There are people who do the double-shot of drinking and gaming to escape as far and hard as they can, but that's not really why we're here. The game is meant to be fun in its own right, and drinking is just a relaxant like a comfy chair, a good meal or appropriate music.


----------



## Grymar (Jul 8, 2009)

This is a good conversation and the rare 5 page thread that I've read word for word. I just want to say that I'm quite impressed at how this is being discussed intelligently and calmly. Drinking can touch on some pretty personal issues, so it is refreshing to see it being dealt with so well.

Anyway, I usually host our game and I DM 50-60% of the games and I rarely drink. Mainly it is for the sleepyness effects. We usually play at 8PM on Friday's after everyone have had a long week of work and we tend to need our coffee and pop to keep going. If I have a beer after 8PM, I'm going to want to go to bed. There have been exceptions when I've grabbed one when I've been a player, but not too often.

As far as others drinking, as long as they aren't too disruptive, I could care less. We are all adults, even if we rarely act like it.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 8, 2009)

I think there are also some cultural issues present, too - certainly I feel that drinking is much more accepted as a social norm in the UK.  I don't think I know anyone who doesn't drink.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Sorry for all the questions, but I just find this really interesting.  (FWIW, if someone lit a cigarette at the table, I'd politely explain that I can't be (and don't want to be) around it, and immediately gather my things and leave.)



Wouldn't it be less radical to ask him to turn it off and smoke outside?


billd91 said:


> Frankly, I still find the extent of the anti-alcohol stand a bit baffling. Personally eschewing alcohol, that I understand. Avoiding it because of a specific personal health issue (alcoholism), I understand. Refusing to associate around a gaming table because other people have a beer or wine in hand, aren't drinking to excess, aren't disrupting the game with it? That's just weird to me.




This


Morrus said:


> We're perfectly happy to have folks drinking during our game.  I don't tend to, but that's because I'm often driving.  Nobody gets drunk.
> 
> Then again, we also smoke around our gaming table.
> 
> I can see how it would bother some poeple; but we're all fine with it, and so that's how it is.



Thank god, I thought we were the only ones on this board that allowed smoking


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 8, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Wouldn't it be less radical to ask him to turn it off and smoke outside?
> This
> 
> Thank god, I thought we were the only ones on this board that allowed smoking




It might be an American vs. European thing...smoking has pretty much become a public taboo here in the U.S. (at least on the coasts).


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Jul 8, 2009)

Three of the seven people in our group brew their own oh-so-delicious beer so we're comfortable with drinking at the table.  I'd go so far as to say that game night would be _diminished_ if drinking were banned.  In any case, we are responsible adults and know when to say "when."  Oh, and the lone smoker goes outside to smoke, even during the cooold Minnesota winter months, poor bastard....


----------



## Crothian (Jul 8, 2009)

The only time I have a problem with it is when I go to gaming and other people go there to drink.  They have a few and think they are acting normal but they aren't and it disrubts the game.  

I am happy to get together with my friends and play a game that works better with drinking or just sit around and unwind watching a movie or something else.  But when I game I like to actually game.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jul 8, 2009)

It seems a bit silly to me. I view gaming as a social event, so as long as no one gets disruptive, I'm all for anything that lets people relax.  I dont even mind smoking, so long as they do it outside.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 8, 2009)

Dedekind said:


> We actually enjoy beer enough at our games that we started a beer club. Every game two people are responsible for bringing a beer they haven't tried. Then we judge them after the game is over. Most of them aren't very good (no one has tried them for a reason!) but we have found some gems.
> 
> Of course, I don't require it and would respect a group's request not to have any alcohol.




Now this is a good idea.  we've always enjoyed a beer or three at our games (only once did 2 people get drunk and one of them had just come off a bad break up so we were forgiving especially since he's actually a pretty funny drunk and the other guy just got the giggles - we did put a stop to excessive drinking after that and no one has ever gotten even slightly drunk since).  I like this idea of trying something new each game session though I am pretty entrenched in my love of Sleeman's Cream Ale.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 8, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I think there are also some cultural issues present, too - certainly I feel that drinking is much more accepted as a social norm in the UK.  I don't think I know anyone who doesn't drink.




Weird that. The American temperance movement grew out of British non-conformist faiths. I'm guessing our failed experiment of Prohibition took the wind right out of the sails of British temperance unions.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 8, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I think there are also some cultural issues present, too - certainly I feel that drinking is much more accepted as a social norm in the UK.  I don't think I know anyone who doesn't drink.



In Scotland it's compulsory. I'm drunk at the moment, and always have been.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2009)

As for smoking, I don't allow it inside my house.  I could give the asthma excuse - and it would be about half true - but mostly, I don't want my house smelling like smoke.  I game with a bunch of smokers, though, and they are perfectly willing to smoke outside.

It's not just a coastal thing; I haven't been to a house or apartment in quite a while where the residents allow smoking indoors.

-O


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

amethal said:


> It just seems odd that you treat your closest friends and complete strangers the same way when it comes to alcohol.




I prefer not to be accused of favortism.  Heck, even when it's two friends, it can be an issue.  One says "You let X drink because you like X better than me" .  Yeah, that's their fault for not recognizing their own individual issues but what can I do?  Well, it may come to the point where I don't play with that person regardless of what I do, but at least in this regard I can treat everybody equally, friends, strangers, and then nobody's arguing over being treated differently.  There are enough times you can't do that that I'll not embrace the hassle of another any more.


----------



## loki8481 (Jul 8, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Thank god, I thought we were the only ones on this board that allowed smoking




I have no problem with smoking for the most part, but it's against my lease, at least in-doors... don't want to get screwed out of my security deposit because of smoke damage.

illegal smoking... just wait till after the game is over. I have nothing against it in general, but playing with players who are high is just a nightmare.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I prefer not to be accused of favortism.  Heck, even when it's two friends, it can be an issue.  One says "You let X drink because you like X better than me" .  Yeah, that's their fault for not recognizing their own individual issues but what can I do?  Well, it may come to the point where I don't play with that person regardless of what I do, but at least in this regard I can treat everybody equally, friends, strangers, and then nobody's arguing over being treated differently.  There are enough times you can't do that that I'll not embrace the hassle of another any more.



I can't believe that a group of players would respond in that way.

Is this a hypothetical situation, or has this actually happened?

-O


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Caliber said:


> I'm only part way through this thread, so I apologize if someone has asked this. But I'm struck wondering if this aversion to alcohol penetrates to within the game itself? Does in game drinking bother you? Curious (because the whole anti-drinking this is 100% bizarre to me)




Well, I'm not interested in doing that sort of thing in detail, as some people I've known are, but then, I'm not interested in food in detail, while there are people who love to have the taste and flavor expanded on in detail.  Or who love to discuss their sartorial style, or get their appearance just right.  

Boring to me?   Yes.  But I can chalk that up to style, and not see it as a problem that needs to be headed off directly as it has had far less of an impact on my games.  I have yet to have somebody object when I say "Ok, I appreciate your interest in that sort of thing, but it's not within mine" when it comes to wanting to have a wine-tasting or a fashion show in game.  



Jack99 said:


> Wouldn't it be less radical to ask him to turn it off and smoke outside?




Less radical?  Yes.  More effective?  Maybe not.  I can respect how for some people they'd rather leave than risk an argument.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

This has basically been said in a few ways already, maybe even by me, but to elaborate... drinking at our games is fine as long as it doesn't become disruptive.  

Honestly, for us, the key is the disruptive behavior, whether it's caused by booze or anything else. We've had a few players who are never, ever ready on their turn and regularly bog down the game by trying to debate immaterial minutiae with the DM on other people's turns (this is why they're not ready on their own turn). Anyway, those people have caused far, far more disruption and irritation in our games than anyone ever drinking too much.

We regularly have new people show up, but, for the most part, they don't typically want to drink until they've gotten to know us, which works fine for us too. 

Maybe we've just been lucky, I don't know.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

Just curious, but.. is this all mostly hypothetical? Are there actually very many horror stories?


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I can't believe that a group of players would respond in that way.




As a group?  They don't.  As individuals they do.  At least if I treat the group equally though, there's one less thing to argue about.



> Is this a hypothetical situation, or has this actually happened?




I've said it before, this is based on experience.  Heck, this thread alone should show you how people don't like their personal behavior being questioned.  

Now don't get me wrong, there are things you can't solve with a blanket solution, but when one can be, like this one, I'll take it, it saves me some trouble during the game.



			
				Chainsaw said:
			
		

> Just curious, but.. is this all mostly hypothetical? Are there actually very many horror stories?




Already answered.  You, of course, may have had different experiences, but what can I do for you?  If you want to educate yourself on the effects alcohol can have on people, there's much better sources than me.


----------



## loki8481 (Jul 8, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I can't believe that a group of players would respond in that way.
> 
> Is this a hypothetical situation, or has this actually happened?
> 
> -O




re: the player favoritism aspect,

I played with this one group in college... there were 7 of us total (DM + 6 players).

two of those players were the DM's roommates and another was the DM's girlfriend. they'd often get more playtime than the rest of us, because the DM had no qualms against running a session just for them when they were around, using the same characters they used in our primary game, so they got a pretty good lead on the rest of the group and it always felt like we were just tagging along rather than being actively involved in the game.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> At least if I treat the group equally though, there's one less thing to argue about.




I hear you, but I think we'd probably just uninvite someone who got nasty or otherwise disruptive when he drank rather than limit everyone else. Gotta have consequences!

Edit: In our group, I think it sort of goes without saying that you're a guest in someone's home and if you become disruptive, for whatever reason, whether because of booze or anything else, that you won't be invited back.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Chainsaw said:


> Gotta have consequences!




People have enough problems recognizing that, so I just take one of the potential trouplespots out of it.  There are folks who can contribute to a game if they're not allowed to drink alcohol, and since I'd rather not argue over why another person might be allowed, or how much one person can handle versus another, I don't.  Blanket ban may not be completely acceptable to everybody, it's not fair in the sense of giving individual consideration, but it's fair in the sense of treating everybody the same.  That's easier for me to handle.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 8, 2009)

Caliber said:


> I'm only part way through this thread, so I apologize if someone has asked this. But I'm struck wondering if this aversion to alcohol penetrates to within the game itself? Does in game drinking bother you? Curious (because the whole anti-drinking this is 100% bizarre to me)





In my case it does, generally. In a fantasy game, where water would likely be unsafe to drink, the character will drink ale, and I've had the classic snooty elf that would only touch high class wine or brandy.

In a modern (superhero) setting though , which is what I play most of the time, I tend to not have characters that drink. Of the 5 I currently play (rotating games), 2 are underage (19 and 20 respectively), 2 choose not to for health or philosophical reasons, and one is an alien amoeba whose personal biochemistry wouldn't process the ethanol.

I once played  a smoker, and to be honest, that was actually part of the reason I lost interest in playing the character.

So yeah, in my case, it does affect how I game. If in characters drink it doesn't bother me - but the rest of the players don't really play drinkers or smokers either.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> That's easier for me to handle.




Whatever works for you and your gang. That's the great thing about this game - it doesn't require us all to play it the same or in the same circumstances.


----------



## vyme (Jul 8, 2009)

Though I didn't read every last post, I'm quite impressed by the diversity of opinion here.

The people I game with are definitely the drinky sort. Of course, that goes for at the table as well as away from it, so we can all hold our alcohol pretty well. There are some sessions where everyone stays relatively sober, and that's fun. There are some sessions where everyone gets tanked, and that's fun too. Sure I've seen it lead to droopy eyelids (though never outright misbehavior), but I could say the same about the guy who always woke up at 4AM.

What I think is especially cool, though, is that table dynamics largely determine how much drinking is going on. It becomes obvious early on what kind of mood everyone is in, and intoxication levels follow the mood. Is it going to be a joke filled, "remember that time when we were all playing liches...", endless pop-culture quoting sort of session? Or is it going to be a serious, never getting out of character, tactics like a well-oiled machine session? (Incidentally, I've seen both done quite well sober & smashed). Maybe it's because we're all so close and such good friends, but I'm consistently impressed at how the table tends to function as a whole.

Though I'm a smoker (as are most of the others I play with), I don't much care for cigarettes at the table. I like taking a break before/after combat, stepping outside, and chatting with friends that I don't get to see as often as I'd like. Sometimes it's about the game, sometimes not. Either way, I think we all come back to the table a bit more clear-headed, ready to game.

The guy I've been gaming with longest smokes some excellent pipe tobacco at the table, but I love that smell. So it's all good.

As far as "other" pipes go... I find that to be a bit distracting. Lost trains of thought and what not. Especially for the DM. A little is fine, but I've seen it take a much bigger toll on a table than alcohol ever has.

My two cents. Like I said, quite the diversity of opinion.


----------



## vyme (Jul 8, 2009)

As for in-game intoxication....

I think it's important to know your character's take on alcohol/drugs. Dwarf with an excessive fondness for ale? It's going to affect the game. Maybe his tolerance lets him stay sort of sober as he gets a contact drunk and plies him for information. Maybe he doesn't wake up when the spy breaks into his room.

Barbarian who has never had a drink, then finds himself in a city for the first time, needs to go to a particular rowdy tavern, and gives it a go? A guy with a large axe & a short temper who doesn't understand his limits could cause much fun & trouble for DM & PCs alike.

I once played a sorcerer (3.5), who habitually smoked a mildly-hallucinogenic fungus. Sometimes it helped with the sorcery, other times it was a real detriment (kinda like playing an AD&D wild mage). The other characters had a love/hate relationship with his pipe smoking. Anything that complicates character relationships is good for roleplaying in my book, so even when it went wrong, it was ultimately good for the game.

Even stress between the party teetotaler and the party drunk could make for good story. It's all about how you use it.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 8, 2009)

Chainsaw said:


> Just curious, but.. is this all mostly hypothetical? Are there actually very many horror stories?




From my own experiences, I can say it's very real. I'm from Wisconsin, and went to the UW which is in the running for most partying school each year, so I'll say we drink as much as anywhere else in the country. When I've traveled out of the country, I'd match us against just about anyone in the world.

And alcohol has caused serious problems for me when done in conjunction with roleplaying, enough to end three campaigns, and actually end a couple of lifelong friendships! And the thing was: this was all with people who would sit out on our Union Terrace and drink a pitcher or two with no issues whatsoever. That's why I don't want it in my gaming. I've said it before and I'll say it again: drinking is fine, but I have never had it add anything positive to gaming: at bests it's been a push, and normally it has a negative effect.

Beyond that, a number of posters here have obviously had some seriously bad experiences with drinking in their own life, and simply have no desire to be anywhere around it at all. I can't understand why it's so hard for people to simply accept and understand that. There's a lot being said here between the lines that people should just acknowledge and move on.

I don't think anyone is saying "drinking at a game is bad as an *objective moral law*," but rather it's, "based on my experiences and values, drinking and gaming don't mix *for me* and I wouldn't play in a game where they mixed." That's a world of difference, and something I think we should all be able to respect.

--Steve


----------



## malkav666 (Jul 8, 2009)

Drinking and smoking were always allowed in our gaming group. Although over the years cigarette smoking has become a "step outside" thing for anyone wanting to do it, as several of our members gave up that habit over the years. And its not like the smoking repulsed any of us, it was just an issue of mutual respect between friends. So cigarette smoking is outside. But every so often cigar smoking happens at the table (especially on holidays/special occasions).

And drinking has never been disallowed. Some weeks we don't drink, some weeks there is a whole lot of it going on. Our gaming has always been about hanging out with each other first and foremost. If we get a good game going then that is awesome. But some days when we are down folks we will just got to a movie, or geocaching, or some other group activity.

I would refuse any player that tried to get a written contract from me. I game to have fun and relax, I do not need a rigid social environment for that. As I host the games usually (but we do switch it up sometimes and go to another's home, or to the FLGS to play), the only real concern i have is that gamers respect my home, and the folks living there. If they can have a drink without spewing all over my carpet and harrassing the other players, then they are allowed to drink, if not, then no dice for them at my house.

love,

malkav


----------



## chriton227 (Jul 8, 2009)

Rechan said:


> It's an issue of degree. Opening a beer like one would a coke, that's one thing.
> 
> Becoming inedbriated at the table? No thanks.




If I drank beer (or my preferred hard cider) the same way I drink sodas while gaming, my wife would have to carry me to the car. 

Our groups don't tend to drink much during gaming, but we all have to drive to the location, and several of us (my wife and I included) just don't drink much at all regardless of where we are.  I don't enjoy the taste of alcoholic beverages any more than I do other non-alcoholic beverages, so I don't see the point in spending the additional money on it most of the time.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 8, 2009)

Lord Mhoram said:


> In my case it does, generally. In a fantasy game, where water would likely be unsafe to drink, the character will drink ale, and I've had the classic snooty elf that would only touch high class wine or brandy.



That's got to be a myth.  Alcohol is a dehydrating agent.  You can't subsist on ale.


			
				Lord Mhoram said:
			
		

> I once played  a smoker, and to be honest, that was actually part of the reason I lost interest in playing the character.



We had a character in a modern Cthulhu game that had had a tracheotomy due to throat cancer, and yet still smoked through the hole in his neck.  He also carried around a little oxygen tank.

He was actually a fascinating character.  I liked him.

He was probably played somewhat facetiously... his player is a heavy smoker too.  Although he's polite enough to smoke outside during breaks.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 8, 2009)

Chainsaw said:


> This has basically been said in a few ways already, maybe even by me, but to elaborate... drinking at our games is fine as long as it doesn't become disruptive.
> 
> Honestly, for us, the key is the disruptive behavior, whether it's caused by booze or anything else. We've had a few players who are never, ever ready on their turn and regularly bog down the game by trying to debate immaterial minutiae with the DM on other people's turns (this is why they're not ready on their own turn). Anyway, those people have caused far, far more disruption and irritation in our games than anyone ever drinking too much.



This is pretty much my situation too.  If some guys want to have couple of beers during the game, I have no problem with that.  Smokers would need to go outside to smoke, as one of our previous players did.

The most disruption came from rules lawyers, arguments about mechanics, or from players who were frequently not ready for their turn.


----------



## The Ghost (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> People have enough problems recognizing that, so I just take one of the potential trouplespots out of it.




Do you deal with those people in other aspects of your life? How do you handle those situations? The people I game with all have familial, professional, and/or social relationships beyond playing D&D. Is that not the case for you? 

It is interesting to me as you seem to find the problem with the alcohol and not the person whereas I see the problem being the person and not the alcohol. Am I correct in this assessment?


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 8, 2009)

When I ran a Western game, we would often have a shot of whiskey right as the game began. We were all good friends first and a gaming group second, though.

They still haven't forgiven me for switching the Maker's Mark for Wild Turkey that one time....


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

SteveC said:


> From my own experiences, I can say it's very real. I'm from Wisconsin, and went to the UW which is in the running for most partying school each year, so I'll say we drink as much as anywhere else in the country. When I've traveled out of the country, I'd match us against just about anyone in the world.
> 
> And alcohol has caused serious problems for me when done in conjunction with roleplaying, enough to end three campaigns, and actually end a couple of lifelong friendships! And the thing was: this was all with people who would sit out on our Union Terrace and drink a pitcher or two with no issues whatsoever. That's why I don't want it in my gaming. I've said it before and I'll say it again: drinking is fine, but I have never had it add anything positive to gaming: at bests it's been a push, and normally it has a negative effect.
> 
> ...




Apologies if I didn't read between the lines well enough. I'm sure plenty of people have bad life experiences with drinking. I really, truly, just wasn't sure how prevalent drinking/gaming bad experiences were. Sounds like they're much more common than I have ever witnessed or heard about. We have had regular rotations of new people in our LFR game for years (weekly, two tables worth of people, someone's always drinking) and I haven't ever really heard of a drinking related problem in the group. 

Anyway, if some people don't want to play in games where someone's having a beer, for whatever reason, that's obviously fine (like I said earlier, we're lucky the game pretty much accomodates anything under the sun). I don't look down on them or anything silly like that. I don't think anyone here's saying that they would.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 8, 2009)

TwoSix said:


> It might be an American vs. European thing...smoking has pretty much become a public taboo here in the U.S. (at least on the coasts).



These tendencies are spreading to us as well, but yeah, we are like 10-20 years behind still.



billd91 said:


> Weird that. The American temperance movement grew out of British non-conformist faiths. I'm guessing our failed experiment of Prohibition took the wind right out of the sails of British temperance unions.



I am not quite sure that is what happened, but certain boards rules prohibit me from taking this further.



Doug McCrae said:


> In Scotland it's compulsory. I'm drunk at the moment, and always have been.



Same in Denmark. 



loki8481 said:


> I have no problem with smoking for the most part, but it's against my lease, at least in-doors... don't want to get screwed out of my security deposit because of smoke damage.



I fully respect people who does not want you to smoke in your house/appartment. But are there seriously people who would forbid other people from stepping outside and taking a smoke?



Bumbles said:


> Less radical?  Yes.  More effective?  Maybe not.  I can respect how for some people they'd rather leave than risk an argument.



I could not respect that. Why on earth would you even assume it became an argument? Seems fatalist and a little bit silly.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Wouldn't it be less radical to ask him to turn it off and smoke outside?



Less radical?  Sure.  But that doesn't do me much good.  Smokers almost universally underestimate how much smoke and smoke-stink clings to them for at least an hour or two after smoking.  I get a scratchy, phlegmy throat just from getting a good whiff of the clinging residue.



Bumbles said:


> Less radical?  Yes.  More effective?  Maybe not.  I can respect how for some people they'd rather leave than risk an argument.



Just for the record, this isn't why I leave rather than raise a stink - _ha!_ -- about it.  I'm, uh, not averse to confrontation.

This (smoke-stink, as opposed to smoke) is where I draw the line at this particular personal freedom.  I don't believe people should have the right to actively smoke around me, but I believe people should have the right to smoke, even if they bring the clinging residue around me.  Rather than infringe upon that right, I'll absent myself, without rancor.  Basically, I believe people have the right to stink, whether it's of smoke, gamer cheese, urine, or whatever.

BTW, I haven't visited my mother at her apartment -- a pack-and-a-half a day smoker since she was 15, and even after having been put on oxygen -- in 10 years.  She no longer smokes around me, but simply being in her smoke-infused apartment for a couple of hours makes me ill and wheezy for a week.  Literally a week.

Some might also find it interesting that pot smoke doesn't have this effect on me.  I don't _like_ the smoke (even when partaking), but it doesn't make me ill at all.


----------



## maddman75 (Jul 8, 2009)

malkav666 said:


> I would refuse any player that tried to get a written contract from me. I game to have fun and relax, I do not need a rigid social environment for that. As I host the games usually (but we do switch it up sometimes and go to another's home, or to the FLGS to play), the only real concern i have is that gamers respect my home, and the folks living there. If they can have a drink without spewing all over my carpet and harrassing the other players, then they are allowed to drink, if not, then no dice for them at my house.




Agreed.  Any kind of contract/agreement would be met with disbelief and laughter.  How about we hang out awhile, and you just use your judgement about if you think we can game together.  Works pretty well for me.

To me its inappropriate for a guest to try and control what goes on in their host's house.  That is, if I'm playing at your house and you tell me 'we don't have any alcohol in our house', then of course I wouldn't try to bring any over.  However, if we're gaming at my house, you have no right to try and tell me not to have a beer.  If you quit over something so insignifigant and you want to judge and control me to that extent, well I'm probably not going to miss you.

I can't imagine joining a game and then trying to tell someone what will go on in their own house.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Jul 8, 2009)

ShinHakkaider said:


> .... But I don't have to hang around you long enough to find out which one of you is going to start with the idiocy or the outbursts or *the urinating into someone's book-bag when the leave the room*.




Inquiring minds wanna know: Real-life experience or way over-the-top exaggeration?


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Less radical?  Sure.  But that doesn't do me much good.  Smokers almost universally underestimate how much smoke and smoke-stink clings to them for at least an hour or two after smoking.  I get a scratchy, phlegmy throat just from getting a good whiff of the clinging residue.




If you have an extreme medical condition, I can certainly better respect and understand your decision.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 8, 2009)

I personally love a refreshing adult beverage, but I prefer not to have any drinking going on during game.  I have seen it lead to issues, though not often.  I just prefer to be in top form, mentally, and I really notice the effects of even 1 or 2 beers during gaming more than almost any other time.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> If you have an extreme medical condition, I can certainly better respect and understand your decision.



As far as I'm aware, I don't have an extreme medical condition.  Smoke is a severe irritant.  Far more people are affected the way I am than most smokers realize (or want to realize).

BTW, I don't have independent confirmation of this, but I was told by my allergist that it's impossible to be allergic to smoke ... something about smoke particles being too large to be an allergen.  He called smoke an "irritant," which is the terminology I use now.


----------



## Dausuul (Jul 8, 2009)

Hobo said:


> That's got to be a myth.  Alcohol is a dehydrating agent.  You can't subsist on ale.




Depends on how strong the ale is. One of the popular drinks in medieval times was "small beer," which was very weak stuff; people doing heavy manual labor would consume many pints of it over the course of a working day. It was safe as much because it was boiled during the brewing process as because of its slight alcohol content.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

Ancient O'Douls!


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> As far as I'm aware, I don't have an extreme medical condition.  Smoke is a severe irritant.  Far more people are affected the way I am than most smokers realize (or want to realize).




Sorry, but it's not that common to have that kind of reaction if someone has smoked outside and then later enters the room. Most people do not even know you have smoked unless they get very close to you.

AFAIK, YMMV etc.

Either way, it's fairly irrelevant. My point was simply that if it indeeds affects you even when people have smoked outside, then yes, I understand your reaction.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jul 8, 2009)

As someone who's been drinking and gaming for 20 years I can't recall it ever being a problem.  Most of my gaming buddies were drinking buddies before become gaming buddies, anyway.

I've spent about a quarter of my life defending or prosecuting drunk drivers, and have thus taken a few seminars on the effects of drinking on people.  An average 180 lb (82 kg) man can drink 4 beers in a 3 hour game session and not exhibit much, if any, effect from the alcohol.  The same man, can likely drink a 5th beer over that three hour period and still be legal to drive in Illinois (which has the .08 BAC rate as the legal limit).

Biologically, 5 average gamers splitting a 12 pack of Sam Adams for a standard length game session simply shouldn't be a problem.  Some of the stories I'm seeing on this thread are either involving people who are simply inexperienced with alcohol or are binge drinking (or likely both for teenagers and college kids) or are s whether drunk or sober.  I don't see any reason why a group of adult gamers shouldn't share a reasonable amount of alcohol while playing.

If I was gaming with someone at their house, and they, for whatever reason, didn't want alcohol there, I'd have no problem whatsoever.  Just, knowing the guys I've usually gamed with, we'd be suggesting the next gaming session be held somewhere else. But there wouldn't be any hard feelings.

However, if there were a game (or any other function) at my house, and someone asked me not to drink, that person would be invited to leave my house.

And, obviously, if I were running in or playing a game where some of the participants are children, I'd certainly not be drinking.

I don't smoke, and I don't want smoke in my house.  However, I have a nice comfy outside porch area that smokers are welcome to use.  If you smoke at your house, I've got no problem with it and it won't stop me from gaming there.


----------



## Halivar (Jul 8, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Sorry, but it's not that common to have that kind of reaction if someone has smoked outside and then later enters the room. Most people do not even know you have smoked unless they get very close to you.



Count me as one of the weird ones, then. I hate it. I tolerate it, and it doesn't stop me from hanging out with them, but I still hate it to death. (And for the love of Pete, don't ask me to join you on the porch to talk! I get that one all the time.)

BTW, about the alcohol thing: if you can't trust _some_ players because they are irresponsible with alcohol, you should consider whether you really want to game with them in the first place. The real problem, in those situations, is not the alcohol: it's the person.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Sorry, but it's not that common to have that kind of reaction if someone has smoked outside and then later enters the room. Most people do not even know you have smoked unless they get very close to you.



You're a smoker, right?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2009)

I don't drink alcohol myself, but I don't ban it at my table.  However, the folks in my groups don't ever seem to want the stuff, so it is kind of a non-issue.

That being said, I don't believe I have ever met a single human being who becomes any brighter, more interesting, or more witty after having alcohol.  So, I don't think I'd particularly look forward to having folks drink much for gaming, either.  The game seems more fun when everyone's minds are pretty sharp.


----------



## maddman75 (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> You're a smoker, right?




What difference does that make?  Do you have a medical condition that keeps you from being around smokers, since you've admitted that its not possible to be allergic to it?


----------



## Wicht (Jul 8, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Sorry, but it's not that common to have that kind of reaction if someone has smoked outside and then later enters the room. Most people do not even know you have smoked unless they get very close to you.




I think thats only true if you have constant exposure to smoke.  My wife's father smokes and she attests to the fact that she could not smell it on him until she had moved out of his house for a year or two.  Now she can smell it almost as quickly as I can.  Fresh smoke dries my eyes and nose.  Stale smoke not as bad but it smells worse to me and I can actually smell it from further away.

As for drinking.  I'm another that is a teetotaler.  I don't socialize with drinkers (in recreational setting anyways) and though I will eat at a restaurant that serves alcohol (no bars) I tend to eat at times when there is little or no drinking.  As for games, its mostly family at the moment, but when I gamed in college, it was a Christian college with a no alcohol policy so it was never an issue and afterwards, gaming was always at my house so it again was never an issue.  If I was at someone else's house gaming and drinking started, I likely would not game with the same group again.


----------



## Stereofm (Jul 8, 2009)

I remember that some of my friends started drinking towards the end of high school, and it really polluted some of our games. Caused a group breakup really.

However, now that we are a bunch of 30 something gamers, we do occasionnally drink during the game. But never too much. And not that often. But sometimes, there are reasons to celebrate outside of gaming, and just as much as we buy fine cakes, we occasionnally open bottles.

The fact that we don't have to drive helps a lot.


----------



## maddman75 (Jul 8, 2009)

Umbran said:


> That being said, I don't believe I have ever met a single human being who becomes any brighter, more interesting, or more witty after having alcohol.  So, I don't think I'd particularly look forward to having folks drink much for gaming, either.  The game seems more fun when everyone's minds are pretty sharp.




That's not the point.  Everyone else will become brighter, more interesting, and more witty after *you* have a couple of drinks.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

Umbran said:


> That being said, I don't believe I have ever met a single human being who becomes any brighter, more interesting, or more witty after having alcohol.



Seriously?  I guess it depends on what you mean by "becomes," but I'd say roughly half the drunk people I've been around -- sloppy, obnoxious drunks excepted -- are more interesting and wittier.  Alcohol destroys inhibitions, and I've had many, many, _many_ shy friends and acquaintances over the years who blossom when their inhibitions are lowered.

Are they _actually_ more interesting or wittier?  Maybe not, but they _effectively_ are.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jul 8, 2009)

Umbran said:


> That being said, I don't believe I have ever met a single human being who becomes any brighter, more interesting, or more witty after having alcohol.




As I recall from my single days, I met a number of women who became all those things after a few drinks.  More attractive, too.  Luckily for me, it worked reciprocally for my future wife.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> What difference does that make?



Smokers are nearly always oblivious to the lingering effects of the habit.  (As someone already noted, on top of my having observed it earlier.)



> Do you have a medical condition that keeps you from being around smokers, since you've admitted that its not possible to be allergic to it?



It's no more a "medical condition" than the results from getting squirted in the eye with habanero juice are from a "medical condition."  Smoke is an irritant.  Unlike habanero juice, it travels through the air, and it's severe enough to have an effect in small amount.  (Such as what lingers on a smoker.)


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 8, 2009)

In our games, we have no problem with drinking.  In fact, we have no problem if people go outside and get stoned during the break.

I don't personally get stoned, and I don't often drink alcohol during a game (though I will sometimes), but only because I usually have to drive after the game and I forget to drink alcohol early enough to have it mostly out of my system by the time the game ends.  Many others do not have to drive, so it does not matter driving-wise if they are intoxicated in any way (though I do not recall anyone ever being actually drunk at a game, ever).

It's never really been a problem for us, in many years of gaming.  

None of our gamers smoke cigarettes as far as I know.  If they did, they would likely smoke outside during the break, just like some do with pot.  I personally wouldn't mind if they smoked at the table as long as everyone was OK with it.  And if everyone were smoking at the table, I'd probably light up a cigar for myself.  But, it's never really come up.

I think if you are gaming with: 1) adults, and 2) close friends, it should not be an issue.  I suspect for those who do have an issue with drinking, they are gaming with people who are not both adults and close friends.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> Do you deal with those people in other aspects of your life? How do you handle those situations? The people I game with all have familial, professional, and/or social relationships beyond playing D&D. Is that not the case for you?




I don't go to events where they will be consumption of alcohol by the persons involved.   You want me to go to your birthday party?  Don't hold it in a bar.

(Well, unless you're renting the space and I know you're not going to be serving alcohol, there have been some cases where that has occured.)



> It is interesting to me as you seem to find the problem with the alcohol and not the person whereas I see the problem being the person and not the alcohol. Am I correct in this assessment?




I have met many fine people who are ok until they've had a drink.

Then they begin act in unpleasant ways.

That there are also people who are s when they're absolutely sober does not mean alcohol does not have an effect upon a person's behavior.  If you think it doesn't, then I am going to say the same thing I said already to other people, go educate yourself.  

I won't bother trying any further.

I know my limits.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 8, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I think if you are gaming with: 1) adults, and 2) close friends, it should not be an issue.  I suspect for those who do have an issue with drinking, they are gaming with people who are not both adults and close friends.




Or maybe... non-drinkers have close friends who are also adults and also non-drinkers.  There is always that possibility too.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> That there are also people who are s when they're absolutely sober does not mean alcohol does not have an effect upon a person's behavior.  If you think it doesn't, then I am going to say the same thing I said already to other people, go educate yourself.



I don't think anyone's saying that heavy drinking won't have an affect on people.

What I see - and what I think others might be saying - is that it seems silly to plan your participation in social events based mainly on imaginary (or historical) worst-case scenarios.  Just because some people can be bad drunks, does not mean that your friends will become a bad drunk after 1-2 beers.

-O


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

Curious.. what does everyone using the word "drinking" actually mean? For me and my group, it equates to having 3-4 beers, 1-2 mix drinks *or* 2-3 glasses of wine (max) over the course of a *5-6 hour session*. Very, very rarely has anyone gotten "drunk" - where they couldn't read the dice, speak clearly, walk, drive, etc. 

There's basically an unspoken rule in our group that regular drunkeness is really not wanted.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 8, 2009)

Chainsaw said:


> Curious.. what does everyone using the word "drinking" actually mean?




Speaking for myself, as a non-drinker, 'drinking' is the consumption of alcohol.  Any amount.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Speaking for myself, as a non-drinker, 'drinking' is the consumption of alcohol.  Any amount.



That's been my assumption of what people meant.

In practice, on the rare occasions that I drink during a game, it's typically two or three bourbon shots, each chased by a wheat ale.  (I'm a very big guy.  This barely even buzzes me.)


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I fully respect people who does not want you to smoke in your house/appartment. But are there seriously people who would forbid other people from stepping outside and taking a smoke?




So, you'd expect us to deal with you wanting to take a break?   No thanks!   Even if it's a normal break (some groups do that, some don't), if it's my property, I've had enough trouble with smokers leaving their litter behind that I'm simply not going to deal with it any more.  I do not want to clean up your butts.   I do not want to put out the fire you started by dropping your lit butt into my can of leaves.   I do not want to replace the cushions in the bench because you let the hot end of your cigarette touch it.  I don't even want to make you pay to replace them.  I do not want to smell the stink you left behind.  I do not want to have problems breathing because that cloud of smoke blew in my face.

It'd be one thing if I didn't have these problems.  But I do.  Solution?  No smoking on my property.  If the group is having a break, and you have time to go to the store, and want to smoke while you're on the road, fair enough, but if that cloud still lingers around you, don't be surprised if it becomes a problem.  

And if you don't think I have actually had those problems, well, then that's your perspective, I doubt I can convince you of it.  I know a lot of smokers can't even realize how badly they stink, or make others stink, till they stop doing it.  I have had people quit smoking, then go into someone's house who hadn't quit, and tell me that I was right, it does smell.

So it won't bother me if you don't believe it causes problems.



> I could not respect that. Why on earth would you even assume it became an argument? Seems fatalist and a little bit silly.




Because it's been an argument before.  Humans learn from experience, and some of us think it's silly to beat our heads into a wall.  This own thread should tell you, people do sometimes want to drink or smoke and can't be convinced to understand why other people have problems with it.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Speaking for myself, as a non-drinker, 'drinking' is the consumption of alcohol. Any amount.




So, based on your previous post, if you were at someone's house and one guy drinks one Michelob Ultra, you'd reconsider whether to game with them anymore?


----------



## Wicht (Jul 8, 2009)

Chainsaw said:


> So, based on your previous post, if you were at someone's house and one guy drinks one Michelob Ultra, you'd reconsider whether to game with them anymore?




Yep.  Absolutely would reconsider.  Drinking socially is a complete nonstarter for me.  I would personally rather you smoke (and smokers, as noted, dry my eyes something horrible).


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

On the flip side of Wicht's gaming requirements, when I was looking for a new group, I specifically made sure that I *could* drink. I wasn't interested in games where it wouldn't be possible for me (or my wife) to have a beer or a glass of wine. So I suppose I've got just as strict a set of requirements, just on the other side of the fence.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 8, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Or maybe... non-drinkers have close friends who are also adults and also non-drinkers.  There is always that possibility too.




I said it would be a non-issue, not that people would drink.  If you were gaming with non-drinkers who are also close-friends, drinking would be a non-issue right?

It seems to be a common thread with those who have objections that they are playing with people who are not close friends.  I also suspect (but do not know) that some folks are a bit younger, and in general younger folks are less likely to know and/or respect their limits, or at least are less prone to be able to hold their liquor.  So that is why I mentioned those two factors: age, and close relationship.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

Chainsaw said:


> So, based on your previous post, if you were at someone's house and one guy drinks one Michelob Ultra, you'd reconsider whether to game with them anymore?



If somebody cracked open a Michelob Ultra, I'd sorta have to consider a mercy killing.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jul 8, 2009)

Chainsaw said:


> Curious.. what does everyone using the word "drinking" actually mean? For me and my group, it equates to having 3-4 beers, 1-2 mix drinks *or* 2-3 glasses of wine (max) over the course of a *5-6 hour session*.




That's the thing that's surprised me about this thread.  I don't think anyone's advocating getting wasted during games.  It's just that people are objecting to games where any alcohol at all is involved.  Whatever floats your boat is fine with me.  It's just an attitude that is so foreign to me that I find it fascinating.

And for what it's worth, if we're talking about a 6 hour gaming session, an averaged sized man will usually be able to drink a whole six-pack without being significantly impaired.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> If somebody cracked open a Michelob Ultra, I'd sorta have to consider a mercy killing.




Ahahah, yes, I agree - was trying to set someone clever up for a slam dunk!


----------



## Dausuul (Jul 8, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Most people do not even know you have smoked unless they get very close to you.




Count me among those who disagree with this. I can smell the cigarette smoke on my friends when they come back inside and sit down across the gaming table. It doesn't trigger any kind of respiratory reaction for me, and it fades after a minute or so, but it's quite noticeable.

As for smoker behavior... I don't think I've ever known a smoker who wasn't, by default, a litterbug with the butts. However, most of them are perfectly happy to put their butts in a trash can or other container if asked, which is how we do it at my place (apartment management gets tetchy when people toss butts off the balcony onto the sidewalk, and I don't feel like getting complaints when it's not even me doing the smoking).


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I don't think anyone's saying that heavy drinking won't have an affect on people.




Indeed, at least there's general consensus on that.  Unfortunately, for me, the question becomes then how to arbitrate what's acceptable or not?  People have different ideas about what's enough, even for themselves.   So there's another thing to argue about.

I take the simpler route and avoid the problem.  Much like the local store, that doesn't take large quantities of cash, or bills larger than a 20$.  They got burned with regards to counterfeiting enough that it's far easier for them to avoid the problem than train all their employees to recognize counterfeit money.  

A bank would choose to accept that trouble.  For the store?  It's not worth the trouple.



> What I see - and what I think others might be saying - is that it seems silly to plan your participation in social events based mainly on imaginary (or historical) worst-case scenarios.  Just because some people can be bad drunks, does not mean that your friends will become a bad drunk after 1-2 beers.




Silly to me is not learning from experience.  And even sillier is expecting me to put up with things that I have found I don't like.  You may feel like I'm forcing something on people, and I admit, it is just that, but don't you think it feels like you're forcing something on me?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 8, 2009)

Even though I don't mind it that much, as a person who doesn't smoke cigarettes, I can smell it on a smoker right away.

But, that still isn't an issue.  In a fairly recent game, a fellow gamer, and friend, had just had a cig outside and he stinked of it pretty strong.  I leaned over, put my hand on his shoulder and said with a genuine friendly smile, "Hey, nothing personal here, but you stink like a cigarette factory. [smile]  Would you mind going into the bathroom and washing up a bit?"  He was a little embarrassed, but saw that I wasn't being confrontational or overbearing, so he smiled, said sure and washed up.

His shirt still smelled, but he spritzed a little cologne I kept in my guest bathroom and he was much better.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm an unrepentant lush. Hard alcohol near me has proven to be a big mistake, especially at games. A Guinness or two [or three says me] is fine, but if vodka is around...


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Silly to me is not learning from experience.




Stop being silly then.  You are not learning, you are pre-judging.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> You may feel like I'm forcing something on people, and I admit, it is just that, but don't you think it feels like you're forcing something on me?



I'm sorry, but I don't understand.  What is someone forcing on you by drinking a beer?  (Not to mention "what is the previous poster forcing on you by asking about it?")


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Indeed, at least there's general consensus on that.  Unfortunately, for me, the question becomes then how to arbitrate what's acceptable or not?  People have different ideas about what's enough, even for themselves.   So there's another thing to argue about.
> 
> I take the simpler route and avoid the problem.  Much like the local store, that doesn't take large quantities of cash, or bills larger than a 20$.  They got burned with regards to counterfeiting enough that it's far easier for them to avoid the problem than train all their employees to recognize counterfeit money.
> 
> A bank would choose to accept that trouble.  For the store?  It's not worth the trouple.




Both a bank and a store involve dealing with strangers.  But dealing with adult friends? Doesn't seem to hold up as an analogy, because it's issue with both the bank and the store because they don't really know you.  Most people however do really know the people they game with.  In fact, I bet you would not fear your friend is a potential counterfeiter.

The best way to avoid problems with friends in my experience is to communicate about the actual problem if it arises, not a potential problem that may never come up.


----------



## Dausuul (Jul 8, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> That's the thing that's surprised me about this thread.  I don't think anyone's advocating getting wasted during games.  It's just that people are objecting to games where any alcohol at all is involved.  Whatever floats your boat is fine with me.  It's just an attitude that is so foreign to me that I find it fascinating.




The attitude that kind of throws me is the refusal to _join_ a gaming group that doesn't adhere to one protocol or the other - I've seen people here say they wouldn't join a group because people were drinking, and others say they wouldn't join a group that didn't let them drink. I can't imagine either one (okay, I'm not a drinker so the second category wouldn't apply, but substitute "eating" for "drinking" and I still can't see it).


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 8, 2009)

When discussing peoples preferences and reactions to social situations, it is important to understand that some people have mental issues that change the fundamental rules of social behavior.  Sometimes people don't realize how abberant their thought process is until adulthood.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 8, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> The attitude that kind of throws me is the refusal to _join_ a gaming group that doesn't adhere to one protocol or the other - I've seen people here say they wouldn't join a group because people were drinking, and others say they wouldn't join a group that didn't let them drink. I can't imagine either one (okay, I'm not a drinker so the second category wouldn't apply, but substitute "eating" for "drinking" and I still can't see it).




I agree.  I would game with any group where I will have fun.  I don't care about their politics, religion, habits, atmosphere, language, food, or whatever - as long as it's a good DM and friendly group of people.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't understand.  What is someone forcing on you by drinking a beer?  (Not to mention "what is the previous poster forcing on you by asking about it?")




Isn't it obvious?   It is to me, but I guess I'll explain.

I choose not to be around people who are drinking alcohol.  This is taken as me forcing people to choose either not be around me, or don't drink and we'll play.  Fair enough to me.  There's no acrimony.  Yet they think it's unfair for me to force people to make that choice.

Well, I think it's unfair to ask me to be around people who are drinking.  It's like I'm being forced to go somewhere I don't enjoy.

If you can't understand from that, then I'm not sure what else I can say.  You can think of it in a lot of ways, but what can I do to help you understand?  Not agree, but understand.  I don't agree that drinking makes for a better social experiences.  But I understand that other people do.  Yet it seems because I don't agree, and choose to avoid it, other people can't understand that, or even accept that I might have valid reasons.   I recognized that problem long before this discussion came about, and chose to be silent, and put up with things.   Then I learned better.  I didn't get anywhere by being silent, the same as I didn't get anywhere by being in situations where people drank and became jerks.  (And once again, no it's not everyone, some are jerks without the drinking, some aren't jerks with the drinking, but it's a non-zero number of people who are jerks after drinking)

Accordingly, I choose not to be around people while **they are** drinking.  Any people.  You can think of it as prejudging people. I think of it as post-judging drinking and avoiding judging the people.

YMMV.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 8, 2009)

Well, it seems a lot of this is friends vs players. If you are all friends and share similar habits, it would be fine, no matter what, but when starting out a new group, I think smoking, drinking and especially drug use does matter. 

I might put up with drinking, though it would make me uncomfortable, but no way am I gonna game where people are smoking or doing worse. Smokers smell, and that is just how it is. The smoke does not magically disappear when the smoker stubs out the cigarette. But since smokers re always around smoke, it is understandable that they do not know this, though they should.  It would seriously impact my enjoyment of the game, so it is a legitimate thing to consider in a gaming group. If everyone else is ok with it, then it would be me that leaves, of course. 

As for drugs, I'd prefer not to get a visit to the police station, thanks.


----------



## Ecce (Jul 8, 2009)

I'm not a drinker myself, but I game with fairly libertine people. Alcohol and other drugs aren't uncommon, but if anyone gets too drunk to play they're sleeping on the lawn. I'm generally fine with somebody drinking 2 beers during a game.

Aside from beer, opiates are banned at my table, but a few adderall or phentermine are generally encouraged (dramatic increase of focus under these stimulants, the house could be burning down and I'd be asking for an initiative roll).


----------



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> And for what it's worth, if we're talking about a 6 hour gaming session, *an averaged sized man *will usually be able to drink a whole six-pack without being significantly impaired.



And really - how many of *those* play D&D? 

-O


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Both a bank and a store involve dealing with strangers.  But dealing with adult friends? Doesn't seem to hold up as an analogy, because it's issue with both the bank and the store because they don't really know you.  Most people however do really know the people they game with.  In fact, I bet you would not fear your friend is a potential counterfeiter.




I guess you didn't recognize the analogy, as I wouldn't necessarily fear that.  (Fred Flintstone did though!  You should watch that cartoon!)  I would, however, fear them getting counterfeit money. 

Perhaps a more common problem though, might be the issue of loaning money.  If you've never seen it break up a friendship, or even severely damage one, then I would consider you quite lucky.

Take this thread for example:

totally random forum thread that came up when I was looking for the moral I've seen expressing it succintly.

There's some moral about it, but I'm blanking on it right now, so I'll just leave you with that thread.  

There's many things I will do with friends.  Deal with real money is not one of them.  I would rather give you a present than give you a loan.  



> The best way to avoid problems with friends in my experience is to communicate about the actual problem if it arises, not a potential problem that may never come up.




There's a wargame tournament going on locally.  It's been delayed for at least 3 weeks already.  It's being delayed AGAIN because they have had so many complaints about things that went on that they feel they can't proceed until they have a meeting about it.  A mandatory one.  There's just too much griping for folks to be happy.

I think they would have been better off learning from the past tournaments where things like this happened, and setting the rules to avoid it.  There have been people complaining about the frustration of it.

I refrained from telling them "I could have told you so" as I know that wouldn't have been productive.  

Problems come up.  If you head them up before they can become problems, they're usually not as bad.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I choose not to be around people who are drinking alcohol.  This is taken as me forcing people to choose either be around me, or don't drink.  Fair enough to me.  Yet they think it's unfair for me to force people to make that choice.



Ah.  See, this is where you're going astray ... it's not "forcing people to choose" between you and a casual drink.  It's forcing people to choose between _gaming_ and a casual drink.  To the extent that the casual drink has no negative effect on you, or the game, insisting on the right to force that choice is particularly controlling behavior.  (And, being something of a control freak myself, I'm familiar with the pathology.)

Don't get me wrong ... you have every right to be a control freak, when it comes to your home.  Been there, do that on a regular basis.

But there is a difference between you deciding someone can't have a drink, when that behavior has no effect on you, and someone deciding they're going to have a drink in your presence, when that behavior has no effect on you.  Only one of those is controlling behavior.

(BTW, the criterion for "has no effect on you" that I'm using is "if you weren't observing it occurring, you'd be completely unaware of it.")

As I said earlier, I find prior restraint in this case very peculiar, but I see where it's coming from now.)


----------



## Obryn (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> You can think of it as prejudging people. I think of it as post-judging drinking and avoiding judging the people.



It's still not 100% sensible IMO because drinking itself isn't a problematic behavior.  Drinking a beer in and of itself is no more obnoxious than drinking soda.  It's the behaviors which may be affected by the drinking that are.

One of your gamer buddies could have their water bottle filled with vodka.  If it did not affect their behavior, why would that be a problem?

-O


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 8, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> no way am I gonna game where people are smoking or doing worse...As for drugs, I'd prefer not to get a visit to the police station, thanks.




I do not know how it is like in Japan where you live, but in southern California where I live this is not an issue that could result in someone being arrested.  Their activity is either actually or essentially legal (depending on whether or not they have a prescription). And again, it's not something I personally choose to do, and they tend to do it outside and away from me.  I have never noticed it interfering with the game.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 8, 2009)

Not gaming with people who drink is not necessarily forcing them not to game.  Its forcing them not to game with you.  I won't go bowling with people who are drinking either.  I am in no way preventing them from bowling.  They just aren't going to do it with me.  And if they feel that their beer is more important than my company, that is their choice.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> (okay, I'm not a drinker so the second category wouldn't apply, but substitute "eating" for "drinking" and I still can't see it).




There are many places where eating is not allowed, so if a GM told me "Please no snacks in the game room" I'd accept that.  I have some relatives who are like that already.  Me, I'll eat on the couch or the bed, I haven't sat down to eat at the dinner table in a long while.  I keep all my important stuff there.  

If I had a medical condition where I needed to consume something, I'd ask if we could have breaks for me to do that.  If that wasn't possible, I'd be fine with that and not play.


----------



## maddman75 (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Isn't it obvious?   It is to me, but I guess I'll explain.
> 
> I choose not to be around people who are drinking alcohol.  This is taken as me forcing people to choose either be around me, or don't drink.  Fair enough to me.  Yet they think it's unfair for me to force people to make that choice.
> 
> ...




The problem is that you aren't giving any context.  If this is at your house, then you saying "Hey, I don't like alcohol please don't bring any beer over." is you expressing your preferences.  If the group is deciding where to play and you express a preference to the game store (where there's no beer) to the pub, again, that's your opinion.  But if you're in my house and tell me that if I try to drink one of my beers in my own house you're leaving, that is passively-aggressively trying to control my behavior.  It is also rude and antisocial.

The people I game with we don't generally have a fixed location for the game.  We game wherever it makes the most sense to game.  Usually at the GM's house, but we do bounce around.  So this is the context where I consider your position.  How does your group game?  Tell me about the relationship between the people that you game with works.

Also, I tend to have my meetup groups go to a bar every now and then to weed out the control-freak teetotalers (those being the ones not just content not to drink themselves, but don't want anyone else to drink).


----------



## rogueattorney (Jul 8, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> The attitude that kind of throws me is the refusal to _join_ a gaming group that doesn't adhere to one protocol or the other - I've seen people here say they wouldn't join a group because people were drinking, and others say they wouldn't join a group that didn't let them drink. I can't imagine either one (okay, I'm not a drinker so the second category wouldn't apply, but substitute "eating" for "drinking" and I still can't see it).




Well, for me, it would come down to why the person didn't want gaming at their session...

I don't want booze around my kids - perfectly reasonable.
I'm an observant Mormon/Muslm/etc. and I don't want booze in my house - perfectly reasonable.
Gaming is serious business and I don't want anyone to have a beer while playing in my game - uh, no thanks.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 8, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Drinking a beer in and of itself is no more obnoxious than drinking soda.




Personally I can't stand the smell of beer so I would have to disagree with you.  

Though I must say that I find those who think beer no different than soda to be extremely puzzling to me.  Sugar is a mild stimulant.  Alcohol is a toxic narcotic central nervous system depressant.   They don't even seem to be in the same league to me, comparison wise.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I guess you didn't recognize the analogy, as I wouldn't necessarily fear that.  (Fred Flintstone did though!  You should watch that cartoon!)  I would, however, fear them getting counterfeit money.
> 
> Perhaps a more common problem though, might be the issue of loaning money.  If you've never seen it break up a friendship, or even severely damage one, then I would consider you quite lucky.




I agree with you on money.  I just don't think it's a similar situation to alcohol.



> There's a wargame tournament going on locally.  It's been delayed for at least 3 weeks already.  It's being delayed AGAIN because they have had so many complaints about things that went on that they feel they can't proceed until they have a meeting about it.  A mandatory one.  There's just too much griping for folks to be happy.
> 
> I think they would have been better off learning from the past tournaments where things like this happened, and setting the rules to avoid it.  There have been people complaining about the frustration of it.
> 
> ...




Well, you have again taken a situation involving strangers and tried to apply it to a situation involving close friends and called them similar.  This, after I pointed out already how they differ.

I understand completely a local wargame tournament banning alcohol or other things that are potentially a problem.  That's because it is a meeting of strangers, and strangers of all ages at that.

I also understand banning drinking for a new group, or a group of people who are merely acquaintances rather than close friends, or a group of people that includes young players.

I do not understand the banning of alcohol among a group of close adult friends in a private game at someone's house.  

That is the heart of the issue for me.  If they are close adult friends, it either would never be an issue, or if it ever were an issue then adults should be able to work the problem out.

A pre-emptive ban seems odd to me, because it's not something I would do to close friends.  Not unless I already knew it was an issue, in which case I am a good enough friend to talk to my friend about the problem.  Trying to get around talking about it by instituting some equality policy regarding all drinking seems...not friendly to me, and frankly a bit passive aggressive.  If my friend has an obvious problem, I take them aside and try to help - I don't pretend it's not an issue just for my own comfort.

I suspect (but again, I don't know it) that perhaps you are not gaming with all adult close-friends, but that some of them are acquaintances? That would definitely help me understand why you would rather not talk to them directly about the issue.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Ah.  See, this is where you're going astray ... it's not "forcing people to choose" between you and a casual drink.  It's forcing people to choose between _gaming_ and a casual drink.




If anybody is thinking that, then that's their problem because they are so completely misunderstanding my words that I am beyond my capacity to clarify it to them since I have explicitly said that I do not care what you do in your life that doesn't involve me being around.  

Do I really need to say it again?   You can choose to game with me, or you can choose to go drink.  You can't choose to drink and game with me.  I don't care for the experience when it goes bad.   And much like you and smokers, people have a hard time realizing when they do have a negative effect.

What can I do?  I can avoid it.  It works much better for me than trying to tell people that I think they've had enough.


----------



## malkav666 (Jul 8, 2009)

I have to say this is an interesting thread. In respect to the anti-smokers, I used to smoke cigarettes (I did so for over a decade actually) and sure I will admit they stink even for a couple of minutes after the fact. But there is no "smoke" radiating from them after about 15 seconds. Its kind of like standing up wind while cooking on the grill, you are gonna smell like hamburgers for a bit, but you are not letting off smoke, nor were you ever. So I have to argue that the scratchy throat from smelling a smoker seems to be more likely a psychosomatic reaction rather than an actual intolerance to "irritants". But that is OK. There are lots of folks who share that "allergy". And back when I was smoking and the game ended up at one of their houses. I would smoke one on the way over, and if we took a break for longer than half an hour I would find a place to have one off site. But I could live with not smoking in their house.

As for the drinking, I feel kind of the same way. If you are gonna host me at your place and let me sit on your furniture, and use your restrooms, and otherwise occupy your place of residence, and you don't want me to drink while doing so. That's cool, it's your house and I can live with that.

But if I am having the game at my house, and anyone wants to tell me my guests can't put on a smoking jacket (yes I have smoking jackets to deal with the problem of lingering smoke smells. My wife is one of those cigarettes are stinky types of folks and she got me one as a gift once, and let me tell firsthand you they work very well for that "you smell like a smokestack" issue) and step out in the smoking room and have a cigarette, or that I can't spark up a cigar and enjoy it with some good scotch if I so desire. Then I think it is safe to say that the offending person would be asked to leave my home and would likely not be invited back (although I would not be opposed to talking with them about it to find out what their deal was). I work too hard to have someone try and dictate what I can and cannot do in my own home (unless that dictator is my wife, as she can be kind of hot when she gets all bossy).


love,

malkav


----------



## malkav666 (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> If anybody is thinking that, then that's their problem because they are so completely misunderstanding my words that I am beyond my capacity to clarify it to them since I have explicitly said that I do not care what you do in your life that doesn't involve me being around.
> 
> Do I really need to say it again?   You can choose to game with me, or you can choose to go drink.  You can't choose to drink and game with me.  I don't care for the experience when it goes bad.   And much like you and smokers, people have a hard time realizing when they do have a negative effect.
> 
> What can I do?  I can avoid it.  It works much better for me than trying to tell people that I think they've had enough.




Sorry for the double post, but out of curiosity, do you have a hard time finding gaming groups that will make the choices that you want in regards to drinking and smoking and whatever else?

In short, how long has your gaming group been together? Have they always been anti-substance? 


love,

malkav


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I agree with you on money.  I just don't think it's a similar situation to alcohol.




Well, I think it is.  It leads to conflicts and arguments.  This thread is a case in point.  



> Well, you have again taken a situation involving strangers and tried to apply it to a situation involving close friends and called them similar.  This, after I pointed out already how they differ.




I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.   This involves people who not only know each other, but this same group of people had  much the same thing happen before.

So please check your assumptions at the door.  There might be some people unfamiliar to me, but the people behind the drama are the same people.  

I don't know their position on alcohol (that's not an issue since the games take place in a public area of a store which prohibits it anyway), their problems are in other areas.  Why you thought alcohol consumption was related to their problem I don't know, if I was unclear on that, I'm sorry, but I just didn't think you needed to hear the specifics since it was more the principle, dealing with problems you know have happened before, than the particulars which I see no reason to argue over.

They had problems with some things.  They could have dealt with their problems in advance.  They even talked about how they should.  They didn't follow through.

Result?   Complaints and trouble.

Pardon me for seeing that and saying...I'm glad I learned my lessons the last time.  Hence my decision not to participate.  

When it comes to drinking, again, I choose not to participate in games where it happens.  I do not need the stress.  Would it inevitably be a problem?  Perhaps not, but it's a likely enough risk in my experience.

Why is this something you can't understand?  Do you not believe I have experienced negative consequences from people's consumption of alcohol?  That it's not been pleasant, but rather a hassle, to try to resolve that?



> I suspect (but again, I don't know it) that perhaps you are not gaming with all adult close-friends, but that some of them are acquaintances? That would definitely help me understand why you would rather not talk to them directly about the issue.




Your suspicions are in error.  I could know somebody for decades and REALLY NOT want to have to make this kind of talk.  Why?  Because I have done it before and it's not ended well.  With my own family members.  It didn't matter.  Why would I want more of the same?  Is this really something new to you?


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

malkav666 said:


> But if I am having the game at my house, and anyone wants to tell me my guests can't put on a smoking jacket (yes I have smoking jackets to deal with the problem of lingering smoke smells.




You're thinking of it backwards.  I am not saying that you can't smoke in your house.  I'm saying I'm not going in your house if there is going to be smoking involved.   Why is that a problem?   




malkav666 said:


> Sorry for the double post, but out of curiosity, do you have a hard time finding gaming groups that will make the choices that you want in regards to drinking and smoking and whatever else?




Hard time?   No harder than I did before I put in these rules, and a lot of problems are removed.  It's much easier when I can know up front that somebody smokes or drinks without me spending a few sessions, then a problem breaks out, and I'm left frustrated because I might have been having a good time, but now it's spoiled.


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 8, 2009)

If you don't mind indulging me, here's one more hypothetical for Bumbles (and any other "no drinking with gaming" folks).

Let's say you have a good friend, whose judgement you trust, who has been in a gaming group for several years.  The group is looking for a new player, and your friend asks you if you're interested.  

Your friend's report on the game makes it sound great - it's high quality and the style of game you like.  Time and location are very convenient.  You don't know all the other players/DMs, though you're acquainted with some of them, and get along fine with them.

You ask if drinking is allowed.  Your friend responds, "Well, it's not banned, but most of the people don't really drink.  There is one player who has one beer (no more) every other session or so.  I've never observed it to affect his gaming or behavior in any way."

Would you consider playing in this game?  Or would the potential for "bad drinking", despite a solid two-year history of non-bad drinking, still be enough to make you turn it down?


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 8, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Personally I can't stand the smell of beer so I would have to disagree with you.




A single glass of beer has so little smell that it's definitely your sensitivity to that scent rather than a common thing.  I'd put that in the category of people who cannot stand the smell of deodorants or shampoos.  They exist, but it's such a rarity that asking people to adapt to that oddity is not as polite as just trying to deal with your issue quietly.  



> Though I must say that I find those who think beer no different than soda to be extremely puzzling to me.  Sugar is a mild stimulant.  Alcohol is a toxic narcotic central nervous system depressant.   They don't even seem to be in the same league to me, comparison wise.




Getting *drunk *can be a toxic narcotic.  Drinking a single alcoholic beverage is not.  In fact, drinking a single alcoholic beverage a day is considered by many doctors to be healthy, though they tend to want you to drink a single glass of red wine instead of beer since the positive effects seem to come up more frequently with red wine.

On the other hand, I know of no doctors who say that drinking regular, non-diet soda is a good thing.  It's empty calories, and we live in a society where heart disease from consuming too many calories is one of the chief killers.  

I don't fault people for drinking non-diet sodas (have at it), but it just boggles me to hear someone say that drinking a single alcoholic beverage is a toxic narcotic while drinking a single soda is "just" a mild stimulant.  The damage to your body from a single soda tends to be worse than the damage to your body from a single glass of red wine, on average.  It's only when people overconsume alcohol that it has a negative effect.


----------



## malraux (Jul 8, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Though I must say that I find those who think beer no different than soda to be extremely puzzling to me.  Sugar is a mild stimulant.  Alcohol is a toxic narcotic central nervous system depressant.   They don't even seem to be in the same league to me, comparison wise.




I think that its rather hyperbolic to toss around the toxic work.  Caffeine is a psychoactive alkaloid.  It too can be toxic.  Hell, water is toxic.  Its all about the dose.  The alcohol content of a beer/glass of wine/shot of liquor isn't enough to result in particularly noticeable behavior changes.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> If anybody is thinking that, then that's their problem because they are so completely misunderstanding my words



No, I'm pretty sure I'm understanding you.



> I have explicitly said that I do not care what you do in your life that doesn't involve me being around.



The fact that you even feel the need or desire to say this is pretty telling.

"You can indulge in <something that doesn't affect me> when I'm not around" is not a reasonable statement.  _It's the default state of adult relationships_.  Similarly, "You can indulge in <something> that <doesn't affect me>" is also the default state of adult relationships.

By contrast, "You can't indulge in <something> that <doesn't affect me> because someone who indulges in the future or has indulged in the past might or has affected me" is controlling behavior, and in the context of a leisure activity like a game between friendly acquaintances it's peculiar.

Sometimes there are good reasons to impose controlling behavior (prior restraint).  All of these that I can think of involved concerns for public safety or the unknown factors of dealing with strangers.  As far as i can tell, unless we're misunderstanding your situation, your controlling behavior is simply a matter of your enforcing your preference on someone else because "maybe."

The first step is admitting you have a problem.  "Hi, I'm Jeff."  "Hi, Jeff!"  "I'm a control freak."


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 8, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.   This involves people who not only know each other, but this same group of people had  much the same thing happen before.
> 
> So please check your assumptions at the door.  There might be some people unfamiliar to me, but the people behind the drama are the same people.




First you apologize for not being clear, and then you tell me to check my assumptions at the door?

*You were not clear*.  You and I both agree you were not clear.  Therefore, it's not my assumptions that should be checked at the door - they were fair assumptions.  You said a local wargame "tournament".  A "tournament" tends to be a thing played by strangers or acquaintances, not close friends.  I also raised the issue of a distinction between close friends and strangers or acquaintances, and you did not mention they were close friends.  It was a fair assumption to make.  The error was in you not being clear they are close friends, after you knew it was the topic you were responding to.



> I don't know their position on alcohol, their problems are in other areas.  Why you thought it was related to their problem I don't know, if I was unclear on that, I'm sorry, but I just didn't think you needed to hear the specifics since it was more the principle, dealing with problems you know have happened before, than the particulars.




I thought it was alcohol because you raised it as a response to a thread about alcohol, and didn't specify otherwise.



> They had problems with some things.  They could have dealt with their problems in advance.  They even talked about how they should.  They didn't follow through.
> 
> Result?   Complaints and trouble.
> 
> ...




Yes, it's really something new to me.  If any of my friends had a drinking problem that turned up at my table, I would feel comfortable enough to talk to them about it.  I'd tell them that there will be no drinking at the table because of their issue with alcohol. (in as polite a way as I could)  I would not pretend I was trying to equally apply some odd new rule for my own comfort level - I'd tell them what was going on.  If they are a close friend, they will understand.  To me, it's the adult way to do things.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 8, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Alcohol is a toxic narcotic central nervous system depressant.



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 8, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Or maybe... non-drinkers have close friends who are also adults and also non-drinkers.  There is always that possibility too.




That pretty much sums up my situation. 

Of all my friends only one drinks, and I think he stopped when he had kids.

Where I live tends to make that a non issue - outside of gaming friends, almost all of mine belong to the same church I do, and one of the precepts of our faith is no drinking.

Pretty easy for me to find myself in social situations with no one drinking.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 8, 2009)

Chainsaw said:


> So, based on your previous post, if you were at someone's house and one guy drinks one Michelob Ultra, you'd reconsider whether to game with them anymore?






Wicht said:


> Yep.  Absolutely would reconsider.  Drinking socially is a complete nonstarter for me.




For me as well. If any alcohol is consumed, I really don't want any part of a social situation where drinking is involved.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> No, I'm pretty sure I'm understanding you.




I'm pretty sure your representations as so off base that I do not feel that to be the case.  Sorry.  I've made my best attempt, and now I'll walk away.



> The first step is admitting you have a problem.  "Hi, I'm Jeff."  "Hi, Jeff!"  "I'm a control freak."




Well, you do seem to want to make things a psychological one, so I'll just pass on further discussions with you as I feel they'd be non-productive.  



Mistwell said:


> First you apologize for not being clear, and then you tell me to check my assumptions at the door?




Well, that's what they say about assumptions, they make an ass out of you and me. 

Instead of arguing over who was at fault, why don't we check those problems, and stick with the real issue?   This group, of people who know each other well enough to be familiar with each other and who did know it was going to be a problem, chose to do nothing about it, and now have a worse problem, as now folks have been put through the conflict when they could have avoided it.

If they'd acted to prevent it in the first place, they wouldn't be in the mess.  And no, it wasn't the random people who are not close to each other that's at the root of it.  It's people who know each other and who know they've had these problems before.  They didn't learn.

Just like I've had a hard time learning that some disagreements just can't be resolved.  This seems to be one of them, so before it gets worse, I'll bow out.  I am not able to communicate well enough with you, and my experiences seem to be far too divergent.  It happens.  Maybe somebody else can do better than I can.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Lord Mhoram said:


> Where I live tends to make that a non issue - outside of gaming friends, almost all of mine belong to the same church I do, and one of the precepts of our faith is no drinking.
> 
> Pretty easy for me to find myself in social situations with no one drinking.




Some of us go to Church for just that reason.  And I have a friend who has a theory that the Rotary Club opening up to members of both genders (I think that was the club's name, it may be some other), has lead to more affairs since people get together and see that they share the same community values, and look to trade up from their spouses.

He has a lot of interesting theories.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well, you do seem to want to make things a psychological one, so I'll just pass on further discussions with you as I feel they'd be non-productive.



<cue spit-take>

Buh?  _I_ want to make things psychological?  Great Freudian Flangerbobs.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 9, 2009)

malkav666 said:


> Sorry for the double post, but out of curiosity, do you have a hard time finding gaming groups that will make the choices that you want in regards to drinking and smoking and whatever else?
> 
> In short, how long has your gaming group been together? Have they always been anti-substance?
> 
> ...




I'll answer for myself (being on the same side of the question as Bumbles) - 
Our group has been together (core 3 anyway) for 17 years. The current group (aside from the new guy that joined about a year ago) has been together for at least 10.

The wife and I host, so rules on smoking and drinking are set by us (so no to either one). We've never had a problem keeping a full group together.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 9, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> You're a smoker, right?



Yeah baby! Well, at least for another week. I decided that 20 years was enough and I should do something to ensure that I get to see my kids get married, get children etc. Doesn't change much though, my comments are based on my wife's knowledge. She happens to be a non-smoker that works with these things, so she should know.


Jeff Wilder said:


> Smokers are nearly always oblivious to the lingering effects of the habit.  (As someone already noted, on top of my having observed it earlier.)
> 
> It's no more a "medical condition" than the results from getting squirted in the eye with habanero juice are from a "medical condition."  Smoke is an irritant.  Unlike habanero juice, it travels through the air, and it's severe enough to have an effect in small amount.  (Such as what lingers on a smoker.)



I think most of us know. Funny thing about being a smoker, we are usually around smoke a lot more than you guys, and we observe. For example, people who know I smoke and see me step out and smoke often comment it afterwards, but others, who do not know, rarely comment it. Could there be something psychological going on there? Perhaps, perhaps not.



Bumbles said:


> So, you'd expect us to deal with you wanting to take a break?   No thanks!   Even if it's a normal break (some groups do that, some don't), if it's my property, I've had enough trouble with smokers leaving their litter behind that I'm simply not going to deal with it any more.  I do not want to clean up your butts.   I do not want to put out the fire you started by dropping your lit butt into my can of leaves.   I do not want to replace the cushions in the bench because you let the hot end of your cigarette touch it.  I don't even want to make you pay to replace them.  I do not want to smell the stink you left behind.  I do not want to have problems breathing because that cloud of smoke blew in my face.
> It'd be one thing if I didn't have these problems.  But I do.  Solution?  No smoking on my property.  If the group is having a break, and you have time to go to the store, and want to smoke while you're on the road, fair enough, but if that cloud still lingers around you, don't be surprised if it becomes a problem.



 Your issue is not smokers, but idiots who apparently can't behave properly. I have a hard time believing that adults would behave as you describe.



> And if you don't think I have actually had those problems, well, then that's your perspective, I doubt I can convince you of it.  I know a lot of smokers can't even realize how badly they stink, or make others stink, till they stop doing it.  I have had people quit smoking, then go into someone's house who hadn't quit, and tell me that I was right, it does smell.



Noone has said that smoke doesn't smell, especially if you are in the house of someone who smokes inside. We are talking about people smoking outside, there is a huge difference. I also think you are deluding yourself if you think most well-educated adults who smoke do not realize the smell etc. But as long as you smoke outside, the issue is not very big. Sure, some may be oversensitive, but that's no different that my wife not being able to stand within 10' of her own sister when she has put on perfume...



Dausuul said:


> Count me among those who disagree with this. I can smell the cigarette smoke on my friends when they come back inside and sit down across the gaming table. It doesn't trigger any kind of respiratory reaction for me, and it fades after a minute or so, but it's quite noticeable.



You said it yourself. It fades quite quickly. Rookie smokers learn eventually to wait another minute or two before they enter whatever place they are smoking outside, to eliminate/minimize any possible discomfort others may have with the smell.



Doug McCrae said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing.



Lol..


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 9, 2009)

ryryguy said:


> Would you consider playing in this game?  Or would the potential for "bad drinking", despite a solid two-year history of non-bad drinking, still be enough to make you turn it down?




Nope I wouldn't join.

That would be enough for me not to join that game. It isn't the possible bad effects of alcohol I am avoiding, but the very existence & consumption of it in a social situation I am in (I tend to not go to restaurants that offer alcohol on the menu - where I live there a number that do not).


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Your issue is not smokers, but idiots who apparently can't behave properly. I have a hard time believing that adults would behave as you describe.




They're old enough to smoke legally.  By law, they're adults. Yes, I know, and I agree with you that the ultimate root of the problem is they're idiots who can't behave properly, but what I can do?   I realized a long time ago I can't make some people behave better.

I did, however, realize that I can disallow certain behaviors so they effectively don't become a problem for me when I game, either in my own home or by avoiding them in somebody else's.

Some people are decent enough players that I don't mind gaming with them, but they're thoughtless in other ways.  Go figure.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> But if you're in my house and tell me that if I try to drink one of my beers in my own house you're leaving, that is passively-aggressively trying to control my behavior.




Lots of folks around here misuse that term a great deal.

No, it is not passive-aggressive.  Very specifically it is not, because it is not at all _passive_.  If, every time you took a sip of the beer, he sighed loudly and rolled his eyes, but didn't tell you what the problem was, that would be passive-aggressive.  In a passive-aggressive behavior, the offender acts in such a way as you _have to guess_ why he or she is doing it.  

If he steps up and directly tells you what the problem is, or otherwise willfully takes action to change the situation himself (like leaving), it is not passive-aggressive.  

It is also not necessarily an attempt to control your behavior.  It is an attempt to control his situation, and I can hardly say he doesn't have the right to do that, so long as he isn't harming anyone.  He has two basic choices available to change his situation - change your behavior or leave.  

As a host, I'd generally prefer my guests let me know there's a problem before they pick up and leave, so that I have the option to change the situation if I desire to.  



> It is also rude and antisocial.




My personal opinion is that you're misusing those terms as well, but they are not so clearly defined that it is easily proven so.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Accordingly, I choose not to be around people while drinking.




Drinking alone is a sign of alcoholism.  Coupled with your refusal to be around other people who choose to drink has be very worried for you.  Drinking socially is one thing, secret binging outside the soght of others while putting up a front of teetotalling sounds like a recipe for disaster.  Unfoirtunately, a D&D website isn;t the best place to get help.

Folks, let's not make insulting insinuations, eh? Tacky _and_ inappropriate. Not cool. ~ PCat


----------



## ryryguy (Jul 9, 2009)

Lord Mhoram said:


> Nope I wouldn't join.
> 
> That would be enough for me not to join that game. It isn't the possible bad effects of alcohol I am avoiding, but the very existence & consumption of it in a social situation I am in (I tend to not go to restaurants that offer alcohol on the menu - where I live there a number that do not).




Thanks for the answer, Lord Mhoram.  It makes sense if your objection is religiously based.

I guess I'm more curious for the case where it _is_ the potential for disruption that's the issue.  Does a history of non-disruption matter, or is any risk, no matter how slight, intolerable?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> It is also not necessarily an attempt to control your behavior.  It is simply letting you know the conditions under which he will remain.



Which is, of course, an attempt to control behavior.

There's even a cliché for it: "I'm taking my ball and going home!"

BTW, you're largely right about the misuse of "passive-aggressive," but "just leaving," if it's noticeable and unusual, is passive-aggressive.  If you want to avoid being passive-aggressive, it's good to explain why you're leaving, when it's workable to do so.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 9, 2009)

200 replies on beer in less than 24 hours -- impressive.

I think I need a drink, though.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 9, 2009)

Caliber said:


> I'm only part way through this thread, so I apologize if someone has asked this. But I'm struck wondering if this aversion to alcohol penetrates to within the game itself? Does in game drinking bother you? Curious (because the whole anti-drinking this is 100% bizarre to me)




I'm in a Shadowrun game where characters get drunk/high all the time.

My own character is a shaman with high Body and Will scores (for some reason, Will applies to some poisons/drugs, including alcohol) who never does anything if he can help it.

Alas, how often does he have a choice? In the last two sessions, he got drunk, exposed to pixie dust and got high on peyote. In the first session, he and another PC (there were just two of us) went to a bar for some reason (I think to hide out for a bit) and a couple of orcs started hustling us, trying to get us drunk so they could get in our pants (or so I thought at first) but it turned us they were trying to kill us "in private". My character had such a high tolerance that he was virtually unaffected... but his lame social skills made it hard to talk his way out of the situation. (He has no spells that inflict nonlethal damage.) The other character tranqued himself into unconsciousness.

Later that session, the two PCs stole some pixie dust which affects memories. Alas, the bag ripped and we both got exposed... also, the bad guys killed an air spirit my shaman had summoned.

In the second session, we had a gunslinger (physical adept) and soldier join us. We were supposed to capture some soldiers who were high on some new military drugs. My character had to do a penance for losing an air spirit last session, and (after dealing with two very angry spirits) was told to smoke six pounds of sanctified tobacco. He needed it fast, so had to pay an extra 50%, and it was laced with ... peyote. Not being familiar with peyote, I couldn't really play being high properly, but I kept making the checks to not really be affected. Still, he couldn't go astral, so there was some metagame effect. The tranquing PC got mad at my character for "doing drugs" ... pot, meet kettle...

Said other PC has a bad tranq patch habit, and another PC (the soldier) has a "betameth" habit (some sort of stimulant). And we use stim patches a lot, as the game system makes non-lethal damage worse than lethal damage. Generally, drug use has been disruptive to the game, although it seems the soldier's drug habit has little to no metagame impact.

Generally I don't play characters who drink or do drugs. I like having my character's faculties being clear, and not having to deal with drug habits. I did play a weird Exalted/D20 Mutants crossover in which I was a martial artist who liked getting drunk all the time (no effect that I saw in-game). In a medieval setting (like Warhammer) realistically avoiding alcohol is just not an option, but presumably characters would avoid drinking to excess. In Warhammer healing potions include lots of alcohol (there are confusing but detailed rules on getting drunk) and my character there did once drink a few people under the table in order to impress them. (Fortunately he only had to fight wimps that day!)



Chainsaw said:


> Apologies if I didn't read between the lines well enough. I'm sure plenty of people have bad life experiences with drinking. I really, truly, just wasn't sure how prevalent drinking/gaming bad experiences were.




I've rarely seen it cause problems, although I have little experience in that area. I just think it _could_ be detrimental, and having no drinking as an unwritten rule just makes things easier.



Chainsaw said:


> Curious.. what does everyone using the word "drinking" actually mean? For me and my group, it equates to having 3-4 beers, 1-2 mix drinks *or* 2-3 glasses of wine (max) over the course of a *5-6 hour session*. Very, very rarely has anyone gotten "drunk" - where they couldn't read the dice, speak clearly, walk, drive, etc.




I'm a non-drinker, so that sounds like a lot to me. However, as far as I can tell, alcohol has an effect on you before you can't read the dice, speak clearly, walk, drive, etc.

Another note; I don't go to bars or stuff and have rarely seen any of my friends drunk at any time. I wouldn't hang out with them if I didn't enjoy playing with them, but I have no idea what some of them are like drunk... or buzzed... or slightly impaired.



rogueattorney said:


> Gaming is serious business and I don't want anyone to have a beer while playing in my game - uh, no thanks.




For people who don't get to game as much as they like, I think this attitude makes sense.


----------



## Humanaut (Jul 9, 2009)

Having only read the OP, I must say my regular game we have beer for those who want it... but nobody gets wasted.  As DM i wouldn't tolerate a crazy drunk person, even though i will have beer too.

Every two years my high school friends and I (class of '89) rent a house in MO, lake of the ozarks, and game for 7 days, no women, no kids... but lots of beer!  I can't say we're soooooooo drunk to not function, but yeah, beer is consumed at an alarming rate.    Next Geekfest is in THREE DAYS!  W00T!!!


----------



## Ravellion (Jul 9, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> The attitude that kind of throws me is the refusal to _join_ a gaming group that doesn't adhere to one protocol or the other - I've seen people here say they wouldn't join a group because people were drinking, and others say they wouldn't join a group that didn't let them drink. I can't imagine either one (okay, I'm not a drinker so the second category wouldn't apply, but substitute "eating" for "drinking" and I still can't see it).



I feel that this control is indicative of a personality type of someone I wouldn't even want to be around in public transport, let alone a social gathering such as a D&D game. It would be attempting to control part of my normal behaviour because of an expectation that is not realistic or based on experience (if the person making these rules has never seen ME drunk).

If someone did ruin my game while drinking, I'd consider them to be the problem, not the alcohol. Even if they were obviously drunk enough to make a human petrol bomb. I would kick him out of my house, not the booze.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 9, 2009)

malraux said:


> I think that its rather hyperbolic to toss around the toxic work.  Caffeine is a psychoactive alkaloid.  It too can be toxic.  Hell, water is toxic.  Its all about the dose.




This really isn't the place to debate the merits/evils of alcohol but I did want to say, in my defense, that i did not just throw out the word toxic in an effort to use hyperbole.  Ethyl alcohol is _*defined *_as a toxin, meaning it is poisonous to the body.  Water, while it might kill you in large doses (i.e. drowning, etc), is not in and of itself poisonous to the body.  The very word intoxicated is derived from the understanding that drunkeness is a matter of poisoning yourself.  You do not have to ingest enough toxin to kill you to be said to have ingested a toxin.   There are things more toxic than ethyl alcohol but that is irrelevant to the definition of toxicity.  Low doses of arsenic are not going to kill you right away either but that makes it no less a toxin.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jul 9, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Or maybe... non-drinkers have close friends who are also adults and also non-drinkers. There is always that possibility too.




circle gets the square!


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2009)

Ravellion said:


> I feel that this control is indicative of a personality type...





Okay, enough with the internet psychoanalysis.

Everyone, please listen up.  Some folks like drinking at games, others do not.  Everyone has a right to a preference.  If you want to continue to spend your time suggesting that people are wrong, bad, just generally unpleasant, or somehow broken for having a simple preference... spend your time elsewhere, please.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Drinking alone is a sign of alcoholism.




I am not sure if you are trying to be funny, and admittedly the original was badly worded, but I am pretty sure this mistakes what he was trying to say.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

(Voluntarily deleted due to Umbran's umbrage.)


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 9, 2009)

Ravellion said:


> If someone did ruin my game while drinking, I'd consider them to be the problem, not the alcohol. Even if they were obviously drunk enough to make a human petrol bomb. I would kick him out of my house, not the booze.




Ditto.

For the record, though I'd probably not join a group that had a ban on drinking, I rarely (if ever) actually drink while playing. Go figure.


----------



## malraux (Jul 9, 2009)

Wicht said:


> TEthyl alcohol is _*defined *_as a toxin, meaning it is poisonous to the body.  Water, while it might kill you in large doses (i.e. drowning, etc), is not in and of itself poisonous to the body.




Water is toxic.  Water toxicity - definition of Water toxicity in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. It is poisonous to the body.  Caffeine is toxic.  Hell, oxygen is pretty toxic, which is why anti-oxidants are good.  But it's all dose dependent.  A single beer is not toxic, no more than a glass of water or breath of air.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 9, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Drinking alone is a sign of alcoholism.




In some cultures, people believe this. I have no idea if it's accurate, especially given the source - the Aquarium, written by an (alleged) ex-spy for the Russians who (apart from the spy stuff) writes a lot of "crakpot" theories. In the book, he said his boss drank in front of a mirror, because he believed the expression.



			
				Malraux said:
			
		

> A single beer is not toxic, no more than a glass of water or breath of air.




Um... what? I find it hard to believe that a glass of beer is "exactly as toxic" as a glass of water.


----------



## malraux (Jul 9, 2009)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Um... what? I find it hard to believe that a glass of beer is "exactly as toxic" as a glass of water.






> As little as a half-gallon of water (two quarts) in a single setting has the potential of killing you.



All Ears: Hold Your Wee for a Wii - Water Intoxication Death

Ironically, beer would be less dangerous because it has various things dissolved in it.  And 2 quarts, while certainly pushing one well past the legal limit, would not be a lethal amount.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

ryryguy said:


> Thanks for the answer, Lord Mhoram.  It makes sense if your objection is religiously based.



What if his religion forbade the use of religious iconography, including such things as demons and devils, or forbade pretending to cast spells?  Would it be reasonable for him to expect gamers to forbear?


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Um... what? I find it hard to believe that a glass of beer is "exactly as toxic" as a glass of water.




Visit New Jersey.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Visit New Jersey.




I live in Toronto. We argue Lake Ontario should be shown as brown rather than blue on maps because it would more accurately show its color.



malraux said:


> All Ears: Hold Your Wee for a Wii - Water Intoxication Death
> 
> Ironically, beer would be less dangerous because it has various things dissolved in it.  And 2 quarts, while certainly pushing one well past the legal limit, would not be a lethal amount.




Be that as it may, when people are talking about the effects of alcohol in this thread, I believe they're talking about mental effects


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> What if his religion forbade the use of religious iconography, including such things as demons and devils, or forbade pretending to cast spells?  Would it be reasonable for him to expect gamers to forbear?




I certainly would be willing to accept a GM who ran a game without those things, they might well have a good game.  I have even run such a game myself, though the reasons were realism rather than religious.  

If somebody chooses not to play in my games that do feature those things, I can accept that easily.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I certainly would be willing to accept a GM who ran a game without those things, they might well have a good game.  I have even run such a game myself, though the reasons were realism rather than religious.
> 
> If somebody chooses not to play in my games that do feature those things, I can accept that easily.



None of which answers what I actually asked.


----------



## malraux (Jul 9, 2009)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Be that as it may, when people are talking about the effects of alcohol in this thread, I believe they're talking about mental effects




Most people were.  Wicht wasn't; toxic is not a word one would use to describe mental effects.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jul 9, 2009)

Lord Mhoram said:


> I'll answer for myself (being on the same side of the question as Bumbles) -
> Our group has been together (core 3 anyway) for 17 years. The current group (aside from the new guy that joined about a year ago) has been together for at least 10.
> 
> The wife and I host, so rules on smoking and drinking are set by us (so no to either one). We've never had a problem keeping a full group together.




I've had two main groups in my life.

1e group of 7 (with various others joining for a short time) during my Jr. high and high school years 1982-1988. 

My current group of five started when 3e came out in 2000 and has gone through 3e, 1e, M&M, 4e and various board games.

I've always hosted as well. The large oak table of my youth is now in my house.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> None of which answers what I actually asked.




Well, I thought it did, namely that I'd have no problem with their opinion. Would I always be able to accomodate it?  No, but then there's a solution for that, we don't play those games together.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 9, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> What if his religion forbade the use of religious iconography, including such things as demons and devils, or forbade pretending to cast spells?  Would it be reasonable for him to expect gamers to forbear?




Sure - we'd be playing Champions (or M&M or....) 

If that was a restriction, I wouldn't be looking for a group that gamed fantasy. I have never said drinking is bad - just that I won't be in a group that has it. Generally that means that I will leave a group because that attitude (as has been shown by this thread) is uncommon, and oft misunderstood. I'll live without a group that engages in something I prefer to avoid.

It isn't a "take my ball and go home" thing - it's "drinking of any sort makes me uncomfortable enough that I would never feel comfortable in a group with drinkers, so I leave so as not to disrupt anyone else's fun".

With the thought experiment you describe it would be the same thing - if that sort of thing made me uncomfortable (or was forbidden as it were), then I would just find a group where that difficulty doesn't come up - as in my flip answer of playing a superhero RPG where that sort of stuff doesn't come up much (if at all).

It isn't, to me, asking someone to forebear - it's a clash of game styles. If my presence was seen as necessary for the group, and the group needed me there, I would explain my position about alcohol, and ask people not to drink while I was around. If that wasn't possible I'd leave... so that those that wish to drink still can. 

It's all about the social dynamics of the group.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 9, 2009)

Invisible Stalker said:


> I've always hosted as well. The large oak table of my youth is now in my house.




That is cool - inheriting (or keeping) a gaming table as an heirloom.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Why is this something you can't understand? Do you not believe I have experienced negative consequences from people's consumption of alcohol? That it's not been pleasant, but rather a hassle, to try to resolve that?




I get what you're saying.  I agree with others that the problem is the person not the alcohol, and treating someone one way because of the offences of another I would - personally - view as social behaviour I wouldn't be prepared to tolerate, whatever the issue in question.

I've had problems with people in cars, but that doesn't prevent me getting into a car just in case something goes wrong, and I don't view all car drivers as maniacs.

All that said, if it's your house, you get to set the rules, however arbitrary others may find them.  And, of course, you get to decide the conditions under which you would participate in an activity; certainly nobody can tell you you're wrong to do so.


----------



## SKyOdin (Jul 9, 2009)

I for one am uncomfortable being around people who are drinking at a social event, so I won't play in a D&D game where other people are drinking. If I am a player, I will politely leave. If I am the DM, I will ask the players to not bring alcohol, and will leave the game if we can't come to an agreement.

I admit that I don't have a particular reason for being uncomfortable around people who are drinking, other than the fact that I don't drink myself. However, I don't think I need a reason to walk out of a game where I feel uncomfortable. Likewise, I have walked out of games before when I simply had a personality conflict with another player. D&D isn't a big enough deal where I feel like I should be forced to put up with uncomfortable situations.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 9, 2009)

As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't a problem it isn't a problem.  That is, I don't see drinking, itself, as something negative or to be banned because it could potentially cause a problem.  I see having a couple beers while playing D&D exactly like I see having a couple beers while playing poker, or darts, or pool, or whatever.  No big deal or cause for concern.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jul 9, 2009)

Lord Mhoram said:


> That is cool - inheriting (or keeping) a gaming table as an heirloom.




It's so big, I could hold a tennis match on it. 



So what do you drink during a game? I go for the tall pitcher of VERY sweet iced tea myself.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2009)

It might be really interesting to start a poll on the drinking attitude as compared to country.  I suspect that a higher percentage of folks in the US will have a problem with it, but I don't know for sure.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

This is awesome.  I'm watching _Mr. Show_, an old HBO sketch comedy show, doing a "Jeepers Creepers, Semi-Star" bit (a take-off on "Jesus Christ, Superstar).  And just as I clink on this thread, the protagonist sings, "You play video golf and get high all the time / It's okay to get high sometimes / But all the time? / That's not fine!"

Sweet!  Sing it, David Cross!


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I get what you're saying.  I agree with others that the problem is the person not the alcohol, and treating someone one way because of the offences of another I would - personally - view as social behaviour I wouldn't be prepared to tolerate, whatever the issue in question.




Well, I don't disagree with the folks who are saying that the root of the problem is the person, however, I'm not playing D&D to fix people.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 9, 2009)

Invisible Stalker said:


> So what do you drink during a game? I go for the tall pitcher of VERY sweet iced tea myself.




I tend towards water and Gatorade. Most of the rest of the group drinks soft drinks of one sort or another, except for the health nut who drinks juices... usually some sort of jungle juice/suicide where he just dumps the ends of three or four different pitchers of different juices into his big mug before he comes over.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Invisible Stalker said:


> So what do you drink during a game? I go for the tall pitcher of VERY sweet iced tea myself.




Soda and Kool-aid.  I know, very bad of me, but the water where I am is too hard to drink straight.


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> They're old enough to smoke legally.  By law, they're adults. Yes, I know, and I agree with you that the ultimate root of the problem is they're idiots who can't behave properly, *but what I can do*?   I realized a long time ago I can't make some people behave better.



(Emphasis mine)
Not play with idiots, maybe?


----------



## Wicht (Jul 9, 2009)

malraux said:


> Most people were.  Wicht wasn't; toxic is not a word one would use to describe mental effects.





The effects of alcohol on the brain are, as I understand it, directly related to the effects of alcohol on the body.  But I'm bowing out of the arguement.  I think trying to debate whether water is worse for you than alcohol is not something I am interested in doing.  I don't drink.  If you do, that is your choice and i can't stop you.  But I don't have to be around you if you are drinking and that is the crux of the original question.  Many of us who don't drink are not comfortable around others who are.  Trying to convince me that water is bad for me is not really going to change that.  

As for what I do drink when I game, I prefer iced tea, very mildly sweetened, preferably a blend of green tea and black tea, maybe with a hint of jasmine.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Tewligan said:


> (Emphasis mine)
> Not play with idiots, maybe?




Then I'd have a lot fewer people to play with.   Most people are only idiotic about some things, not everything.


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Soda and Kool-aid.  I know, very bad of me, but the water where I am is too hard to drink straight.



Ugh - I played in too many groups in college where all that caffeine and sugar made the players too excitable and goofy. That's why I refuse to play in games where soda is being ingested.

(Okay, I'm mostly being a smartass. _Mostly_ - the guys at my college games who'd show up with a couple 2-liters of Coke or Mountain Dew did tend to get a bit fidgety and obnoxious as they guzzled that crap. I've had more problems with that type of player than the ones who drank alcohol, actually...)


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Then I'd have a lot fewer people to play with.
> 
> Taking drinking and smoking, among other things, leaves me with people who may be idiots about some things, but if you remove the locus of the problem, it's fine.



Seriously?

Not playing with people who _can't have a beer_ without acting like an idiot will leave you with "a lot fewer people to play with"?  A _lot fewer_?  Really?

Where the hell do you live, some freaky Fratern-iverse?  Bizarro Utah?  The Consolidated State of Inebriation?  A binge-drinker's commune?


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Then I'd have a lot fewer people to play with.   Most people are only idiotic about some things, not everything.



If I might ask, what's the age range of your group? I'm wondering if part of the problem is people being too young to know how to drink within reason.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Tewligan said:


> Ugh - I played in too many groups in college where all that caffeine and sugar made the players too excitable and goofy. That's why I refuse to play in games where soda is being ingested.




Fair enough, I'm willing to drink something else, or use sugar-substitutes.  In fact I do have the non-sugar versions available for people.  I did go no-soda for a while, but then I let myself get weak when Mountain Dew Game Fuel came out.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well, I don't disagree with the folks who are saying that the root of the problem is the person, however, I'm not playing D&D to fix people.




I don't really understand what you're saying there.  No, of course you don't.  Neither do I; I certain;ly hope my post doesn't imply in some way that I do.  I was merely refering to one's choice of social companions, and basing it on the person and not on the fact that they have something in common with someone who caused offence.

I'm talking about a social interaction with other human beings, and what I personally consider an acceptable way to interact with them; and that I'd consider being "lumped in" with problem people for convenience's sake to be beyond my personal limit of socially acceptable behaviour.

Your standards, obviously, differ greatly to mine.  That's not a bad thing - different strokes, and all that.  Nobody requires that everyone have the same opinion on everything. But they aren't compatible standards for the purposes of social interaction.

You gotta stand for what you believe in.  You're doing exactly that; I'm merely stating that I believe something very different.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> It might be really interesting to start a poll on the drinking attitude as compared to country.  I suspect that a higher percentage of folks in the US will have a problem with it, but I don't know for sure.



In the US it would vary by state. After Prohibition, each state took it upon themselves to do weird stuff. Where I now live in California, I can buy liquor at the corner drug store along with Mac and Cheese, pet food, and over the counter drugs, prescription drugs, and get my photo's developed.

Where I grew up in Texas, it varied by *city*. So, in Farmer's Branch (where I grew-up), no one sold alcohol. Chain restaurants known for their beer selection couldn't serve it. Now, a customer could bring their own, but it required a special card to do so. Imagine that, BYOB to eat out at a restaurants.

Of course, Farmer's Branch is a small city and all one had to do was go to one where booze is legal to buy it. But those cities pretty much only sold liquor at liquor stores, not grocery stores or pharmacies like we have in California.



Invisible Stalker said:


> So what do you drink during a game? I go for the tall pitcher of VERY sweet iced tea myself.



Soda. I call it DM fuel. My players drink a number of different things, Mountain Dew being pretty popular. Right now, no one drinks at the game. Near as I can tell, no one in my current game drinks. In previous games, I had a couple of people who drank. Back when my game was at a Round Table Pizza in Cupertino, they'd split a pitcher.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jul 9, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Where I grew up in Texas, it varied by *city*. So, in Farmer's Branch (where I grew-up), no one sold alcohol. Chain restaurants known for their beer selection couldn't serve it. Now, a customer could bring their own, but it required a special card to do so. Imagine that, BYOB to eat out at a restaurants.
> 
> Of course, Farmer's Branch is a small city and all one had to do was go to one where booze is legal to buy it. But those cities pretty much only sold liquor at liquor stores, not grocery stores or pharmacies like we have in California.




Yep. My village is also a dry one. And I have voted for it to remain so twice.


----------



## malraux (Jul 9, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> In the US it would vary by state. After Prohibition, each state took it upon themselves to do weird stuff. Where I now live in California, I can buy liquor at the corner drug store along with Mac and Cheese, pet food, and over the counter drugs, prescription drugs, and get my photo's developed.
> 
> Where I grew up in Texas, it varied by *city*. So, in Farmer's Branch (where I grew-up), no one sold alcohol. Chain restaurants known for their beer selection couldn't serve it. Now, a customer could bring their own, but it required a special card to do so. Imagine that, BYOB to eat out at a restaurants.
> 
> Of course, Farmer's Branch is a small city and all one had to do was go to one where booze is legal to buy it. But those cities pretty much only sold liquor at liquor stores, not grocery stores or pharmacies like we have in California.




I still can't believe that the town I grew up in had not just drive through liqour stores, but a daiquiri hut where in you could order a gallon jug of frozen drink _from your car window_.

I'd rant about stupid blue laws, but that's probably too close to politics.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> In the US it would vary by state. After Prohibition, each state took it upon themselves to do weird stuff. Where I now live in California, I can buy liquor at the corner drug store along with Mac and Cheese, pet food, and over the counter drugs, prescription drugs, and get my photo's developed.




Well, yes.  I wasn't suggesting that opinions would be exactly uniformly distributed within any given national boundaries. 

But there will be a national average.  A poll on EN World isn't exactly scientific anyway!


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I don't really understand what you're saying there.  No, of course you don't.  Neither do I; I certain;ly hope my post doesn't imply in some way that I do.




Well, that seems to be what people think I'm thinking, at least that's the vibe I'm getting.  So I prefer to make sure it's a cause for confusion.   



> I was merely refering to one's choice of social companions, and basing it on the person and not on the fact that they have something in common with someone who caused offence.




I prefer to base it on the person, myself, that's why I remove one factor that can affect a person's behavior.  And since I don't want to be in the place of putting one person on the spot because of their drinking problems, I avoid having anybody drinking.

It's no different than a group having some rules for dice-rolling, like "if it goes off the table, it's rerolled" or "everybody rolls with the same set of dice" which I've seen before.

Do I insist they judge me as a person?  No, I'm content with them making that choice for their group.  In fact, I'm more comfortable with it being a rule for the group than the individual.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I prefer to base it on the person, myself, that's why I remove one factor that can affect a person's behavior. And since I don't want to be in the place of putting one person on the spot because of their drinking problems, I avoid having anybody drinking.
> 
> It's no different than a group having some rules for dice-rolling, like "if it goes off the table, it's rerolled" or "everybody rolls with the same set of dice" which I've seen before.
> 
> Do I insist they judge me as a person? No, I'm content with them making that choice for their group. In fact, I'm more comfortable with it being a rule for the group than the individual.




Yup, I understand that you're comfortable with that approach.  I have no doubt in that regard! 

I, however, am not.  I would rather deal with a problem individual.  And, honestly, I game with my friends - if one of them has a drinking problem, I'm gonna mention it (privately, of course).  At that point, my concerns are far greater than a D&D game.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 9, 2009)

So long as people aren't doing lines off the battlemat, we let people manage their own buzzes. The normal rules apply (don't be a dick, contribute to the game in a constructive manner), so we don't feel the need to police eachother.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jul 9, 2009)

What I've learned from these 'no-go' threads....

If I want an annoying player out of the group, it'll be much easier to just drink more and take up smoking. I wish I knew about this earlier.

So should I go with a certain brand of tobacco or just go straight to cigars? What about pipes? Would people think I'm cool smoking from a pipe while playing D&D (like a wizard)? A pipe might defeat the purpose


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> Well, yes.  I wasn't suggesting that opinions would be exactly uniformly distributed within any given national boundaries.
> 
> But there will be a national average.  A poll on EN World isn't exactly scientific anyway!



Oh, I knew you didn't think that. I just jumped on the opportunity to talk about stuff.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 9, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> So should I go with a certain brand of tobacco or just go straight to cigars? What about pipes? Would people think I'm cool smoking from a pipe while playing D&D (like a wizard)? A pipe might defeat the purpose



Cigars. Some people consider them cool, but I doubt there's significant overlap with RPGers.

You could also by a bunch of cold medicine, have it "accidentally" spill out on the table and when the others question you, mumble something about having "lab work" to do at home.

That gets you out of the game *and* ready for flu season!


----------



## kiznit (Jul 9, 2009)

I'm sorry, but when my group sits down to game, we sit down to _game_, not do anything else that might interfere with it.

First we hand out the barbiturates. Fighters get the blue pills, clerics and magic-users get the pink ones. Then once the three sacred hashish sticks are lit around the miniatures, twelve grams (not thirteen, I mean we're not playing AD&D here folks) of peyote are unwrapped and split into equal piles based on the last experience point distribution. The DM then takes a hit of nitrous for each player sitting at the table while the rest of us begin mixing the cocktails in a large 4-gallon tub. Old d20s that roll unluckily are carefully dissolved in a mixture of heroin and cocaine before being added to the base along with ten cups of everclear, burgundy rum, orange juice, and a couple of dollops of schlitz. The DM is then given two tabs of acid before being carefully stripped naked and lowered into a meditative isolation tank of menthol, ammonia and chocolate from which he can shout out the directions of what we can do and where we can go, assuming he can fight off the bats.

That, my friends, is the only true way of playing D&D.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> If I want an annoying player out of the group, it'll be much easier to just drink more and take up smoking. I wish I knew about this earlier.




Only if there are more players annoying to you who are offended by that than there are people annoyed by such behavior.


----------



## Aeolius (Jul 9, 2009)

Quaff a couple of THESE at the gaming table and see what happens.





As for me, I DM my game in a chat room and have been known to enjoy my share of frosty beverages. I broke out the absinthe, one night, and recall role-playing an entire swarm of tiny fey. Now that was fun!


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

kiznit said:


> That, my friends, is the only true way of playing D&D.



You had me for the taking, all the way up until "Shlitz."

Gotta draw the line _somewhere_.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Jul 9, 2009)

This is an interesting discussion.  

I'm straight-edge (my generations way of saying teetotaler + drug/smoke free (in the more extreme cases, no chemicals period)).  My father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all alcholics.  By mid high school, I could outdrink them.

I decided to stop because I know I have an addictive personality, and I saw where chemical dependency leads.

That said, I also don't begrude anyone their right to drink.  My only issue, which my friends graciously conform to, is that all smoking be done outdoors because I'm allergic to smoke.  They also know not to let the booze get out of hand, since it ruins the fun for those who enjoy gaming.

Besides, there's nothing more amusing than toasting your friends around a gaming table with a Pepsi.


----------



## Imperialus (Jul 9, 2009)

Umm... I had to ban coke (as in nose candy not Coca-Cola) at one point...  That was a somewhat unique (and not grandma friendly) situation though.

As far as drinking goes we're OK with it, though we never have more than a beer or two.  We've fallen out of the habit of it but for a while we used to do a world of beers every gamenight where we'd rotate purchasing a sixpack of something 'different' and sharing it with the group.

As for other stuff.  I'm the only one in the group who will occasionally partakes of the herb, and I don't do that on gamenights anyhow so it's a non-issue.  My collage group used to toke and play though, but it wasn't exactly a 'serious' game anyhow.

My house is nonsmoking, but it's a nonissue since no one in the group smokes.  If someone who did joined the group they'd be welcome to go smoke out on the deck though as long as they put their butt in an ashtray.


----------



## kiznit (Jul 9, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> You had me for the taking, all the way up until "Shlitz."
> 
> Gotta draw the line _somewhere_.



Are you trying to turn this into a badwrongfun argument?


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 9, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> My father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all alcholics.  By mid high school, I could outdrink them.




Not saying you are lying, but do you realize how unrealistic this sounds? Or maybe you guys just have another definition of alcoholism in the States? Could you clarify how you define alcoholism?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

kiznit said:


> Are you trying to turn this into a badwrongfun argument?



Look, man, all I'm saying is that I have had -- and might have in the future -- bad experiences when mixing peyote, hashish, cocaine, menthol, LSD, chocolate, isolation booths, and bats, so rather than take the chance of embarassing those individuals who can't handle their peyote, hashish, cocaine, menthol, LSD, chocolate, isolation booths, and bats, I just choose not to allow that combination at the table.

Don't _judge_ me, man!


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Jul 9, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Not saying you are lying, but do you realize how unrealistic this sounds? Or maybe you guys just have another definition of alcoholism in the States? Could you clarify how you define alcoholism?




My father drank a 12 pack a day (Miller lite), my grandfather at least a fifth a day, and I never met my great grandfather, but I'm told he drank as much.

I don't know how else to describe someone else who drinks that much daily.

And no worries, I'm not offended.  It is rather unusual.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 9, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> My father drank a 12 pack a day (Miller lite), my grandfather at least a fifth a day, and I never met my great grandfather, but I'm told he drank as much.
> 
> I don't know how else to describe someone else who drinks that much daily.
> 
> And no worries, I'm not offended.  It is rather unusual.




Ah, while 12 beers a day certainly is alcoholism, and I have no doubt you could drink more than that, my point (which is why I found your original comment odd) is simply that if your father drank 12 a day, he could (if he wanted) most likely drink a lot more. Hence my difficulty with the "outdrinking" comment. 

By comparison, during my high school years, I would drink a bottle of booze before heading to a party. A bottle like that equals (alcohol-wise) around 35 bottles of beer. Yet I doubt I could ever outdrink a real alcoholic on a consistent basis, because after a few days of drinking, I would need a break, while the alcoholic would just keep going, day in and day out.

Either way, thanks for clarifying.

Cheers

Edit: What is "a fifth"?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 9, 2009)

Mr. Wilson said:


> This is an interesting discussion.



I liken it to a Benny Hill episode.

I'm having a blast reading it.  I can almost hear the music.....


----------



## sjmiller (Jul 9, 2009)

I must say I have found this discussion to be most fascinating. I understand that for various religious or medical reasons people would disallow or ask to disallow those things that affect them. While I do not agree with the "it happened before with others so it could happen again, so I will now allow things" stance, I guess we can agree to disagree there.

For me, I have a medical condition that requires me to ask that others not smoke in whatever room I am in. This is especially true for clove cigarettes, as they cause an almost immediate reaction. However, smoking outside or in another room is just fine.

As for alcohol, this has never been an issue in any of the groups I have been in over the last 30 years. Casual drinking is fine, and is what is done in those groups. An occasional beer, cider, wine, or mixed drink is not out of the ordinary. I even play in a group with people below the drinking age. In that group the younger players are not offered a drink on the rare occasion that someone brings anything.

I have never been in a group where drinking has been a problem. The one time it came close to that we had a heart to heart talk with our friend. He realized after the talk that drinking was becoming an issue with him, and he took appropriate steps to deal with it.

I have been involved in one group where the smoking was an issue. Because the gaming group tended to meet at one house where people smoked in the house, I had trouble breathing in that house. When the problem arose I told the group that I could not play at that house due to medical reasons. It was then decided that we would play elsewhere. Simple, non-confrontational, and easily resolved.

As I said, I can perfectly understand not wanting smoking or drinking in a gaming group due to religious or medical reasons. If a player (who in just about every case in my experience has been a friend as well as a gamer) said they felt uncomfortable around such activities, I believe all of my groups would sit down with that person to see why they felt uncomfortable, and see what we could do to decrease the feeling without increasing any discomfort for other players. The key, I think, is to find a comfortable middle ground.

If, try as we might, a comfortable middle ground could not be found, then we will most likely accommodate the largest group.

On a personal note, I can say that this sort of conflict resolution does work. I have used something similar to it once, when dealing with a player who has a gaming style I was most uncomfortable being around. We talked about the problem and, since I was the only one truly uncomfortable with it, I chose to leave the group. It was not a decision made lightly, as I rather miss gaming with the others in the group.

Anyway, enough rambling. Just thought I would add a few comments to the mix.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 9, 2009)

kiznit said:


> I'm sorry, but when my group sits down to game, we sit down to _game_, not do anything else that might interfere with it.
> 
> First we hand out the barbiturates. Fighters get the blue pills, clerics and magic-users get the pink ones. Then once the three sacred hashish sticks are lit around the miniatures, twelve grams (not thirteen, I mean we're not playing AD&D here folks) of peyote are unwrapped and split into equal piles based on the last experience point distribution. The DM then takes a hit of nitrous for each player sitting at the table while the rest of us begin mixing the cocktails in a large 4-gallon tub. Old d20s that roll unluckily are carefully dissolved in a mixture of heroin and cocaine before being added to the base along with ten cups of everclear, burgundy rum, orange juice, and a couple of dollops of schlitz. The DM is then given two tabs of acid before being carefully stripped naked and lowered into a meditative isolation tank of menthol, ammonia and chocolate from which he can shout out the directions of what we can do and where we can go, assuming he can fight off the bats.
> 
> That, my friends, is the only true way of playing D&D.




Wait... Which supplement did Hunter S Thompson write again?


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Jul 9, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Ah.....Either way, thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Edit: What is "a fifth"?




Yeah, I probably should have clarified that I meant in one setting, as oppossed to day in day out drinking.  That, I'm happy to say, never happened.

A fifth is 1/5 of a gallon of hard liquor (in his case, whiskey).


----------



## kitsune9 (Jul 9, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Forked from:  What are the no-goes for you?
> Now, it was far from everyone on the other thread, but I've seen more than a few object to any kind of alcohol at gaming whatsoever.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I think complete drunkenness can disrupt any semi-serious game.  (With a caveat that being drunk makes games like Kobolds Ate My Baby _awesome._)  I'm on board with that being a deal-breaker - in fact, I uninvited a guy who'd down a six pack in the first 20 minutes every session.
> ...




Usually, once someone becomes buzzed, much less drunk, is what drives other players or the DM batty because there is a noticeable difference in how people play even when they are just buzzed. They do minor and annoying things like forgetting to flank when they are a rogue, power attacking as a fighter, or taking longer than usual on their turn. 

I played with buzzed players and it was frustrating to have a serious game where we needed to have our gameplan on and they would forget to do things that they wouldn't normally forget if they were completely sober.


----------



## sjmiller (Jul 9, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Edit: What is "a fifth"?



A fifth is a measurement, usually of alcohol, equaling one fifth of a US Gallon. A fifth is about 25 fluid ounces or approximately 750 milliliters. It's one of those odd, older measurements that are rarely used these days outside of the liquor industry.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 9, 2009)

sjmiller said:


> A fifth is a measurement, usually of alcohol, equaling one fifth of a US Gallon. A fifth is about 25 fluid ounces or approximately 750 milliliters. It's one of those odd, older measurements that are rarely used these days outside of the liquor industry.




When you buy a bottle of hard liquor in the US, what is the normal size? 1 liter or 70 cl? Or is it 75 cl (a fifth)?


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Jul 9, 2009)

AFAIK, a fifth is the standard bottle of hard liquor in the United States.


----------



## sjmiller (Jul 9, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> When you buy a bottle of hard liquor in the US, what is the normal size? 1 liter or 70 cl? Or is it 75 cl (a fifth)?



Your typical bottle of hard liquor sold in the US is usually labeled as 750 ml. You can get larger ones that are either 1 liter or 1.5 liter, depending on the company making it.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 9, 2009)

Elsewhere, too; we generally have 750mL bottles of alcohol in Australia.

("Coincidentally", soft drink is sold in 375mL cans. Hmmmmmmm.)


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 9, 2009)

mhacdebhandia said:


> Elsewhere, too; we generally have 750mL bottles of alcohol in Australia.
> 
> ("Coincidentally", soft drink is sold in 375mL cans. Hmmmmmmm.)




70cl in Europe though.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 9, 2009)

What do I drink during a game?  It entirely depends on my mood at the time* but usually comes down to one or more of the following:

Beer
Tea
Coffee
Brandy

* - or occasionally on the character I am playing - it's way easier to play a half-drunk gonzo character (such as my nakesake character here usually was) when one is in the situation of being a half-drunk gonzo player.

Lan-"have another beer, sit around and roll some dice"-efan


----------



## Wepwawet (Jul 9, 2009)

Oookay! Long interesting thread. The strangest thing is that I read through all of it.

As a smoker and drinker, I love games where you drink and smoke at the table.
Back when I lived in Oporto, me and my friends (I miss gaming with them) used to have beer or whisky & coke (the dark bubbling liquid, of course).
We never got wasted, but we definitely got drunk. It worked perfectly and we had so much fun. Alcohol was not disruptive at all, because we loved playing so much that even drunk we were concentrated on the game.
Also, we where all on the same wavelength, wich helped. I imagine that having someone in the game not drinking would feel odd and out of sync.

That said, I don't mind at all being in a game without alcohol, be it because it's in a store, or because the host doesn't want it.
I've played before without drinking and I had the same fun (well, not exactly the same as I was not so familiar with some players).

Smoke is a bit different. Obviously I'd go outside for a smoke, leaving everything as clean as before, but you couldn't forbid me of a smoke break.

Of course I respect everyone's take on alcohol and all that. You can always choose your friends...
In the end, only play-style would make me abandon a group. I can play with any group, but if I don't feel good with the others I'll go away.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 9, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Wait... Which supplement did Hunter S Thompson write again?



Fear and Loathing in the World of Greyhawk.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I, however, am not.  I would rather deal with a problem individual.




You don't know how someone's going to behave under the influence until you see them under the influence.  So, he should allow someone to ruin his time at least once as a drunken idiot before he takes action?  

Stepping to a new, unrelated thought - It is funny where people draw lines.

I don't think anyone here has made a cogent argument that it would not be acceptable to disallow harder drugs at the table.

There are _entire human cultures_ who have eschewed alcohol based on belief, and it seems to be accepted that if the guy was a Muslim, it would be okay to say no to alcohol at the table.

But when a lone man decides to draw the line at alcohol for his own reasons, then there's an argument, and some say he's behaving in a socially unacceptable manner?  I'm not sure I get that.  The guy's got a quirk.  Big fat hairy deal!

The more interesting part of this thread, to me, is not why people might disallow alcohol, but instead how folks react to that disallowance.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jul 9, 2009)

Like I said in that other thread,I don't mind a couple of drinks, but I've seen WAY too many folk I know become alcoholics or abused or injured by them so, I have almost zero tolerance for drunks.

We're playing D&D, not getting plastered. 
Gamer I knew and liked, I couldn't stand being aorund as he got plastered _EVERY _game session or _anywhere _we went, even when you asked him not to, that is *alcoholism*, he, just like most of them, refuses to admit it.
I would like ot play , or have fun, go out whatever  my friend, NOT a blethering retard I can't trust.

vastly more Scots die from alcohol abuse than ALL the illegal drugs combined.
1 in 20 deaths here are alcohol related. That's atrocious and unacceptable.

You wouldn't accept someone shooting up heroin at the table. Same damn thing to me.
It's watching someone slide into a craphole.
heron, alcohol NO DIFFERENCE, bar potency, same with all the dangeorus addictive drugs. Please go see actual reports and fact-based compariosns on the true danger and risks of all drugs...alcohol is up near the top.
You mess with addictive drugs, your life and those around yours are ruined.

So, you want a drink or two to relax, enjoy the taste, fine by me!  I like Glaayva, cider and other drinks, but _very _rarely,and they aren't good for me nowadays anyway (health issues)
but there are a lot of folk who can't stick to 1 or 2 drinks. It' very easy to start down that route and you never really come back out of it, but you can clean it up.


Apologies if that's too heavy for the forum. I hope folk can udnerstand why though


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Stepping to a new, unrelated thought - It is funny where people draw lines.
> 
> I don't think anyone here has made a cogent argument that it would not be acceptable to disallow harder drugs at the table.
> 
> ...



Actually, I would find it odd if a muslim forbade me drinking just because I was sitting at his table. Most muslims I know (and I know quite a few) do not mind that their friends drink alcohol in their presence. 

Regarding the drinking and drugs difference, your stance strikes me as really odd. It's quite simple. One is illegal, one is not. It's that simple. Also, in case you have absolutely no first or second hand experience with hard drugs, I can tell you that there is a world of difference between taking a couple of beers and shooting up. Most people know this difference, and due to a natural respect and understanding of the law, that's were the line is drawn.

At least that's my guess.

Cheers


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 9, 2009)

Wow, what a long thread. Alcohol isn't really an issue for us at all. It isn't banned or anything but hardly anyone drinks at games. I guess it's more about the drinking and driving aspect of things rather than behavior issues with us. Our games are usually on Friday nights after work and someone always needing a ride home after the game would be a pain in the butt.

We have parties sometimes with heavy drinking but crash space or ride home arrangements are always set up for these. We only have one smoker that sometimes plays with us but he always went outside and has quit recently anyhow.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> You don't know how someone's going to behave under the influence until you see them under the influence. So, he should allow someone to ruin his time at least once as a drunken idiot before he takes action?




As for my opinion (I don't pretend to speak for anyone else here), he can do whatever he wants as a host (prohibiting whatever he wants, accepting whoever likes that ruleset) or as a player (only playing with people that agree with his rules). I would be irritated if someone new joined our group and waged some campaign to stop us all from having a beer or lectured us on why it was bad based on some bad experience he had. We'd kick the guy out. 

These days I think people have trouble agreeing to disagree. He can have his standards, I can have mine. We can both think the other's are irrational, illogical, unacceptable, uninformed or simply not desirable. That's why we don't game together. We don't always need to resolve our differences or find some way to say "Oh, that's perfectly logical" even though we disagree.

This thread has gotten a little contentious at times because the nature of the subject matter makes it very tempting and easy to go beyond "agreeing to disagree" and try to give examples or logical arguments on why the other guy's standard is too harsh/wrong/bad for gaming, whatever. 

Ultimately though, I think we can all agree that the game's great because it allows us to self-select a group of people that enjoy the same things we do, no?


----------



## Wepwawet (Jul 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> But when a lone man decides to draw the line at alcohol for his own reasons, then there's an argument, and some say he's behaving in a socially unacceptable manner?  I'm not sure I get that.  The guy's got a quirk.  Big fat hairy deal!




For myself it was hard to understand why someone would have such strong feelings against a few beers (in my opinion inoffensive, when now and then), making him impose what appeared to be extreme and kinda arbitrary rules.
It took some of us (i.e., me) many many pages to understand his point of view because many of his posts were so vague and some times missing the point of the questions.
(That's how I see it, Bumbles, honest)

Obviously I respect his point of view. And we all saw there are as many perpectives as ENWorlders (and realworlders).

Although I see some similarities between us europeans


----------



## Obryn (Jul 9, 2009)

Oryan77 said:


> So should I go with a certain brand of tobacco or just go straight to cigars? What about pipes? Would people think I'm cool smoking from a pipe while playing D&D (like a wizard)? A pipe might defeat the purpose



I used to smoke a pipe.  It's actually pretty great and relaxing, and a fun social activity.

There's a pretty high cost of entry if you go for a burl pipe, but it's cheap if you start on a corncob.  (Seriously - they're pretty good pipes!)  You definitely need pipe cleaners.  But after that, the pipe tobacco is very, very inexpensive.

Also, it smells pretty wonderful.  (Damn, now I need to head down to the tobacconist and break out my pipe!)

I also smoked a few hookahs in my time - again, tobacco, not pot.  Now THERE is a heck of a wonderful experience, with all the lovely flavors and the nice, cool smoke.  The entry barrier for that is quite a bit higher, though.  Still, I could see gaming while smoking from a table hookah.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Jul 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> The more interesting part of this thread, to me, is not why people might disallow alcohol, but instead how folks react to that disallowance.



I think there are different reactions depending on the reasons, to be honest.

My primary rule is that I'll always be respectful of a game's host.  If the host bans alcohol for whatever reason, that's their call and it's not my place to question it.

If someone refuses to game with a group because someone in the group might be drinking, not to excess...  I find that a little weird, and I like to hear reasons.  Having been around plenty of drunk people, and being pretty aware of the gulf between "had a beer," "buzzed," "drunk," and "blackout" ... I honestly don't understand why someone would object to someone else drinking a beer in their presence.  So I like to try and understand.  I still don't though, in this case.

-O


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> But when a lone man decides to draw the line at alcohol for his own reasons, then there's an argument, and some say he's behaving in a socially unacceptable manner? I'm not sure I get that. The guy's got a quirk. Big fat hairy deal!




I think you misunderstand that.  I wasn't claiming there's a universal stadard of social acceptability; I was merely saying that, for me, I would find it very difficult having any kind of social relationship with a person who lumped me in with problematic individuals just because it's more ocnvenient for him to avoid confrontation with those peope.  

As I said -I, myself, would prefer to deal with a problematic individual if/when the situation arises.

And, obviously, he has the right to set whatever rules he likes in his own home.  I can't imagine anybody is disputing that for a second.  If he says we have to wear pink fluffy hats in his house, then we have to wear pink fluffy hats in his house.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I think you misunderstand that. I wasn't claiming there's a universal *stadard* of social acceptability; I was merely saying that, for me, I would find it very difficult having any kind of social relationship with a person who lumped me in with problematic individuals just because it's more *ocnvenient* for him to avoid confrontation with those *peope.*
> 
> As I said -I, myself, would prefer to deal with a problematic individual if/when the situation arises.
> 
> And, obviously, he has the right to set whatever rules he likes in his own home. I can't imagine anybody is disputing that for a second. If he says we have to wear pink fluffy hats in his house, then we have to wear pink fluffy hats in his house.




OK. Are you drunk?


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 9, 2009)

Good thing he's the host and can make the rules about posting while drinking!


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 9, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Sorry, but it's not that common to have that kind of reaction if someone has smoked outside and then later enters the room. Most people do not even know you have smoked unless they get very close to you.



Agree with the first sentence.  Disagree with the second.  Just because people don't complain doesn't mean they don't notice.  They're just too polite to say, "dude, you REEK!"


----------



## maddman75 (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> It might be really interesting to start a poll on the drinking attitude as compared to country.  I suspect that a higher percentage of folks in the US will have a problem with it, but I don't know for sure.




It will vary considerably.

I and most of my friends come from a working class midwestern culture, which alcohol is very much a part of.  It is a social glue that brings people together.  I have to remember that not everyone will realize this, but having a beer is one of the primary ways people here socialize.  It would be the height of rudeness to ask someone not to drink beer in their own house.  Conversely, for them not to offer you one of their beers even if you've just met would also be rude.  Most of the time if I'm meeting someone new I'll accept just a beer just to be sociable, even if its a brand I despise.

Now most people are accepting if someone doesn't want to drink a beer, though there's often a moment of making sure that this isn't because the one offering hasn't offended the person in some way.  A cursory explaination will take care of it, such as 'my Dad was an alcoholic' or 'its against my religion'.  But the default assumption is the social message "I'm not going to drink a beer with you because I'm not your friend."

This makes the militant anti-drinkers look very odd and outcast from where I'm standing.  Though with the people they game with I would likely be the one on the outside for popping open a beer, asking them if they wanted any, and upon refusal telling them the different brands I have or offering to make a mixed drink out of the liqour cabinet.



Invisible Stalker said:


> Yep. My village is also a dry one. And I have voted for it to remain so twice.




Not to get political, but you do realize that dry counties have higher rates of underage drinking and DUI, right?


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> But when a lone man decides to draw the line at alcohol for his own reasons, then there's an argument, and some say he's behaving in a socially unacceptable manner?  I'm not sure I get that.  The guy's got a quirk.  Big fat hairy deal!




Oh, I'm not alone. I know that.   There are people who want to make that the argument, but not only is it an inappropriate type of argument trying to use the group consensus to coerce the individual, it's a false one.  There's plenty of people who have chimed in to say they share the same reasoning.  

It may be a quirk, perhaps, but then, I think drinking is as much of one.  If it's not worse, when it becomes a disease.  Which I suppose could happen to my "quirk" at some point, but until I do something like start breaking into Saloon Halls to smash them up with an axe or nominating myself to be the Prohibition Party's candidate for President, I don't think it represents such.  Any more than I think because somebody refuses to play at a game of mine where I don't allow something they prefer.



> The more interesting part of this thread, to me, is not why people might disallow alcohol, but instead how folks react to that disallowance.




This I agree with completely.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 9, 2009)

Flatus Maximus said:


> Inquiring minds wanna know: Real-life experience or way over-the-top exaggeration?




Unfortunately real life experience. 

I wasn't in the room when it happened, I stepped out to the bodega to get some snacks. When I came back, though there had obviously been some kind of occurrence because the offender wasn't there and the victim was still pretty pissed off about a perfectly good bag and it's contents just gone to waste. 

I was the outside man who'd been invited to the group and I was told that they like to have a few beers while they play. Initially I was a little concerned, but I wanted to play in their game so I put it aside. Everything was going fine until about the 3rd or 4th hour of the game when they'd gone into their 3rd 6 pack (spilt amongst 4 guys,  6 of us I wasn't drinking and the DM only had 2 if I'm remembering correctly). 

Keep in mind that I'm not saying all groups are like that, I just dont want to find out WHICH groups are like that.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> You don't know how someone's going to behave under the influence until you see them under the influence.  So, he should allow someone to ruin his time at least once as a drunken idiot before he takes action?



Well... yes. You don't know how someone's going to behave until to you've seem them... behave. Period. End of sentence. And really, running the risk of someone else 'ruining your time' is a basic cost of social interaction (hell is other people for a reason!).



> But when a lone man decides to draw the line at alcohol for his own reasons, then there's an argument, and some say he's behaving in a socially unacceptable manner?



I'm not saying that anyone is acting in an unacceptable manner. But I do think the idea that (any) alcohol use (alone) can be used as a barometer to predict how much trouble another individual will potentially cause you is batty. It strikes me as an ineffective strategy, not a _faux pas_.  

Where I'm from alcohol use is an unavoidable part of adult life. Avoiding situations where it's consumed would mean giving up weddings, funerals, christenings, parties, good restaurants, and last, but certainly not least, bars.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Wepwawet said:


> For myself it was hard to understand why someone would have such strong feelings against a few beers (in my opinion inoffensive, when now and then), making him impose what appeared to be extreme and kinda arbitrary rules.




It's not the few beers that gives me the strong feelings.  It's the behaviors caused by the people who drank them.  Or more than a few.  People who think it's because I have a problem with some folks wanting their alcohol to have fun are mistaken.  It's because of folks who don't know their limits and because I simply refuse to argue it with them.  I don't want to arbitrate it with them.  If I make it personal, they take it personal.  So I keep it impersonal, so if they argue on the line, I can say "It's not personal, that rule I apply to everybody, not just you" which they either accept or don't.  If they don't, one of us leaves.



> It took some of us (i.e., me) many many pages to understand his point of view because many of his posts were so vague and some times missing the point of the questions.




Whereas I think it took so long because people wanted unnecessary personal details and missed the point of what I said.  



> (That's how I see it, Bumbles, honest)




Well, how do you think I see things from my point of view?  I see people who refused to understand what I was saying, took things off on their own track, and who didn't listen to my explanations.  I felt like I was forced to qualify everything I said, otherwise I would be misinterpreted and derided for it.    

You did it yourself.  Only a little bit, but still, I found your description of my problem to be in error.  Maybe you didn't mean it that way, and you feel I'm msinterpreting you, but hey, go figure.  We're all human beings, and capable of these failings.  When we can get past them, and understand each other, that's good.  But too many people, I fear, confuse understanding with agreement.  



Chainsaw said:


> As for my opinion (I don't pretend to speak for anyone else here), he can do whatever he wants as a host (prohibiting whatever he wants, accepting whoever likes that ruleset) or as a player (only playing with people that agree with his rules). I would be irritated if someone new joined our group and waged some campaign to stop us all from having a beer or lectured us on why it was bad based on some bad experience he had. We'd kick the guy out.




And this sort of thinking is why I refuse to go into a significant discussion with people I want to play with.  I don't wish to annoy folks, and I've found if I go beyond the simplest of explanations, then that perception is more likely than not.   



> This thread has gotten a little contentious at times because the nature of the subject matter makes it very tempting and easy to go beyond "agreeing to disagree" and try to give examples or logical arguments on why the other guy's standard is too harsh/wrong/bad for gaming, whatever.




Absolutely.  That's something I truly wish to avoid, which may be why Wepwawet thinks I'm being vague.  In a sense, I am.   



> Ultimately though, I think we can all agree that the game's great because it allows us to self-select a group of people that enjoy the same things we do, no?




One of the better things in life is that.  I spent too long hanging out with people who I didn't enjoy being around before I wised up.



Morrus said:


> I think you misunderstand that.  I wasn't claiming there's a universal stadard of social acceptability; I was merely saying that, for me, I would find it very difficult having any kind of social relationship with a person who lumped me in with problematic individuals just because it's more ocnvenient for him to avoid confrontation with those peope.




Except you're not being lumped in with them, and if you think of it that way, then I see why you're upset, but the thing is, I feel that's because you're perceiving it as a personal matter, when it's not one to me.  But I know I am very limited in my ability to convince somebody that I'm not judging them when they break some rule or another.  I know others have the same problem too.  (I see it in the local tournament I mentioned above).  Which, of course, is why I prefer to avoid the confrontation when I can.   



> As I said -I, myself, would prefer to deal with a problematic individual if/when the situation arises.




I wish I could.  But I realized my limits long ago.  Sometimes problematic individuals can't be dealt with as individuals.  Sometimes you still have to do it on an individual basis, but drinking is one it's easier to stop before it has a chance to begin to be a problem.


----------



## nerfherder (Jul 9, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Disagree with the second.  Just because people don't complain doesn't mean they don't notice.  They're just too polite to say, "dude, you REEK!"




Yes - I have had my head down, deep in thought at work, and been pulled out of it by the unpleasant smell of smoke.  I've then looked up and realised that one of the smokers has just come in from a cigarette break.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Well... yes. You don't know how someone's going to behave until to you've seem them... behave. Period. End of sentence. And really, running the risk of someone else 'ruining your time' is a basic cost of social interaction (hell is other people for a reason!).




Indeed, it remains a risk.  Nonetheless, it can be valuable if some of the risk can be reduced even if the entirety of the risk is not eliminated.



> But I do think the idea that (any) alcohol use (alone) can be used as a barometer to predict how much trouble another individual will potentially cause you is batty.




That specific idea is not being applied here.  The idea, as I would put it, is that removing alcohol (a potential influence that can lead to negative behavior) from a situation removes one potential source of trouble.  

I feel nothing about a person's simple use of alcohol (ie, do they or don't they), though I reserve the right to have a feeling about the degree of their use.  It's just that I disallow the use at games to avoid the bother of worrying about their degree.

But do you see how my expression differs from yours?



> It strikes me as an ineffective strategy, not a _faux pas_.




Well, it's been a strategy applied the world over, in hospitals, in mines, on airplanes...and at many social events.  Every public park where I live has signs around it stating the rules.  No drinking.  No smoking.   Some others.  

Why do they have these signs if they're so ineffective as a policy?   (Note, I'm not saying the enforcement is universally effective, I once found an unopened bottle of beer in a park along with the rest of the pack which had been smashed up underneath a slide.)

You could say "Well, that's because of the larger groups introducing an uncertainly dynamic" as one person did earlier.  But to that I ask, am I supposed to have to know everybody extensively before I game with them?   And what if it happens anyway?

No, for me, there's no unbearable cost to not allowing drinking, or to avoiding situations where drinking occurs.  Sure, there's an opportunity cost, but for me,  I've decided it's outweighed by the risk of the problems.   Especially since I don't drink, and I've found people bothered by that when I say "No" .  Some people can't accept that you don't find drinking fun.  Or them to be funny while drunk.


----------



## Doodles (Jul 9, 2009)

Mallus said:


> (actually, I prefer Calvados as my postprandial fire-water).



You, Sir, are a man of taste. A good Norman Calvados, now that's something!


----------



## Imperialus (Jul 9, 2009)

I've got another hypothetical here, just because I could very easally see it happening to me.

Say you join my group lets say back around January.  You're upfront and state that you're not comfortable gaming while drinking is going on.  I say, yeah, that's cool and sure enough the group doesn't drink.

You join the group and everything is cool.  Our playstyles mesh, and a good time is had by all.

Now lets say a few weeks ago I send out an email to the group suggesting that we get together ahead of the game for a 4th of July (or Canada day in my case) BBQ and play afterward.

When you show up I say "Hey, I'm just putting the steaks on.  There's pop and beer in the fridge, help yourself."  You see one of the other players has arrived before you and he's mixing the salad and has a beer open.

I really only see 5 possible responses.

1) Say nothing and grab a pop.  Eat dinner and play the game afterwards.  

2) Grab a pop, stay and eat dinner, but mention afterward that the alchohol made you uncomfortable.

3) Say "I'd rather not be around any alchohol, do you mind putting it away?"

4) Say "I don't want to be around any alcohol.  I'm going to go home and skip this session.  I'll see you next week."

5) Say "I don't want to be around anyone who drinks.  I'm goin to leave now" and leave the group.

As far as my responses go.

1) I wouldn't even realize there was a problem.  And to be perfectly honest, having known my group for as long as I have, you probably wouldn't even realize that we had had a drink with dinner.

2) I'd be quite apologetic, and make sure that any time we had the group over there wasn't any booze.

3) I'd be a little weirded out, though my first concern would probably be to ask if you were allergic to anything in beer, because I used a beer based marinade for the steaks.  Then the beer would go away.  If you said yes, you were allergic then an marinaded steak would come out.

4) I'd be embarrassed, and probably a little offended.  I'm taking the time to cook you dinner, and host a game and I'd feel like you're judging me and  your fellow group members.  There is a distinct possibility you wouldn't be invited back.

5) I'd be embarrassed and offended.  From my point of view, I was trying to be a good host.  I offered you a beer, not a line of coke and your reaction was way out of line.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> And this sort of thinking is why I refuse to go into a significant discussion with people I want to play with. I don't wish to annoy folks, and I've found if I go beyond the simplest of explanations, then that perception is more likely than not.




I don't game with strangers that I haven't had a good discussion with beforehand. I say, "Do you mind if my wife has a glass of wine while she plays?" and if they say, "Not at all. Usually someone's drinking a beer," then we're probably good to go (I probably do a test run by myself first anyway). If the response is, "Not at all, last week a guy did a shot whenever his character killed something!" then I probably think twice before even doing a test run, much less bringing my wife. 

For me, the discussion, either as a host or a player, involves setting the appropriate expectations beforehand. Honestly, I usually don't commit to a group until after I've done a test session or two. Same if I'm hosting - no promises on a long-term seat until you've been vetted. 

If it's easier for you to just say "No drinking" at your house or to not join a game where someone drinks, that's your right. That's cool. Personally, that would potentially eliminate some good players who are responsible drinkers, so I wouldn't go that route. I'm probably just a bit more risk tolerant, I guess - maybe because I've never really experienced a bad drinking/gaming incident.


----------



## The Ghost (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> That specific idea is not being applied here.  The idea, as I would put it, is that removing alcohol (a potential influence that can lead to negative behavior) from a situation removes one potential source of trouble.




Ok. What other potential influences that can lead to negative behavior do you not allow when you game? (I know this kind of goes back to the original thread) Narcotics? Tobacco? Sugar? Prescription Meds? OTC Meds? Energy Drinks? Cheetos? 

The reason I ask is that I am trying to get an understanding of where you (and others) draw the line.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 9, 2009)

I agree that the reactions to the statement are more interesting than the statement itself.  As a person who doesn't drink... at all, ever... and doesn't smoke... at all, ever... I'd still probably be leery of joining a group that felt it necessary to put that down, especially in writing, before playing.  To me, that's a more troubling sign than the notion that a beer or two might be consumed during a session.

If a lit cigarette were present at the table the whole session, or something like that, I'd probably leave the group after seeing that happen.  That's unpleasant.  If people were getting literally drunk, I'd probably leave the group as well, assuming that the rest of the group didn't step forward and say, "dude, this is a problem." (The most likely consequence, in my opinion.)  If people were doing any other drugs at the table, I'd probably get up and leave right then.

I'm not real happy about drinking, but I understand that folks do it.  It's never been a problem in my experience that folks drink a beer or two during a five hour session.  I've never yet seen anyone behave noticeably different because of it.  I'm not real happy about smoking, but I understand that folks do it, as long as they go outside to do so.  Heck, I often go _with_ the smokers on their smoke breaks to stretch my legs and chat with them while they're smoking about the game.

Unlike Lord Mhoram, I don't really have the option of easily finding gamers who's opinions on a number of issues line up with mine.  I also don't drink or smoke for religious reasons, primarily (although there are plenty of other reasons that are great ones to make that same choice) but I don't (like him) live in an area where active participation in my religion is the majority situation.  Because of that, I think it's incumbent on me personally to be a bit more tolerant of other people's habits rather than try to impose my own on any given social situation.

Frankly, if I were that strict about my choice of association, I'd miss out on some great friends and great games.  I really like my gaming group, which features two chain smokers and pretty much everyone (besides me) being a social drinker.

Interestingly, when it's my turn to have the game at my house, we don't drink.  I don't have anything alcoholic in my house, with the exception of some aftershave, but nobody brings anything either.  I've never said that I don't want them to; they just know I don't drink.  If they brought a six-pack and split them amongst them, I don't think it'd bother me, actually (plus; free deposits back on those bottles and cans!) but they don't.

I guess to me that's a much more compelling social glue than beer: sufficient respect for ones friends to allow them their beliefs, and not try to bully them on principle.  The fact that nobody brings beer to my house speaks volumes about the respect they have for me, even though I've never asked them not to, and probably wouldn't, either.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Chainsaw said:


> I don't game with strangers that I haven't had a good discussion with beforehand.




Sorry, I was trying to avoid using the word "argument" and I think my switching to the word discussion was misleading.  I have a discussion with them.  I just don't get into a long involved one.  In other words, I don't try to convince anyone to change their ways.

I keep things short and simple, as a longer, more involved process?  I don't feel it's been more effective, but rather, more prone to argument.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I think you misunderstand that.




Nope.  You were clear.  The "new, unrelated thought" bit was intended to show I was not longer responding to your post, specifically.  Sorry if that didn't do the job.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jul 9, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> It will vary considerably.
> 
> I and most of my friends come from a working class midwestern culture, which alcohol is very much a part of.  It is a social glue that brings people together.  I have to remember that not everyone will realize this, but having a beer is one of the primary ways people here socialize.  It would be the height of rudeness to ask someone not to drink beer in their own house.  Conversely, for them not to offer you one of their beers even if you've just met would also be rude.  Most of the time if I'm meeting someone new I'll accept just a beer just to be sociable, even if its a brand I despise.
> 
> ...




This.  Right here is where I'm coming from.  

Almost literally -  I'm only about 90 miles from Maddman.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Actually, I would find it odd if a muslim forbade me drinking just because I was sitting at his table.




Odd, yes.  The question was more about whether it would be _acceptable_.



> Regarding the drinking and drugs difference, your stance strikes me as really odd. It's quite simple. One is illegal, one is not. It's that simple.




No, it is most certainly not that simple.  A great many folks have personal standards different than the law.  Maybe they'll let minors drink at their table.  Maybe they don't mind marijuana, but will draw the line at something harder, and so on.  

"Legal" and "what I will personally tolerate" are only loosely connected, at best.

As an example at the other end:  I have seen folks draw a line at the high-end caffeinated energy drinks.  While perfectly legal, the caffeine is enough to make some people very twitchy and annoying.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Except you're not being lumped in with them, and if you think of it that way, then I see why you're upset, but the thing is, I feel that's because you're perceiving it as a personal matter, when it's not one to me.




But it _is_ a personal matter. To _me_. Not the drinking itself; the implied generalisation. You're essentially saying "I suspect you of being an obnoxious uncontrollable drunkard" when you have no evidence to suggest such a thing.  Whether you disclaim it or not, you're engaging in a strategy which will make people feel like you're judging them - and, really, you are. You just claim not to be (I mean that in the nicest possible way). 

You can't disclaim behaviour with the prefix "it isn't personal". For example, if I were to call you a deeply offensive name (not that I would), and then qualify it by saying "that's because you're perceiving it as a personal matter, when it's not one to me", how would you feel?

Don't get me wrong; in a practical sense this matters to me far less than it does as a hypothetical messageboard discussion point. I'm just debating here - in actual practice I'd just go along with it. Although if you walked out of my game just because someone opened a beer, I'm pretty sure there would be a "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" attitude prevalent amongst the group.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 9, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> This.  Right here is where I'm coming from.
> 
> Almost literally -  I'm only about 90 miles from Maddman.



Hah - Yep!  Me, too.  Although I'm only about 50-60 miles away, in Bloomington/Normal.

I was raised in the Chicago suburbs and the same rules re: Beer applied there, too, basically.

-O


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> But it _is_ a personal matter. To _me_. Not the drinking itself; the implied generalisation. You're essentially saying "I suspect you of being an obnoxious uncontrollable drunkard" when you have no evidence to suggest such a thing. Whether you disclaim it or not, you're engaging in a strategy which will make people feel like you're judging them - and, really, you are. You just claim not to be (I mean that in the nicest possible way).



No, he's really not. He's saying, essentially, "I know that *some* people can be obnoxious when they drink. I have no way of knowing which people these are. I don't particularly care to find out. So let's leave the alcohol out, shall we?" I think a mature person can handle that without taking it as an attack or a judgment.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Imperialus said:


> Now lets say a few weeks ago I send out an email to the group suggesting that we get together ahead of the game for a 4th of July (or Canada day in my case) BBQ and play afterward.




I wouldn't be foolish enough to go to such a BBQ without asking.  If you said there was going to be drinking, I'd suggest you run a one-shot or a fun-game rather than an on-going campaign session.  If you said you'd make sure nobody over-indulged, and that you were prepared to deal with anybody making trouble, I would be willing to show up after the BBQ for the game session.

If you couldn't, then I'd say, well, I won't be coming.  If you had a real problem with that, then I'd say, well, I'll be leaving then, because I see no reason to have an argument with you over it.   More than likely, it'll be because you feel insulted by my decision, but me, I consider it living by the principles I have chosen, and respecting instead of compromising* myself.  

*And note, I don't mean I'm against compromise, as in the sense of finding a mutually acceptable state of affairs(I do believe I gave some above), I mean that more in the sense of a jeopardy.



The Ghost said:


> Ok. What other potential influences that can lead to negative behavior do you not allow when you game? (I know this kind of goes back to the original thread) Narcotics? Tobacco? Sugar? Prescription Meds? OTC Meds? Energy Drinks? Cheetos?
> 
> The reason I ask is that I am trying to get an understanding of where you (and others) draw the line.




I've already said my position on smoking. I'd also include chewing tobacco with that.  I'm not sure what you mean by Narcotics, since you also used the word Prescription Meds in your list.  So I'll assume you mean illegal drugs.  In which case, again, not allowed.  Prescription and OTC meds are allowed, however, I would prefer anybody who is sick to say so and stay out of the game.  We'll run something without you. If you medication affects you, then I hope you don't have a problem accepting that, because if you do, when we have a problem.  Fortunately, most people are less likely to be intransigent about those kinds of influences.  I haven't yet had somebody who couldn't admit their allergy med or cough syrup made them fall asleep.  People who share prescription meds do get in trouble though.  To those, I will direct them to a copy of the law and ask them if they want me to lose my job.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 9, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> No, he's really not. He's saying, essentially, "I know that *some* people can be obnoxious when they drink. I have no way of knowing which people these are. I don't particularly care to find out. So let's leave the alcohol out, shall we?" I think a mature person can handle that without taking it as an attack or a judgment.




That_ is_ the definition of generalisation/stereotyping, though. That's exactly what the word means.

Remember, we're debating hypothetical semantics here; I wouldn't throw a tantrum about it in real life because it's not _that_ important to me. This is more an intellectual exercise exploring the concept.

Like I said, in his house, I'd have no issue accepting his rules - although if they were too strenuous or abritrary, I'd elect not to be there (I'd have no real issue with the no drinking, but a compulsory pink fluffy hat might go too far).

It's a silly conversation, anyway (not that Bumbles has started a silly topic, but that it's almost redundant discussing it to this depth). In the real world (as opposed to on a messgeboard) such things work themselves out via normal social dynamics. Nobdy analyses stuff to this extent in a real situation.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2009)

I want to commend Bumbles on repeatedly and calmly attempting to explain his point. I understand what he's getting at. Treating everyone the same way is the opposite of being personal, in some sense.

Drinking has never been an issue in any game I have played. In the sense that it's never even come up. Obviously, when I started playing at age 12 it wasn't an issue. But even into high school and college years, although some of the guys I played with were drinkers (in general), no one even suggested drinking at D&D.

I currently play in two groups. One meets at my house, and the subject has never been raised. They know my wife and I don't drink at all, and maybe it's because we tend to play in the afternoon or what have you, but it's never come up. The one smoker takes his smoke breaks outside, didn't ask, just courtesy to the rest of us.

The other group doesn't meet at my place. The hosts there drink a little, I believe, though again I've never seen the subject raised. We play in the evenings there, and there are at least three out of the seven people who would have to drive, but it doesn't seem to even cross anyone's mind.

Speaking as someone who has made a conscious decision to never drink, I am certainly wary of raising such a topic because I am generally then forced to defend a personal decision. People are often incredulous when you tell them you don't drink: "You don't? Why not?" with a look that says "what's wrong with you?" I have a couple of specific reasons, but I'm not going to share them because they're personal.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> That_ is_ the definition of generalisation/stereotyping, though. That's exactly what the word means.



But it's not the definition of judgment, which you mentioned alongside generalization. A judgment implies something about the specific person in question, a generalization implies that the specific person is irrelevant.


----------



## Imperialus (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I wouldn't be foolish enough to go to such a BBQ without asking.  If you said there was going to be drinking, I'd suggest you run a one-shot or a fun-game rather than an on-going campaign session.  If you said you'd make sure nobody over-indulged, and that you were prepared to deal with anybody making trouble, I would be willing to show up after the BBQ for the game session.
> 
> If you couldn't, then I'd say, well, I won't be coming.  If you had a real problem with that, then I'd say, well, I'll be leaving then, because I see no reason to have an argument with you over it.   More than likely, it'll be because you feel insulted by my decision, but me, I consider it living by the principles I have chosen, and respecting instead of compromising* myself.
> 
> *And note, I don't mean I'm against compromise, as in the sense of finding a mutually acceptable state of affairs(I do believe I gave some above), I mean that more in the sense of a jeopardy.




If that were the case I'd be cool with not having beer with dinner.  I'd ask again if you were allergic to beer and would therefor like a steak without marinade.  I'd also probably assume (unless you said it was for religious reasons or some-such) that you were a recovering alcoholic who was afraid of falling off the wagon, and too ashamed to admit it.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Morrus said:


> You can't disclaim behaviour with the prefix "it isn't personal". For example, if I were to call you a deeply offensive name (not that I would), and then qualify it by saying "that's because you're perceiving it as a personal matter, when it's not one to me", how would you feel?




If I said "No name callings" would you call it a personal judgment?

I wouldn't.   If you do, then I'll have to go back to we're in two different worlds, and obviously they're not compatible.


----------



## Caliber (Jul 9, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> In the US it would vary by state. After Prohibition, each state took it upon themselves to do weird stuff. Where I now live in California, I can buy liquor at the corner drug store along with Mac and Cheese, pet food, and over the counter drugs, prescription drugs, and get my photo's developed.
> 
> Where I grew up in Texas, it varied by *city*. So, in Farmer's Branch (where I grew-up), no one sold alcohol. Chain restaurants known for their beer selection couldn't serve it. Now, a customer could bring their own, but it required a special card to do so. Imagine that, BYOB to eat out at a restaurants.
> 
> Of course, Farmer's Branch is a small city and all one had to do was go to one where booze is legal to buy it. But those cities pretty much only sold liquor at liquor stores, not grocery stores or pharmacies like we have in California.




Where I live we have drive-thru liquor stores. You can get daqurais (alchoholic slushies), shots, probably beers. Fun fun.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2009)

Imperialus said:


> I'd also probably assume (unless you said it was for religious reasons or some-such) that you were a recovering alcoholic who was afraid of falling off the wagon, and too ashamed to admit it.



This is related to what I posted above. Why would you assume that someone who doesn't drink for other than religious reasons must be a recovering alcoholic? I don't drink at all, the only alcohol I recall ingesting in my life was a sip of wine at a wedding when I was 19 or so. I have made a choice not to drink. Oh yes, we're out there.


----------



## The Ghost (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I've already said my position on smoking. I'd also include chewing tobacco with that.  I'm not sure what you mean by Narcotics, since you also used the word Prescription Meds in your list.  So I'll assume you mean illegal drugs.  In which case, again, not allowed.  Prescription and OTC meds are allowed, however, I would prefer anybody who is sick to say so and stay out of the game.  We'll run something without you. If you medication affects you, then I hope you don't have a problem accepting that, because if you do, when we have a problem.  Fortunately, most people are less likely to be intransigent about those kinds of influences.  I haven't yet had somebody who couldn't admit their allergy med or cough syrup made them fall asleep.  People who share prescription meds do get in trouble though.  To those, I will direct them to a copy of the law and ask them if they want me to lose my job.




Fair enough. I did mean all drugs but felt it important enough to specify prescription and OTC meds. I also take it to mean that high sugar content foods and drinks are acceptable? How do you handle people who get really jacked-up from pop and energy drinks. I was played a campaign with a good friend and his two nephews. The kids were perfect at the begining of each session but after numerous pops and energy drinks thay were bouncing off the walls.

Since you are accepting of prescription and OTC meds, have you ever dealt with someone with an addiction to them? How would you handle someone who you found out was addicted to, say, pain killers - enough to have an effect on the gaming group? I ask this because, in my experience, I have had far more problems with people having problems with prescription and OTC meds than I have had with people who drink alcohol.


----------



## Imperialus (Jul 9, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> This is related to what I posted above. Why would you assume that someone who doesn't drink for other than religious reasons must be a recovering alcoholic? I don't drink at all, the only alcohol I recall ingesting in my life was a sip of wine at a wedding when I was 19 or so. I have made a choice not to drink. Oh yes, we're out there.




Choosing not to drink and refusing to be around alcohol in any form are two different things though.  I have friends who just won't drink, but they'd still come to a BBQ where alcohol was present.  If someone comes out and says that they will not be coming if there is booze there then I don't think it's all that weird to assume that they might have had a problem with it in the past.

*edit* I'd also try to be supportive of them in their attempt to stay sober and make sure that there was no alcohol present when they were around.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Imperialus said:


> If that were the case I'd be cool with not having beer with dinner.  I'd ask again if you were allergic to beer and would therefor like a steak without marinade.




I'd pass on the steak to be honest.  But my dietary restrictions and preferences are none of your concern, so I'll refrain from further details.  You don't need to know what I eat or why, and if you want, you can imagine whatever reasons you like.  If there's anybody not able to come up with some sensible ones, then here's a few:

Hindus, Jews, and Muslims, along with many Christian sects, and members of other religions have restrictions on what they can eat.

Other people have medical conditions and allergies that preclude their consumption of certain foods. In others, there might not be a dreadful risk, but they are concerned about their health and moderate their food consumption.

Some people have ethical concerns about the treatment of animals and the environmental impact caused by the food production industry.

Some people just don't like certain foods.

If, of course, you already know them, then good, but this is for the people who might ask why because they didn't.

Which, if any, apply to me, is private, so do me a favor and respect that.  Thanks.  



> I'd also probably assume (unless you said it was for religious reasons or some-such) that you were a recovering alcoholic who was afraid of falling off the wagon, and too ashamed to admit it.




As long as you didn't say it, or make any assumptions based on it, I wouldn't care what wrong-headed ideas you had in your head.  If you did bring it up, I'd tell that you were wrong, and remind you of the prior conversation where I brought it up.  Do note, I'm not necessarily giving a full accounting of the conversations I have in real life, where I would share at least a summary of the reasons.  People who doggedly insist on being convinced though?  It's not worth the trouble.



The Ghost said:


> Fair enough. I did mean all drugs but felt it important enough to specify prescription and OTC meds. I also take it to mean that high sugar content foods and drinks are acceptable? How do you handle people who get really jacked-up from pop and energy drinks. I was played a campaign with a good friend and his two nephews. The kids were perfect at the begining of each session but after numerous pops and energy drinks thay were bouncing off the walls.




There's a reason many people I know refuse to play games involving children.  And stores that don't allow them in.  And the local hospital has signs restricting the number of children you can have as visitors and when.   I'm more in the "I'll play short games, but not long campaigns" camp myself.



> Since you are accepting of prescription and OTC meds, have you ever dealt with someone with an addiction to them?




Yes.  This is why I don't try to deal with the problem any more.  It is way too much effort for me.  If the person wants to fix their problem, there are plenty of people who have chosen that line of work.   I can hand them a flyer as they're being ushered out the door.

There may be cases where I am obligated to report something to the authorities.  If you have a problem with that, tough cookies, I'm not going to argue with you over it either.  I had a sheriff's deputy come to my house because somebody thought there was a marijuana plant growing in it.  It wasn't, I didn't hold it against him, I didn't hold it against whoever made the call.  It's not like I would know what the things look like. I can't even identify poison ivy.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2009)

Imperialus said:


> Choosing not to drink and refusing to be around alcohol in any form are two different things though.



Fair enough, based on the wording used above.



Imperialus said:


> If someone comes out and says that they will not be coming if there is booze there then I don't think it's all that weird to assume that they might have had a problem with it in the past.



I see what you're saying, but "he was probably an alcholic" seems to be quite a leap to me.


----------



## maddman75 (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> If I said "No name callings" would you call it a personal judgment?
> 
> I wouldn't.   If you do, then I'll have to go back to we're in two different worlds, and obviously they're not compatible.




What if there's, let's say a bookstore.  The owner of the bookstore says "I don't carry roleplaying games, because there was this time some gamers came in, gamed on my coffee table all day, got cheeto-dust on my books, smelled like they hadn't showered in a week, and harassed anyone who would stand still for ten seconds about their characters.  It drove all my customers away."

"So I don't let gamers into my store.  I'll admit that every gamer may not be like that, but I have no way of knowing about that.  So I'm going to assume that you are, or at least could be, so you aren't welcome here if you game, talk about gaming, or refer to it in any way."

Is the book shop owner being judgemental?  Would you feel offended at being lumped in with the most offensive examples of gamerdom?


----------



## amethal (Jul 9, 2009)

sjmiller said:


> A fifth is a measurement, usually of alcohol, equaling one fifth of a US Gallon. A fifth is about 25 fluid ounces or approximately 750 milliliters. It's one of those odd, older measurements that are rarely used these days outside of the liquor industry.



Then I drank two fifths of Shiraz last night. Doesn't sound too bad when you say it like that, but I certainly couldn't manage that every night.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Is the book shop owner being judgemental?  Would you feel offended at being lumped in with the most offensive examples of gamerdom?




Seems to me there's a bit of a mix-up here, because they aren't preventing the problem of gaming, but by your own words, excluding gamers.   I don't keep out people who drink alcohol from my games, I keep people from drinking the alcohol at my games.  Two different things.  And as I said before, while I'm generally not interested in drinking, I don't care about people talking about it enough to disapprove.  It's like Professional Golfing.  I could care less.  See the first page of this thread, I think I said it there.

Getting on to the subject of the discussion:  I know many bookstores that allow, even encourage, folks to sit and read.  I know others with signs that say "Please do not read the books here, as it reduces our ability to sell them since you can damage them" and so forth.  Either is fine with me.  And if a store doesn't want to sell some product, who am I to argue?  I'm about to go to a used bookstore that refuses books all the time by category.  Sure some of them might sell, but who am I to argue with them?  (Leaving aside the fact that I never trade-in books anyway.).  I have also been in stores where the employees have had to say to customers that there conversations were making other people uncomfortable, and ask them to stop.  I don't see any reason to resent that.  If my friends or family have a conversation about something that makes me uncomfortable, I'll also say "I don't wish to discuss that" as I have already done many a time.  Some things you just learn to avoid getting yourself involved in.

Some things I haven't.  Sigh.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 9, 2009)

amethal said:


> Then I drank two fifths of Shiraz last night. Doesn't sound too bad when you say it like that, but I certainly couldn't manage that every night.




My wife drank a six-pack of Shiraz last Saturday. Wait, that doesn't sound good at all..


----------



## Scribble (Jul 9, 2009)

I like beer, and I like wine. I go wine tasting a lot with my wife and friends. We enjoy buying new types of wine and beer, and keeping a record of the types we enjoy, and what we enjoy about them.

I drink beer at my games, occasionally wine. I usually eat dinner while running the game. Normally 1 -2 beers, sometimes 3 depending on how long the game session is. Very rarely do I drink more then 2.  Games for me a way to relax with friends after a long week at work. Beer and wine along with tasting good, are also a stress relief. I don't drink enough to impair myself, both for safety reasons and because I'm the DM and DMing a game is hard enough already...

If someone is offended by this, and wouldn't want to game with me... Shrug- that's their issue not mine. 

I don't have a problem if someone prefers not to drink. I don't drink Soda at first for weight loss reasons, and now because it's been so long that it tastes terrible to me, and the "benefits" don't outweigh the drawbacks to me.

To each his own.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> You don't know how someone's going to behave under the influence until you see them under the influence.  So, he should allow someone to ruin his time at least once as a drunken idiot before he takes action?



Pretty much, yes.  To do otherwise is a statement that you consider all people idiots under the influence of even one alcoholic beverage.  And the best part is that it's not even "guilty until proven responsible."  It's "guilty, and there's no chance to prove yourself responsible."

He can frame it in a different way, and he tries, but the above is the actual situation.

Also, that's not his only claim.  He also claims that _so many_ people he games with are idiots in the presence of alcohol (but not otherwise) that dealing with the idiots as a mature adult would (i.e., individually and personally) would leave him with "_a lot_" fewer people to game with.  Really?



> Stepping to a new, unrelated thought - It is funny where people draw lines.



It's actually not.  (Well, sometimes it is, but not in the case you seem to have in mind.  In that case, there are about 10 good reasons for where the line is drawn.)



> I don't think anyone here has made a cogent argument that it would not be acceptable to disallow harder drugs at the table.



In point of fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here for whom "hard drugs at the table are allowed" is any sort of default.

Where does it get funny where people draw lines?  (Or was that just a cocaine reference?)



> There are _entire human cultures_ who have eschewed alcohol based on belief



So what?  There are entire human cultures who put people having consensual sex to death, too, based on belief.



> it seems to be accepted that if the guy was a Muslim, it would be okay to say no to alcohol at the table.



Not by me.

Or, to be more precise, it's "okay" for him to make any rules he wants at _his_ table.  It's his right, and I've said that before.  I have, in fact, not seen a single person dispute that.  But his right to indulge in controlling, peculiar behavior doesn't change the fact that it's controlling behavior, and it doesn't change the fact that his behavior (and his almost unbelievably weak justification for it) is damned peculiar.



> some say he's behaving in a socially unacceptable manner?



What do you mean by "unacceptable"?  I accept all kinds of controlling, peculiar behavior.  I _commit_ all kinds of controlling, peculiar behavior.

Of course, I admit that's what it is.



> The guy's got a quirk.  Big fat hairy deal!



Sure.  Now, does _he_ admit that he's engaging in peculiar behavior (i.e., "quirk"), or does he shotgun bizarre justifications all over the place, hoping something finds a target?

'Cause it looks an awful lot like the latter to me.

(Seriously?  If he eliminated the "drunken idiots," he'd have "a lot fewer" people to game with?  Sheesh.)


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 9, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> In point of fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here for who "hard drugs at the table" are allowed as any sort of default.



Depending on what you mean by "hard drugs", there's been a few references to it at the table (or at least at the session) here in this very thread.  So, no... you wouldn't be hard-pressed to find that.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well, that's what they say about assumptions, they make an ass out of you and me.




Please don't call me names because you were unclear.  Take responsibility for your mistake.



> Instead of arguing over who was at fault, why don't we check those problems, and stick with the real issue?   This group, of people who know each other well enough to be familiar with each other and who did know it was going to be a problem, chose to do nothing about it, and now have a worse problem, as now folks have been put through the conflict when they could have avoided it.




What problem though? What worse problem? You are making an analogy devoid of any details at all.  You claim it's analogous, and want us to take your word that it is an analogous situation, yet all the prior examples you gave were clearly not analogous.  So, given your track record, it's fair to ask you WHAT THE HECK YOU ARE REFERRING TO.  All we know right now is "it was not a problem concerning alcohol", which is the topic of this thread.



> Just like I've had a hard time learning that some disagreements just can't be resolved.  This seems to be one of them, so before it gets worse, I'll bow out.  I am not able to communicate well enough with you, and my experiences seem to be far too divergent.  It happens.  Maybe somebody else can do better than I can.




You are communicating just fine, except for leaving out information that is relevant to assessing an analogy of yours.  I hope you will continue to try and discuss this.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Depending on what you mean by "hard drugs", there's been a few references to it at the table (or at least at the session) here in this very thread.  So, no... you wouldn't be hard-pressed to find that.



Yes, you would.

There is a significant distinction between "I knew a guy who was under the influence of hard drugs at the table" and "by default, hard drugs are allowed at the table."  It's not a semantic or trivial difference.  It's a logical, important difference.

Are there groups that allow hard drug use at the table?  Probably.  But they're gonna be few and far between, and I contend you'll be hard pressed to find one.

Oh, and for what it's worth?  It would be damned peculiar behavior!


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 9, 2009)

No, I wouldn't.  I've already said I've seen a couple in this very thread.

Unless, again, you're quibbling about what it means to be "hard."  For my purposes, if it's illegal, it's hard.

I'd certainly agree that it's peculiar behavior, though, and that I would hardly expect it to happen as a matter of course.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 9, 2009)

OK, to put to rest this "Beer in moderation is bad for you" aspect of the debate that seems to recur, I present to you 10 reasons why:

Beer In Moderation Is Healthy

1. Lowers Rate of Coronary Heart Disease



> A researcher at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center reports that men and women who consume moderate amounts of beer (one to two a day) have a 30-40% lower rate of coronary heart disease compared to men and women who didn't drink. The positive health effects of light to moderate consumption of beer match that of previously released studies regarding red wine and provides more benefits than white wine. The report states that "per drink, beer contains a similar amount of polyphenols (antioxidants) as red wine and 4-5 times as many polyphenols as white wine." Research by Margo Denke, M.D., Associate professor of Internal Medicine at UT Southwestern, May 1999




2. Lowers Rate of Stroke



> The New England Journal of Medicine reported in November, 1999 that moderate beer drinking decreases the probability of suffering a stroke by 20%




3. Aids Vitamin B6 Absorbtion Into Blood Plasma



> The TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute discovered that beer contains vitamin B6, which prevents the accumulation of the amino acid homocysteine (linked to causing vascular and heart disease). Beer aids vitamin B6 absorption into the blood plasma by 30%.




4. Beer Increases Good Cholesterol (thus reducing the risk of dementia and coronary diseases, and Parkinsons).



> Alcohol, including beer, in moderation raises high-density lipoprotein or HDL, known as good cholesterol, says Dr. R. Curtis Ellison, chief of the section of preventive medicine and epidemiology and professor of medicine and public health at the Boston University School of Medicine....Several  studies  have  found  that  moderate  alcohol  consumption, including
> moderate beer drinking and some additional lifestyle factors are associated with a lower risk of developing Parkinson’s disease




5. Beer Has Anti-Cancer Properties



> A flavonoid compound, Xanthohumol found in hops used in brewing beer has been identified to play a major role in chemoprevention of cancer, including prostate cancer. According to Bio-medicine, beer is also a good source of polyphenols due to the grains used for fermentation. Beer has been proven effective against fighting cancer just like red wine.  In 2004 research by scientists at the Universidade do Porto in Portugal found that polyphenols in wine and beer appeared to significantly decrease breast cancer cells.




6. Beer Reduces Chance of Osteoporosis and Increases Bone Density



> Beer is a rich source of dietary silicon, a mineral that improves bone density. "Wine, unfortunately, is not," notes biochemist Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D., chairman of the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of California, Davis, and author of Beer: Health and Nutrition (Blackwell Publishing Limited, 2004), an academic book on the healthful properties of brew. "Thus far, the studies indicate a very real reduction in osteoporosis risk if you consume beer … more so than from drinking wine or spirits."




7. Beer Reduces Risk of Hypertension



> In one Harvard University study involving 70,000 female nurses, regular beer drinkers had lower rates of high blood pressure than those who drank similar amounts of either wine or spirits.




8. Beer Reduces Risk of Heart Attack



> Similarly, a study carried out in Isreal back in 2003 found that a beer a day could help diminish the risk of heart attacks. In preliminary clinical studies of a group of men with coronary artery disease, the researchers showed that drinking one beer (12 ounces) a day for a month produced changes in blood chemistry that are associated with a reduced risk of heart attack.




9. Beer Reduces Risk of Diabetes



> Dr. Andrea Howard, Assistant Professor, Epidemiology & Population Health and Medicine Montefiore Medical Center, The University Hospital for the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, indicated in October of 2006 a systematic review of 18 cohort studies assessing the association of alcohol use with the incidence of diabetes in adults.  The data indicate that, compared with nondrinkers, moderate drinkers (those who consume 1-3 drinks/day) have a lower risk of diabetes mellitus.  Compared with moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers (>3 drinks/day) may have a greater risk of developing the disease.  The potential biological mechanisms for the impact of light/moderate alcohol consumption on diabetes risk include enhanced insulin sensitivity and lower levels of inflammatory markers. Light/moderate alcohol consumption may also be a marker for a healthy lifestyle.




10. Beer Reduces Risk of Gallstones



> Several  studies  have  shown  an  association  between  moderate  alcohol consumption  and  a  decreased  risk  of developing  gallstones. This  has  been reported  with  consumption  of all  types  of alcoholic  beverages  and  the  risk  is lowest in those who consume frequently. There are several plausible explanations for this finding which include the effect of alcoholic drinks on cholesterol levels and reduced bile concentration




So, while I respect people who do not drink, AND I MYSELF DO NOT OFTEN DRINK AND AM NOT A BIG FAN OF THE TASTE OF MOST BEERS, can we please stop claiming that beer in moderation is bad for you, or that it should be labeled a toxin, or that it should be looked on as less healthy than Soda (which has no such studies backing it as healthy)?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Unless, again, you're quibbling about what it means to be "hard."  For my purposes, if it's illegal, it's hard.



It's not quibbling.  Your definition of hard drugs is off.  (At least for standard usage.  In your own head, of course, it can mean whatever you want it to mean.)

From this dictionary of contemporary English: "very strong illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine."

And "soft drug" (which is a term not often used, as it's pretty much only what's left after "hard drug": "an illegal drug such marijuana that is not considered to be very harmful."


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jul 9, 2009)

Technically, marijuana is a hell of a lot safer than alcohol.
However...
In my region hash is cut with _everything _under the sun including plastic bin liners (that is not some silly scare story, I don't use it but others do).
And smoking it with tobacco is obviously a damned no brainer (and research shows the combination is especially bad for your lungs).
Rather folk were toked out peacable, than smashing their spouses up etc when drunk.

Booze is bad not just for addiction and violence problems, but from toxicity and the "D.T.s" which are extremely dangerous...._"Oops, you rolled a 1, dude!"_ 

Drugs = poisons, use 'em carefully and with good reason, or suffer. Common sense, ain't it?
much rather play D&D


----------



## Scribble (Jul 9, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> can we please stop claiming that beer in moderation is bad for you, or that it should be labeled a toxin, or that it should be looked on as less healthy than Soda (which has no such studies backing it as healthy)?




Just the opposite actually- Soda has been linked to a number of negative health concerns including cancer (with the brown colas.)


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> If you said you'd make sure nobody over-indulged, and that you were prepared to deal with anybody making trouble, I would be willing to show up after the BBQ for the game session.




Ah.  Finally, I think I am starting to understand your perspective.  

Please correct me if I am misconstruing your position.  You don't actually mind that people you game with drink per se.  And you don't mind if people who drink and become obnoxious from it are dealt with by someone else.  It's that you mind having to personally deal with people who become obnoxious from drinking, and in your games it's likely the task of dealing with the trouble would fall to you.  It's the *confrontation *with an obnoxious drunkard that bothers you ...not the drinking or alcohol or even the drinkers. Is that a fair representation of your contention?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Just the opposite actually- Soda has been linked to a number of negative health concerns including cancer (with the brown colas.)



"To get back to the warning that I received. You may take it with however many grains of salt that you wish. That the brown soda that is circulating around us isn't too good. It is suggested that you stay away from that. Of course it's your own beverage. So be my guest, but please be advised that there is a warning on that one, ok?"

(I wonder if I need to provide an attribution on this?)


----------



## rogueattorney (Jul 9, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Just the opposite actually- Soda has been linked to a number of negative health concerns including cancer (with the brown colas.)




Yes.  By pretty much any measure you want to use, it's healthier to drink three bottles of beer during the game session than three bottles of the sugary soda pop of your choice.  Further, there's not enough alcohol in those beers to alter the behavior of anyone beyond the legal drinking age in the slightest.

Again, people can do whatever they want at their own tables. I just find it to be a very weird hang up.

As to drugs...  The illegality is a very big deal.  30 somethings with a spouse, kids, and careers do not need to have people bringing drugs into their house or to go to houses with drugs.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 9, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> It's not quibbling.  Your definition of hard drugs is off.



Yeah, it's quibbling.  Although, since you were one of the ones who mentioned them upthread, it's not surprising that you'd rather pedantically try to quibble about it.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 9, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> As to drugs...  The illegality is a very big deal.  30 somethings with a spouse, kids, and careers do not need to have people bringing drugs into their house or to go to houses with drugs.



Yep.  My days of drinking with underage folks and smoking non-tobacco vegetation basically stopped when I had to be a responsible adult - more or less when I stopped thinking about my work as a _job_ and switched to thinking of it as my _career_.  It's not that I think any of the above are immoral or icky - I just can't risk it nowadays, with a mortgage and a family and a dog and a cat.   Not only can't I afford it, but I really couldn't afford that sort of legal trouble, you know?

-O


----------



## Andor (Jul 9, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> Yes.  By pretty much any measure you want to use, it's healthier to drink three bottles of beer during the game session than three bottles of the sugary soda pop of your choice.  Further, there's not enough alcohol in those beers to alter the behavior of anyone beyond the legal drinking age in the slightest.




Unless you got to the game on a motorcycle. The statistics regarding alchohol and motorcycles (especially for road legal BAC levels) are terrifying.

Which is a shame as I like both beer and motorcycles, but they don't mix well. 

We now return you to your regualrly scheduled thread.


----------



## malraux (Jul 9, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Yep.  My days of drinking with underage folks and smoking non-tobacco vegetation basically stopped when I had to be a responsible adult - more or less when I stopped thinking about my work as a _job_ and switched to thinking of it as my _career_.  It's not that I think any of the above are immoral or icky - I just can't risk it nowadays, with a mortgage and a family and a dog and a cat.   Not only can't I afford it, but I really couldn't afford that sort of legal trouble, you know?
> 
> -O




Yeah, regardless of my personal feelings on the other intoxicants, their mere presence at the game table affects me.  It could put me in jail, get the government to seize my house, etc.


----------



## Farganger (Jul 9, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> No, I'm pretty sure I'm understanding you.
> 
> The fact that you even feel the need or desire to say this is pretty telling.
> 
> ...




Very lucid -- this summed up my (more visceral and less intellectual) take on things after reading many more oblique posts and responses.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 9, 2009)

malraux said:


> Yeah, regardless of my personal feelings on the other intoxicants, their mere presence at the game table affects me.  It could put me in jail, get the government to seize my house, etc.




OK, what country are you in?

I do not smoke marijuana and never have.  But in my city it's essentially legal to possess and consume in small quantities, and I know of no state or county or city in the U.S. where possession or consumption of a small quantity by a guest in your house would lead to you going to jail, or your house being seized.


----------



## Malacoda (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> It may be a quirk, perhaps, but then, I think drinking is as much of one.  If it's not worse, when it becomes a disease.  Which I suppose could happen to my "quirk" at some point, but until I do something like start breaking into Saloon Halls to smash them up with an axe or nominating myself to be the Prohibition Party's candidate for President, I don't think it represents such.




This all seems to be about _risk avoidance_. We all engage in it, likely on a daily basis. It is late at night and the light by the ATM is out. Do I stop anyway? The guy in this checkout line is eyeballing me weird, do I go to another? People sometimes don't behave properly when drinking, do I hang out with them?

It seems to me, Bumbles, that the reason this thread has gone on for so many pages is that most people here find your level of risk avoidance to be...odd. I am guessing there are a number of people who find your level of risk avoidance to be _very_ odd. I have to admit I am one of them. I am not fond of spending my life in a clean room. Sometimes weird things happening are worth it just for the story you can tell later.

But, hey, if it makes you happy, more power to you. I just think it is somewhat clear at this point that a lot of people won't be able to relate.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 9, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> Yes.  By pretty much any measure you want to use, it's healthier to drink three bottles of beer during the game session than three bottles of the sugary soda pop of your choice.  Further, there's not enough alcohol in those beers to alter the behavior of anyone beyond the legal drinking age in the slightest.
> 
> Again, people can do whatever they want at their own tables. I just find it to be a very weird hang up.
> 
> As to drugs...  The illegality is a very big deal.  30 somethings with a spouse, kids, and careers do not need to have people bringing drugs into their house or to go to houses with drugs.




Umm... why are you attributing arguments to me that I never made? All I was doing was pointing out that there have been studies about soda linking it to health risks. 

I don't really care WHAT people do at their own tables. 

Someone can have a mad drunken roman orgy at their table for all I care so long as their group is ok with it.

Personally I only get annoyed when someone does soemthing that causes a disruption in the game- that includes ANYTHING like drinking/smoking too much listening to music that gets too disruptive, texting, talking too much, being the "jerk character that just wants to kill NPCs for no reason" watching TV, surfing the net, building a new character, etc...

I don't however have any issues with anyone until they're actually doing said things. And again- only when it's my table/group.

If it's some random gamer down the street? Whatever floats his/her boat man.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Please don't call me names because you were unclear.  Take responsibility for your mistake.




I'm sorry you feel that was name-calling. I was just explaining the situation, namely each of us believes the other to be at fault.  You think I wasn't sufficiently clear.  I think you made unwarranted assumptions.  My attempt to explain it has convinced you that I was calling you names.

I'm sorry, but I just can't proceed from there.  It's clear I am unable to communicate with you without excess conflict, so I'm stopping.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Malacoda said:


> It seems to me, Bumbles, that the reason this thread has gone on for so many pages is that most people here find your level of risk avoidance to be...odd. I am guessing there are a number of people who find your level of risk avoidance to be _very_ odd. I have to admit I am one of them. I am not fond of spending my life in a clean room. Sometimes weird things happening are worth it just for the story you can tell later.




Really?  I think it's because I'm foolish enough to keep replying when I know better, and am not strong-willed enough to avoid this conflict which just leads to things like this.   Unfair characterizations of me, from people on the internet who would rather judge and condemn me, without seeing the log in their own eyes.

I've had people complain that I was "taking it far too safe" when I refused to drive the car until they buckled their seat belt.  I've had people complain of my being some "eco-fruit" when I safely disposed of some oil instead of pouring it down the drain like they did.  Y'know what I learned?   People who want to think bad of me can keep thinking bad of me.  If they want to make things a personal issue, if they want to attribute to me all sorts of psychiatric disabilities and play arm-chair psychologist...I'm not going to listen.   They tell me more about themselves than they know about me.

And no, I don't find such behavior to be at all odd.  I find it disappointing, but not unusual.

So thanks for your feedback, but if you want to make it a personal matter, between people, get a job as a therapist and keep that stuff to your patients.

But yes, this decision it is about avoidance of the risk of a certain conflict in a game.  That's correct.  I wonder why anybody would expect it to be otherwise when I've said so several times.  I suppose I've used different language like "I prefer to avoid the consequences of dealing with drinking" or whatever I said, but that there's some inability to conceive what it is to me, well, I find it baffling.  But I don't mind.  It's when you go further, and try to characterize that decision that there's a problem.  I see that as less constructive and more derogatory.  YMMV.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Imperialis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See, now this might be another reason why some of the posters aren't groking your explanations.

(In addition to reason brought up that you haven't provided any examples for us to hang out hat on, instead providing vagaries and simply asking us to take your word for it)

Above, Imperialis was offering the suggestion that he would take the beer-marinated steak off the grill for you and give you a different one instead, which is a polite and respectful response.  You replied with, essentially, that you won't eat the steak and it's nobody's business what you eat.  Just a bit of an over-response, don't you think?

And if you are at a BBQ, and the host is providing food, well.... it kind of IS their business what you eat, since they are feeding you.  The reasons _why_ aren't anyone's business either, but then responding in a weird, possibly over-reactive way about it will only get odd looks.  It's possible that when someone asks why, it's just a conversation starter.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I'm sorry you feel that was name-calling. I was just explaining the situation, namely each of us believes the other to be at fault.  You think I wasn't sufficiently clear.




You AGREED you were unclear.  Were you being facetious? 



> I think you made unwarranted assumptions.




Explain how it was unwarrented, given we were in a thread about alcohol and gamers, you mentioned gamers with a similar problem, you didn't say the similar problem was not alcohol related, I made it clear that there is a good reason to specify if it isn't alcohol and yet you still didn't mention it was not alcohol.  In what possible way was my assumption not warranted? 

You know, in all communications SOME assumptions are required.  It is impossible to communicate, in any language, without some basic assumptions about some words being made.  So yes, I made an assumption.  But in what way was it unreasonable given the context?



> My attempt to explain it has convinced you that I was calling you names.




You say "has convinced you" as if it's a subjective issue.  Let's be clear.  You called us both asses.  In what world is calling someone else an ass not name calling? 

I don't care if you want to call your approach passive-aggressive or just outright aggressive, but this approach of yours of saying one thing ("I was unclear"..."[your assumption] made an ass out of you...) and then later denying it ("you made an unwarranted assumption"..."has convinced you I was calling you names") is insulting.  



> *I'm sorry*, but I just can't proceed from there.  It's clear I am unable to communicate with you without excess conflict, so I'm stopping.




If you are capable of saying "I'm sorry" in general, I am sure you are also perfectly able to say "I'm sorry I was unclear, your assumption wasn't unwarranted I just should have mentioned the other situation was not about alcohol" and "I'm sorry for calling you an ass".

Don't tell me you are "unable" to communicate with me after behaving that way.  You're perfectly able to communicate without behaving that way.  You've CHOSEN to behave inappropriately, and to not own up to your bad behavior once it was pointed out.  It's the sort of choice that apparently you do not tolerate in other people.  I wish you would just own up to it now so we could move on and discuss the other aspects of this issue.


----------



## malraux (Jul 9, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> OK, what country are you in?
> 
> I do not smoke marijuana and never have.  But in my city it's essentially legal to possess and consume in small quantities, and I know of no state or county or city in the U.S. where possession or consumption of a small quantity by a guest in your house would lead to you going to jail, or your house being seized.




In AR, possession of 1 oz or less of weed is a misdemeanor with up to 1 year of jail and a 1000 fine.  I honestly have no idea what the law as applied is.  That said, since my wife is subject to random drug screens, that would be worse.

edit: oh, and I'm within 1000 feet of a school and a church which adds an enhancement to drug crimes.


----------



## Malacoda (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Really?
> 
> So thanks for your feedback, but if you want to make it a personal matter, between people, get a job as a therapist and keep that stuff to your patients.




Yeah, really. A lot of what came later likely stems from that one point. 

You can take it personally, but believe it or not, I didn't really mean it that way. I will even apologize for the clean room comment. But that doesn't change the fact that most people find your level of risk avoidance odd, and some find it _very_ odd. You can take that personally, but I don't think it is helpful to do so. 

I am an atheist that lives in Idaho. I know that vast majority of the people I encounter on a daily basis would find my view point to be odd, and some would find it very odd. They couldn't relate. I wouldn't take that personally.

I am not arguing that no one mistreated you in this thread, or that you shouldn't take that personally. That's different. But it seems fairly clear that most people can't relate to your point of view, and I can't imagine that in of itself, that should be taken personally.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> And if you are at a BBQ, and the host is providing food, well.... it kind of IS their business what you eat, since they are feeding you. The reasons why aren't anyone's business either, but then responding in a weird, possibly over-reactive way about it will only get odd looks. It's possible that when someone asks why, it's just a conversation starter.




I said this already actually:

*Do note, I'm not necessarily giving a full accounting of the conversations I have in real life, where I would share at least a summary of the reasons. *

Did you not see it, and apply that same reasoning to the what I said in the paragraph above?   Would it have helped you if I had?  Can you apply that principle now and stop assuming what I'd be saying in real life?  It would be much appreciated.

There's no real BBQ.  I don't feel a need to give a specific reason when this is just some random person on the internet who I'm not actually eating with.  Since some people want reasons, I gave a list of them, any of which I'd think would be acceptable enough, without specifying my own, because you know what I didn't want to do?  Justify them further.  I'm sorry but I just don't consider that to be especially desirable at this point in the thread.



> It's possible that when someone asks why, it's just a conversation starter.




And it's possible that when somebody doesn't give a reason, they're just not interested in having that conversation.  Which may be for any number of reasons.  Would it help you if I listed some of them?


----------



## RefinedBean (Jul 9, 2009)

malraux said:


> edit: oh, and I'm within 1000 feet of a school and a church which adds an enhancement to drug crimes.




Yeah, that's the kind of thing that can REALLY screw ya, right there.

Of course, being across the street from two churches and a school didn't stop me and my roommates.  That was college, though.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 9, 2009)

Malacoda said:


> But it seems fairly clear that most people can't relate to your point of view, and I can't imagine that in of itself, that should be taken personally.




I don't.  I take the attempt to relate my point of view to a psychological issue as an attempt to make something a personal matter.  Why?  Because that's a deliberate comment on my individual nature in a negative fashion.  It relates directly to my person, and in an insulting way.

Don't you think?

Now, in English, I recognize how "Don't take it personally" is used as a way to excuse certain things that offend.  In fact, I'd say that applies in regards to the rule I have against drinking.  It's not personal.  

I can't say the same for characterizations of an individual.  Now if you want to ask, am I listening to what these people have to say about me?  No, I'm not.  As I already said, I know they don't know me, so I don't listen to it.  Random people on the internet do not strike me as a good authority for psychiatric judgment.   I know, that's a high standard, but I'm prepared to live by it.


----------



## Doodles (Jul 9, 2009)

I don't usually drink during games. That said, a beer here or there, I have no problem with that. When I was playing World of Darkness games regularly at night, we would all pitch in and buy a bottle of Vodka. It would take the whole night for the six of us to empty it. Combine that with coffee, and it keeps you awake til the wee hours of the morning.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Random people on the internet do not strike me as a good authority for psychiatric judgment.   I know, that's a high standard, but I'm prepared to live by it.



And yet you've posted, what, at least 50 posts attempting to defend your position, including several decrying "psychiatric" and "psychological judgments"?  Odd.  (Oops.  Psychological judgment!)

Look, "conflict avoidance" (if that's what this actually is) _is_ a psychological issue, _especially_ when it results in out-of-the-norm behavior.  That's simply indisputable.  It seems strange to me to make the leap from "psychological" to "negative," and even from "out-of-the-norm" to negative, but that's due to my own psychology and experience, I suppose.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 9, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I said this already actually:
> 
> *Do note, I'm not necessarily giving a full accounting of the conversations I have in real life, where I would share at least a summary of the reasons. *
> 
> ...



OK.  Easy, tiger. 

If you want me to take every sentence you make in this long thread and apply it equally to all other posts you make, then it will be a very confusing jumble.  I didn't apply that sentence because I don't recall it having anything to do with what I was posing about. 

I was pointing out that your reply to his comment about offering a non-beer marinated steak was an overreaction.  And therefore, it's possible that others might misunderstand your standpoint.  I wasn't pointing out what you WOULD have said in real life.  I was pointing out what you DID say in response to his post.   

He wasn't asking in real life if you wanted a steak, either, and I wasn't asking you to justify why you wouldn't eat the steak.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> If you want me to take every sentence you make in this long thread and apply it equally to all other posts you make, then it will be a very confusing jumble. I didn't apply that sentence because I don't recall it having anything to do with what I was posing about.




I can appreciate that it's hard to follow a long involved conversation.  It's a difficult task, and if you fail, you can be offensive without meaning to be.  This is one of those cases.  I just don't feel you're understanding me fairly, but are judging me.  I'd rather you not do so, but all I can do is...stop here.

So I will.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> You say "has convinced you" as if it's a subjective issue. Let's be clear. You called us both asses. In what world is calling someone else an ass not name calling?




To be fair to him, Mistwell, he didn't.  He used a common coloquial phrase (one my grandma uses a lot, incidentally!) completely in context - it means "don't make assumptions".  Yes, it includes the words "ass", "you" and "me", but that's not what the phrase means.  It's a common joke riffing off the word "assume" as being made of "ass", "u", and "me", and it's perfectly friendly.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> If I said "No name callings" would you call it a personal judgment?
> 
> I wouldn't. If you do, then I'll have to go back to we're in two different worlds, and obviously they're not compatible.




I think you may have misread my post, because you didn't answer it.  For convenience, I'll repost it here so you don't need to scroll through this admittedly lengthy thread:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> _You can't disclaim behaviour with the prefix "it isn't personal". For example, if I were to call you a deeply offensive name (not that I would), and then qualify it by saying "that's because you're perceiving it as a personal matter, when it's not one to me", how would you feel?_





And in response to your question, no I would not call "no name callings" a personal judgement.  Name-calling is an offensive behaviour.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

Morrus said:


> ["Ass, you me."]



The quote regarding "assumption" is from _The Long Kiss Good Night_, and goes something like, "It makes an ass out of 'you' and 'umption.'"  Great movie.  Renny Harlin is underrated.  (For a three-note Hollywood hack, I mean.)

("Ass" + "u" + "me" is, of course, what Bumbles meant, and of course it wasn't meant as an insult, but given that he actually wrote "assumption makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'" it's pretty funny.)


----------



## Scribble (Jul 10, 2009)

Dude umption totally deserves the name. I hate that guy.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 10, 2009)

Guys, discuss drinking all you like (mmmm, beer) but try to refrain from psychoanalyzing other forum members, eh? I think that's a door a lot of people would rather not open.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I think you may have misread my post, because you didn't answer it.




Well, I think I did.  I see the question you posed as demonstrating exactly how hard it is to arbitrate such a conflict.  

That's why I have no problem with a rule against name-calling.  It avoids the conflict which tends to occur in the situations your hypothetical described.  Instead of having to argue over whether or not someone was saying something not personal, you just say "don't do that" the same way I don't have to argue over whether or not someone was too drunk or not.  It's not personal that way.

Now of course, you can still have cases where somebody thinks somebody was calling another person names, but wasn't, but hey, the rule isn't meant to eliminate all conflict.  Just reduce some.  

If you don't understand how I'm answering your question, then I don't know how to proceed to explain it any further.  I've done my best.  Perhaps you could get a better explanation from someone else.


----------



## Ecce (Jul 10, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Guys, discuss drinking all you like (mmmm, beer) but try to refrain from psychoanalyzing other forum members, eh? I think that's a door a lot of people would rather not open.




But, we're trying to drink open the doors of perception here!

I mean... wot?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I can appreciate that it's hard to follow a long involved conversation.  It's a difficult task, and if you fail, you can be offensive without meaning to be.  This is one of those cases.  I just don't feel you're understanding me fairly, but are judging me.  I'd rather you not do so, but all I can do is...stop here.
> 
> So I will.



Bumbles, I haven't judged you.  

But you think I have and I wonder what you think that I must think of you.  

Actually, you sound like a person that stands by their convictions.  That's a good thing (for the most part).  And I haven't judged your desire to not play where there will be alcohol involved.  That's great if that is what you need to do to feel comfortable. 

The only part of the conversation that I have been interested in is the part where you have implied that because alcohol has the potential to lead to bad behavior under the right conditions and circumstances, that any alcohol use WILL result in a situation that leads to bad behavior.  

The understanding that I am getting from your posts is that you would rather assume that the bad behavior will happen and just forgo playing in the game at all.

If I am wrong, then hey, I'm wrong.  No biggie.  But I don't think I am alone in this misunderstanding, so there might be something wrong with the way your message has been crafted.


----------



## MercuryCrash (Jul 10, 2009)

*Tiddly beer beer beer*

Well alright, I'll just say play with who you want to play with. With or without I find gaming to be equally as fun. However, if the party walks into a tavern and wants ale its always great to have it served up (especially if you can enroll your sister's hot friend to be the NPC bar wench) or if all that's  left on the ship is rum, why not it adds to the fun. I do understand the point of the inebriated players and how they can be annoying by shenanigans or completely passing out (tho it sure is fun telling them what happened to their character later), so I tend to not play games with people who aren't respectful.  I choose who to play with and if there's youngsters in the game most games that they would be playing in have a PG version. Otherwise, its not much different than if you were at a dinner party at your friends house for me.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> If I am wrong, then hey, I'm wrong.  No biggie.  But I don't think I am alone in this misunderstanding, so there might be something wrong with the way your message has been crafted.




In any message, there's a potential for problems in the sender and receiver.  There's only so much I can do, and I realize that I'm not entirely responsible for what other people think.  I can only do my best.  

It wasn't enough with you, so I leave it at that.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> If you don't understand how I'm answering your question, then I don't know how to proceed to explain it any further.  I've done my best.  Perhaps you could get a better explanation from someone else.



You'd probably save yourself a great deal of time by just inserting this text into your .sig.  People seem to not understand what you're saying or how you're answering a question _a lot_, leading to you not knowing how to proceed and giving up on trying _a lot_.

Just trying to help.  Internet discussion is all about efficiency.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 10, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Guys, discuss drinking all you like (mmmm, beer) but try to refrain from psychoanalyzing other forum members, eh? I think that's a door a lot of people would rather not open.




This isn't orange text so I can reply.  Can we psychoanalyze ourselves?

I'm a anxiety ridden socialphobic with clinical depression and possibly mild Aspberger's.  I have massive father issues due to his alcoholism and a deep abiding phobia of bars.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> If you don't understand how I'm answering your question, then I don't know how to proceed to explain it any further.  I've done my best.  Perhaps you could get a better explanation from someone else.



Er...exactly how can someone else better explain whatever it is that *you* are trying to say?

And would anyone dare want to try?

Lan-"beer, beer, nothing but beer; nothing else matters, not round here"-efan


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Jul 10, 2009)

Can't really say I've read very many 19 page threads all the way through.

My general conclusion after reading this thread is that I'm extremely lucky I've never really had to game with strangers, and anyone I've ever gamed with I've considered a friend.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well, I think I did. I see the question you posed as demonstrating exactly how hard it is to arbitrate such a conflict.
> 
> That's why I have no problem with a rule against name-calling. It avoids the conflict which tends to occur in the situations your hypothetical described. Instead of having to argue over whether or not someone was saying something not personal, you just say "don't do that" the same way I don't have to argue over whether or not someone was too drunk or not. It's not personal that way.
> 
> ...




No, you still haven't answered my question.  You're talking about "rules about namecalling", which have nothing to do with my question.  My question was:

_*How would you feel*_ if I called you an offensive name and then excused it by telling you it wasn't personal?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> This isn't orange text so I can reply. Can we psychoanalyze ourselves?
> 
> I'm a anxiety ridden socialphobic with clinical depression and possibly mild Aspberger's. I have massive father issues due to his alcoholism and a deep abiding phobia of bars.




It doesn't need to be orange text, and this is definitely over the line.  Please keep out of this thread from now on.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Er...exactly how can someone else better explain whatever it is that *you* are trying to say?




Is it really that unfathomable to you?  Just in another thread, I had somebody say "that was my thinking, but you said it better" and I wasn't even trying to explain things for them, just put my own spin on things.

And of course, it's been done a few times in this own thread.  So, I don't know the specific "how" of it, as it might be that they're better able to express it, or the person reading it may be more receptive to listening to another person, but if you haven't seen it done, well, I don't know what to say except...your life experience is different from mine.



> And would anyone dare want to try?




Maybe.  Maybe not.  If they don't, then it's just going to be that way.  Heck, someone might try and fail.  It happens.  But I know I've experienced cases where someone was trying to explain something to one person, and then another person explains it and they get it.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

Morrus said:


> No, you still haven't answered my question.  You're talking about "rules about namecalling", which have nothing to do with my question.  My question was:




Again, if you don't understand how I'm answering your question, then I don't know how to proceed to explain it any further. I've done my best. Perhaps you could get a better explanation from someone else.

Me, I'm sorry, but I'm obviously not able to communicate my ideas effectively with you.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Is it really that unfathomable to you?




Bumbles, please stop using terminology such as "If you don't understand how I'm answering your question" or "Is it really that unfathomable to you?"

Just as it isn't appropriate for others to cast aspersions on your mental health, it is equally inappropriate for you to cast aspersions on their intelligence.

Email me if this is an issue.  Thank you.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Again, if you don't understand how I'm answering your question, then I don't know how to proceed to explain it any further.




I'll attempt to make it easier for you.  In response to the question _"How would X make you feel?",_ pick one of the following options:

a) It would make me feel Emotion Y.

b) It would not bother me.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

Morrus said:


> Bumbles, please stop using terminology such as "If you don't understand how I'm answering your question" or "Is it really that unfathomable to you?"
> 
> Just as it isn't appropriate for others to cast aspersions on your mental health, it is equally inappropriate for you to cast aspersions on their intelligence.
> 
> Email me if this is an issue.  Thank you.




Ok, I'll do that.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

Morrus said:


> I'll attempt to make it easier for you.  In response to the question _"How would X make you feel?",_ pick one of the following options:
> 
> a) It would make me feel Emotion Y.
> 
> b) It would not bother me.




Well, I'm going to disappoint you, because I pick neither.


----------



## rkwoodard (Jul 10, 2009)

Morrus said:


> No, you still haven't answered my question. You're talking about "rules about namecalling", which have nothing to do with my question. My question was:
> 
> _*How would you feel*_ if I called you an offensive name and then excused it by telling you it wasn't personal?





I understand the question.  And I totally agree with the thought.

  When I was in High School (late 80s), I was at a religious camp,  someone I knew for over a year called me a Satan Worshiper, because I played D&D.  It was not personal to them, it didn't matter how well they new me, it did not matter what I had done or lived my life.  Everyone who played D&D = Satan Worshiper.

Sometime it "Not being Personal" is more offensive because you are taking the person out of the equation.

With the case of someone who will not game with me if I drink at the table because of possible problems because some people have behavior problems....

Yes, you are saying I am not worth your time to learn if we could play together.  


I hope that came across in a coherent manner.

RK


----------



## Morrus (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well, I'm going to disappoint you, because I pick neither.




You would neither feel something, nor would you not feel something?

Or do you just refuse to answer?  

It would help immensely to know which.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

rkwoodard said:


> Yes, you are saying I am not worth your time to learn if we could play together.




I'm sorry you would feel that way about my position.  Is there any way to convince you that it doesn't reflect upon you, but rather upon drinking itself, and the potential problems of dealing with a given individual and their drinking.

In the case of your example involving the person calling you a name, I would recognize the difficulty of convincing that person of the offense they were causing, and therefore, that'd be why I'd use the no name-calling rule.  Much like a person who won't admit they are drinking too much, a person may not recognize they're treating you in an offensive manner, so rather than argue with them about it, I'd rather just stop the argument about the behavior and whether it was inappropriate or not.  

It's not going to absolutely eliminate the root of the problem, but at least it gets the labeling removed.  



> I hope that came across in a coherent manner.




I hope mine does too.


----------



## avin (Jul 10, 2009)

rkwoodard said:


> Yes, you are saying I am not worth your time to learn if we could play together.




My feelings too... I probably won't feel comfortable chosing to play with people who think in this manner, before knowing me.

I'm more inclined to think that every player I met needs at least a game session before I could judge if we play well together, or not.


----------



## rkwoodard (Jul 10, 2009)

*no win*



Bumbles said:


> I'm sorry you would feel that way about my position. Is there any way to convince you that it doesn't reflect upon you, but rather upon drinking itself, and the potential problems of dealing with a given individual and their drinking.
> 
> In the case of your example involving the person calling you a name, I would recognize the difficulty of convincing that person of the offense they were causing, and therefore, that'd be why I'd use the no name-calling rule. Much like a person who won't admit they are drinking too much, a person may not recognize they're treating you in an offensive manner, so rather than argue with them about it, I'd rather just stop the argument about the behavior and whether it was inappropriate or not.
> 
> ...





Certainly,  I think you are in a no win situation.  You can either make a blanket rule like you have that 1) avoids the personal confrontation, and 2) Lets you say "Hey, it is nothing personal, and we don't need to go into reason it is just my rule"

Which is fine, but it will come across to some as being too impersonal and not taking individuals into account.  Which can be offensive to some.

or, you can make it personal up front, and you wind up with the personal confrontation that you wanted to avoid in the first place.

to quote Billy Joel, "either way its ok, you wake up with yourself". 

If we were on your turf, and you seemed like a compatible gamer, I would play in your game and never bring beer or mention drinking.  If we were on my turf, I would tell you that we do drink, and I understand that is a deal breaker for you.

RK


----------



## maddman75 (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Is there any way to convince you that it doesn't reflect upon you, but rather upon drinking itself, and the potential problems of dealing with a given individual and their drinking.




No, there really isn't.  It isn't even about the drinking, specifically.  Its the whole bit about someone breaking "your" rule by drinking a beer in their own house after inviting you to a game.  This is not socially acceptable, you don't get to give other people rules.

It would be socially acceptable to ask for your host to apply such a rule, for reasons such as 'its against my religion' or 'I'm a recovering alcoholic'.  But even then its not guaranteed, the host is ultimately the judge of things.  Most would not accept "Well they might turn into a jerk."

So *can* you take your ball and go home?  Of course you can.  But I, and I'd wager most other people would not think well of you, and would assume that you are trying to overstep the bounds of the host-guest relationship.

The only real way to keep this rule up and not look bad would be to host the games yourself, or only play at non-alcohol related locales like game stores.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

rkwoodard said:


> Certainly,  I think you are in a no win situation.




That's what I think too.  Sorta.  Though I think I can win, by accepting that I don't need a total victory.  Sometimes you just have to go with what you can get.  



> If we were on your turf, and you seemed like a compatible gamer, I would play in your game and never bring beer or mention drinking.  If we were on my turf, I would tell you that we do drink, and I understand that is a deal breaker for you.




Works for me.   We can live and let live.  It's those who seem to think it violates some rule, or is a terribly offensive request in itself that it doesn't seem to work with.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> No, there really isn't.




Ok, I'll not try to do so then, I can live with it.  You can stop trying to convince me of things I already know, but I don't agree with as well.  I know some people will think bad of me, and I'm sure they'll use reasoning like yours.  I won't be convinced by their arguments any more than you'll be convinced by me.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 10, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Now, it was far from everyone on the other thread, but I've seen more than a few object to any kind of alcohol at gaming whatsoever.
> ...
> But otherwise, could you explain?
> 
> -O



Skipping almost 20 pages, since the OP is looking for personal opinion I feel that I won't be messing anything up by posting this late in the thread...

I don't drink and have expereinces, both in game and out of game, with people who were unpleasant to be around when drunk. Most of those people were quite pleasant to be with when sober or with a beer or two.

I am also a conservative Christian and do not beleive that I should enable others to go down the road to drunkeness, lung cancer, drug habits, or other unhealthy choices. It is thier choice... but I am not going to help them get there.

So, my freinds come to play in my game. There is no explicit rule and we never talk about alchohol, smoking, or drugs as it relates to any social activity I join in. Out of either similar desires or respect for me, its rare than my freinds will bring beer or smokes in.

So.. do I object to any level of drinking {in game or out}? No. However I do object to drunks... in game or out. There is a difference between the two.

In answer to Morrus.. Lanefan's much earlier question.. if I went to a new game and was having fun.. then someone cracked a beer, I would play on. If said drinker turned into a drunk.. I would pick up my things and leave. I do not enjoy social gatherings with drunks.



I think it boils down to respect. You may not agree with my dislike of alchohol, smoking, Burger King, or drugs... but if we are going to partake in a social activity, its proper that you display respect towards my preferences.
.. and, becuase the world isn't just all about me, it is also proper that I display respect towards your preference to indulge in a relaxing drink.

The end result of mutual respect has been, IME, enjoyable repast.
 Whether we are talking about gaming, hanging out.. or discussing someone on this here thread.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 10, 2009)

Totally off topic, but.... love the name Primitive Screwhead, heh. Made me chuckle.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 10, 2009)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> I think it boils down to respect. You may not agree with my dislike of alchohol, smoking, Burger King, or drugs... but if we are going to partake in a social activity, its proper that you display respect towards my preferences.
> .. and, becuase the world isn't just all about me, it is also proper that I display respect towards your preference to indulge in a relaxing drink.



And I think that's a completely reasonable approach.  Even in the first post, I wanted to make a distinction between having a few beers, not to excess; and being drunk.

Gaming + a beer or two is not very different from gaming + mountain dew, IMO.

Gaming + at least one player _drunk_ is quite a bit different, OTOH.   I make that distinction for my own games, and like I said, I didn't invite one player back to my game in part because they couldn't take it slow and ended up acting like a drunken ass.

So yeah.  I completely understand setting the rules for your own home, and I completely understand not wanting to game with people whose behavior has been substantially altered.  

I still _don't_ understand not playing at someone else's home because there is beer present. 

-O


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 10, 2009)

*Hospitality*

I think a lot of this topic comes down to hospitality.

In my opinion, here are the applicable generally accepted rules of hospitality in our society:

1) The host makes the rules in their own home;
2) The guest is obligated to try and adapt to the rules of the host's home, unless those rules directly infringe on the guest's belief system;
3) The potential infringement on the guest's belief system is not sufficient cause for the guest to leave or be impolite.

So here is how I see this all playing out in this context.  

Bumble's belief system includes not having to deal with drunks, or people who misbehave during drinking (or during other activities I presume).  And for what it is worth, I think this is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate belief system.

If it is Bumble's home, rule 1 applies, and he reasonably makes the rule that no alcohol is allowed.

If Bumble is instead invited to another person's home, Bumble is obligated to try and adapt to the hosts rules.  The mere potential for his belief system to be infringed is insufficient for him to try and dictate rules or not attend or leave (see rule 3).  It's only if actual drunkeness or bad behavior result that it becomes polite under those circumstances.

*And I think this is the crux of the dispute we are currently having*.  I  believe Bumble is ignoring, or disputing, or unaware of generally accepted rules of hospitality.  

The mere potential for a violation of your belief system is not sufficient for you to offend your host by trying to make demands on the rules or leave or refuse to attend.  When dealing with an invitation from someone else, the rules of hospitality in our society dictate that you politely try and compromise as far as you can - and in this situation, you can attend and quietly wait and see if there will be a problem before leaving. You've breached the unwritten rules of hospitality by dealing with it otherwise.

For me, this has played out many times.  I am a vegetarian.  As a guest in someone else's home for dinner, I might personally prefer they serve non-meat food.  However, unless the host insists I eat meat, I keep my mouth shut and politely partake in the dinner to whatever extent I can.  I usually don't even mention I am a vegetarian, for fear I might make the host feel bad for not preparing something extra. It's my job as guest to make the host feel successful and comfortable in their job as host.

The mere potential that the host may insist I eat the meat they serve is not itself cause for me to decline an invitation to dinner or to leave or be impolite.  Even though on very rare occasion that has happened in the past, resulting in a minor conflict.  Potential problem is not sufficient cause for a guest to create the actual problem of being inhospitable to a host.  And that applies to the invitation and acceptance of the invitation itself.  You don't decline an invitation based on potential problem.  It's rude.

The potential for a problem is not sufficient cause for you to offend a host.  Period.  Trying to avoid a potential problem in such a manner rather than deal with the risk is an affront to the rules of hospitality.  It seems like self-centered behavior to me.

THIS PART IS NOT DIRECTED AT BUMBLE (just general observation): I also suspect that this has something to do with gender as well.  Women tend to know these rules of hospitality instinctively.  Men tend to not know them (and I didn't really know or understand them until I was in a long term relationship with a woman).  It sometimes takes men being in a long term relationship with a woman, and being invited to the home of other couples, before some men "get" these rules even exist, much less how to properly deal with them.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> For me, this has played out many times.  I am a vegetarian.  As a guest in someone else's home for dinner, I might personally prefer they serve non-meat food.  However, unless the host insists I eat meat, I keep my mouth shut and politely partake in the dinner to whatever extent I can.  I usually don't even mention I am a vegetarian, for fear I might make the host feel bad for not preparing something extra. It's my job as guest to make the host feel successful and comfortable in their job as host.



See, that seems unreasonable to me. As a host, I would no more expect a vegetarian guest to eat meat than I would a kosher Jewish guest to eat lobster; both fall into the realm of "the guest is expected to communicate these reasonable dietary choices." I'd feel awful if I gave you a delicious, delicious BLT and you thought you had to eat it to be polite. That being said, I wouldn't expect your vegetarianism to stop me from having a piece of chicken, and I'd be surprised if you chose to leave when I did.

Similarly, no guest should have alcohol forced on them and it's reasonable for someone to leave my home if someone has become drunk and they're uncomfortable. I'd personally consider it somewhat extraordinary if a guest left just because someone in my home was having a glass of wine; in that case I'd consider it (as Bumbles has said, I think) their issue and not my failure as a host, and I'd shrug and carry on without them.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I also suspect that this has something to do with gender as well.  Women tend to know these rules of hospitality instinctively.  Men tend to not know them (and I didn't really know or understand them until I was in a long term relationship with a woman).  It sometimes takes men being in a long term relationship with a woman, and being invited to the home of other couples, before some men "get" these rules even exist, much less how to properly deal with them.



I was with you up 'til this point.  While I agree that in general, women do understand a lot of the more subtle rules of social interaction (or perhaps to some extent they create them) there are some more _basic_ rules of social interaction, that you expect _anyone_, even barbaric young bachelor men, to understand intuitively.

To me, this scenario falls squarely in that group.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I  believe Bumble is ignoring, or disputing, or unaware of generally accepted rules of hospitality.




Well, if you were concerned about the 2 of those 3, I can only say this thread should disabuse you of that.  We done worrying about them?



Piratecat said:


> See, that seems unreasonable to me. As a host, I would no more expect a vegetarian guest to eat meat than I would a kosher Jewish guest to eat lobster; both fall into the realm of "the guest is expected to communicate these reasonable dietary choices." I'd feel awful if I gave you a delicious, delicious BLT and you thought you had to eat it to be polite. That being said, I wouldn't expect your vegetarianism to stop me from having a piece of chicken, and I'd be surprised if you chose to leave when I did.




Vegetarianism was one of the first things that actually made me realize that it would be better to leave some situations that pick a conflict.  Some people didn't want to see other people eat meat.  Some professed to be ok with it, but I could see they were sickened by it.  People who liked to eat meat, often got upset at the preferences of others, even when they didn't say anything about anybody else's eating habits, only their own.  So I realized, you know, it's not wrong to give consideration to others...and then I realized, it's not any more wrong to give consideration to myself.



> Similarly, no guest should have alcohol forced on them and it's reasonable for someone to leave my home if someone has become drunk and they're uncomfortable. I'd personally consider it somewhat extraordinary if a guest left just because someone in my home was having a glass of wine; in that case I'd consider it (as Bumbles has said, I think) their issue and not my failure as a host, and I'd shrug and carry on without them.




Yep, it's no great failure as a host, it may be something a bit out of the norm for you, but there's no reason to consider it impolite.  I don't consider it impolite if somebody refuses to play in my games because of any of my rules.  I respect their desire not to argue over it.


----------



## sjmiller (Jul 10, 2009)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> In answer to Morrus.. Lanefan's much earlier question.. if I went to a new game and was having fun.. then someone cracked a beer, I would play on. If said drinker turned into a drunk.. I would pick up my things and leave. I do not enjoy social gatherings with drunks.



I have a question for you. If, perchance, this person did get drunk and you were picking up your things and leaving, would you tell the group why you were leaving so suddenly, or would you leave without any explanation? I believe the former would be accepted without any problem. The latter, I feel, would possibly be considered rude by the others. That is, of course, my own personal take on the situation.


----------



## ST (Jul 10, 2009)

I've never felt much need to game with strangers, so it's "dinner with friends at their place, plus gaming", and as a functioning human adult I've never needed explicit rules to get through that kind of harrowing social experience. 

Adults should be able to handle their own intoxicants of choice, and if they can't, that's a separate issue. And it certainly isn't a gaming issue.

As a rule, "We can have these X people in one room for a few hours, and people will be comfortable, relaxed, and not antisocial or disruptive" is a prerequisite for gaming (or, really, doing almost anything socially), so general social awareness and communicativeness is sort of important for us humans.


----------



## MichaelK (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I also suspect that this has something to do with gender as well.  Women tend to know these rules of hospitality instinctively.  Men tend to not know them (and I didn't really know or understand them until I was in a long term relationship with a woman).  It sometimes takes men being in a long term relationship with a woman, and being invited to the home of other couples, before some men "get" these rules even exist, much less how to properly deal with them.




Just a note.

A particular group having social rules that no one else knows or follows unless they're heavily involved in that group is a subculture. (or a culture, if it's a discreet group).

If what you say is true, and only women or those heavily involved with women know or follow these rules then it's not a "rule". It's a part of female subcultural values.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 10, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> See, that seems unreasonable to me. As a host, I would no more expect a vegetarian guest to eat meat than I would a kosher Jewish guest to eat lobster; both fall into the realm of "the guest is expected to communicate these reasonable dietary choices." I'd feel awful if I gave you a delicious, delicious BLT and you thought you had to eat it to be polite. That being said, I wouldn't expect your vegetarianism to stop me from having a piece of chicken, and I'd be surprised if you chose to leave when I did.




I'll rephrase for clarity.

I would try and enjoy the meal the best I could means not eating the meat, but eating everything other than the meat.  There will probably be side dishes I can eat, and I would just eat those and be happy and gracious.

I'd probably mention during the invitation that I am a vegetarian, but if you didn't prepare a vegetarian dish at the actual meal for whatever reason, I wouldn't mention it, and I certainly wouldn't leave because of it. And if I mentioned before the meal that I am a vegetarian and you said "Oh well, we are meat eaters and the meal will be primarily meat" I wouldn't decline the invitation (I just would make due with whatever non-meat there is, or eat before I left, because the dinner is a social event anyway).

I also said if you did try to actually make me eat meat, that's when an issue would arise.

Similarly, if I didn't drink alcohol, I simply would not consume alcohol.  It would only be an issue if you insisted I drink alcohol.  That's the distinction.  Same distinction pretty much everyone in this thread made in reply to Bumble, in different words.



> Similarly, no guest should have alcohol forced on them and it's reasonable for someone to leave my home if someone has become drunk and they're uncomfortable.




Yes and yes.   I agreed that nobody should be forced to consume alcohol, and that it would become polite to leave IF your belief system became actually infringed - which in this case is someone actually becoming drunk, as opposed to merely the potential for it.



> I'd personally consider it somewhat extraordinary if a guest left just because someone in my home was having a glass of wine; in that case I'd consider it (as Bumbles has said, I think) their issue and not my failure as a host, and I'd shrug and carry on without them.




Right. My point is that him leaving when someone is not drunk, or him declining an invitation on the mere possibility of such an event occurring, is a breach of hospitality rules.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 10, 2009)

MichaelK said:


> Just a note.
> 
> A particular group having social rules that no one else knows or follows unless they're heavily involved in that group is a subculture. (or a culture, if it's a discreet group).
> 
> If what you say is true, and only women or those heavily involved with women know or follow these rules then it's not a "rule". It's a part of female subcultural values.




Nope.  It's rules. Going back thousands of years.  There are whole biblical chapters on the topic, and the rules have been built on through many different cultures and years.  These are the rules of our society.  They are not subculture rules, they are the actual rules applying to everyone.  They include such things as don't pick your nose in public and making sure you do not excessively smell in public for example.  Those are real rules that apply to everyone in our society - you can choose to not follow it, but you know darn well it's the rule regardless of your gender.

It's just that women seem to instinctively grok these rules while men tend to learn them slower.  That's an observation on learning of the rules, not an observation about who makes or follows those rules. They are definitely not only applicable to a female subculture.

Ignorance of them is an excuse until you learn about them, but that's all it is - an excuse.  It doesn't make them not applicable to you.  Just as, if you drive in my state and don't know the u-turn rules, they still apply to you. Societal rules are real, and they apply to everyone, even if you don't know about them, or disagree with them, or ignore them.


----------



## MichaelK (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> So I realized, you know, it's not wrong to give consideration to others...and then I realized, it's not any more wrong to give consideration to myself.




That strikes me as a mature and responsible attitude.

I think the problem (partly in real life and perhaps also on this thread) people may just end up feeling judged. And... In a way they are being judged. The thing is you're making a judgement on the suitability of the environment for you to spend a long period of time within, which is being misinterpreted as a judgement upon their character.

Well, that's how I see it anyway. YMMV.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> *The mere potential for his belief system to be infringed is insufficient for him to* try and dictate rules or *not attend* or leave (see rule 3).  It's only if actual drunkeness or bad behavior result that it becomes polite under those circumstances.



Emphasis added.

You lost me here. The potential for one's belief system to be infringed is, IMO, certainly a valid reason to decline to attend the event. An invitation does not compel attendance.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Well, if you were concerned about the 2 of those 3, I can only say this thread should disabuse you of that.  We done worrying about them?




Well which is it? Are you ignoring the rule that a guest should not decline an invitation based on a potential problem rather than an actual one, or disputing that rule, or were you unaware of it?

Whichever it is, can you explain why being inhospitable is justified to further your belief that avoiding potential problems is a good thing, and how it is not self-centered?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Nope.  It's rules. Going back thousands of years.  There are whole biblical chapters on the topic, and the rules have been built on through many different cultures and years.  These are the rules of our society.



Random thoughts related to this:

A.  Where can I get a copy of these rules?

2.  "Our society"? Of which society do you speak? How do you know "society" is the same where you live as it is where Bumbles lives?

iii. Thousand-year-old rules of behaviour are probably of little relevance to today's world.

IV. You'll never get people, even those raised in exactly the same society, to agree completely on these "rules". Your "rule" is someone else's "bizarre behaviour."

e. Different cultures have very different societal norms. I don't see how other cultures' rules of behaviour apply to ours.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Well which is it? Are you ignoring the rule that a guest should not decline an invitation based on a potential problem rather than an actual one, or disputing that rule, or were you unaware of it?



I would personally go with #2: someone might not recognize your "rule" as such. Perhaps they disagree with you. I know I do.

Or really, I dispute the idea that there are "rules" for such things. Unwritten guidelines perhaps, in many cases, but "rule" is *way *too strong a word. There is usually more than one appropriate way to resolve social situations.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Random thoughts related to this:
> 
> A.  Where can I get a copy of these rules?




1. What Is Best Society? Post, Emily. 1922. Etiquette



> 2.  "Our society"? Of which society do you speak? How do you know "society" is the same where you live as it is where Bumbles lives?




Being polite and having good manners is universal.  You adapt to the rules of your region.  If it is polite to say thank you in your region, you say thank you.  If it is polite to burp after a hosts meal, you burp.  You adapt to the rules of your region.  But, there are rules for every region, and it is your responsibility to learn them.  Usually your parents teach them to you when you are young.



> iii. Thousand-year-old rules of behaviour are probably of little relevance to today's world.




I said which evolved and were expanded on over many years.  I was giving some history of how they came about to refute someone saying it was just an artifact of a modern subculture.



> IV. You'll never get people, even those raised in exactly the same society, to agree completely on these "rules". Your "rule" is someone else's "bizarre baheviour."




Nope.  It's pretty universal.  There can be corner cases (which is why Emily Post was gainfully employed), but this issue we are discussing is well outside the corner cases.  Fear that something may go wrong, despite no evidence that things are likely to go wrong, is no excuse for being rude and inhospitable to a host.  



> e. Different cultures have very different societal norms. I don't see how other cultures' rules of behaviour apply to ours.




I agree.  Which is why I said you adhere to the rules in your region.  And this is a rule in his region.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

MichaelK said:


> The thing is you're making a judgement on the suitability of the environment for you to spend a long period of time within,



No, he's making a judgment on the suitability of the _possible_ environment.  By the rationale he's using, nobody can ever go on a picnic outdoors, because it has rained in the past, and might rain in the future.  (Oh, nor indoors, if there is a sprinkler system.  Best not to risk it being accidentally triggered, right?)



> which is being misinterpreted as a judgement upon their character.



Actually, it's being correctly interpreted as the refusal to make judgments on character _based on actual experience_, choosing instead to make judgments based on "what could conceivably happen."  In other words, it's prejudice against anyone who drinks alcohol, however infrequently, however moderately, and however responsibly.

Everyone has the _right_ to be prejudiced (and even to act on it, subject to statute in some cases), and IMO society actually couldn't _function_ without a good deal of prejudice.  But this particular prejudice, in this particular context, is _damned peculiar_.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> 1. What Is Best Society? Post, Emily. 1922. Etiquette



Dude, 1922 is when my grandfather was born. I'm going to have to refuse to behave as if it's 1922. What does that book say about internet forum etiquette, I wonder?



Mistwell said:


> Nope.  It's pretty universal.  There can be corner cases (which is why Emily Post was gainfully employed), but this issue we are discussing is well outside the corner cases.  Fear that something may go wrong, despite no evidence that things are likely to go wrong, is no excuse for being rude and inhospitable to a host.



Declining an invitation is not inherently rude or inhospitable, regardless of your reason. That's the specific claim I was disputing: that potential problems are not enough to refuse to attend. You apparently see this as a rule of "our" society. Demonstrating my point above, as a mature, well-adjusted member of society I disagree that it is a rule. Who's right?

Or is New Brunswick different enough from California that we can't be directly compared? I could ask my brother, who was raised in NB but lives in CA, and had little trouble adjusting.



Mistwell said:


> I agree.  Which is why I said you adhere to the rules in your region.  And this is a rule in his region.



What is his region? I can't tell from his (her?) profile.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I would personally go with #2: someone might not recognize your "rule" as such. Perhaps they disagree with you. I know I do.
> 
> Or really, I dispute the idea that there are "rules" for such things. Unwritten guidelines perhaps, in many cases, but "rule" is *way *too strong a word. There is usually more than one appropriate way to resolve social situations.




You can call it whatever you want.  But you know if you and your significant other are invited to a formal dinner at another couple's home, it's darn likely it would be a bad idea to pick your nose, loudly fart, or attend with obviously dirty and smelly clothing.  You can call those rules, guidelines, or a turtle.  But we both know they are "things" which apply to that situation baring something specifically going against them (like instead of a formal dinner it's the annual nose picking farting and smelly cloth wearing dinner).

Baring facts to the contrary from Bumble (and he is quite guarded in revealing any specific details about the people he is declining invitations from), we have to go with what the general "rules/guidelines/things" which apply to such situations.  And in this situation, baring any specific details, it sounds to me like he's being impolite for self-centered motives (assuming the motives he has given us are the actual motives in the situation).

Again, it's not that he doesn't like it when people drink alcohol. He's objecting to the mere potential that adult close friends who drink might become disruptive, maybe, possibly, because he saw something like that happen a couple of times in the past with some other people maybe.  Those are not good reasons to be inhospitable to your friends and decline to go to someone else's home if they don't change the rules of their house to accommodate your fears.


----------



## MichaelK (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Nope.




I emphatically disagree. 



> It's rules. Going back thousands of years.




The concept that rules of behaviour exist certainly extend back that far, they are far from static throughout that period though.



> There are whole biblical chapters on the topic




That is true. However a quick read through leviticus and deuteronomy will show you just how much they have changed. I refer you to the variety of rules upon menstruation and just how different they are to any sort of values we hold now. That is just one example amongst many.



> These are the rules of our society.




Unless you mean ENworld, we do not share a society. I'm not American.



> They include such things as don't pick your nose in public




And if you visited south east asia of 20 years ago, you'd find their treatment of nasal mucus scandalous by your standards. Yet perfectly acceptable by the standards of the society of that era and location.



> and making sure you do not excessively smell in public for example.




Lets set our hypothetical time travel machine for the victorian era of england and see how you find that rule applied there.

Not to mention the disastrous attempts at diplomacy between Sparta and Egypt several thousand years ago.



> Those are real rules that apply to everyone in our society. It's just that women seem to instinctively grok these rules while men tend to learn them slower.




Sexism is an interesting example of something that was quite acceptable just a few decades ago.

Now however people tend to frown upon it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> No, he's making a judgment on the suitability of the _possible_ environment.  By the rationale he's using, nobody can ever go on a picnic outdoors, because it has rained in the past, and might rain in the future.  (Oh, nor indoors, if there is a sprinkler system.  Best not to risk it being accidentally triggered, right?)



That's absurd, and a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding). One has no control over when it rains.


----------



## Caliber (Jul 10, 2009)

I think I agree with Morrus here. Prejudging such a large group of people seems highly offensive to me; I'd be hard pressed to tolerate that kind of thing. It seems like saying "I have met people who are asses in the past, so I refuse to associate with people and face the potential risk of them being asses".


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

MichaelK said:


> Well, that's how I see it anyway. YMMV.




Seems a substantially correct interpretation to me.  So I think our mileage is within the standard deviation.


----------



## Caliber (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> That's absurd, and a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding). One has no control over when it rains.




One has probably a similar amount of control over the assery of someone else once they've had a few, I would think.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> You can call it whatever you want.  But you know if you and your significant other are invited to a formal dinner at another couple's home, it's darn likely it would be a bad idea to pick your nose, loudly fart, or attend with obviously dirty and smelly clothing.  You can call those rules, guidelines, or a turtle.  But we both know they are "things" which apply to that situation baring something specifically going against them (like instead of a formal dinner it's the annual nose picking farting and smelly cloth wearing dinner).



And of course, we're not discussing such things, or at least I'm not. My original objection was to the idea that one cannot decline an invitation on such reason as discussed here, that there was apparently a rule that dictated this. But my broader objection is that except for very broad, general guidelines, there are no real "rules" of hospitality, so specific that you can say one's reason for declining an invitation is inhospitable.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Dude, 1922 is when my grandfather was born. I'm going to have to refuse to behave as if it's 1922. What does that book say about internet forum etiquette, I wonder?




The Emily Post Institute offers etiquette advice and manners advice

I could link you to a dozen etiquette sources.  Are you really and honestly disputing there are rules of etiquette? If so, before answering, ask a female in your life (wife, girlfriend, sister, mother, whatever) if they agree with you. Cause I am willing to bet they know exactly what I am talking about.



> Declining an invitation is not inherently rude or inhospitable, regardless of your reason.




Yeah, we disagree on this.  You can get away with it a few times, but if you always refuse an invitation from close friends because of the potential someone might possibly in some unlikely manner become drunk, you're being rude to your close friends.

Lets be real clear - I am not a big fan of my in-laws and will try and refuse an invitation to visit sometimes.  But I know I am being a bit rude.  And, my situation is extremely common, to the point where it is a running joke in our society concerning visiting in-laws.  



> That's the specific claim I was disputing: that potential problems are not enough to refuse to attend. You apparently see this as a rule of "our" society. Demonstrating my point above, as a mature, well-adjusted member of society I disagree that it is a rule. Who's right?




I am 



> Or is New Brunswick different enough from California that we can't be directly compared? I could ask my brother, who was raised in NB but lives in CA, and had little trouble adjusting.
> 
> 
> What is his region? I can't tell from his (her?) profile.




I am pretty sure it's even more strict in New Brunswick than here in California.

You seem to be saying there are no rules of manners where you live.  I think you're just not aware of them, but they are there, and they apply to you, and probably others noticed you're not following them and are just politely not mentioning it to you.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> That's absurd, and a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding). One has no control over when it rains.



So?  One has no control over whether I get drunk, either.

You can refuse to enter the environment (where I _might_ get drunk and disruptive to the game), just as you can refuse to enter the environment (where it _might_ rain and disrupt your picnic).

If you have _reason_ to believe I (or someone else) might get drunk and disrupt the game (such as prior experience with me), refusing to enter the environment is reasonable.  If you have _reason_ to believe it might rain (such as threatening clouds), refusing to enter the environment is reasonable.

But refusal to enter either environment because X has occurred at some time in the past, or X might occur at some time in the future, is damned peculiar.

Pretty straightforward parallel, I thought.  Hope this helps.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> That's absurd, and a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding). One has no control over when it rains.




Indeed.  Besides, I'd have no problem with a person who carried an umbrella with them, and I know some people who do that every day.   And yesterday I wish I had made the choice.  Fortunately, I'm not made entirely of sugar.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> And of course, we're not discussing such things, or at least I'm not. My original objection was to the idea that one cannot decline an invitation on such reason as discussed here, that there was apparently a rule that dictated this. But my broader objection is that except for very broad, general guidelines, there are no real "rules" of hospitality, so specific that you can say one's reason for declining an invitation is inhospitable.




If you as a close friend of mine invited me to your house and I said "No, because you are ugly, smelly, and your significant other is a female dog, and I fear lightening will strike your house while I am there as punishment for your disgustingness" I feel pretty certain you would think my reason for declining your invitation was inhospitable.  Can we please not pretend there are no bad reasons for declining an invitation? There are bad reasons.  We debate if THIS is one of those bad reasons, but it's not really debatable that there are NO bad reasons.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 10, 2009)

I feel that Bumbles' position is fundamentally unreasonable and prejudiced. On the other hand, I think Mistwell's position that one is obligated to accept an invitation is idiotic and outdated.

Yes, there are "rules of etiquette," but those are really the opinions of a few snooty people about what makes polite society. The underlying _behavioral_ rules in a given society are much more important. Who cares if you use your tea spoon for your soup? It's improper etiquette but largely meaningless. On the other hand, everyone in my cultural group knows that stealing is bad. If you steal from someone, you'll generally feel the wrongness of it as you do it. Do you feel wrongness when you spread butter with a steak knife?

My take on it is- Bumbles, decline the invitations to game with those-who-might-drink; you are certainly within your rights. Especially if it comes out why you are declining, though, don't be surprised if you aren't invited anymore.  The people-that-might-drink probably won't like it very much once they realize how harshly and unfairly you are judging them.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

the Jester said:


> My take on it is- Bumbles, decline the invitations to game with those-who-might-drink; you are certainly within your rights. Especially if it comes out why you are declining, though, don't be surprised if you aren't invited anymore.  The people-that-might-drink probably won't like it very much once they realize how harshly and unfairly you are judging them.




I'd rather live with people misjudging me than going along with things I didn't enjoy, but rather found highly distressing.  I spent far too long being unhappy to want to go back to that way of behavior.  And Annie's Mailbox seems to agree with me in principle, even regards to the approval of one's own mother*.   Standing up for myself was hard, but I learned to do it.   

So yeah, I'll stick with my way.  It's not harsh, it's not unfair, it's not judging anything except the problems drinking can cause.   If you apply that to a judgment of yourself, I think I'm limited in my ability to change your mind.

Certainly seems to be the case in this thread.

*Note, I don't agree with everything said in the column's, sometimes I don't.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

the Jester said:


> I think Mistwell's position that one is obligated to accept an invitation is idiotic and outdated.



I think Mistwell is overstating things; pushing back unnecessarily in defense due to the misunderstandings of others.  I think his basic premise -- "it's rude to refuse to enter a social environment because you don't trust the other attendees enough not to be buffoons, and you have no experience with these other attendees being buffoons in the past" -- is pretty much correct.

BTW, the reason I use "damned peculiar" instead of "rude" is that I'm a rude enough person -- speaking as objectively as I can -- that I don't tend to judge others' behavior as rude.  I'm not exactly _offended_ by Bumbles' stated behavior (though I intellectually understand why others are), but genuinely bemused and fascinated by it.  As i said earlier, as I would be if I entered a house for a game and was told they played in the nude.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 10, 2009)

Invisible Stalker said:


> I think my annual trip to Red Lobster is about it.




I find it offensive that there are people who think Red Lobster is acceptable as a seafood restaurant. 

I really don't drink any more. In fact, I've gone through long stretches where I haven't really imbibed even when I was a club DJ and some of the staff would sit around after close, most with a drink or two, and we'd shoot the breeze for a couple of hours until the drunks had a chance to hit Perkins/Denny's/Embers and clear off the roads. If someone wants a beer or glass of wine, more power to 'em. Just don't get carried away.


----------



## MichaelK (Jul 10, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I think his basic premise -- "it's rude to refuse to enter a social environment because you don't trust the other attendees enough not to be buffoons, and you have no experience with these other attendees being buffoons in the past" -- is pretty much correct.




I myself find it equally rude to exert social pressure in order to force someone into an environment that they do not wish to be in. Whether their reasons are justified or not.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I'd rather live with people misjudging me than going along with things I didn't enjoy, but rather found highly distressing.  I spent far too long being unhappy to want to go back to that way of behavior.  And Annie's Mailbox seems to agree with me in principle, even regards to the approval of one's own mother.   Standing up for myself was hard, but I learned to do it.



Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about right now. 

Is this still about not gaming because there might be beer and therefore someone might drink and therefore someone might get drunk and therefore your night will be ruined?

EDIT:  And this, my friends was post #3000.  Whoo Hoo!  And it only took me almost 6 years to do it!


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 10, 2009)

the Jester said:


> My take on it is- Bumbles, decline the invitations to game with those-who-might-drink; you are certainly within your rights. Especially if it comes out why you are declining, though, don't be surprised if you aren't invited anymore.  The people-that-might-drink probably won't like it very much once they realize how harshly and unfairly you are judging them.



Indeed.  I don't think anyone is claiming that he's not within his rights to set these limits on those with whom he associates, even the more extreme posters here so far.  Rather, the discussion is on whether or not doing so is rude or socially acceptable.

I think it's telling that even other non-drinkers and non-smokers (like myself) find that abberent, rude, and a very quick turn-off towards any type of future association is pretty telling, but Bumbles can do with that as he pleases, of course.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

MichaelK said:


> I myself find it equally rude to exert social pressure in order to force someone into an environment that they do not wish to be in. Whether their reasons are justified or not.



Okay ... ?

What "social pressure" is being exerted?  And by whom?

Are you positing that inviting someone to dinner is "exerting social pressure" and therefore "rude"?  Really?

How interesting.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> ...As a host, I would no more expect a vegetarian guest to eat meat than I would a kosher Jewish guest to eat lobster; <snip>
> 
> Similarly, no guest should have alcohol forced on them and it's reasonable for someone to leave my home if someone has become drunk and they're uncomfortable. I'd personally consider it somewhat extraordinary if a guest left just because someone in my home was having a glass of wine; in that case I'd consider it (as Bumbles has said, I think) their issue and not my failure as a host, and I'd shrug and carry on without them.




That is pretty much my position as well.

I host a lot of get-togethers, with dietary considerations ranging from the religious proscriptions (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Catholics during Lent), to the medical (allergies, sodium-dependent hypertension, diabetes, alcoholism), to preferences (non-religious vegetarianism, well-done meats, Atkins diet) and so forth.

I make a concerted effort to have something for anyone in attendance, _assuming I know of their requirements. _ I don't want anyone to feel they have to compromise their beliefs or requirements merely to have fun in my presence.

However, unless we are talking serious medical conditions- a person whose lethal allergy to peanuts or seafood precludes them from eating anything made in the same kitchen as those foods (and they _do_ exist)- I wouldn't expect anyone to leave a party based upon someone consuming something they wouldn't.

Nor would I be insulted by their refusal to sample something offered...for ANY reason.

If one or the other drives you away...well, that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## Dodavehu (Jul 10, 2009)

Sorry to hijack this thread for a second, but this looks like the perfect time and place to share a story that I've been looking for an excuse to tell for a while.  

I run a pretty serious game that my roommate (among other people) play.  Said roommate occationally will drink what he has in the fridge during games.  A few sessions ago he drank a few and at a rather tense moment put a bottle of High Life on his forehead and shouted, "I'm a beericorn!  Clipity-clop! Clipity-clop!"

I just about died.  

(Maybe you had to be there.)

We told him he should probably stop drinking for the night after that .
--


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2009)

Dodavehu said:


> A few sessions ago he drank a few and at a rather tense moment put a bottle of High Life on his forehead and shouted, "I'm a beericorn!  Clipity-clop! Clipity-clop!"




I'm currently DMing, but I'm yoinking that for the next time I'm a player.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about right now.




Basically, it's about the question of life and how to live it.  Anymore clarification I'll forgo, as it would be going widely off-topic.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 10, 2009)

I don't understand this kind of thinking at all.  You'd decline and otherwise great game because someone might potentially have a drink and become obnoxious.  I might potentially rape your dog, the dm might potentially hold you hostage and demand 10,000 12 siders as ransom.  How can you go or do anything without the potential for something bad happening?  You could get ran over in the driveway, does that stop you from getting in your car?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> The Emily Post Institute offers etiquette advice and manners advice
> 
> I could link you to a dozen etiquette sources.  Are you really and honestly disputing there are rules of etiquette?



I don't dispute that certain ways of behaving will not be considered acceptable by almost everyone in a particular society. I'm disputing that there is a single set of "rules", such as those set out by Ms. Post (whoever she may have been), that must be followed to be considered "polite". I'm disputing that beyond very general things there is any real set of rules that must be followed. 



Mistwell said:


> If so, before answering, ask a female in your life (wife, girlfriend, sister, mother, whatever) if they agree with you. Cause I am willing to bet they know exactly what I am talking about.



You've clearly never met my wife or mother, then. Don't get me wrong, I know exactly what you're talking about. There are some people in my family who think that "rules of etiquette" are extremely important. I simply reject that value judgment.



Mistwell said:


> I am
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure that "I'm right, and you appear to be ignorant" would be considered rude by most people.

Are you thinking of New Brunswick, New Jersey? I'm referring to the province of New Brunswick in Canada. Otherwise I don't know why you'd think that.

Of course, I'm not saying what you say I'm saying, and you're being very presumptuous and condescending. Both of which are often considered rude, but not always.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 10, 2009)

Wow. This discussion has certainly taken an interesting turn. Just so I can be sure I understand it, if there's this conversation:

Bill: Hey Ted, we're having a great game of D&D and we have an opening. Are you interested in playing? Oh, by the way, we have a couple folks in it who have a beer while we're playing every so often.

Ted: Sorry, Bill. I make it a point of not gaming where there might be alcohol involved.

In this case Ted has somehow offended Bill? 

Case two:

Bill: Okay, so the ogre rears back and clobbers Socrates with his greatclub...that's 17 damage.

Socrates: Well I'm out...hmmn, Methinks I think I will fetch a glass of wine, since Ted's character is out of healing and I've already spent my second wind...

Ted: Umm, didn't we agree to no drinking during the game?

Socrates: certainly as a general principle, but I shall only have a small glass, and everyone knows I am renowned for my ability to drink and not have it affect me.

Ted: Uh, I'm not comfortable with that, I should probably call it an early night.

...once again, has Ted done something offensive?

If you believe Ted has been offensive, replace drinking with smoking, watching the TV or simply something that you (the person reading this) don't like. If your opinion changes,is there a difference here, or is it just a preference that you don't share?

Personally I think we should give personal preference, for whatever the reason, the prerogative to opt out, and not have anyone be insulted by it. If I'm totally off base here, I'd like to know why that is...

--Steve


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Pretty straightforward parallel, I thought.  Hope this helps.



You suggested that Bumbles thought people should never go on picnics because it might rain. That's different than saying Bumbles chooses not to go on picnics because it might rain. The difference is between personal behaviour and expecting every else to behave like you do.

Call it peculiar, which it might well be. But it's a choice.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles, the problem is that your stance of not attending any event where alcohol is present on the basis that people might become drunk is on it's face, well, let's say absurd. It's also prejudiced and unfair. You are collecting every person who imbibes (which is probably somewhere on the order of a few billion people) and saying because some of them are bad actors they must all be bad actors. 

You've made it quite clear that you don't wish to discuss anything personal in order to clarify the reasons and motivations behind this personal choice. However, with out that information it is impossible for you to actually explain yourself. If, and this is an example not a guess, someone's father was a brutal alcoholic who beat them and killed their mother and that person expressed the view of not wanting to be around people who were or had been drinking, it would seem far less absurd then your position, stripped of context and history, does. Still not necessarily a rational position, but that's neither here or there.

Personally, I could care less about your personal life and I'm not asking about it. The problem though is that you have taken an apparently absurd position and refused to explain with any clarity how you achieved it. This, combined with the prejudicial nature of the position means that it is quite easy to see as offensive.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> You suggested that Bumbles thought people should never go on picnics because it might rain.



Uh, no, I didn't.  (Are you joking around?  If not, you should really take more time to read.)



> Call it peculiar, which it might well be.



I have.  It is.



> But it's a choice.



I like cheeseburgers.  Pain hurts.  Gravity on Earth expresses by making things fall at 10 meters per second per second.  In 1776, the American colonies decla -- what?

Oh, we're not stating things nobody's disputed?  my bad, I misunderstood the game.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> If you as a close friend of mine invited me to your house and I said "No, because you are ugly, smelly, and your significant other is a female dog, and I fear lightening will strike your house while I am there as punishment for your disgustingness" I feel pretty certain you would think my reason for declining your invitation was inhospitable.  Can we please not pretend there are no bad reasons for declining an invitation? There are bad reasons.  We debate if THIS is one of those bad reasons, but it's not really debatable that there are NO bad reasons.



In your example, it's not declining the invitation that's rude, it's the manner in which is was declined that's rude. If you say instead just "Sorry, I can't make it", is that rude? Even if your reasons are exactly the above, just not spelled out to your friend? You know enough not to say anything, because your friend would be insulted.

I do dispute that there are no "bad reasons" in the way that you use the term. If you simply don't feel like going, that's not rude. I say again, an invitation does not compel you to attend. Of course, if you routinely refuse such invitations, your friends may stop inviting you, and you may suffer for that. But that's doesn't make not attending rude.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Uh, no, I didn't.  (Are you joking around?  If not, you should really take more time to read.)



Here you go:



Jeff Wilder said:


> By the rationale he's using, nobody can ever go on a picnic outdoors, because it has rained in the past, and might rain in the future.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Okay ... ?
> 
> What "social pressure" is being exerted?  And by whom?
> 
> ...



I'd suggest that Mistwell is attempting to exert social pressure by calling the choice to not attend rude. Etiquette is all about social pressure, the fear of being looked down upon if you don't behave in a certain way.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Bumbles, the problem is that your stance of not attending any event where alcohol is present on the basis that people might become drunk is on it's face, well, let's say absurd. It's also prejudiced and unfair. You are collecting every person who imbibes (which is probably somewhere on the order of a few billion people) and saying because some of them are bad actors they must all be bad actors.




Nope.  I'm saying any of them might be bad actors, so if it's all the same to you(though apparently it's not), I'll opt out of having to decide.  It is a subtle difference, but an important one.  



> Personally, I could care less about your personal life and I'm not asking about it. The problem though is that you have taken an apparently absurd position and refused to explain with any clarity how you achieved it.




What more do you truly need than "Based on past negative experiences with people drinking alcohol, and the problems of dealing with that, I choose to avoid the problem" ?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I don't understand this kind of thinking at all.  You'd decline and otherwise great game because someone might potentially have a drink and become obnoxious.  I might potentially rape your dog, the dm might potentially hold you hostage and demand 10,000 12 siders as ransom.  How can you go or do anything without the potential for something bad happening?  You could get ran over in the driveway, does that stop you from getting in your car?



Hyperbole never helps. Unless you honestly think that a person raping your dog is more likely than a person being obnoxious when he drinks.

Bumbles has stated, repeatedly, that it's not about eliminating all risk, it's about controlling the risks that can be controlled. You seem to think this hasn't been explained on several occasions.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Bumbles has stated, repeatedly, that it's not about eliminating all risk, it's about controlling the risks that can be controlled. You seem to think this hasn't been explained on several occasions.




And FWIW, an umbrella is an effective response to the risk of rain.  Not to mention checking the weather reports.  At least in regards to most picnics.  For something more important, like a wedding or a space shuttle launch, I'd suggest another plan.

This is much like gaming.  Instead of giving up all gaming, I remove the risks that bother me, instead of trying to solve everything or nothing.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 10, 2009)

SteveC said:


> Wow. This discussion has certainly taken an interesting turn. Just so I can be sure I understand it, if there's this conversation:
> 
> Bill: Hey Ted, we're having a great game of D&D and we have an opening. Are you interested in playing? Oh, by the way, we have a couple folks in it who have a beer while we're playing every so often.
> 
> ...




How the subject is brought up matters a lot. If it had unfolded that Ted said that he does it because he can't trust people's behavior in an environment with alcohol, then I think I would start to get offended. In this case, the offensive behavior isn't turning down the invitation as much as it is treating us prejudicially because we happen to drink some alcohol while gaming. Were I Bill, I'd probably never call Ted back.

If Ted had simply said that he *really* doesn't like beer/alcohol - the smell - and so on, I'd come away with a very different opinion of Ted and what he thinks of me and my players. In this case, he would be disliking the alcohol rather than disrespecting me and mine.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Here you go:



And I'm sure, when you reread it, you noticed that I didn't say that Bumbles suggested anything about a picnic.  Right?



> I'd suggest that Mistwell is attempting to exert social pressure by calling the choice to not attend rude. Etiquette is all about social pressure, the fear of being looked down upon if you don't behave in a certain way.



And I'd suggest that Mistwell is simply pointing out that the social conventions already exist.

You even implicitly acknowledge that, when you point out "the fear of being looked down upon."  That fear is self-exerted, due to prevailing social conventions.  Which Mistwell is pointing out.

Most people adhere to most social conventions due to that fear, not due to someone pointing out the social convention.  Failure to adhere to social conventions is what we, as a society, call "rude" or "eccentric" or "damned peculiar."


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

billd91 said:


> If Ted had simply said that he *really* doesn't like beer/alcohol - the smell - and so on, I'd come away with a very different opinion of Ted and what he thinks of me and my players. In this case, he would be disliking the alcohol rather than disrespecting me and mine.




I'm not going to lie to someone and give them a convenient reason to get them to do what I want.  Besides, I can imagine somebody say "But I love the smell of beer, you should love it too" or even claim that surely I can't smell it...which oddly, goes back to the discussion involving smoking, where people were arguing over whether or not one could smell smokers.

I'd just say "It's not about you, it's about the problems alcohol can cause which I don't want to deal with after they happen, so I'd rather avoid them entirely" and either you could accept or you couldn't.  If you can't, what can be done to convince you otherwise?

If this thread is any guide, it seems for many people, it's nothing.  Fair enough, none of the arguments presented so far have swayed my position.  Some have even reinforced it.  Go figure.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> What more do you truly need than "Based on past negative experiences with people drinking alcohol, and the problems of dealing with that, I choose to avoid the problem" ?



Yeah, I hear you, man.

Dude I knew back in Kentucky once told me, "I got mugged by a black guy once.  It really scared me.  I don't game with black guys anymore."

I always thought he was being a prejudiced dill-weed, but you've opened my eyes.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Hyperbole never helps.



"Never, ever, super-duper double-_dog_ never," or just plain "never"?


----------



## SteveC (Jul 10, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Yeah, I hear you, man.
> 
> Dude I knew back in Kentucky once told me, "I got mugged by a black guy once.  It really scared me.  I don't game with black guys anymore."
> 
> I always thought he was being a prejudiced dill-weed, but you've opened my eyes.



We are coming precariously close to Godwining this thread. Are you really sure this level of hyperbole is really necessary?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Besides, I can imagine somebody say "But I love the smell of beer, you should love it too" ...



Honestly, I cannot imagine a mature adult saying this.  Has this actually happened to you before?  And did the person say it with a straight face?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

SteveC said:


> Are you really sure this level of hyperbole is really necessary?



"Really, really, super-duper double-_dog_ really"?  Or just plain "really"?

I don't see any hyperbole.  Aside from the "you've opened my eyes," my post was 100 percent true.  It was one of the more jaw-dropping examples of prejudice I've ever experienced.  It's certainly more egregious than this particular example of prejudice, but then, I also called that guy's behavior much worse things than "damned peculiar."


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 10, 2009)

Having finally read the entire thread, I figured I'd chime in.

I'm not as strict as Bumbles, but I don't drink either.  I'm not all that comfortable around people who do drink.  I get frustrated when I encounter an attitude of "If we aren't drinking, we aren't having a good time", which I encounter on an all too regular basis.

Almost all my experiences with drinking and gaming have been negative.  I had never played a game with anyone in Canada who drank while gaming.  I moved to Australia for a year only to encounter a group of people who seemed positively STUNNED when I told them I didn't drink and that no one in my gaming group back home drank.  I was actually told by someone that we must have really boring gaming sessions if no one drinks.

While I was there, I joined a regular group where a couple of the members drank while playing.  They insisted they could hold their alcohol and that their behavior never changed at all while drinking.  It was readily apparent to me, as well as the couple other sober people that the game would always get less and less fun the longer we played(and therefore, the more they drank).

Also, I used to play Living Greyhawk and whenever we'd play at a location where drinking was allowed, certain people would drink.  When we played at a gaming store or the like, no one did because it wasn't allowed.

So far my experience as been that people who are drinking greatly misjudge how drunk they are and how much they can drink before it affects them.  It normally goes something like this:

Beginning of the Night: "I think we need to negotiate with the goblins, there are too many of them and we don't want to risk the villagers.  But we need to be very careful, they are easily provoked."

1 hour: "We tell the goblins that we are powerful adventurers and they need to negotiate with us because otherwise we will destroy them."  (The rest of us look at the player and wonder why they were level headed an hour ago and now blatantly threatening the goblins.)

2 hours: "I'm tired of all this negotiation.  We're better than them.  I pull out my axe and attack the nearest one."

3 hours: "Now that we've slaughtered all of the goblins, we take their heads and carry them back with us through town and throw them on to the desk of the mayor and say, 'This is what we did to the goblins, now give us the city before I do this to you!'  Then he gets angry at the DM when the mayor doesn't immediately surrender because he should OBVIOUSLY be so intimidated by us that it would be impossible for him to say no."

4 hours: "The argument between the player and the DM has now been ongoing for an hour.  It has migrated into a discussion on alignment and what it means in D&D, the motivations of NPCs, and what is reasonable and unreasonable.  All the other players, sober or not seem to have been sucked into the argument."

And you know it's the alcohol because this same player roleplays his character as level headed and reasonable ALL the time he's not drinking.  And it didn't happen with just one player, there were about 4 or 5 of them.  About 90% of all the players who drank at the table, even small amounts became fairly different while drinking.  Of course, the more they drank, the worse they became.  But there was noticeable differences after 1 or 2 beers.

As for other stuff, I ran into one group who felt that gaming wasn't possible without weed.  I was the only member of the group who didn't use it.  I was the DM, they asked me to run the game.  They'd take a break partway through the night to go outside and smoke up.  DMing became a whole lot less fun after the break than before hand.  I had no idea they were into that sort of thing when I agreed to DM, and I might not have agreed if I had known.  Still, I tolerated it for a while before the group fell apart due to no one showing up for the games and generally flaking out.

If I was invited to a game where everyone else drank, I'd probably go, but I think it would make me heavily consider whether I fit in.  It would depend if they were the sort of group that gathered together to play or gathered together to drink with playing as the official excuse.  The latter group I doubt I'd fit in with.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Hyperbole never helps. Unless you honestly think that a person raping your dog is more likely than a person being obnoxious when he drinks.
> 
> Bumbles has stated, repeatedly, that it's not about eliminating all risk, it's about controlling the risks that can be controlled. You seem to think this hasn't been explained on several occasions.




Maybe, but I'd bet he'd be more likely to have a car accident on the way to the gamethan to encounter someone behaving obnoxiously due to 2 beers.  He's not eleminating that risk, which is far more likely imo.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 10, 2009)

SteveC said:


> We are coming precariously close to Godwining this thread. Are you really sure this level of hyperbole is really necessary?




It's only a matter of scale.  I personally find both equally obnoxious.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Honestly, I cannot imagine a mature adult saying ["But I love the smell of beer, you should love it too"].  Has this actually happened to you before?  And did the person say it with a straight face?



To wax confessional, I torment my roommates with variations on this, albeit with coffee, constantly.  Of course, they're my roommates and we've been friends for 18 years, so if I didn't torment them -- and vice-versa -- it would be (say it with me) damned peculiar.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 10, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I'd just say "It's not about you, it's about the problems alcohol can cause which I don't want to deal with after they happen, so I'd rather avoid them entirely"




Yep, I saw a beer the other day causing all sorts of problems.  Holding up traffic, sexually harrassing people, and I heard it's directly responsible for global warming.


----------



## Loonook (Jul 10, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> 1 hour: "We tell the goblins that we are powerful adventurers and they need to negotiate with us because otherwise we will destroy them."  (The rest of us look at the player and wonder why they were level headed an hour ago and now blatantly threatening the goblins.)
> 
> 2 hours: "I'm tired of all this negotiation.  We're better than them.  I pull out my axe and attack the nearest one."
> 
> ...





I honestly don't see how this is supposed to be a large thing about drinking... I think this is something about attention span.  Honestly... you regularly spend 2 hours negotiating terms with goblins and find that interesting and a thing worthy of spending an enormous amount of time on?

I'm sorry... I just do not think this would fly in any of my sober groups, because someone would snap somewhere around worg-running land rights, and I'd be having to throw a player out for going nuts.  I think that, even stone sober, I would probably respond something similar unless I was told i would be running the West Wing RPG.

:S: If anyone decides to run WWRPG... I would like to roll up a Ziegler...::

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jul 10, 2009)

Loonook said:


> even stone sober, I would probably respond something similar unless I was told i would be running the West Wing RPG.
> 
> PS: If anyone decides to run WWRPG... I would like to roll up a Ziegler.



Walk with me, and let's talk really quickly about it.


----------



## Loonook (Jul 10, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Walk with me, and let's talk really quickly about it.




Watch yourself... I took Witty Quip and Pointed Jab (Verbal) as my virtues... unless you're going with the Heartfelt Moment/Obscure Societal Commentary build...

I will crush you.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 10, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Having finally read the entire thread, I figured I'd chime in.




Thank you for your perseverance, and thank you for sharing your position.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 10, 2009)

In honor of this thread, I'm going to have a few drinks as I DM tonight. Maybe something summery, like a Pimm's Cup --but without all the proper accouterments, I'm afraid. I'm too lazy to cut up the cucumber.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Hyperbole never helps. Unless you honestly think that a person raping your dog is more likely than a person being obnoxious when he drinks.



This is the key, I think.  If you've had bad experiences with something in the past, there's no reason to think it won't happen again.

A better analogy would be if you saw dark clouds in the sky, would you think it is going to rain?  Maybe, maybe not...but there's a much greater chance of rain than if it is a sunny day outside.  Would you schedule a picnic on the cloudy day and hope for the best or simply wait for a sunny day and hold it then?

Same thing with the drinking.  Are people going to act all stupid because they have one or two beers?  Maybe, maybe not.  But there's certainly a much greater chance than if they've had no beers at all.  Better to find people who don't drink.



Fifth Element said:


> Bumbles has stated, repeatedly, that it's not about eliminating all risk, it's about controlling the risks that can be controlled. You seem to think this hasn't been explained on several occasions.




From my reading of this thread, it appears to have a lot to due with the fact that people who drink don't see anything wrong with drinking.  Otherwise they wouldn't do it.  They haven't had really bad experiences with people who drink.  So, in their mind, a couple of drinks have no ill effect on anyone around them at all.  That no one can even tell they've been drinking.  That it's normal to drink and that people who don't drink are odd.

And I can certainly understand from that point of view, thinking that it is completely unreasonable to "discriminate" against someone for drinking.

But, I mean, if you replaced "drinking" with something else that YOU really didn't like I think you'd have no problem with it.  For instance, take "nudity".  Say you instead found out that a group of people liked to play D&D in the nude.  You come to a session and someone starts taking their clothes off.  Would you leave?  If someone told you they always played in the nude, would you go to the session?  How is them playing nude affecting you at all?  Isn't it unreasonable to discriminate against them because they are nudists?

Isn't it enough to not be comfortable with something to ask someone to stop?  I certainly wouldn't have any problem with saying "I'm not comfortable playing D&D with a bunch of nude people.  I'm just not into that.  I'd prefer if you weren't nude while I was around.  You wear clothes when you leave the house, I'm certain you could do so while playing D&D if you want me in the group.  If you'd prefer not to, that's fine, I'll find a different game."

In the same way, I don't see any problem asking people not to drink while you were around.  There certainly isn't any requirement to be drinking in order to have fun playing D&D.  If drinking IS a requirement for you, then there may be other issues to work out.


----------



## Eridanis (Jul 11, 2009)

After 24 pages, I'd have hoped we'd solved world hunger by now. Doesn't look like it, though, and this thread can't get any better, so let's close it up.

There are other places to discuss this topic if you'd like to continue. A corner Taberna, perhaps.


----------

