“Even in its simplest forms on the animal level, play is more than a mere physiological phenomenon or psychological reflex. It goes beyond the confines of purely physical or purely biological activity. It is a significant function - that is to say, there is some sense to it. In play there is something “at play” which transcends the immediate needs of life and imparts meaning to the action. All play means something.”
-Johann Huizinga, Homo Ludens 

If all play has meaning, then how exactly are play and meaning related?

Rules of Play does a wonderful job of avoiding this question by suggesting a bunch of unsatisfying and superficial interpretations without providing an opinion of its own beyond two definitions for meaningful play. This is a term I believe they created for this text, and one I’m not wholly comfortable appropriating. Regardless, it will help us to explore the definitions:

(1) Meaningful play in a game emerges from the relationship between player action and system outcome; it is the process by which a player takes action within the designed system of a game and the system responds to the action. The meaning of an action in a game resides in the relationship between action and outcome.

(2) Meaningful play occurs when the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernible and integrated into the larger context of the game. Creating meaningful play is the goal of successful game design.

First of all, the line “Creating meaningful play is the goal of successful game design” betrays how loaded this term is. They’re trying to lump the entirety of game design into one term, which makes me wonder how useful it can be. Without explaining what they believe successful game design looks like (outside of the recursive “it looks like meaningful play”) I find it hard to trust the term.

What’s more, have we forgotten Huizinga? “All play means something.” Therefor the idea of meaningful play is itself a bit meaningless, because there is no meaningless play. There is only play.

That said, lets put it aside and take another look at the definitions. The first one gives us the location of meaningful play; it does not originate from either the player or the system (the game), rather it emerges* between the player and the system - within their interaction. 

The second definition gives meaningful play its necessary context. It cannot exist unless the player is able to discern [and I would add, ‘find meaning in’] his relationship to the system AND understand how this relationship is integrated into the larger system.

That a player is able to discern his relationship to the system sounds like a clarification to the first definition, adding to it “and the player understands how this is happening.” That a player understands how this is integrated into a larger system, that is the grand transition that links this term with games. 

But as I’ve said, this is a mudded term. So I propose a new starting point. I propose splitting meaningful play into two terms, play and meaningful choice. 

Play, if we’re to take Huizinga’s definition, is necessarily meaningful. It requires that the player has an intelligent understanding of the relationship between its actions and the outcomes those actions create within the system. This is true for all play. From puppies chasing each other to snowball fights. Additionally, and somewhat tangentially, this means that our ability to recognize play in others is contingent on our ability to recognize them as sufficiently intelligent. (This holds true for me anecdotally and intuitively at the very least).

If we want to arrive at games, this is only half of the equation. We also need meaningful choice, which occurs when actions and outcomes are meaningfully integrated into the larger context of the game. In other words a decision, or choice, must be understandably, or meaningfully, related to something grander than the immediate action being performed. It is the player’s ability to recognize the longer-term effects of their actions which allows for their choice to be meaningful.

I’ll end with an example to try and illustrate my points:

Take a baby in a bathtub. The baby is moving around, compelled by whatever’s going on in its stupid baby head. At some point the baby splashes water across the tub. With some experimentation, the baby learns that by moving its arms in a certain way it can create these splashes. Play occurs only at that moment in which the baby is cognizant that its action (moving its arm) is creating an outcome (the splash). However, this is not a game, because the baby cannot see past its immediate action and the immediate reaction of the system (the tub / water).  

Now the baby is older, and has been given a rubber ducky. The baby is splashing, and notices that the splashes push on the rubber ducky. We’re beginning to enter into the realm of meaningful choice, and admittedly the delineation isn’t clear. However, at some point the baby learns that by making a series of splashes (immediate action/outcome), it can move the rubber to different places within the tub (long term effects on the system).

There it is! I invite all of the arguments you can levy against me.

*emergence is one of the most fascinating concepts I’ve come across, and has significant value for game design - in fact, I think a formalized game design theory could give us further insight into the nature of emergence. Perhaps I’ll write a post about it. Until then, check out this radiolab for an entertaining and awe inspiring introduction.