Imagine a neighborhood group playing together. To make the example more specific, imagine a game of baseball—not a little-league game run by coaches and umpires, which is not fully play, but a mixed-age pickup game run by the players themselves. The stated goal of each player might be to win, but the real goals are to keep the game going, play well (as defined by each person’s own standards), and enjoy a shared activity. The score might be kept, but in the end nobody cares about the score. Even though the game is nominally competitive, it is really a cooperative game in which all of the players, regardless of which team they are on, strive together to make the game last and to keep it fun. Players may even move from one team to another, to keep the teams balanced, as the game progresses. So, it is appropriate to think of all of the players as one play group, not two teams pitted against one another.
A basic characteristic of any social game, if it is really play, is that participation is optional; anyone who wants to leave can do so at any time. Freedom to quit is the most basic freedom in all true play (see Definitions of Play). Since the game requires a certain number of players, everyone who wants the game to continue is motivated to keep the other players happy so they don’t leave. This has a number of implications, which are intuitively understood by most players.
One implication is that players must not dominate or bully other players, because people who feel dominated will quit. Another implication is that players must attempt to satisfy the needs and wishes of all the other players, at least sufficiently to keep them from quitting. In this sense, each person, regardless of ability, must be deemed equally worthy. If Marc, Mike, and Mary all want to pitch, the team might let each have a turn at pitching, even though their chance of winning would be better if Henry did all the pitching. Whoever is pitching, that person will almost certainly throw more softly to little Billy, who is a novice, than to big, experienced Jerome. When Jerome is up, the pitcher shows his best stuff, not just because he wants to get Jerome out, but also because anything less would be insulting to Jerome. The golden rule of social play is not, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Rather, it is, Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. The equality of play is not the equality of sameness, but the equality that comes from granting equal validity to the unique needs and wishes of every player.
In any given pick-up game, some people will be better players than others. There will be a tendency for the better players to dominate—to make all the rules, to give orders to others, and so on. However, if they do that, or do it too obviously, the others will quit. So, to the degree that the better players lead, they must learn to do so without dominating, without destroying the other players’ sense of choice. The better players must also be careful not to flaunt their superior play. If they flaunt their ability, others may feel belittled and may quit. To keep the game going, players who intuitively understand these rules of play may develop leveling strategies, aimed at preventing anyone from flaunting their ability or behaving in a domineering manner. For example, such displays may be ridiculed, or mocked, with the aim of bringing the overly proud person down a peg or two.
Sharing is also crucial to the game. Some people may come with a baseball glove and/ or a bat, and others may come with nothing. An implicit rule is that all such materials are common property for the duration of the game. The catcher will use whatever catcher’s mitt is available, the fielders will use whatever gloves are available, depending in part on the position they are playing, and each batter is free to choose from any of the bats.
As the game progresses, rules may be modified at any time, to make the game more fun and allow it to continue. Anyone can propose a new rule, but to become a rule all players must accept it. In other words, decision-making in social play is by consensus. Consensus doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree that the new rule is the best rule possible. It only means that everyone consents to the rule, that is, they are happy enough with it that they aren’t going to walk away from the game because of it. Often a great deal of discussion and compromise is required to reach such consensus. A simple majority vote wouldn’t suffice, because in that case the minority might feel unhappy and quit; and, again, if too many quit the game is over.
In sum, the key elements that underlie social relationships and governance in a well-operating social game are (1) voluntary participation, with attendant freedom to quit at any time; (2) allowance for much individual autonomy, within the rules of the game; (3) equal treatment of all players, not in the sense of treating them all the same, but in the sense of taking their needs equally into account; (4) obligatory sharing of game-related materials; and (5) consensual decision making. Of these characteristics, the first is the most basic. The freedom of each player to quit is what ensures that those who want the game to continue will behave in ways consistent with the remaining four elements. If players were compelled to stay in the game, then the more powerful players could dominate, and the autonomy, equality, sharing, and consensual decision-making would be lost.
The quote is part of a much longer work by Dr. Peter Gray (of and from whom we have oft-heard and I have oft-writ) in his article Play as a Foundation for Hunter-Gatherer Social Existence. I have copied it from a condensed version cheerfully provided to us from the Scholarpedia. Share my awe.
