Lain

"Play" is usually associated with "game" - many people even use these terms interchangeably in non-academic settings. To situate this article within the literacy, rhetoric and education field of studies, as well as to facilitate following discussions in this article, I adopt Wariya's distinction of the two concepts: "While games can be described as a context of rules, space, people, materials, and valorized outcomes, play is an activity or way of moving about that context." (Wariya, 2017) In a narrow sense, game refers to the context in which play is made possible and could happen, while play refers to the activity (that happens within the scope afforded by game). "Play" always take place in a context - in many cases, "game" itself is the context. 

Is "play" arbitrary and dictated by the will of the players? To a certain degree, yes. Players are given the freedom to choose how they want to achieve the goal, which Gee refers to as "multiple routes principle" (Gee, 2003). On the other hand, whatever actions players take are afforded by the game - which means the game also constrains players' actions. Wariya (2017) further argues that "play is meaningful due to its situated-ness within specific rule-bound contexts", which implies that player's actions only become meaningful when it situates within a context. By exploiting what's available or affordable in the game (be it rules, other players, game-related instruments, etc. ) and being constrained and "persuaded" (Bogost, 2007; Gee, 2005) by the game and the social context in which the game is embedded, play happens as interactions between the player and the larger contexts (e.g. other players and players' communities, the game and ideology behind the game, technological setting that makes everything possible)