In 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

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. :)

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)

M J Young wrote: you have to spend a lot of time learning how to program before you can do anything interesting with it.

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

M. J. Young wrote: In 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.

M. J. Young wrote: 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 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

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

Negilent wrote: 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.

John Kim wrote: 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. wrote: 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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

Gareth (Contracycle) wrote: 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

M. J. Young wrote: As a group, do we gamers tend to be more inclined to accept delayed gratification situations than the population at large?

M.J. Young wrote: 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.

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

* 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?