« Defining Play | Home | October ’08 Round Table – Updated 10.21 »
More on Defining Play
By Corvus | October 16, 2008
Lots of good questions are being asked in my previous post on defining play, and I thought the answers ought to be explored a bit in their own post. Before we being, here are my working definitions for two of the three pillars of my participatory storytelling theory:
Story is the shared exploration of a relationship over time.
Play is the self-guided exploration of possibility within a bounded space.
The third pillar is community and I will be suggesting a definition for that soon–likely next week. I am including the story definition here, even though I don’t plan on talking directly about it in this post, because the three definitions are meant to be interlocking and therefore need to be considered in context. Slightly difficult to do fully when I’ve not provided a definition for community, perhaps, but I imagine you’re all capable of providing your own definition of community in the mean time.
Now on to the questions and comments!
this definition seems to leave out one quality that I would think should be included: that the exploration is typically for enjoyment or recreation
I quite agree with this statement, particularly the inclusion of the word “typically.” But ultimately, I do not want to rule out those who approach play with serious, or professional, intent. I’ll talk more about my desire for inclusivity in a moment. Also, I feel joy is a byproduct of play and while that may quickly become a motivating factor, it isn’t necessarily an intrinsic part of play.
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.
I am totally behind the idea that play has a sacred quality and therefore takes on an aspect of the rite. But then, my approach to the sacred is rather profane in many people’s eyes. I’m leery, however, of inserting this aspect of play into the heart of the definition itself. To my mind, the rite occurs when a community uses play to tell a certain type of story. And in that intersection of story, play, and community, we will discuss, at length, the religious aspects.
As far as “a quality of mind in engaging with one’s worldview” goes–that is a perfectly valid statement, should you have clearly defined play at the outset of the discussion. As a definition, however, it’s quite lacking and rather reads like “play is play.”
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.
Children exist within a bounded space, even if they aren’t aware of those boundaries. For that matter, adults do as well. Children often feel as if the world is enormous beyond comprehension, marveling as new environments are introduced. Have you ever gone back and seen the forest you played in as a child? Or the enormous field, or empty lot? The vast, boundless expanses of our childhoods are often revealed to be quite small when viewed from an adult perspective.
I can remember the expression of joy on my three-year-old nephew’s face when I let him climb along a short wall of landscaping rocks. I stood far enough back that he knew I wasn’t helping, but close enough that I could catch him if he fell. From his perspective, he was climbing an enormous rock wall. From my perspective, we were standing outside my apartment next to a flower bed.
There is also a tendency to play within a self-bounded, conceptual space. In other words–even if the bounded space seems physically limitless, it’s often bounded by conceptual restrictions. For example, rarely do you see children combining physical challenges with creative ones. It’s one, or the other. Coloring sessions focus on beauty, not speed. Running focuses on physical coordination, not intelligent assessment of environment. This changes situationally, of course, and becomes more complex and layered when the social element of other children or adults is introduced.
The same trends apply to adult play as well, chess boxing not withstanding.
‘Play’ is such an interwoven aspect of ‘Game’ that I now believe that dividing the two harms the understanding of both.
Ooo. I’m going to have to strongly disagree with that one. You see, “game” is the result of consciously and quantitatively defining the bounded space, either for yourself or for another person. “Play” is what happens when you enter that space. The two concepts must be considered separately in order to make sense of either of them. This doesn’t mean we can’t go on to deeply explore the relationship between play and game. In fact, we absolutely need to if we want to create meaningful games.
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.
I believe that play is entirely self motivated. You can entice someone to play by providing a compelling bounded space in which to do so, but their involvement must be voluntary or it isn’t really play–it’s work. However, as is hopefully becoming clear, guided play is a crucial concept to be explored in the relationship between play and community, as well as play and story.
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.
Not at all! As I’ve hopefully made more clear in this post, play can absolutely take place within the bounded space of a video game, board game, ARG, or RPG session. However, because I am attempting to draft a critical framework for discussing all media–from novels to advertising campaigns, sculpture to industrial design, playground games to video games–it is important not to limit the expression of play to games. I am not burrowing to the root of play in order to exclude anyone or anything. Quite the opposite. My intent is to grasp the core concept of play so we can go on to explore its expression in larger and more diverse realms.
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.
Absolutely. It is likely as valuable to explore instance-specific definitions of terms as they apply within the appropriate frameworks. It is, as you suggest, a matter of comprehension. I am, as I’ve said, attempting to build a broad critical framework that will help us examine new media in the same context as we do other creative pursuits. Furthermore, I have a strong desire that this critical framework encompass the fact that artistic expression is a process of communication and that the audience experience is critical to understanding the media and interpreting the author’s intent. I do not mean to suggest that my participatory storytelling framework will work for everyone in every situation, even though there is a strong intent of universality in my goals.
Tagged:definition, participatory-storytelling, play. | No Comments »
Comments are closed.