I was assigned to create a derive for my play class.  A derive is where one or more persons during a certain period drop their relations, their work, and leisure activities, and all their other usual motives for movement and action, and let themselves be drawn by the attraction of the terrain and encounters they find there.  Derives don't seem to work as well in open country, but tend to do better in an urban environment.  

One can derive alone, but a more objective method is to have several small groups which then cross check each other.  

The average duration of a derive is one day as defined as the period between to periods of sleep.  

The field of a derive can be precisely defined or vaguely delineated depending on wether one is trying to study a certain terrain or to emotionally disorient oneself.  In any case, the field of the derive depends upon the place of depart.  You can get only so far away in the time you have given for the derive.

One type of derive is the possible rendezvous in which the subject is invited to come alone to a certain place at a specific time.  Once the person gets there, no one is there to meet them or an unknown person has been given the same invitation.  In either case the subject does not know whom he is suppose to meet so he takes his time to study his surroundings.  

One of the greatest values of derive is the acknowledgement of the unseen borders that separate us from each other and the eventual breaking down of these borders.  

Below you will find an example of a very short derive I did with some friends around the restaurant Denny's.  My original plan was to walk around describing our surroundings to my  blind friend Courtney, but she wasn't there that night.  I am not quite sure that my friends took this seriously, however there were some good moments.  My favorite is "Where did that door come from?"  Hope you enjoy. 

I was assigned to read the "Dissolving the Magic Circle" for my class about play.  This article is about a situationist's approach to play.  The first lesson this article points out is that we need to adopt a constant attitude of liminoid defined as the freeing and transformative moments of play when the normal rules and roles of a community are relaxed.  Situationist games do not respect the boundary of the "magic circle" that Huizinga introduced.  The idea here is to attempt to give a transformative potential to normal life.

The second lesson that Situationists point to is that the competitive nature of play should be questioned.  For situationist, competition is also a ethical question that must be addressed.  

The third lesson is that within cities there is a psychogeoraphic current.  These currents need to be mapped and used to enhance a public consciousness of play in our urban environment.  This leads to the concept that games should not so much be rule based algorithms, but environments to be explored.   Games are now commonly being used to train soldiers for urban warfare.  

I just got done "reading" Raph Koster's Theory of Fun.  I say "reading" because his presentation is unique in that he combines cartoons with text to get his message across.  And his message is unique.  He starts out by pointing to the fact that games are really about looking for and recognizing patterns.  When we see no pattern, also referred to as noise, gamers get frustrated and stop playing.  The game gets boring once a player has mastered the pattern.  Thus fun is somewhere in the middle between noise and mastery:

Noise (no pattern) { Fun { Mastery of Pattern

         Noise   = Frustration

Mastery   = Boredom 

      thus...

          Frustration { Fun } Boredom

A conclusion that we can draw from this is that games that the player can never quite master is the most fun that one can have.  All the great games according to this theory have lasted and survived because they have an infinite amount of possible ways that the patterns can be applied.  Some examples would be chess, chinese checkers, go, backgammon, etc.  These all have basic patterns of play, but endless possibilities as to how to use those patterns.

One caution, however, is that this theory applies to each individual.  What I mean is that each individual has a range of fun based on their ability to perceive and recognize the pattern of play. The range of fun for one player will not necessarily be the same range of fun for another player.  Thus, when coming up with a game that will be fun for the most amount of people, your pattern of game play needs to be near the middle of the continuum. In other words:

Noise > Most amount of players having fun <>

Thus, a game is limited by the highest amount of noise that its players can tolerate and the lowest amount of boredom. Not so complex that the player can't easily pick up the game, but not so simple that it is easily mastered.    

To summarize, the more possibilities that there are in applying the pattern of play, the more fun the game is.  In order for a game to be fun for the most amount of people, however, it needs to have an easy pattern of play, but a wide variety of possible ways of applying that pattern.  

I recently discovered geocaching.  For those who don't know geocaching is a form of treasure hunt.  Participants use some form of GPS to locate "caches" which are the treasure they are seeking.  A typical cache consists of a waterproof container, a log book, and some type of treasure.  The name was originally gpsstashing, but it was suggested that stash may have negative connotations so the name was changed to geocaching.  There are a number of sites that are dedicated to the pastime and there are caches located in over 100 countries and on all seven continents.  The first geocache was placed on May 3rd, 2008 and it was first found and logged on May 6th, 2008.  

It aint easy being green, at least according to Kermit the Frog.  Conservation has its work cut out for it if it is going to fight for green.  According to Frances Kuo, who wrote Conservation at the Crossroads: A View from the Side of the Road, there are two major developments that he has observed that conservationist should take advantage of.  The first development is societal in nature, while the second is scientific.

The first development is that nature is disappearing from children's lives.  In reference to this development, Kuo makes reference to Last Child in the Woods written by Richard Louv. Kuo hints at two concerns: children don't have nature to play in and around and that there is a greater interest in playing indoors with electronic toys such as gaming systems, television, and the internet.  In my own opinion, this last concern is due more to a lack of parental involvement involvement.  When a parent is willing to take a stand and limiting the use of the electronic toys mentioned above, I believe children will tend to gravitate toward physical play which is best accomplished outdoors.  Kuo leaves open the question as to wether one of the concerns or the other, of some combination of the two, plays a role in future conservation.

Kuo directs some of his comments toward parents and grandparents.  He points out that their children don't have a special nature space like the current parents had when they were growing up.  What I find odd is a pathos appeal coming from a self proclaimed, at least in the article anyways, scientist.  As mentioned earlier, I am of the belief that parenting style had a role to play in the fact that the current generation of parents and grandparents took advantage of the nature available to them when they were young.  Perhaps this is a matter for further investigation, maybe an associate study of how parenting styles and limits placed and conservation beliefs and attitudes in their children.  Kuo further points out that if don't stop and reverse this trend, that children's access to nature is decreasing, the children of today will have no appreciation of nature and be less willing to pay for its conservation.  

Fortunately, as Kuo points out, a grassroots movement has emerged in response to Last Child in the Woods.  This group is characterized by energetic and diverse people.  Several states have passes legislation to help reconnect children to nature. 

The second development pointed out by Kuo is that scientist are finding that nature is an essential component of a healthy human habitat.  He cites several examples of studies that were done which show relationship between nature and health.  It should be pointed out, however, these studies can only prove association and can not prove causality.  This means that the examples cited can not prove that access to greenspace caused increased health conditions.  Greenspace is only associated with increased health conditions.  Kuo fails to point out this fact, which leads him to wrongly assert that conservation can improve health in the areas listed and is a necessary component of human habitat, when the only real claim he can make is that conservation may can lead to an increase in greenspace which may improve health.  The difference is subtle but needs to be noted.  

After discussing these two developments, Kuo makes several suggestions as to how conservation could make the most of these developments.  What strikes me is the fact that the suggestions he makes are goals that conservationist have had for an extended period of time now.  While I applaud his enthusiasm, his suggestions are not new and conservationist have been working toward these as goals for a while now.  

While in this blog, I seem to be bashing Kuo for his efforts, I am really am just trying to think critically about this issue.  I applaud his attempt.  My own views on conservation run thusly: God has set mankind as stewards over the entire earth and so far, we have been doing a mediocre job at best.  I agree that conservation is necessary and that more of it needs to be done, however, the same two questions keep coming back to me.  How are we going to do it and who is going to pay for it?

Recently, I read Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon written by Huizinga published in Homo Ludens for a class.  Not exactly great reading, but it was assigned so there was no getting out of it.  Supposedly the author is the first to recognize and attempt to study the concept of play as an area of scientific research, however the author makes no attempts to conceal or hide his humanist worldview.   If you can't tell, I come from a different worldview and acknowledge this up front.  I will try to be as objective as I can  in this review.

     

Huizinga starts out by making the claim that "human civilization has added no essential feature to the general idea of play".  To be back up this claim he cites the "playing of young dogs".   After this Huizinga goes on to say that, "even in its simplest forms of the animal level, play is more than a mere physiological phenomenon of a psychological reflex," and "in play there is something 'at play' which transcends the immediate needs of life and imparts meaning to the action." In these statements a couple of presuppositions are made apparent and need to be taken into account by the reader.  Huizinga presupposes that animals act on something more than physiological/psychological reflexes and that something other than the ability to do the same feat separates humans from animals.  He does not go so far as saying animals have "will" or "mind", but is there really a middle ground?  Huizinga calls this middle ground a significant function.  

Huizinga goes on to summarize very rapidly the biological finding of play.  He calls attention to the many different views that have been put forth.  He sums up these findings by pointing out that, "they all start from the assumption that play must serve something which is not play, that it must have some biological purpose" (emphasis added by Huizinga).  Huizinga calls the explanations put forth so far as only partial solutions to the problem of the play-concept. 

During his discussion of the biological element of play, Huizinga points out that one element, fun, resists analysis and logical interpretation.  According to the author, no other language has an exact equivalent of fun. Huizinga further claims that, "it is precisely this fun-element that characterizes the essence of play."  However, Huizinga goes on to say that, "in acknowledging play you acknowledge mind".  Here we have a contradiction in terms as set out by Huizinga.  Earlier the author has said that the essence of play is something more than instinct, but less than mind.  If by acknowledging play one is acknowledging  mind, then Huizinga is saying that if we acknowledge that animals play, then we are acknowledging that animals have minds.  This is contradiction in definitions is compounded when the author states that, "Play only becomes possible, thinkable and understandable when and influx of mind breaks down the absolute determinism of the cosmos.  The very existence of play continually confirms the supra-logical nature of the human situation."   

At this point Huizinga begins to look at play as a function of culture.  He states that, "in culture we find play as a given magnitude existing before culture itself existed, accompanying it and pervading it from the earliest beginnings right up to the phase of civilization we are now living in."  This leaves us to answer the question of when culture started.  

Huizinga's stated objective is to "consider play in its manifold concrete forms as itself a social construction."  He then starts to examine archetypal activities of human society.  The first one he examines is language.  Huizinga says, "language allows him [mankind] to distinguish, to establish, to state things; in short, to name them and by naming them to raise them into the domain of the spirit."  The reader should keep in mind that the author's major field of expertise is history, not theology.  By making this assertion,  the author is stepping outside the realm of his expertise, thus making himself a non-player, at least for the moment, in the subject which he set out to explore.  The quality of play that Huizinga is trying to express in language is that in giving expression to life man creates a second poetic world.  He then goes on to examine myth and ritual where he continues the use of theological terminology.  Myth, he says, is an imagination of the outer world.  I would have thought, since the author's background and expertise is history that he would have noticed that myth is often mistaken for truth and thus, to the common man is not imagination, but fact.  He then makes quite a bold statement, "in myth and ritual the great instinctive forces of civilized life have their origin... rooted in the primaeval soil of play.'

Huizinga then goes through several examples to prove the point that play is not the opposite of seriousness.  The first example he looks at is laughter and makes the point that chess is play, yet one has no inclination to laugh during it.  He next looks at the comic himself.  Even though the comic may induce to laughter, he does not play.  The author also makes the surprising revelation that the mimicry and laughter-provoking  art of the clown can not be termed genuine play.  In my humble opinion, the clown invites his audience to make-believe with him or her for a period of time.  Thus, the clown is in a constant state of play in my opinion.  Not so according to Huizinga.  He concludes these examples by making some points about play:

• Play is not reducible to other terms.
  
• Play has no moral function.

Huizinga goes on to evaluate whether play can be considered an aesthetic.  He concludes that play has some aspects of beauty, most notably rhythm and harmony, but beauty is not not inherent in play.  Thus do we come to another point about play:

• Play must remain distinct from all the other forms of thought in which we express the structure of mental and social life.

Huizinga then confines himself to examining the characteristics of play.  

• Play is a voluntary activity.
  

Play can never be forced upon someone else.  It is never imposed by physical necessity or moral duty.  

• Play is not "ordinary" or "real" life.

Play is a temporary sphere of activity with a disposition all its own.  It interrupts the flow of desire and fulfillment.  Play is an activity that is satisfying in itself.

• Play is limited by a certain place and time.

Play has a duration.  Huizinga states that one of the underlying elements of play is repetition and alternation.  While I agree that play is only for a limited amount of time, I believe that the most enjoyment is found in the first time that play occurs and that repetition of play reduces its enjoyability.  If a play is repeated in exactly the same way as previously, then the fun quality of play has been reduced or lost. 

 

Huizinga calls the limited space that play take place in the "magic circle".  Within this magic circle an absolute order or temporary perfection is set up.   There is a tension that is found in play and the player is striving to relieve that tension.  Oddly enough, this tension Huizinga speaks of seems very similar to the biological explanation that he dismissed earlier in the reading.  In speaking of this tension, this testing, the author refers to a testing of the player's "spiritual powers" in that he even though he wants to win, he still must stick to the rules.  It would seem then, that Huizinga has pigeon holed all things spiritual as following a set of rules or procedures.  What he fails to realize is that not all things spiritual are about rules.  For example, Christianity is about relationship, not rules.  Rules are very important to play and are binding.  When they are broken, according to Huizinga, then play is shattered and brought crashing back to reality.  

The play community tends to become lasting.  The sharing of mutually withdrawing from the rest of the world and rejecting the usually norms, retains its magic past the individual game.  A question springs to mind, what is the difference between criminals and players?  Both reject the usual norms.  

To sum up, play is "a free activity standing quite consciously outside 'ordinary' life as being 'not serious', but at the same time absorbing the the player intensely and utterly.  It is an activity connected with no material  interest, and no profit can be gained by it.  It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and and pace according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of  social groupings which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress thier difference from the comon world by disguise or other means."  

Huizinga points out that play is usually found in two forms: a contest or a representation.  He then attempts to compare ritual and religion to play, but in so doing, he defies his own definition which he has labored so hard to come to.  For example, he says that religion has lasting effects outside the magic circle.  Earlier, he told us that play is confined to the magic circle and if the circle is broken, then play is shattered.   Huizinga belabors this fact for several pages.  Let me remind the reader that Huizinga's area of expertise is history, not theology.  It is obvious to the conscientious reader that the hidden agenda of Huizinga is to attack religion in a roundabout way. Once Huizinga has explained away the ritualistic religion, it is only a hop, skip and a jump away from dismissing the major religions of today. I could continue to show you Huizinga's attacks point for point, but at this point your eyes are probably glazing over.  While Huizinga did have some good ideas about play, I find it hard to take him seriously when he goes against his own argument.  Sorry Huizinga, go back to the books, rethink your position and come back to us when you have thought it through a little more thoroughly. 

So, I  am taking a class this semester that is all about play.  So what is play? When we were children we would play together.  Do we as adults still "play"?  What are the elements of play? Do we lose our sense of play when we lose our childhood innocence?  These are questions that seem to jump out at me when I consider this topic.   

I think play is a type of interaction in which certain conventions are observed.  I am of the opinion that there are 2 different types of play which I will call 'make believe' and games.  

During make believe play, ideas have no bounds and are not limited by the natural laws (i.e. gravity) or conventions (i.e. a tennis racquet is used to hit a ball)  that would normally hold them back.  In this type of play objects have no symbolism or associations attached to them.  Thus, a cardboard box can become a fort, a spaceship, a tunnel or anything the players wish it to be.  However, once an object is given a function in make believe, if others want to enter in on the experience they must recognize the function of the object.  To return to the example of the box, if the players says it is a house, then for the duration of the make believe, the cardboard box must be recognized as a house by anyone wishing to enter into the make believe.  If these conventions of make believe are not followed, then conflicting make believes will cause the play to slow or come to a halt.  

Make believe play is also not bounded by geography.  The area of play can be as big or small as the players choose, but is not limited to this arbitrary bound.  Thus the area of play encompasses everything.  There may be pockets were the play is not recognized either by those wishing not to participate in the play, or to ensure the safety of the players, but these limits are merely to make sure that those not part of the make believe are not impinged upon, not to limit the players.  

Game play has a different set of conventions.  One of the conventions is that there are rules set out at the beginning of play that must be followed by all the players.  Also, a boundary is set that encompasses the game.  When a player leaves this boundary, they are no longer a part of the game.  Game play is also characterized by an objective that is recognized by all the players.  This objective can vary according to the game, but examples include get to a certain place first, not be tagged it,  gain the most points, etc.  The objective is usually set forth and adhered to at the beginning of the game and does not change throughout the game.  The type of actions that are a part of this play are thus determined by these limits: rules, boundaries, and objective.  

Thus, when one considers these two types of play, there are certain areas of our adult lives that might be considered play.  For example, artist and inventors sometimes enter into make believe play.  The products created from these actions thus have a special significance for the player: a physical memory of the game.  

Some of the ways that this author plays are video games, exploration either of the internet or otherwise, puzzles such as sudoku, etc. 

Alternate reality games (ARG) are games that blur the distinction between the digital world and actually reality. This leaves me with an ethical question of what happens when negative consequences happen in the real world because of what has happened in an ARG? Who is responsible for the consequences, if any, of the ARG? Since a major element of these games is creation through group consiousness, this makes it extremely easy for something to happen and to have a dispursal of responsibility.

One of the other factors I find disheartening is that these games are designed in such a way that they can only be experienced in their fullest capacity during the run of the campaign. After the campaign is over, there are those who wish they could have participated, but can not simply because there are elements of the ARG that are no longer available or are not being maned.

The first ARG created for massive public participation was a murder mystery problem solving game that was released in 2001. It was called "The Beast". It was the first time a game of this type attracted significant mainstream media and public interest. Besides the fact that the name reminds me of the book of Revelation found in the Bible, the fact that there is a blurring between fiction and reality causes me to pause.

ARG's have several elements that designate them:

• a compelling storyline and collaborative game play
• gamers interact and collaborate to construct an eventual ending to the story
• sustains player interest by generating new content based on the constantly updated state of the game

New ARG's are experimenting with real-world and political topics, but they are still mainly a way of indirectly delivering a message. Whether that message is buy this or that product or to raise awareness about some situation, these ARG's effect us in ways that we may not realize. They may seem like play and it is all fun and games until someone gets hurt.