« Playing from the Heart | Home | More on Defining Play »
Defining Play
By Corvus | October 14, 2008
It’s tempting to demonstrate the value of playful activity within the framework of the very system that disapproves of such activity.
–Michael Abbott [1]
Young children frequently play in much the same manner as puppies and kittens play–joyously and with wild abandon. They play with no clear rules and no expressed goals–allowing themselves to be guided by instinct, curiosity, and their innate drive towards self-expression. They can play this way because they are young and do not know where the boundaries of their world are. In fact, they are able to play in this manner precisely because they are not aware of the rules and social norms that constrain their lives.
Does that sound like fun to you? Because it can be. A lot of fun.
But as children grow older, they begin to learn about this world of adults they find themselves in. They begin to understand the boundaries of their environment, their community, and themselves. They learn that fire burns, falls hurt, and coloring on the wall gets you a time out. They learn that dogs growl, cats hiss, and grown-ups yell. They learn that people with longer legs often run faster and that people with longer arms often get the toy first.
And so the concept of rules creeps into play. Rules help establish safe boundaries–environmental and social. Rules provide safer artificial boundaries so that children don’t run the risk of being harmed by the rule’s more dangerous real world counterparts. Play now often takes on a calculated element–how close to breaking the rule can you get? How fast can you walk before it’s considered running? If you pull the cat’s tail gently over and over–how long before it gets mad? If you run in a crazy zig-zig pattern, can you outpace your pursuer with longer legs?
As children learn more and more about boundaries, the more formalized their rules become. This is in part because the adults in their world often firmly establish them and in part because the children become more and more familiar with their own comfort levels and limitations.
It’s quite likely that children are trained to enjoy games by adults who use structured play as an instructional tool to help the children negotiate boundaries. Perhaps they’ve even learned about games by watching, or participating in, games being played by older children. Whatever the case, it’s really at this stage that the natural tendency for games begins. Children begin to compare their understanding of the world’s boundaries with each other, and a complex negotiation process begins. And what is a better format with which to mediate this community interaction [2], but games?
Some games are relatively free-form and very physical, such as a game of tag. Others are more structured and have a decidedly more social cast, such as Simon Says. Still others are very structured and represent a cooperative exploration of external rule expectations, such as board games and little league sports.
Over time, play becomes a cultural tool used for indoctrinating us into the system. It becomes a productive exercise, a training tool, a measure of competence, a means of earning money, proving ourselves, measuring twice, cutting once, and leaving those who can’t deal with the pressure along the side of the racing track, objects of scorn and derision.
Play has become an ugly, vaguely embarrassing word. Play is a gambit, a maneuver, or a strategy of conquest. And players are anything but childlike. A player is someone who uses other people for their own gain. A player is a gambler. A player is a professional athlete.
But there are moments. Moments of pure joy and escape. Running on a beach with a loved one. Jumping a railing, just because you can. Walking along a curb. Engaging in witty banter. Brief moments of play that brighten our faces and lighten our step. Experiencing pure play, free of the constraints of measurement, judgment, and rules, typically produces a joyous feeling, even if joy wasn’t the intent of the playful action.
It’s this childlike sense of play that participatory storytelling can induce in the audience–it’s a sense of wonder, a sense of awe, a sense of not knowing where the boundaries are and the joy of exploring to find out. The rules are there, but they are not designed to evaluate or constrain. Instead they provide a structure for exploration.
In my last post on the topic, I mentioned that I’d found two dictionary definitions that I thought I could work with–to occupy oneself in a specified way, and to move or operate freely within a bounded space. Justin and Alan provided me with two more compelling phrases in the comments of that post–self-guided exploration, and exploration of possibility.
So without further ado, I present my proposed definition of the second pillar of participatory storytelling, play:
Play is the self-guided exploration of possibility within a bounded space.
So now that you have both my proposed definition and the thought process behind my choosing it, be sure to let me know what you think in the comments!
[1] from No More Game Shame [return]
[2] And we introduce the third pillar of participatory storytelling–community [return]
Tagged:definition, participatory-storytelling, play. | 15 Comments »
October 14th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I missed the previous discussion, so apologies if it was discussed — but this definition seems to leave out one quality that I would think should be included: that the exploration is typically for enjoyment or recreation. As it is, it could include more serious explorations of possibility, which I probably wouldn’t qualify as “play”. Thoughts?
October 14th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I’m as reluctant to saddle the definition of play with mandatory recreational intent as I am to saddle it with mandatory educational intent.
I’d much rather categorize enjoyment (or simply joy) as a natural byproduct of play, rather than a goal or essential component. That would even allow for more seriously intended exploration, which I think can also be beneficial and quite playful.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
In my notes from the Meaningful Play Conference, I have written that, “Play is a rite and a quality of mind in engaging with one’s worldview.”
Leigh Anne Cappello, from Hasbro, said that.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Ludi is certainly a rite, but that equates more directly to game than to play. And while I’m sympathetic to the interpretation of game as a sacred rite (I’ve written on that topic before), I’m not sure it’s the right concept to use here.
I also find “quality of mind in engaging with one’s worldview” to be quite evocative, but don’t feel it serves as a definition of play. It’s a great way of making “playful” sound important, I suppose. -.0
Something to keep in mind that once we begin to explore and map how the three concepts–story, play, and community–influence each other, we’re going to find ourselves talking a lot more about games, film, self-expressions, religion, sociology, and any other number of related topics.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:47 am
When you say “in a bounded space”, how does that describe the kind of play you are talking of at the beginning of this post? By that I mean the rules-free all-out play of children.
I know my answer to that question, but I’m curious about yours.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Hm, Joe. I was going to save that exploration for another post. Could I talk you into rationalizing it yourself first? After all, it’s your story that takes precedence when you’re reading my words.
Or you can wait until next week!
October 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
‘Play’ is such an interwoven aspect of ‘Game’ that I now believe that dividing the two harms the understanding of both.
So to that, I wonder if a more simplified rhetoric is needed. “Enjoying one’s time,” could be Fun. “Produtive enjoyment of one’s time,” could be Play. “Productive enjoyment one’s time through challenge,” could be Game. Hmm.
Shame you couldn’t have come to East Lansing this past weekend.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I like the definition, but I wonder at the need to put self-guided in there. I realize that where play intersects with community you get whole other spaces of interaction. However, I think that you are ignoring (or perhaps you have another rationalization for) guided play.
Thoughts on that?
October 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I’ll have to add the MPC to my list of potential conferences, David. It does sound right up my alley.
However, I think it’s all the more important to separate the idea of “play” and “game” because of how interwoven they tend to be. I feel this because I think it’s important to have voices reminding designers that traditional punishing game mechanics are not the only valid expression of play within the video game space.
Because, you know, the critical and commercial success of the Sims, Animal Crossing, and Wii Sports haven’t been enough to convince them on their own. -.0
October 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
You’ve got the right of it when you point to guided play existing between the definitions of play and community. My goal is to provide the simplest stand alone definitions possible for each term and then fully explore their amazing and dynamic interactions.
So I don’t intend to ignore guided play–I intend to cover it elsewhere.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Hmm. Perhaps the different techniques of definition are more more effective in different situations. Different people need different lenses to view a subject in a way which they can understand it.
~You take the high road and I’ll take the low road…~
October 15th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Your definition here accords with Caillois’ paidia quite nicely.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:02 am
@David Absolutely. I’m attempting to create definitions that will allow us to explore everything from literature to video games to community centers to marketing strategies. That means I have pretty specific needs from this effort.
@Chris. I just need to be compelling, not original, right? -.0
October 16th, 2008 at 1:17 am
What implications does this definition have for video games? It seems to me that, by your definition, quite a number of games bar the consumer from ‘playing’ them at all.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am
[...] know Corvus Elrod, Iroquois Pliskin, Michael Abbott, and I’m sure many others, including academics in the [...]