In school, I asked a group of children if they wanted to play "Hot
Bread and Butter." The response was enthusiastic and unanimous.
I brought out a Boffer, which is part of a set of plastic foam swords.
There were a few mutters of disapproval. I asked what was wrong and
one of the boys told me that I was supposed to use a belt. In my best
voice of adult wisdom, I expounded on the Dangers of Belts. I then rolled
up a section of newspaper. More mutters.
"All right," I said, we'll try a belt. But first, whoever
doesn't want to play, whoever realizes how dangerous a belt can be,
move up to the Safe Area." No one moved. "You all understand
what I mean," I said. "It's really O.K. to watch a game if
you want. A belt can really hurt. I'll just wait a little longer to
see if anyone wants to change his mind." I waited. "I'll go
out of the room and come back." I went and come back. No one had
moved. And then we played a game - with the belt.
This was the first and clearest lesson I learned about the nature
of social games as simulations. I realized the belt was crucial to the
game - not because of tradition, but because of the real power it represented.
The possibility, the potential for danger had to be there for the game
to be fun.
"Hot Bread and Butter" is not played to simulate or
gain insight into other cultures. It is played because 1) it is fun,
and 2) because it simulates a social theme which is becoming evident
to the society of children who play it.
I have learned to see games as social fantasies. They are, to me,
recurrent dreams in which certain themes are being toyed with - investigated
and manipulated for the sake of some future reintegration into a world
view. They are reconstructions of relationships - simulations - which
are guided by individual players, instituted by the groups in which
they are played or abstracted by the traditions of generations of children.
In "Hot Bread and Butter" you gain power through risk and
luck - not through direct confrontation - but only once the power has
already been abdicated. As a child grows towards adulthood, he is approaching
the time in which adult power is left to him - if he can take it. It
is the opportunity that he must seize, not the person that he must confront.
The power of the adult cannot be taken from an adult, it must be discovered
within the person of the child.
Most children who play "Hot Bread and
Butter" are between
the ages of nine and fourteen. When I tried to play it with younger
children, the equilibrium was lost. Many children didn't leave the base.
Those who found the belt either hit too hard or spent the round trying
to keep the belt for themselves. I had to teach the game I had to control.
I had a lousy time, and so did most of the children. "Hide and
Seek" however, which is related in structure to "Hot Bread
and Butter." was a total success.
In other words, when children chose to play a particular game - when
they establish a contract for what they are going to play with - they
do so because the game is related to other experiences, because it provides
them with a platform upon which they can create and explore a model
which helps them define their relationship to other experiences, experiences
which they are beginning to perceive as themes in their daily lives.
They call this pursuit "Fun."
They play with toys because toys are models in which they can explore
their relationships to their physical environment. They play with games
because games are the only vehicle they have available to them in which
they can explore their relationships to the social environment. When
the problem of the game is solved, when you know what to do to win,
the social fantasy is ended and the game is no longer fun. Fun is present
when the possibility of win is as great as the possibility of loss;
when the challenge is strongest; when opportunities to learn are widest.
When a game is won, it is over. Winning and fun are not always congruent.
When a game is won repeatedly, it is abandoned. When there is nothing
more to learn, there is nothing more worth playing.
