Acceptance of Delayed Gratification--a Gamer Trait?

[M. J. Young]

In http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12448">Rewards for Setting Up, Callan (Noon) asked what the personal rewards were for the time spent setting up for a game. He put forward the idea that in-game rewards don't always happen, and we're setting ourselves up for disappointment.

In some article I'm drafting, I commented that there was a perception that gamers and computer programmers were the same group (any member of either set a member of both). That's not true; but there are a lot of computer programmers who play role playing games. As I read Callan's post, it started to coalesce in my brain that the rewards for being a good amateur computer programmer come rather late in the day--you have to spend a lot of time learning how to program before you can do anything interesting with it. That suggests that computer programmers have an inherent willingness to commit to an activity with delayed gratification.

I'm also aware that a lot of the more "studious" sorts play games. It's difficult to parse these out, but most of the high school players I've met were not athletes and perceived themselves as college bound. Further, role playing games are rather big among the college crowd. Going to college itself means committing to a lot of work for a future reward--again, delayed gratification.

I think that a fair number of people who enlist in the military (another bastion of gaming, from what I hear) do so for what they will gain upon completion of their tour of duty--they'll have been prepared for a career, or have college tuition benefits, or something of the sort. That's again in part a delayed gratification situation.

I'm sure it's not universal; but Callan's question got me thinking. As a group, do we gamers tend to be more inclined to accept delayed gratification situations than the population at large?

Thoughts?

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

I'm wondering if the delayed gratification demographic of the general populace and the roleplaying demographic just spookily happen to be the same size.

I'm also wondering if this leads to no hope of RPG's escaping the delayed gratification demographic. I mean, the people who design RPG's are really into them right? IF RPG's are mostly about delayed gratification, this means these designers are are also really into delayed gratification. Thus they don't see any problem in designing stuff that gives delayed gratification and thus the product never leaves the delayed grat demographic, sales wise.

I hope I'm not thread jacking, skip me if I am. :)

[Kaare Berg]

I am not big on delayed gratfication. I want it yesterday. But then again pre-game prep for me mainly consists of daydreaming in the car at work.

I would however agree that there is an apperent tendencity of this sort of behaviour. But I would be careful as to draw this comparison as IMO high school and college is but a waiting game in general, where one always eagerly await the next stage be it: senior - college -  or much vaunted career.

If you want to draw this sort of conclusion you might just say that all rolepayers are nerds who play to escape the fact that we can't get girls and have the physique of an anemic toad. (which is what I felt like at times in High ScHool)

you have to spend a lot of time learning how to program before you can do anything interesting with it.

Isn't the journey the object here. And by thus the comparison can be drawn to all rpgers. Isn't the act of playing roleplaying games the point itself, and like good sex it gets spiced by thinking about it before hand (last point more fitting in the original thread, I know.)

So to bring my philosophical ramblings back in line with the original question:

As a group, do we gamers tend to be more inclined to accept delayed gratification situations than the population at large?

I would argue no, because the majority of us gamers (before life has dug her scrawny fingers into us) are in transitonary stages of our lives, and that this by default seem to put us in the delayed gratification demographic, while not commenting on our actual gratification outlook.

Note: I am speaking in generalities and from my norwegian perspective. no offense is intended, nor is a philosophical debate on the transitoriness of life opened.

Peace

K

[John Kim]

In http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12448">Rewards for Setting Up, Callan (Noon) asked what the personal rewards were for the time spent setting up for a game. He put forward the idea that in-game rewards don't always happen, and we're setting ourselves up for disappointment.

I think this is a question of what one enjoys.  For example, do you consider character creation to be an onerous chore which is only made up for by the actual fun of play sessions -- or do you find it fun and interesting?  Personally, I find both world-building and character generation to be enjoyable.  This isn't to say that I enjoy all steps of this -- for example, I appreciate many time-saving organizational devices.  But much of the creation I find enjoyable.  

I'm also aware that a lot of the more "studious" sorts play games. It's difficult to parse these out, but most of the high school players I've met were not athletes and perceived themselves as college bound. Further, role playing games are rather big among the college crowd. Going to college itself means committing to a lot of work for a future reward--again, delayed gratification.  

So, here's again a difference of view.  I liked college and grad school.  I like reading books and learning.  Actually, I was pretty negative on those people who were in college only to get their degree so they could make more money when they got out.  (At least, I didn't want to be in classes with them.)  I suspect that this is more the difference you are seeing -- not delayed gratification, but enjoying different things.  For example, many gamers don't consider it an unpleasant chore to read a well-written game book, even if it is hundreds of pages.

[Eric J.]

I think it's kindof a dumb question.  Sorry.

It's like asking: Is the chess club going to be more likely to enjoy logic problems than the young democrats club.

I've always seen roleplaying as one of the most intellectual activities that I've taken part in.  It involves writing, communication, psychology, mathematics, creativity...

The Forge, itself, consists of a highly intellectual community (relative to the internet at the very least).

I mean, I hate to reinforce a stereotype but all the semi-serious roleplayers I know do relatively well on standerdised tests (90 percentile without a question).

Intelectualism itself implies 'delayed gratification' or at the very least the love of learning.

I mean, I hate to derail a good man's thread but I've seen fanatical christian sites defaming roleplaying that still say that they're attractive to people of higher intelligence.

To clean up, I'll say that I believe, in no way, that playing a roleplaying game makes you smarter or whatever than average, but that, in a demographical study, it certainly would.

Or you could just skip that and say that Roleplaying games tend to require a lot more dedication than most activities (monopoly, etc.) and are therefore more likely to atract people with the ability to accept delayed gratification.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

[Doctor Xero]

I commented that there was a perception that gamers and computer programmers were the same group (any member of either set a member of both). That's not true; but there are a lot of computer programmers who play role playing games.

I would add two fairly significant groups you left out (and who get left out more and more frequently in discussions about roleplaying in general, I've noticed) : theatre people and scholars.

I have spent the vast majority of my gaming experience with amateur theatre people and scholars, and I can assure you that my experiences with them did not prepare me for gaming with computer science people nor with weekend warriors.

Like computer programmers, a good member of the theatre, whether a professional or an amateur, spends a tremendous amount of time -- in the actor's case, not only learning his or her lines and blocking but the basics of his or her character and the other characters in the play, because only that level of awareness enables an actor to compensate when something goes wrong.  An out-of-character ad-lib can hurt a play, but an in-character ad-lib can cover a multitude of missed cues, dropped lines, and odd mishaps.

Similarly, good scholars spend inordinate amounts of time studying and accruing knowledge before they reach the point that they can aggressively play with their learning.  A lazy scholar or scholar seeking immediate rewards isn't a scholar at all, only a facts-finder or pupil.

You find us not only in roleplaying groups but having fun in Medieval and Renaissance Faires, at costume competitions in SF and fantasy conventions, hamming it up at public SF readings, taking part in Poetry Slams and foam-and-PVC-piping fencing matches and merry scholarly debates on the symbolism in The Lord of the Rings, etc.

Theatre people and scholars also understand the need for delayed gratification -- and unlike computer programmers, we also know how to handle loving something for which there are few fiscal rewards! *grin*

If you want to draw this sort of conclusion you might just say that all rolepayers are nerds who play to escape the fact that we can't get girls and have the physique of an anemic toad.

Actually, many of the people with whom I've played are fairly active romantically, both gay and straight.

So, here's again a difference of view.  I liked college and grad school.  I like reading books and learning.  Actually, I was pretty negative on those people who were in college only to get their degree so they could make more money when they got out.  (At least, I didn't want to be in classes with them.)  I suspect that this is more the difference you are seeing -- not delayed gratification, but enjoying different things.  For example, many gamers don't consider it an unpleasant chore to read a well-written game book, even if it is hundreds of pages.

Good point.  Most actors I know find personal value in rehearsal and an enjoyable sense of accomplishment in memorizing lines et al., and most scholars I know read for the sheer joy of reading.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

I mean, I hate to reinforce a stereotype but all the semi-serious roleplayers I know do relatively well on standerdised tests (90 percentile without a question).

Hmmm . . . I wonder, now, after reading your post.

It seems to me that most of the FtF roleplayers I've met fit the criteria you've mentioned, including the love of the activities (or the love of the sense of accomplishment provided by mastering the activities) which lead up to the obvious gratification.

However, I'm not certain the same can be said for those who prefer to play computer games, the so-called computer roleplaying games.

In a computer game, the background, the motivations, the restricted activities, the connections, the plot, etc. are all provided for me ahead of time.  If I know enough computer games, it takes me moments only to determine how to play the thing.

How much delayed gratification is there in any variation of Doom?

In many games, including some of the earlier Final Fantasy games, my character's decisions are already pre-determined for me so that I can not deviate from the computer's set plot.

Yes, there is tactics, maybe even strategy, but that's not the same thing as prep time and delayed gratification unless one wants to treat a rousing game of chess as nothing but delay of gratification until the momentary gratification of shouting "Checkmate!"

Perhaps this is why there seems to be a commonality among roleplayers, SF/fantasy devotees, Ren Faire and Med Faire participants, but not as much between these groups and intense computer gamers.

Doctor Xero

[timfire]

First, I wanted to say that I'm with John on the whole "different people enjoy different things" bit.

But I also wanted to bring up the issue of scale. Is it right to compare going to college - a 4 year commitment - to reading a role-playing book - maybe a week at most?

I also wanted to say that videogames - one of the most popular passtimes for many people - takes quite a bit of practice before you get "really good."  For example, a friend of mine just started playing playstation at the ripe old age of 23. While I will breeze through games, it took him a couple of months before he felt comfortable with the controls.

I also have to admit that still have trouble play Halo on the Xbox - I just can't seem to get the knack for using 2 directional controls at once.

So my point is, I think that most people are willing to delay gratification to a certain degree.

Alrght, I have to run.

[M. J. Young]

Thanks for the comments. It was a little more than a passing thought, as it had entered my head one day and was still rattling around up there the next; but I'll admit I was mostly looking for reaction to it as an idea.

Like John, I also enjoy the set-up. (I also enjoyed participating in graduate school and taking standardized tests, which I find an enjoyable challenge--and yes, I do well at them, too.) So it may be that delayed gratification isn't always an issue. I think when I design, I'm looking forward to revealing those designs in play; but I've known people who spent their lunch times creating character after character for the fun of creating the characters. (Even there, though, part of it may have been that if you create enough characters you eventually get a great one--the one guy who did this most eventually produced a D&D Paladin with straight 18's which he brought to the game, so all that production may have had a purpose connected to a future return on the investment.) Interestingly, I am involved in numerous creative activities, and always have been; but I tend to move away from those for which I have no audience. When I stopped directing bands, I stopped writing songs shortly thereafter.

So there are probably more variables here than we can reasonably separate.

As far as K. Negligent's suggestion that we start gaming while in transitory phases of life, I was married and working when I started. Unless all life is transitory (which renders the word insignificant in this context) I wasn't there. I still think I was (and to some degree still am) the sort of person who could do something now in expectation of a possible reward later, while I know a lot of people who live for now, few of whom did much with role playing games.

Callan's point about design is well taken, incidentally. If indeed those of us who design are comfortable with the setup (either because of an acceptance of delayed gratification or because of enjoyment of the setup process itself, as John postulates), we're not likely to design games that appeal to people not comfortable with that kind of setup involvement.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

Speaking of video games (MJ just posted while I was writing this).

I remember an article about doom when it first came out. The developers talked about immediate rewards, ie if you walk over some ammo you instantly get it...no mucking around with inventory or extra steps, make that reward hit fast.

The thing is, with games like that you don't need to 'get good' before you can collect rewards. five minutes after running the program you've probably picked up a couple of dozen rounds, and that means a couple of dozen shot gun blast sounds (kewl!). Sure, you might not be good enough to avoid dying, but your already running into rewards.

But roleplay? Takes a week to read a book? Takes all that work to organise a session? All before you can find any loot/reward, which take longer than it does in a video game?

I really urge anyone who reads this to avoid thinking 'Hey, I don't see anything wrong with how long I wait to get something, therefore there isn't really any delayed gratification involved here. Or if there is, it's like something everyone can accept, right?'. I think, much like preaching to a choir this thread is like saying to the choir 'Hey, to be in the choir you have to wear those shawl things'. Of course, they've all accepted the idea of wearing that clothing because, damn, they are in the choir already and don't see the problem defined by the statement.

[contracycle]

All of this is a far cry from Muhammad Ali's take on delayed gratification.  It is the driving force behind all skilled, practiced pursuits but I think the degree of delayed gratification in RPG is minimal or trivial.  For example, why go to the effort of writing 300 pages and getting a publisher and only then find out the audiences response to work, when you can invite an audience to lounge and tell them their and then and gauge the responses immediately.  If anything, I'd say RPG is a hobby that does not exhibet delayed gratification much, certainly for most non-GM players, less than building a kit model.

[Ben O'Neal]

I don't think there's really such a thing as "true" delayed gratification. In all the examples so far, I can see immediate rewards right throughout the process. Consider, Gareth's last point:

For example, why go to the effort of writing 300 pages and getting a publisher and only then find out the audiences response to work, when you can invite an audience to lounge and tell them their and then and gauge the responses immediately

Throughout the process of creating an RPG, you are constantly being reinforced with rewards such as compliments/encouragement from friends/online community, and more personal rewards like seeing the whole thing take shape, reaching small milestones (like finishing a chapter), coming up with brilliant ideas and revelling in your imagination of how it will play out, and myriad other rewards which, at least to me, add up to far outweigh the reward of completion.

It's the same for me when I do art. Because evrey bit I work on it is another bit done. I can see the pic come together, and I can appreciate and feel proud of how it is turning out.

Of course, this also works with all sorts of other things, like creating a campaign session, a character ("Woohoo! I rolled an 18 for Strength!"), music, model-building, learning (I know I get excited when the first page hints at something deeply interesting within, or when I read a paragraph that enlightens me just that little bit more), and anything else you care to name.

So in short, I don't think there can actually be such a thing as real delayed gratification. The journey is always at least as rewarding (most often moreso) than the destination.

Perhaps then, the issue isn't really one of whether some people can wait for their gratification whilst others cannot, but actually whether some people actually find the process to be rewarding in and of itself, whilst others cannot see the process as being enjoyable.

A perfect example for me is law. I like the idea of being a barister and all that entails, and I like the idea of the money that it brings. I have the scores to get into law, and the skills to do well at it. But I cannot bring myself to find the process necessary for that goal rewarding.

That's how I see it anyway.

-Ben

[Cup of Iron]

As a group, do we gamers tend to be more inclined to accept delayed gratification situations than the population at large?

Not at all.

Accepting delayed gratification situations (what a cumbersome mouthful) is just life. It takes nine months for a baby to be born. Eighteen years after that before they become an adult (another three years to be able to legally consume alcohol in some areas) Delayed gratification is simply a part of life, whether people accept it or reject it, they still have to wait.

What's at work here is people will generally do the least amount of work to achieve the desired results. So even if it requires a great deal of work, people will do it if the results are desired.

It has nothing to do with gamers having a greater acceptance to delayed gratification situations, but everything to do with gamers having an greater acceptance of delayed gratification situations when it is in regards to playing an RPG. Which is a hunk of logic for you. People who enjoy playing RPGs are willing to deal with the setup time when playing. Much like how people who enjoy building custome cars, interior decorate and any number of activities-- those with an interest in the activity are the ones who are willing to invest their time into that activity. And those without interest do not.

[Kaare Berg]

As far as K. Negligent's suggestion that we start gaming while in transitory phases of life, I was married and working when I started.

I was speaking in generalities here, and to make my point in a more userfriendly/clear manner:

It is a matter of outlook. You can either enjoy the trip, or you can wait for the goodness at the end. Eitherway you get your boat rocked.

But raising this as a design issue also raises som intresting points:

[*]do you wish for character generation to be as much a part of the game as actual play, or will you keep it quick and dirty to get at the goodness around the gaming table?
[*]Will the game require much prep-work by the GM or can he simply daydream in his car until he gets to the table?[/list:u]
Adressing these issues will help define what type of game one is designing, and what type of "users" one are trying to recruit, accepters or rejecters. ref:

Delayed gratification is simply a part of life, whether people accept it or reject it, they still have to wait.

So do you wish to design a game that gives the players continous rewards during prep-time (chargen, bluebooking between sessions) and facilitates GM prearation (inspiration, hints and tips) or do you wish to design a game that gets your user to ingame goodness with minimal prep time?

In this aspect the original question posed by M.J. Young becomes interesting food for thought, the philosphical debate aside.

[Storn]

*   do you wish for character generation to be as much a part of the game as actual play, or will you keep it quick and dirty to get at the goodness around the gaming table?
*   Will the game require much prep-work by the GM or can he simply daydream in his car until he gets to the table?

I can only speak for myself, of course, but:

1)  I prefer chargen to be discussed and finished before the game starts.  Usually thru e-mails and whatnot or over lunch.  I don't run a very regularly scheduled game and this causes pressure to sit down at the table and then play.  When I do run a 1/week game, I don't mind a session or 1/2 session devoted to chargen.

2)  This is a question I ask myself a lot because I do both.  Some sessions I write and prep quite a bit, I like finding or even drawing my own images to support the situations I'm presenting.  But other sessions, its daydream in the car, get to the table and simply wing it and riff.  I've had great, rousing success with both and I've had complete, utter failures with both and all points in between.