University of Nevada, Reno

Adult Spaces of Play: Board Game Bars as Affinity Spaces

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Geography

by Walter E. Brediger, III Dr. Jessie Clark, Thesis Advisor May 2021 Copyright by Walter E. Brediger, III 2018 All Rights Reserved THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by

entitled

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Advisor

Committee Member

Graduate School Representative

David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean Graduate School

i

Abstract

Gaming spaces such as board game cafes and bars are a new addition to the urban landscape (CMON, 2016), indicating a shift in the geography of tabletop gaming away from living rooms and retail backrooms towards in-person interactions in public settings.

However, geographic research on the use of these new play-centric, largely adult spaces is sparse. Likewise, while there is abundant literature on the definition of play and its function in learning and development for children, there is markedly less scholarship on play and its functions for adults. Drawing on interviews and participant-observation of patrons in a board game bar in Reno, Nevada, this paper explores how people participate in and make use of adult spaces of tabletop play, the nature of the relationships enacted in these spaces, and the meanings and knowledges formed within and taken from these spaces. This paper argues that board game bars can be understood as “affinity spaces,” an extension of Gee’s semiotic social spaces (Gee, 2005) that center and create social relationships around acts of shared interest, in this case, tabletop gaming. Through the concept of affinity space, interview and observation results show that the board game bar serves as a vital urban space and a unique site of informal learning through adult play. ii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... i

Table of Contents ...... ii

Introduction ...... 1

Literature Review...... 5

Play in the Formation of the Self and the Social ...... 6

The Social Qualities of Adult Play ...... 12

Geographies and Spaces of Play ...... 19

Framing Spaces of Adult Play: Affinity Spaces ...... 25

Methodology ...... 33

Researcher Background ...... 34

Setting ...... 34

Data Collection ...... 35

Participants ...... 36

Data Analysis ...... 37

Limitations ...... 38

Results and Discussion ...... 38

Results and Discussion I: Social Dynamics & Participation ...... 41

“My chosen family”: Common endeavor, not race, class, gender or disability is

primary...... 43 iii

“Playing with randos”: Newbies and masters and everyone else share common space.

...... 48

“In this place where I could use my mind”: Some portals are strong generators...... 55

“Tell a story together”: Internal grammar is transformed by external grammar ...... 60

Results and Discussion II: Learning & Knowledge ...... 65

“Reading a rulebook”: Encouraging intensive and extensive knowledge ...... 68

“Creativity and exploration”: Encourages individual and distributed knowledge ...... 70

“Oh, I’ve heard of this game”: Encourages dispersed knowledge ...... 74

“It's like a compost heap”: Uses and honors tacit knowledge ...... 76

Results and Discussion III: Mastery & Influence ...... 79

“Depending on what I need at that given time”: Many different forms and routes to

participation ...... 81

“I just wanted to see if we could get a radio show on the air”: Lots of different routes

to status...... 86

“I watch the experts”: Leadership is porous and leaders are resources...... 90

Conclusion ...... 93

References ...... 98

Appendix ...... 106

List of Tables Table 1. Interview Participants ……………………………….…………………………37 1

Introduction

You start your adventure in a local tavern. A little cliché, but it’s a trope for a reason. However, this is no ordinary watering hole. Upon your table, crowding your party’s mugs of ale and cups of mead precariously outward towards the edge, lays an unfolded map, itself cluttered with an array of cards and figurines, dice and tokens. The rules-laden pamphlet sits just out of reach. Isn’t it always though? The tables scattered around yours are in a similar state of contained disarray, encircled by other patrons talking amongst themselves. The din of spirited conversation and friendly (or occasionally contentious) competition fill the air as you contemplate your next move. It’ll be a challenge, but if the dice roll in your favor and you pull that perfect card, you might be able to eke out a win. It’s also getting late on a Tuesday night, so you should probably start wrapping this game up. You’ve got work in the morning.

This is the occasional scene at The Glass Die, Reno, Nevada’s only tabletop gaming bar. Those three words, tabletop gaming bar, are not often strung together.

Simply put, The Glass Die is a bar whose central draw is not the alcoholic beverages but rather the host of boardgames and roleplaying games for patrons to use and the space to play them. This interesting combination of game space and bar opened its doors in April

2017 and has only grown in popularity since (Fung, 2017; Lovato, 2017). The Glass Die and similar establishments (bars, cafes, and restaurants) that focus on tabletop gaming have sporadically been popping up in various metropolitan areas for well over a decade

(Barton, 2018; CMON Games, 2016; Cross, 2017; Formichelli, 2017; Jolin, 2016;

Schank, 2014; Wetli, 2020). In taverns and restaurants where tattered boardgame boxes missing pieces and grease-stained cards reside, the games were an afterthought. Tabletop 2 gaming spaces celebrate the creativity and craft of both the modern classics and the latest releases in tabletop gaming and speak to a growing popularity of real-time, real-space gaming within the American populace.

The arrival of these new gaming spaces on the urban landscape is connected to trends in the hobby itself. Over the past two decades, tabletop gaming has experienced a renaissance of sorts with the number of new boardgame titles, collectible card games, and role-playing game systems steadily increasing each year (BBC News, 2019; Cross, 2017;

ICv2, 2013, 2014; Jolin, 2016; Q. Smith, 2013; Team Building Kits, 2019; The

Economist, 2018). Many tabletop hobbyists believe this popularity and innovation trend began around the time the third edition of Settlers of Catan was released in 19971. As to why the tabletop gaming hobby has seen such an increase in popularity, there are a range of theories. The news articles and industry blogs referenced suggest theme and design improvements, rules accessibility, and Internet word-of mouth as potential drivers of this newfound popularity. Others identify a desire to return to in-person and interpersonal gaming, a counterpoint to the often solitary or skewed multi-play experience of most video game titles, a popular gaming option in recent decades and the most attended-to dimension of contemporary gaming in the geography literature (Jolin, 2016; Q. Smith,

2013; Team Building Kits, 2019; “The Rise of Board Games in Today’s Tech-Dominated

Culture,” 2020). Tabletop gaming establishments like The Glass Die allow for patrons to gather with friends for a few hours, to reconnect and interact, to break from their structured day, and to just play a game. But it is the act of play, specifically adult play,

1 You might say it was a game-changer. 3 that turns The Glass Die from a simple drinking establishment with boardgames into a site of socio-spatial significance. The interpersonal dynamics and shared experiences, the individual and collective stories that unfold, and the connections made among patrons through the act of play, all speak to the social consequence of play and these play spaces.

As an academic topic, play is paradoxical. From education to psychology, sociology to geography, play research forms an expansive body of knowledge that expounds upon its benefits, defends against its detractors, and yet still struggles to find a succinct definition for itself. Just starting a sentence with “Play is…” creates a kaleidoscope of coinciding and contradictory possibilities. Playing is perhaps best defined through its oppositions, out of which meaning is derived; it is at once insignificant and demanding, contrarian and purposeful, frivolous and essential (S. L.

Brown & Vaughan, 2009; Gobet et al., 2004; Henricks, 2015; Huizinga, 1949; Levy,

1978; Stevens, 2007; Woodyer, 2012). There has long been academic interest in the benefits of play within learning and development for children (Holloway & Pimlott-

Wilson, 2014; Holt et al., 2015; McKendrick et al., 2015; Skelton, 2009), even as far back as Plato (Hunnicutt, 1990). However, the dominant perception of play in contemporary western society is that play is the work of children, at best unworthy of adult attention, or at worst making adults who engage in it unworthy themselves

(Deterding, 2018). More recently, as leisure activities like gaming activities have grown more popular, videogames and online play have garnered increasing academic observation, beginning a shift in attention away from child’s play to a more age-neutral perspective (Ash & Gallacher, 2011; A. Shaw, 2012; I. G. R. Shaw & Warf, 2009).

Although there is recognition that play persists as an activity people engage in even into 4 adulthood, play’s childish connections have continued to limit geography’s engagement with the subject (Woodyer, 2012). While geography researchers have begun looking into such locations, the subject of play still remains in the geographic fringes. Consequently, spaces of play like The Glass Die and other tabletop gaming establishments have yet to be given academic consideration in geographic literature.

This paper seeks to address this gap within spaces of play literature by studying

The Glass Die, a tabletop gaming bar in Reno, Nevada. To assess the geographical importance of these spaces, I use the work of James Paul Gee in educational studies and his concept of affinity spaces (2005) to frame the social dynamics that create a site of geographic significance. Gee proposed affinity spaces as an alternative to the widely used concept in education of communities of practice, informal learning collectives that form socially around unique subject matters (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Whereas communities of practice are grounded in a socially-dominant framework, affinity spaces foreground the production of space (Gee, 2005) reflecting the long-held view in geography that space is socially-constructed, produced at the confluence of relationships and space (Massey, 1991; Massey & Allen, 1984). With both geographic and educational perspectives informing this project, the following research questions laid the foundation from which the interviews and observations were approached:

 How do people participate in and make use of these adult spaces of play?

 How is knowledge created and distributed within these spaces and amongst

participants?

 How do participants contribute to and support the playful intention of these

spaces? 5

Literature Review

Contemporary discussions about play, in particular adult play, are often grounded in the idea of homo ludens, “the playing man.” Coined by Dutch cultural historian, Johan

Huizinga (1949), the term describes one of the core facets of human existence, play and its central role in shaping cultural experiences. Ultimately, Huizinga proposes that homo ludens creates culture through play, taking what is known of the self and the surrounding world and bringing into existence new social realities through performative engagement.

It is within these new realities that homo ludens learns about themselves and their world, what can be accomplished, what can be attempted, and what can be aspired to. This paper seeks to explore adult spaces of play, through the lens of the board game bar, a space in which homo ludens is given free rein to socially connect, self-discover, and create.

Still, what exactly is play? In its most basic definition, to play is to “engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose”

(Lexico.com, n.d.). From peek-a-boo to hide-and-seek, from checkers to chess, from Go

Fish to poker, from dodgeball to football, from Pac-Man to World of Warcraft, from pretend play to Dungeons & Dragons, play covers a wide range of activities. As an academic topic, play has seen increasing attention over the past century, with the past few decades contributing the vast majority of literature. Indeed, within this body of writing, there is a recognition that play is best defined out of the circumstances through which it emerges, but there are some common characteristics shared by all. Key among these is that, by its very nature, play is a contradiction. "To play means to accept the paradox of what is at once essential and inconsequential” (Levy, 1978). While some authors 6 acknowledge play as a frivolous and seemingly pointless mental and/or physical activity, they also attest to the deep meaning created from play:

We can say: play is non-seriousness. But apart from the fact that this proposition tells us nothing about the positive qualities of play, it is extraordinarily easy to refute. As soon as we proceed from "play is non-seriousness" to "play is not serious", the contrast leaves us in the lurch-for some play can be very serious indeed. (Huizinga, 1949, p. 5)

Likewise, Stuart Brown and Christopher Vaughan (2009) ultimately considered play to be “apparently purposeless,” but not meaningless as they expound upon the neurological benefits of play in social creatures for development and survival. Although play can be described as doing something without purpose or as having no direct benefit or profit, the over-simplicity of such definitions belies the profound impact that play can have for the player. Most writers on play recognize and praise this contradictory duality as an essential function of play for the human condition (S. L. Brown & Vaughan, 2009;

Henricks, 2015; Huizinga, 1949; Levy, 1978), for indeed, it is in this space of vital inconsequence that homo ludens does their work.

Play in the Formation of the Self and the Social

As the figure of homo ludens attests, play is an important feature of both individual and social development. Homo ludens is implicated in a process of self and social exploration and making. As this section will investigate, play opens the mind to the possibilities of new realities, and the act of play exposes homo ludens to the expanses of their own mind and the potential of the world around them. To play is to learn about the possibilities of self and society.

The impacts of play on self-development have been explored across numerous academic fields over the past several decades - psychology, economics, education, and 7 geography, to name a few. However, philosophical discussions on the subject of play range as far back as the ancient Greeks. Benjamin Kline Hunnicutt (1990), revising the work of earlier scholars like Dewey, Kant, and Kraus revisited how Plato incorporated play and leisure into his teachings of philosophy. On close examination of Plato’s writings, Hunnicutt saw a hierarchy of concepts from leisure to work, a spectrum of freedom and what that freedom allowed. Hunnicutt contended that Plato viewed all work

(menial to craftsman) as a means to an end. “With Aristotle, he believed that work, duties, and obligatory tasks were important not just because they provided necessities or fulfilled duties. They were most valuable because they led to a higher purpose, i.e., escaping necessity into leisure” (1990). According to Plato (and later Aristotle), leisure allowed for individuals to detach from their daily drudgery and devote time to contemplating the Truth and seeking the Good, an effort best accomplished when transcending the mundane and routine, namely through play. This framework informed

Plato’s methods of teaching both children and adults. For the instruction of children, he held firmly that play must be an essential component to engage their enthusiasm and capacity for discovery, Hunnicut writes.

Plato's pedagogical plan was simple: to "turn the eye of the student’s soul” to the Good, followed naturally by the learner's playful leaping after the transcendent vision. But this joyful, inspired learning needed to be controlled and pointed in the right direction from time to time by the discipline of bounded play (Hunnicutt, 1990).

For Plato, guided play was an essential part of helping children become ethical beings.

Plato recognized the necessity of policing a child’s over-enthusiasm lest their adventures lead them astray and interfere with the learning process. Plato’s views on play as pedagogy recognized that play is most productive in the confines of a moderately 8 managed environment, one that allows for the safe engagement of new ideas, whether that be in the context of a lesson or, in this case, of a board game. The “playful leaping” of students in their natural learning passions could be guided to pursue good and noble educational endeavors.

Plato did not limit his discussions of play to children, however. According to

Hunnicut (1990), Plato felt adults needed to rediscover play in order to learn philosophical truths that lay at the heart of the social and natural world. “…Adults were attracted to and taught by a reality always transcending the human and the civil planes”

(Hunnicutt, 1990, p. 218). In order to find the transcendent reality where truth exists, adults had to disengage from the concrete and superficial reality of their daily lives. For both children and adults, Plato recognized play as the means to achieve that transcendent thought, to contemplate the Truth of the world, and to achieve the goals of education for more enlightened and informed living. In this regard, play does not simply form and shape the self, but also society.

More contemporary explorations of the topic are rediscovering the importance of this play-induced detachment while at the same time contextualizing play within the realities of the modern social world. Cultural historian Johan Huizinga asserted in Homo

Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture (1949) that play is an intrinsic component in the production of culture. Huizinga echoed Plato’s opinion that play’s innate transcending of reality is what enables the activity’s effectiveness. “From the point of view of a world wholly determined by the operation of blind forces, play would be altogether superfluous. Play only becomes possible, thinkable and understandable when an influx of mind breaks down the absolute determinism of the cosmos” (Huizinga, 1949, 9 stress in original). By his logic, since animals play, it is clear that they are more than simple stimulus-response automatons, and even further, humans acknowledge in their own play that they are transcending their own rational minds. According to Huizinga, it is this detachment from reality, along with the recursively informative and influencing nature of play, that ultimately forms culture.

While it is in progress all is movement, change, alternation, succession, association, separation. But immediately connected with its limitation as to time there is a further curious feature of play: it at once assumes fixed form as a cultural phenomenon. Once played, it endures as a new-found creation of the mind, a treasure to be retained by the memory. It is transmitted, it becomes tradition. It can be repeated at any time, whether it be "child's play" or a game of chess, or at fixed intervals like a mystery. In this faculty of repetition lies one of the most essential qualities of play. It holds good not only of play as a whole but also of its inner structure (Huizinga, 1949).

Huizinga asserts that culture is slowly invented and amended over time through creative performance. Play assists in forming the social. Through these incremental ritualizations of “serious” play, the structures and customs of a society are formed via the consent of all involved in the activity. Within this enaction of play, cultural themes are tested, assessed, and practiced, and upon their conclusion, participants and their worlds are changed by the collective experience. This was Huizinga’s concept of the “playing man” creating the very circumstances – rules, principles, values – within which homo ludens existed. Play is a fundamentally democratic process.

However, play’s significance is even more integral to living beings than the transcendent and transformative imperatives proposed by Plato and Huizinga. Brown and

Vaughan (2009) more recently explored the biological implications of play for humans and other animals. According to their own research, play was as vital as sleep and nutrition. Despite their own ready acknowledgement that play is “apparently 10 purposeless,” they also recognized that “play can be scientifically proven to be useful”

(2009). Brown and Vaughan recounted a 15-year study of Alaskan grizzlies and their play activities. The data accumulated from that study, though cumbersome and extensive, pointed towards unmistakable play behaviors and their consequences. Ultimately, it was determined “that the bears that played the most were the ones who survived best. This is true despite the fact that playing takes away time, attention, and energy from activities like eating, which seem at first glance to contribute more to the bears’ survival” (2009).

Certainly, this statement would seem contradictory to the imperatives of evolution, that only activities which directly strengthen a creature’s survival would carry forward into succeeding generations. And yet if play is by its very nature a purposeless endeavor, why do most social creatures engage in the activity? What is it about the act of play that improves survivability? As Brown and Vaughan further attest, “Play lets animals learn about their environment and the rules of engagement with friend and foe. Playful interaction allows a penalty-free rehearsal of the normal give-and-take necessary in social groups” (2009). Ultimately, they concluded that the more animals play, the smarter they are (2009). Brown and Vaughan make the case that social animals depend upon play to learn how to be and survive in the world through play-fighting and exploration in a way that minimizes risk. This is a similar thought process to Plato’s assertions that the best way to learn about the truths of life and the universe is to play through the arguments.

Brown and Vaughan contend that human play offers a means for children – and adults – to prepare for the future and ultimately see it as a path towards self-actualization.

For humans, creating such simulations of life may be play’s most valuable benefit. In play we can imagine and experience situations we have never encountered before and learn from them. We can create possibilities that have 11

never existed but may in the future. We make new cognitive connections that find their way into our everyday lives. We can learn lessons and skills without being directly at risk (S. L. Brown & Vaughan, 2009).

By envisioning play as a teaching methodology, Brown and Vaughan recontextualize the activity from a frivolous distraction into a vibrant and essential component of life. Like

Plato, Brown and Vaughan show that teaches the players about their world and themselves, preparing them for the problems they may face and offering a versatility and flexibility in solving unexpected challenges. Brown and Vaughan approached their exploration from the perspective of the benefits to the individual despite the highly social nature of the activity, but play is beneficial for creating social bonds as well.

Thomas Henricks’s Play and the Human Condition (2015) attempted to consolidate the dispersed literatures of play from across those many fields of study, to bring into focus the current state of play studies. Like the earlier authors, he readily acknowledged play’s inherent paradox: it is at once intentionally unimportant and innately essential. However, Henrick’s also focused heavily on the highly social nature of play and how individuals form their collective play. “Creatures signify to one another that they wish to engage in a certain pattern of behavior and that they will recognize one another as worthy comrades in that endeavor. Behavior arises from mutual consent”

(Henricks, 2015, 29). As insinuated so far within this section on play and the self, there are often certain rules of engagement when it comes to play, including the consent of those involved and a consensus on the restrictions of their play. Indeed, this interpersonal dynamic is maintained throughout the play activity, both among the players involved and with regard to the cultural structures that are being practiced. “In other words, creatures at play do not simply express themselves; they communicate. Any claim that players are 12 constructive (or, by contrast, destructive) is based on the premise that they are responding to and often reassembling well-established (and quite real) elements of the world”

(Henricks, 2015, 26). As Huizinga indicated, this play with established cultural practices challenges those practices during the process, allowing those players to determine if anything needs to be changed. Similarly, under the assumption that play is a creative space, Henricks asserts that invention is a form of play (probably borne out of necessity according to the adage). “Indeed, we produce best when we are freed from direct necessity. By making things and then regarding what we've made, we reach conclusions about our capabilities and about our proper standing in the world” (Henricks, 2015, 3).

Aside from testing themselves and the societal structures around them, this creative process embedded within play permits those engaged in the activity to improve upon the world.

From self-assessment to cultural practices to invention, the playing man creates.

Through play, homo ludens is able to assess both themselves and the world around them.

They can separate from their preconceptions to question reality and seek greater meaning.

They are able take apart the social structures that govern their lives, engage with them in a hazard-free way, and acknowledge (or potentially change) their relationship with those structures. These worldly observations and self-assessments through play allow homo ludens to establish a highly personalized pedagogical practice, a method of self-education that caters to their desires and strengths. However, homo ludens is not as free to strive towards these efforts as their value and efficacy would suggest.

The Social Qualities of Adult Play 13

Although there has been significant research on the benefits and consistency of play as a powerful and beneficial force for social creatures, including homo ludens, engaging in play is complicated by contemporary social demands that problematize the activity for adults. Maria Montessori is credited with coining the aphorism “play is the work of the child,” however, this has often been interpreted to draw an equivalence between play and work (Elkind, 2009), and it could be argued reinforcing a boundary separating play from adults. Within neo-liberal societies, play is frequently situated opposite of work in regards to adult behavior (Henricks, 2015). Within that paradigm, play is at best a diversion from “proper” adult activities, responsibility and productivity being the preferred ideals. Despite research into the benefits and importance of play for those who engage in it, there exist social stigmas around adult play that influence how, when, and who can play. While Huizinga (1949) described play as a force for cultural formation, other research has acknowledged that the activity is restricted by the cultural and societal bounds from which it originates. Indeed, Henricks (2015) commented on the cultural constrictions surrounding play: “Play's causes and consequences should be seen in terms of the groups that sponsor that activity or even of society as a whole. Although most of us believe that we play just as we wish, those wishes are culturally circumscribed” (2015). While play may indeed be one of the more freeform and freeing activities people engage in, it is simultaneously constructed and informed by the social imperatives of those participating. These restrictions and their consequences play out across multiple social arenas, often along a line that separates child and adult play and relegates play to the sphere of “childhood.” 14

Following Erving Goffman’s (1967, 1974) theories on internalized embarrassment as a consequence of engaging in inappropriate behavior, Sebastian

Deterding (2018) described play as a transgression of societal standards of adult behavior. He listed the expectations placed upon adults.

Adults are expected to fully and independently assess the ramifications of their actions against their own stable values and commitments, and self-regulate their conduct based on that. Second, adults are expected to be independently dependable. They should develop the capacity to sustain themselves and a household of (inter)dependent partners and children. Third, adults are expected to self-determinedly comply with social norms, without sanction or reminder. In short, the identity claim "adult" entails showing stable internal values and commitments; capable self-governance based on those mindful of others and social norms; and a capacity and concern for sustaining oneself and one's dependents. (Deterding, 2018, p. 263)

According to Deterding, the adult role in society is one of dependability and stability, a role that is positioned within an established set of behaviors, rules, and regulations. By its very nature, play is a violation these established codes. For an adult to engage in play, they risk “othering” themselves in the eyes of their peers, bringing into question their mental stability and ability to self-regulate their behavior. Despite the acknowledgment of the benefits of play, certain cultural standards around adulthood preclude the ability for adults to engage in the activity freely. As an internalized embarrassment induced by the watchful eyes of their peers, such stigma is enough to modify their behaviors (Foucault,

1995). Deterding then asserts that the context of one’s play can provide justification for the dispensation of those rules of conduct. Certain activities and criteria legitimize adult play, turning the behavior from a transgression into a respectable pursuit. Baseball and bowling leagues are acceptable past-times for solidifying community relations. Family game nights similarly offer permission by strengthening the family bond. Video game 15 consoles have built-in DVD players, justifying the ownership of such play-focused devices. Public festivals, carnivals, or even Mardi Gras are approved so long as some behavioral standards are maintained and such engagements are prioritized below one’s responsibilities (Deterding, 2018, p. 269). Even though these adult play activities are categorized as “acceptable,” adults are nonetheless required to explain away or manage against any perceived accusations of frivolous behavior.

One way that adults manage the potential public gaze of disapproval for engaging in adult play is through Deterding’s (2018) concept of audience management, a strategy often employed to avoid social embarrassment. Deterding writes that adults will avoid social stigmas by engaging in play activities in locations away from disapproving eyes, spaces that are dedicated to such past-times and surrounded by others also engaged in play. “Just like non-embarrassing play needs the absence of disapproving others, so it is facilitated by present approving ones. The framing of a strip of events as legitimate play requires response-present others to acknowledge its reality through joint enactment or accepting inattention (‘nothing special to see here’)” (Deterding, 2018, p. 271). By forming a collective of individuals around whom there is no threat of social stigma for playing, players are able to create a “safe space” for play. As a tabletop gaming bar, The

Glass Die was explicitly created to serve as such a space, allowing participants to congregate with others engaged in similar playful activities. From my interview with the owner, Jeff, when asked about his motivation to open a bar that operates differently than other bars, where the primary activity is often to drink and be seen, he replied,

This might be my personal bias on it, but it’s almost opposite. You don't want to be seen. You want to fall into this act. I'm investing in this board game. I don't 16

want people to come up to me, other than a quick “Hey, how you doing? Other than that, I want to be invested in the activity (Jeff, 9/18/2020).

For Jeff, the board game bar creates a “secluded” space to engage with the game and with other players. Such safe spaces also recall Plato’s discussion of the moderately managed learning environment that provided guidance and affirmation for students to engage in play.

Despite the fact that adults do play while managing the risks of social stigma, there remains a disconnect between practice and perception in the popular understanding of play and who plays. Writing from a geographic perspective, Tara Woodyer (2012) spoke to the social qualities and stigmas of play when examining the cover image on a

New York Times Magazine headlined “Why do we play?” (Norfolk et al., 2008). Of particular note for Woodyer is that while the magazine’s target audience is adults, there were only images of children playing on the cover. Woodyer attributes this disconnect to the two ways in which play is perceived in popular and academic settings: play as utilitarian, and play as non-instrumental. In the former, play serves to support childhood development (P. K. Smith, 2009), placing childhood and adulthood as the endpoints of an all-too-linear maturation process (Horton & Kraftl, 2006; James et al., 1998). In this perspective, adult play exists only as an inexplicable holdover, problematized as irresponsible behavior as discussed by Deterding (2018). In the second view, play’s non- instrumental nature is seen as irrational and wasteful creativity, with Huizinga (1949),

Caillois (1961), and Schechner (1993) each delineating ways that play is detached from the rational, ultimately pointing at play as inauthentic, frivolous, and dissociated. These two contradictory perspectives on play’s purpose only serves to further muddy its 17 nebulous nature. From this contradiction, Woodyer (2012) suggests that the source of the disconnect in who plays and to what purpose is in how play is perceived, as a thing versus a process: play versus playing. She argues “emphasising the verb rather than the noun stresses there is no discrete event called play, but a more fluid and polymorphous process” (2012). In this light, “playing is not simply an activity undertaken by children… it is fundamental to the human experience across the life course” (2012, p. 322).

Recognizing that playing is threaded through everyday life “liberates playing from the preserve of children” and helps us better understand the role that play, formally and informally, occupies in the space of adulthood.

Woodyer then explores three facets of playing as process from an age- independent perspective. First, playing is commonplace. People quickly slip into the activity and just as readily share it with others. “As a liminoid activity, playing mirrors and refracts aspects of society, thereby rendering them more comprehensible. It is a vehicle for becoming conscious of practices and relationships we enact or engage without thinking” (Woodyer, 2012). These spontaneous instances of play often manifest from the non-play activity or behavior currently engaged in, and through play, analyzes and assesses the structures bound within the instigating activity. Second, playing is political.

Through that play-inspired appraisal of real-life activity there is the potential for a “spark of recognition that things, relations, and selves could be otherwise” (Katz, 2004). Similar to Huizinga’s (1949) assertion that play creates cultural phenomena, and Deterding and

Henrick’s separate discussions regarding play’s social context, Woodyer continues these thought by recognizing such practices and structures are always under constant evaluation from very individualized engagements. Thus, “play creates power from 18 within” (Woodyer, 2012), with the playing individuals challenging and critiquing the values and rules around them. And third, playing exceeds representation. It side-steps rationality and revels in spontaneity. “This is not to say that playing is thoughtless and/or counters rationality. Rather, it prioritises non-cognitive processes and allows a greater role for the irrational” (2012). While playing, people often become “lost in the moment,” dissociating from the rational present, questioning their reality and their role within it, but while also maintaining a firm and reaffirming connection to the self.

These moments of displacing the self as a separate entity constitute a temporary inhabitation of alternate worlds and orderings, which generate vitality through their capacity for affirmation and self-validation. This vitality extends as sensations of becoming expand beyond their moment of constitution into ‘non- playing’ times and spaces (Woodyer, 2012).

Combined with the prior two facets (commonplace and political), playing becomes a transformational activity in which engagement is spontaneous but also critical. Through play, individuals are able to freely de-associate from and re-associate with the world and social structures around them. It is a space of irrational creativity and critical nonsense, essential to unmaking and reforming socio-spatial relationships.

Throughout this discussion, there are clear consequences for adults engaging in play. Deterding (2018) saw them negotiating the potential risks of being “outed” as someone incapable of properly managing their priorities. Woodyer argued that playing

“is an area ripe for rupture, sparks of insight and moments of invention, which present us with ways to be “otherwise” (2012). Indeed, this is also the space to which Plato sought to guide his students, particularly the adults, in order to seek the Good and find the True.

Huizinga indicated this as the arena where homo ludens examines and recreates their culture. Brown and Vaughan saw it as the risk-free play-space where personal boundaries 19 can be explored and limitations tested to improve survivability. These spaces of play facilitate homo ludens’s attempts to create, despite social stigmas and neo-liberal socio- economic demands. The social and personal motivations and risks around play exert a force upon players to manage their engagement in these activities. As Deterding (2018) implied, this results in a spatial solution to protect those engaging in the activity of play.

Geographies and Spaces of Play

Whether risking social stigmatization or challenging the status quo, play is both materially situated in particular settings and spontaneously manifested in and productive of space (Woodyer, 2012). Whether in the backyard, on the playground, in the stadium, around the dinner table, or within the digital realm, play is an inherently geographic phenomenon and cannot be understood outside of its socio-spatial dimensions. While homo ludens exists as a social creature, deriving meaning and creativity through playing, they are also situated in space. Woodyer argued that “playing reconfigures the self and space-time” (Woodyer, 2012, p. 322), alluding to the situatedness of playing. As described by Deterding (2018) above, the social setting is often vital to creating a safe space for adult play in order to prevent social stigmatization. Both point directly towards social geographer Doreen Massey’s assertion that space is formed through social relations (Massey & Allen, 1984). Given the well-established social nature of play, the parallel of social space-making as explored by Massey and others is an essential component of this research. Indeed, this socio-spatial relationship to play has been discussed in other contexts as well. Geographic and adjacent literatures have explored the social geographies of play as perceived in such frameworks as children’s geographies, urban geography, and cultural geography (although here most notably within digital 20 spaces). Throughout this literature, summarized below, geographers examine the spatial aspects of play in different ways, from the role that play serves in urban design (Donoff

& Bridgman, 2017; Malizia & Song, 2016), to access to designated public spaces of play

(Horton, 2017; Horton & Kraftl, 2018), to how and where people play (K. M. Brown,

2014; Flusty, 2000; Glenney & Mull, 2018), and to the socio-spatial relations and identities formed through play (Ash & Gallacher, 2011; Garcia, 2017; A. Shaw, 2012; I.

G. R. Shaw & Warf, 2009; Stang & Trammell, 2020). Adult tabletop gaming spaces, such as The Glass Die, are but another example of play manifesting within and producing the urban landscape.

In this project, Doreen Massey’s formative analysis of the production of space has proven an insightful foundation for understanding the socio-spatial significance of spaces of play like The Glass Die. Under this conception of space, Massey recognized the highly social basis of space-making.

There are no such things as spatial processes without social content, no such things as purely spatial causes, spatial laws, interactions or relationships. What was really being referred to, it was argued was the spatial form of social causes, laws, interactions and relationships. ‘The spatial’, it was pronounced, and quite correctly, ‘does not exist as a separate realm. Space is a social construct’ (Massey & Allen, 1984, page 3).

According to Massey, spaces are always in part defined by their social components; in order to understand a space it was necessary to explore both the social and spatial behaviors within it. “The causes of spatial patterns, such as inner-city decline and the problems of peripheral regions, could not be sought simply in other spatial patterns”

(Massey & Allen, 1984, page 3). Just because various sites might exhibit similar behaviors, the root causes of those actions cannot be understood from solely those spatial 21 factors, the social elements of those sites must be accounted for as well. “What gives a place its specificity is not some long internalised history but the fact that it is constructed out of a particular constellation of social relations, meeting and weaving together at a particular locus” (Massey, 1991). In the same way that play is inherently geographic, spaces of play are also inherently social spaces; they cannot be understood without the acknowledgement of their social factors. In this regard, The Glass Die is no different, though it is rather unique in its expression especially when exploring other socio-spatial studies.

Other writers in Geography have explored the socio-spatial nature of play.

Understandably, play and its significant role in childhood development has received substantial academic attention in the geographies of children’s play literature. Geography has examined spaces of child’s play such as unequal playgrounds and the need for their comparative analysis (Horton & Kraftl, 2018) or outdoor spaces and their barriers for children with disabilities (Horton, 2017). Similarly, as a result of socio-economic changes in the urban landscape due to neo-liberal intervention and austerity measures reducing play-spaces, attention has been paid to the transition away from free roaming play due to child safety concerns (Holt et al., 2015) while others have looked at the class-stratified enrichment activities that have taken their place (Holloway & Pimlott-Wilson, 2014,

2018). As that suggests, there is further research into the socio-political consequences of child’s play and how some seemingly benign childhood acts are rife with political activism (Bosco, 2010). There have even been geographic assessments of non-geography social science research into child’s play and spaces of play (Skelton, 2009), from children as agents of play creation in any given space to childhood mobility and use of mobility 22 spaces in play. However, this attention to child’s play within geographic literature neglects the potency alluded to by Woodyer (2012) that adult play can be a potent driver of socio-political transformation. Moreover, where there is substantial attention on adult play, it is focused on particular and specific arenas.

One such arena is that of urban geography. In recent decades, mixed-use urban development projects have significantly changed the urban form and landscape to accommodate play (Coupland, 1997; Ewing et al., 2011; Malizia & Song, 2016). The

“live, work, play” urban model has received increasing attention as it seeks to remove physical distance between personal, professional, and social spaces. Indeed, Gabrielle

Donoff and Rae Bridgman (2017) explored playful interventions within urban design by looking at efforts to incorporate playfulness and discovery into the urban landscape.

“‘Urban ludic intervention’ describes a design or addition to the urban form that provides an alternative to adult pedestrian conventions by inspiring happiness and playful interaction with the urban environment” (Donoff, 2014). Working from Huizinga’s

(1950) assertion that play’s spontaneity is voluntary and Caillois’s (1961) observation that play inspires social contravention, Donoff and Bridgman examine several examples of ludic intervention within the urban environment as a means of promoting adult well- being. By inserting these small installments of playfulness into well-travelled and oft- frequented places, urban designers are able to create opportunities for impromptu play for passers-by. Similarly, skateboarding within the urban landscape has garnered particular attention as those who engage in the activity discovered their own “sacred” sites and developed a resistance to urban authority (Flusty, 2000; Glenney & Mull, 2018;

O’Connor, 2018). Lastly, while not explicitly urban, Katrina Brown (2014) explored how 23 the “domesticated nature” of bicycle trail centers reinforces and translates ideas of citizen responsibility in cyclists from those cultivated spaces onto the adjacent mountainous wilds. The urban landscape, and other populated play locations, points to the increasing significance of play for adults as more sites are placed into the cityscape and other regularly frequented spaces. Indeed, while many of these playful spaces are publicly accessible, private play spaces are another area that demands attention. The gaming retail spaces this paper seeks to explore are another such location to arrive on that landscape, but despite the longevity of some of these places, there is little research to acknowledge their existence or significance.

Some of the most substantial attention towards play within the geographic literature has been through cultural geography. One particular focus has been on the potency of playful interventions in the workspace. From psychology studies, there have been explorations of so-called workplay as a means to promote creativity and collaboration within the workspace (West et al., 2017). Ann Charlotte Thorsted (2016) explored this concept as it applied to the LEGO Corporation and found supportive relationships which formed through these playful activities by establishing a “collective refuge” from the restrictions and stresses of their work day. Cultural geographic research has also gravitated towards videogames and digital spaces in recent decades. Indeed, the allure of exploring such novel expressions of “spaceless” places and the significant capital invested into such spaces would be a difficult subject to ignore. Some researchers have argued that the (techno)cultural practices of videogames, from production to representation, are a significant cultural geographic phenomenon to be studied (Ash &

Gallacher, 2011). Others have looked at those representations in videogames and how 24 they are used to disingenuously target marketing towards game consumers based on narrow identity considerations (A. Shaw, 2012). Similarly, the growing influence of videogame representations as an affective force in more technologically advanced games intended to drive player response has been another area of attention (I. G. R. Shaw &

Warf, 2009). Outside of geography, multiple academic journals have been formed to explore the digital gaming experience such as the Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds,

Games and Culture, or the web-based Game Studies to name a few. But again, much of this focuses solely on the virtual or digital realms, with less attention paid to in-person tabletop gaming, although role-playing games have been experiencing an increased amount of research as the hobby has expanded in recent years. This expansion of studies on role-playing games (in particular Dungeons & Dragons) are largely coming from outside the geographic field, looking into such topics as embedded misogyny in D&D monsters (Stang & Trammell, 2020) and racial or gender identity shaping within the

D&D system (Garcia, 2017).

While gaming in its various forms is receiving more academic attention, as indicated in the introduction of this paper, there are an increasing number of commercial spaces geared towards play populating urban areas (Barton, 2018; CMON Games, 2016;

Schank, 2014). Some of these places focus on adult clientele only rather than family- friendly venues. As such, these sites represent a new location for inquiry into the topic of play, one that concentrates many different forms of play and engagement among its adult participants. Homo ludens has been seeking out spaces to engage in play and emplacing them within their lived environment. Through the creation and use of such spaces, homo ludens establishes sites of social significance, creativity, dismantled structures, and 25 learning. However as can be seen in regards to these spaces of adult play, there is a noticeable gap in geography’s academic literature exploring these places. It is here that I situate this paper, as an assessment of the socio-spatial significance of the adult tabletop gaming spaces newly populating the urban landscape. As a consequence of the few explorations of these real-time real-space playful locations, a different perspective is needed to interpret them.

Framing Spaces of Adult Play: Affinity Spaces

Given the highly social nature of play (S. L. Brown & Vaughan, 2009; Deterding,

2018; Henricks, 2015), and Massey’s recognition that spaces are socially constructed

(Massey, 1991; Massey & Allen, 1984), tabletop gaming spaces like The Glass Die are clearly sites of socio-spatial significance. Woodyer’s (2012) call for geography to assess play is acutely felt here. What is needed, however, is a means of framing and analyzing the geographic qualities of tabletop gaming spaces like The Glass Die. One way to theorize and understand the socio-spatial dimensions of the tabletop gaming space, specifically regarding adult play, comes from outside geographic literature through the concept of affinity spaces. This idea was introduced by the social linguist James Paul Gee

(2004), as a means of looking at the social characteristics of teaching and learning outside of formal education structures. Working to contrast to Lave and Wenger’s communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), Gee writes of affinity spaces, “This alternative focuses on the idea of a space in which people interact, rather than on membership in a community” (Gee, 2005, p.214). Although he acknowledged the value of communities of practice, Gee concluded that the concept held some problematic aspects. From assumptions on the social bonds and personal interconnections implied by 26 the term “community,” to the connotations of equivalent participation in the idea of membership within those groups, Gee felt communities of practice has been used so frequently and disparately that the concept had grown too nebulous. “The notion has been used by others to cover such a wide array of social forms that we may be missing the trees for the forest” (Gee, 2005, p.215). Gee ultimately developed his idea of affinity spaces to address these concerns about the ubiquitous and expansive definition created by the concept of communities of practice.

To reinterpret this type of informal learning collective, Gee combined his own linguistics background with a more social geographic approach, forming the concept of semiotic social spaces (SSSs). For the purposes of this explanation, social spaces are spaces, whether physical or digital, formed through social relations and interactions

(indicating socio-spatial significance from Massey). The semiotic component refers to the meanings and signs participants share, receive, and give meaning to through engagement with those space. Using a classroom as an example, Gee summarized an SSS as follows:

Instead of starting with, for example, the students as a “community”, I am suggesting starting with, not the classroom as a physical space, but the classroom as a SSS defined by generators, an internal grammar, an external grammar and portals. This allows us to ask about what thoughts, values, actions and interactions go on in this space, by whom and with whom, without assuming any one group membership or, for that matter any membership at all (Gee, 2005).

Within an SSS, a generator represents the central topic around which the SSS formed.

Internal grammar is the direct content of that central topic. External grammar consists of the ideas, meanings, and interactions participants in the generator form regarding the content. Portals are then the myriad ways in which participants can engage with the generator and both sets of grammar. As will be discussed later, portals can also serve as 27 generators. Gee centered his description of SSSs around player efforts to ‘mod’2 a videogame. While the videogame itself was the generator of the SSS, the semiotic social space spanned multiple websites, discussion boards, and other resources to create a network of points to learn how to mod the game. Like much of the geography literature on play, Gee focuses on virtual informal learning environments, whereas this paper applies and expands his theories to a real-space tabletop gaming location. Extending this example to The Glass Die, the bar itself represents a reason to gather (for the games, the drinks, an area in which to play, etc.), while also serving as a portal to an abundance of games to play (each of them their own portal to the tabletop gaming hobby). The grammars surrounding the various games and their experiences inform and influence players which is shared with other participants, educating them and expanding knowledge of the hobby.

Gee’s re-interpretation looks at informal spaces of learning by paying particular attention to the social constructs and interactive qualities of the space. He frames affinity spaces through 11 facets that describe the ways participants interact with the space and each other. By no means are these 11 aspects considered the be-all and end-all of affinity spaces. Indeed, some facets of Gee’s concept have been criticized and re-assessed through numerous subsequent projects by other researchers and Gee himself, including acknowledgements that different affinity spaces would result in different priorities

(Curwood et al., 2013; Davies, 2006; Gee, 2018; Gee & Hayes, 2012; Lammers et al.,

2012). To that end, I generalized and abstracted the 11 facets into three primary

2 Shortening of the word modification. Within the context of videogames, modding a game changes the appearance or functions within the videogame and is often created or programed by the users of the game. Moddability is an increasingly sought-after feature of new videogames. 28 categories which largely encompass the intentions and actions of those facets. These three categories helped frame the answers to this project’s research questions, and I structure my explanation of Gee’s thesis according to my main research questions below.

1. How do people participate in and make use of these adult spaces of play?

These following facets within the affinity space look at the ways participants engage with each other and what inspires them to come to the space. Given the distributed nature of portals and participants in an affinity space, there is a ready flexibility in the reasons behind individual engagement, interactions, and their relationships. The following facets then highlight many of the flexible dynamics among participants and their connections to the generator of the affinity space.

Common endeavor, not race, class, gender or disability, is primary. The shared effort of the affinity space motivates individuals to participate and contribute rather than any typical identity markers (e.g., race, gender, class, etc.).

Newbies and masters and everyone else share common space. Affinity spaces allow for participants of all experience levels to make use of the same space with little blocking the “novices” from engaging with the “experts.”

Some portals are strong generators. Although a generator is typically the spark of an affinity space, the portals which discuss and educate about aspects of that generator might draw people into the affinity space in their own right.

Internal grammar is transformed by external grammar. While the generator of an affinity space is the source of the space’s internal grammar, participant interactions with and explorations of the generator create new signs and symbols that influence the original internal grammar. 29

While these four facets highlight the socio-spatial relationships among participants and the affinity space, there is also a transformative undertone to those interactions. Participants unfix themselves from their core identities and relational hierarchies. Likewise, participant connections to the affinity space and the semiotics of those associations have a similar subverting quality. Both Woodyer and Huizinga spoke to such disruptive natures in their discussions of play. The Woodyer’s dismantled social hierarchies (2012) and the Huizinga’s de-/re-constructed cultural practices (1949) both evidence a tendency for players to detach from established societal patterns and orders.

2. How is knowledge created and distributed within these spaces and amongst participants?

As would make sense for a theory about education, these facets pay particular attention to how knowledge is cultivated and disseminated amongst the people who share and produce the affinity space. For Gee, the free flow of information and abundant routes to create, find, and learn new knowledge, is an essential quality of these dispersed affinity spaces, as is the flexible nature of who possesses such knowledge. Sharing and teaching other participants helps to strengthen the common goal of the collective.

Encourages intensive and extensive knowledge. Participants in an affinity space gain and share highly specialized and complex knowledge, as well as, broader, more accessible information, regarding various aspects and subtopics of the space’s central interest. All of this knowledge is available for affinity space participants to glean, the only limitation is understanding and skill to make the most use of it.

Encourages individual and distributed knowledge. Affinity space participants are motivated to develop both their own understanding regarding the generator of the 30 space, while at the same time make use of the knowledge possessed by others, held on websites, or through the use various associated tools and technologies.

Encourages dispersed knowledge. The generators and portals through which affinity space participants engage are not intended to be the only source of information.

Participants are encouraged to seek information available on other portals and associated networks to improve their understanding and bring that information to the affinity space.

Uses and honors tacit knowledge. Although much of the prior three facets focus on finding and distributing both individualized and collective knowledge, affinity spaces also value pre-cognitive knowledge gained through practice and interaction that is more difficult to verbally express. By collecting information and talent with the affinity space material, participants are able to interpret that tacit knowledge and put words to it for sharing.

As these aspects show, within an affinity space there are numerous ways that knowledge is distributed and shared amongst the participants of the space. This decentralized information is readily available, actively practiced, and ever-improving. In order to support the common goal of the affinity space, this creative exploration by the participants within it follows the concepts of play put forward by the earlier thinkers on play. The playful dissociation espoused by Plato (1990), the essential frivolity suggested by Brown and Vaughan (2009), and Woodyer’s (2012) spontaneous irrationality of play each speak to the effortless quality of play to support learning. These facets directly point to the primary function of an affinity space: the capacity of play to disconnect affinity space participants from the structured demands and hierarchies of “real life” and learn through creative self and social exploration. 31

3. How do participants contribute to and support the playful intention of these spaces?

This final grouping of facets pertains to the ways individuals cultivate and share their expertise with others and acknowledges the mutable leadership roles they may take on. Again, flexibility is key here. As an informal means of educating on a particular topic, most participants are not professionals in that field. Participants develop their own talents, share what they can when they can, and help other members cultivate their own capabilities to further the efforts of the affinity space. These various skills and expertise are produced within the space and are able to be applied beyond it as well.

Many different forms and routes to participation. The manner and frequency in which individual participants interact with the affinity space is not prescribed and may change over time. Someone may engage intensely with a topic or conversation one week and shift to a more peripheral role the next, only to dive back into the topic some time after that.

Lots of different routes to status. With few barriers separating novices and experts, and many different sources of knowledge and skill, there are likewise numerous ways affinity space participants may achieve status, if so desired. Whether through capability, knowledge, organization, educating, or any number of other paths, participants can often find their own way to excel within the affinity space.

Leadership is porous and leaders are resources. Similarly, with so many different routes to achieve status and such variability in interaction, leaders within an affinity space may change regularly. And given how readily information flows through the various portals associated with the affinity space, those leaders serve as valuable fonts 32 of knowledge, though they possess no authority over any other individuals within the space.

These final facets of affinity spaces as described by Gee further indicate the dispersed and decentralized qualities of the spaces. While individual engagement and participation is motivated by the core activity of the affinity space, unfixed from the identities of those participants, and with the shared corpus of knowledge distributed across numerous avenues of access, so too are the examples of mastery and influence impermanent and spread across and beyond the affinity space. Each participant is afforded an opportunity to develop a command over some aspect of the affinity space and none are expected to permanently fill that role. Again, Woodyer (2012) speaks to this transient quality of leadership when referring to the resistant and subversive nature of play. And although Deterding (2018) discusses participant management of the potential embarrassment caused by play, the audience management provided by the affinity space necessarily permits engagement to be more flexible.

Affinity spaces represent an informal alternative to traditional learning environments. In an effort to learn new skills and knowledge “just for fun,” collectives have formed around such efforts as a way to distribute and expand upon specific topics.

These affinity spaces center upon nearly any topic imaginable. A casual YouTube search can lead one down any number of rabbit holes from modifying videogames to food history and recipes to merging DIY carpentry with home electronics to name but a few examples3. Affinity spaces allow participants to learn at their own pace from people with

3 This may or may not be a small glimpse into my own YouTube video history. 33 similar passions, specific educations that have little or no equivalent in academia. The tabletop gaming bar to be explored in this paper is one such affinity space, connecting participants with board game and role-playing game knowledge and techniques in informal yet compelling ways.

Methodology

Combining both geographic and education literatures, this paper explores three questions regarding a tabletop gaming bar, The Glass Die:

 How do people participate in and make use of these adult spaces of play?

 How is knowledge created and distributed within these spaces and amongst

participants?

 How do participants contribute to and support the playful intention of these

spaces?

These questions are intended to examine the social and educational dynamics, practices, and structures within a tabletop gaming bar by framing assessment of the site around

James Paul Gee’s (2005) concept of affinity spaces. This effort sought to address a gap in the geographic literature surrounding such adult spaces of play by connecting multi- disciplinary play and education literature with geography using a specific site of adult play as a lens. This paper was informed by a preliminary research project conducted in fall 2018 which looked at the reasons why individuals frequented such tabletop gaming spaces. That earlier project asked several small focus groups about their motivations for attending The Glass Die. Participant responses in that prior work indicated that a combination of in-person social engagement and camaraderie motivated their connections to the space, both of which align with some of the aspects Gee ascribes to affinity spaces. 34

As this project sought to understand the social dimensions and subjective experiences of

The Glass Die, qualitative methodologies were deemed the most appropriate for this follow-up study. A phenomenological study was devised to examine the geographic significance of these adult spaces of play and participant involvement in them (Austin &

Sutton, 2015; Clifford et al., 2016; DeLyser et al., 2009; Hay, 2016; Rossman & Rallis,

2016). To understand the connections and subjective experiences of the affinity space participants and be able to compare those responses to the facets as described by Gee, interviews and participant observations of the space were employed.

Researcher Background

Personal interest in tabletop gaming, including board games and role-playing games, as well as video games, spurred my interest in this project. As a self-proclaimed gamer, I have engaged in tabletop and video games of various types for over three decades and have a strong personal understanding of these activities. My participation at the research location of this project, The Glass Die, began shortly after the location opened in April 2017. This long-term association allowed me to establish relationships and trust with both staff and patrons, later facilitating participant observation of the site.

Setting

The Glass Die is a tabletop gaming bar in Reno, Nevada. Established in April

2017, The Glass Die is the first and only 21-and-older establishment in Northern Nevada that combines alcoholic beverages with tabletop gaming. From my discussions and interview with Jeff, the owner of The Glass Die, I learned he began planning the bar while serving in the fire crews of the United States Forest Service. He had long been a fan of tabletop gaming and had been to a similar board game bar in Portland, Oregon a 35 couple years prior. He was very much aware of the growing popularity of tabletop gaming and recognized that Reno, Nevada could similarly support such an establishment.

Although many bars do indeed have games on site as entertainment for patrons, The

Glass Die explicitly focuses on its boardgame collection as the primary draw for its customers. As of this writing, there are over 900 open titles for people to play. While my personal participation in the space began in April 2017, my participant observation of

The Glass Die began in the fall of 2018 during the prior research project which spurred this further study. From that prior project, it became clear that The Glass Die served as more than a simple watering hole where people went to drink alcohol. Participant relations and opportunities for learning through tabletop gaming revealed a pattern that could be further explored.

Data Collection

This qualitative study employed two methods of data collection: participant- observation over a one-and-a-half-year period (September 2018 through February 2020) and 11 semi-structured interviews with selected participants and the owner. Although my participation in the space started in April 2017, my official research observation of The

Glass Die began in fall 2018. General, non-identified observations were recorded in a notebook.

Most of the semi-structured interviews were collected in January 2020. Initial questions were prepared as a starting point (Appendix A), with follow-up questions asked as guided by responses. The general interview questions stemmed from the three research questions of this project, with the free-form follow-up questions intended to inquire more deeply into the specifics of participant responses. Interview questions were designed to 36 be open-ended and avoid overtly influencing interviewee answers. Individual interviews mostly occurred at The Glass Die itself, though two were conducted at the University of

Nevada, Reno campus in a conference room due to scheduling convenience as those interviewees were also students. Individual interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes.

Interview data were collected using a passcode- and FaceID-protected iPhone using the Otter app, which simultaneously recorded and transcribed the interviews. After the interviews, the recordings and auto-generated transcripts were downloaded into a password-protected OneDrive cloud folder. Transcripts were then edited using Microsoft

Word. Participant and referenced individual identifiers were replaced with pseudonyms chosen by the participants from a themed list, while transcription errors and gaps in the automated transcript were manually corrected. Edited transcripts served as the primary source for the interview data.

Participants

Criteria for selection of this study’s participants were based upon their degree of regular engagement with the space and other participants. From my multiyear attendance at and observation of the space, I recognized several individuals, both patrons and employees, whom I would regularly see while I was at The Glass Die. Most of these candidates would patronize The Glass Die at least once per week, often due to a weekly board game meet-up or session of Dungeons & Dragons. Their frequent participation at

The Glass Die provided a convenience sample for interviews. 11 total participants were individually interviewed, including eight men and three women, all self-identified. Ages ranged between early 20s and mid-50s. Racially, interviewees were mostly white, with four identifying as latinx, Asian, or multi-racial. The professional backgrounds of these 37 participants also varied greatly, from retail and service industry to medicine and academia. Pseudonyms were chosen by the interviewees from a theme, characters from the show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Table 1. Interview Participants INTERVIEW AGE GENDER RACE CAREER Willow Late 20s Female White Healthcare Cordelia Late 20s Female White/Asian Bartender Angel Early 30s Male White Retail Oz Early 30s Male White/Latinx Tech Support Giles Mid 40s Male White K-12 Education Wesley Early 30s Male White Biologist Spike Early 30s Male Asian Higher Education Buffy Mid 20s Female Latinx Bartender Xander Late 20s Male White Bartender Riley Mid 50s Male White K-12 Education Jeff Mid 30s Male White The Glass Die owner

Data Analysis

Following data collection, data analysis began by editing the auto-transcribed interviews conducted using the phone app Otter. Although Otter is somewhat efficient and accurate, there remained numerous mistranslations and speaker labels to be corrected. Interview responses were then listened to while following the transcribed text to understand the context and tone of participant answers. The repaired transcripts were then transferred into an Excel file, aligning participant responses (in rows) to the appropriate questions (in columns). Key words and phrases in the texts were marked and then categorized and themed through iterative reassessment. Columnar data assisted in 38 identifying patterns by question and for codification of responses (Austin & Sutton, 2015;

Rossman & Rallis, 2016). Coded responses were then consolidated into three primary themes: Social Dynamics & Participation, Learning & Knowledge, and Mastery &

Influence.

Limitations

Data collection and analysis for this paper began after New Year’s Day, 2020.

Although most of the interviews were conducted that first month, the arrival of COVID-

19 led to the close of The Glass Die in March 2020, and subsequent social-distancing and isolation abruptly ended participant observations. Likewise, any thought of expanding interviews to other individuals quickly became unrealistic as The Glass Die effectively changed their operations to a retail storefront for the remainder of the year. For the same reason, follow-up questioning proved impossible as casual reconnection with prior interviewees could not occur.

Results and Discussion

Through this paper, I sought to explore the socio-spatial significance of spaces of adult play, like the tabletop gaming bar The Glass Die. Operating from an understanding that spaces are socially constructed (Massey & Allen, 1984), it was vital to examine the social relations and meanings produced within the place of The Glass Die by participants and how such material spaces of play facilitate the efforts of those participants. Assessing interview responses through the lens of James Paul Gee’s (2005) affinity spaces evidenced a non-traditional learning space that created a unique set of social relationships and meanings among participants. The three research questions which define this paper were designed as abstractions and generalizations of Gee’s 11 facets of affinity spaces. 39

The responses received from interviewees were coded and then themed into three general categories: Social Dynamics & Participation, Learning & Knowledge, and Mastery &

Influence. That these three categories aligned so well with the research questions and the original grouping of facets that informed them, indicates that the abstracted questions successfully encompassed the intended meanings of those facets. The three discussion chapters to follow work through the responses provided for each of the research questions.

How do people participate in and make use of these adult spaces of play? This question looked at the social relationships on display in The Glass Die and how participants shared their experiences. This also includes the factors that brought them together and the ties that kept them connected. Responses to these interview questions were largely organized under the theme Social Dynamics & Participation.

How is knowledge created and distributed within these spaces and amongst participants? As an informal learning space, The Glass Die assists the adults who participate there to produce, share, and expand upon concepts and knowledge of the tabletop gaming hobby and adjacent playful activities. The development and dissemination of such information strengthens the affinity space while also expanding its reach. Unsurprisingly, these interview answers were themed under Learning &

Knowledge.

How do participants contribute to and support the playful intention of these spaces? The social connections made and knowledge gained within the affinity space assist each participant differently. What skills they develop, talents they learn, and interpersonal bonds they form within the space, carry beyond the space’s immediate 40 playful interactions. In these responses, the theme Mastery & Influence presented most significantly.

As mentioned above, the intent of this paper was to examine tabletop gaming spaces, a relatively new phenomenon in the urban environment. Upon early assessment of one such location, The Glass Die in Reno, Nevada, it appeared to exhibit aspects of an atypical educational collective based around the act of play. As these tabletop gaming spaces are not well studied in academic literature, this paper seeks to apply James Paul

Gee’s affinity space aspects to the socio-educational structures participants have developed in this place. Applying such a conceptual framework to this under-studied location helps to contextualize the social bonds and structures in place, while at the same time, potentially moving forward a conversation about adult spaces of play.

How then does a place like The Glass Die form an affinity space? Gee’s original example focused heavily on online structures and spaces that support players using the example of the video game, Age of Mythology. Those websites and message boards created an informal learning space for players to change and improve the game through custom modifications. For this paper, I apply Gee’s theories to a real-time, real-space example. The Glass Die represents a physical space within the constellation of support structures including websites, game stores, and YouTube channels surrounding the tabletop gaming hobby and forming a social space.

I interpreted Gee’s 11 aspects through three themes that will structure the following discussion chapters and provide a lens through which to assess how The Glass

Die exhibits Gee’s 11 facets of affinity spaces and answer my research questions. It is important to note that the 11 factors of affinity spaces are often simultaneously present, 41 and indeed data will exemplify more than one category or feature. This is a testament to the “messiness” of qualitative data, particularly as it describes the “messiness” of play.

Results and Discussion I: Social Dynamics & Participation

You’ve been coming to The Glass Die off-and-on for a few months now.

Sometimes it’s just been for a happy hour decompress session sitting at the bar top after work, other times for a few hours of easy gameplay with friends. It’s always been a pretty comfortable space though (except when you bump your arm against one of the live edges of a table, ouch!). Today, you’re hanging out at the bar after work, chatting with the bartender and a couple other regulars, one “doing homework,” the other planning out their next Dungeons & Dragons campaign. In fact, that’s the topic of discussion this afternoon, how to fold one player’s backstory into the main story. The way the “dungeon master” is talking (such a weird title), it seems to help with player investment in the story.

It’s definitely an animated and humorous brainstorming conversation they’ve pulled you into. When the topic turns to a plot twist in that character story, you admit you’ve never played the game yourself so you’re not sure how it would work. Without skipping a beat, the dungeon master then asks if you’re usually free Wednesday evenings, one of their other planned players had to back out so there’s definitely room for one more. What have you done…?

Affinity spaces are supported by participant motivations, connections made among participants, and those formed with the space itself. To inquire into this, the guiding research question with which I approached this part of Gee’s aspects informed the structure of this part of interview was “How do people participate in and make use of 42 these adult spaces of play?” Of the 11 qualities of affinity spaces, the following four qualities and their associated responses most directly addressed that research question:

 Common endeavor, not race, class, gender or disability is primary.

 Newbies and masters and everyone else share common space.

 Some portals are strong generators.

 Internal grammar is transformed by external grammar.

These aspects indicate a desire (if not an intention) among participants to deconstruct day-to-day social hierarchies and understandings of the self to pursue a shared goal and interest as implied by Woodyer (2012) and Huizinga (1949). As affinity spaces serve to promote informal learning in a collective setting, breaking down the traditional structures and pathways for knowledge is a necessary requirement. This results in a decentralization and democratization of learning within the affinity space. And since a space like The

Glass Die centers around play, it serves as Plato’s ideal learning environment, allowing participants to extract themselves from the demands of the mundane world and explore social positions and relations more freely.

Play is both an engrossing and encompassing activity (Huizinga, 1949; Hunnicutt,

1990; Woodyer, 2012). Fully engaging in the game being played allows for participants to take on a different perspective from the “real world” and even from themselves. The concerns and hopes of the characters inhabiting the fictional world the players are sitting around become the priority. Thus, not only does play permit players to critically analyze societal structures and rules, as well as their relationship with those practices, it also allows for self-assessment and self-play. The character being played usually has different motivations, and potentially even conflicting values, from the player. Those dismantled 43 hierarchies then also apply to the self, allowing the player to explore facets of their self more freely.

“My chosen family”: Common endeavor, not race, class, gender or disability is primary.

The first aspect of affinity spaces that Gee proposes is that common effort, rather than identity, draws individuals into such spaces. For a board game bar like The Glass

Die, this shared intention can fall into several different categories of play and play- adjacent activities, from board games to role-playing games, from writing a book to geeking out about whatever show is streaming that month. The Glass Die serves as a gathering place for participants to engage with others about their shared passion, play.

This activity in and of itself has no social criteria for involvement, and while not free from identity, does allow for players to come together to play, disregarding and breaking from dominant societal positions. As a result, The Glass Die sees significant diversity in its clientele, and indeed attempts to support this. Through participant observations, I am able to provide confirmation from my own observations over the past three-and-a-half years. While there is a good mix of female and male participants who make use of The

Glass Die, a population estimate does lean towards a majority of males. Likewise, regarding a racial estimation from observation, The Glass Die’s population does resemble that of Reno, Nevada at large. Reno’s population is strongly skewed towards white

(nearly 75% according to the 2010 census), but people of color are well-represented at

The Glass Die. Similarly, the population ranges from age 21 (it is a bar after all) to 70s or

80s. While younger patrons are certain to be expected, there are at least two groups whose members range from 50 years and older who frequent the bar. From the many 44 connections, acquaintances, and friends I have made since they opened, I can attest that sexual identities run the gamut of the LGBTQIA+ spectra. Class-wise, the clientele of

The Glass Die represents a swath of individuals from lower to middle class gauging from the array of career paths I have discussed with other participants. To name a few, there are bartenders, retail workers, college students, educators, construction workers, programmers, tech support, cooks, and health care workers. Individuals of these varying backgrounds frequently intermingle and engage in games with new groups over time.

Indeed, multiple interviewees commented on how many new and unexpected relationships they gained while participating at The Glass Die, especially when considering how unlikely they would have chanced to meet in their usual circles. In this regard, new social connections and “groupings” are often formed firstly through play, the

“common endeavor,” and only secondarily or tangentially through other identifiers.

While beer and boardgame sales are the primary means of paying the bills, what actually brings people into this place is play. It is the endeavor of play and play-adjacent activities that drives participation; however, narrowing down exactly which activity this entails varies from person to person. Socialization is a major component, but it is often directly entwined with the activities themselves. As one participant, Giles, commented, “I usually play some games and enjoy a beer or two. And usually see people I know, people

I want to associate with and say hello to and ask them how their day was and things like that” (Giles, 1/08/2020). The board game (or sometimes wargaming4, in his case) activity

4 Miniature wargaming. Whether structured around squad-based tactics, individual units, or larger formations, wargaming pits opponents against one another in tactical and strategic engagements meant to simulate encounters in a battle. Originated as historical re-enactment. Also, wargaming is considered the distant origin of contemporary role-playing games, giving “life” to those individual units. 45 is what often brings Giles to The Glass Die, but social connections is a product of that drive to play. He values the opportunity to connect with others through tabletop games while at The Glass Die. Yet another regular, Spike, took this one step further, forming strong bonds with and creating an “adopted family” among the people with whom he plays.

Especially because of the holidays, it got to the point where I was going there three-four days a week. I think it was because of the winter, you feel a bit more festive. You want to reconnect with people and spend more time with people, especially during those dark days. They're darker, they're gloomier, so what better way to pick your spirits up than seeing people who delight you to no end. I DO have local family, but I've made it so that the people that I interact with are my chosen family. (Spike, 1/10/2020)

Through his readiness to establish new connections specifically at The Glass Die, Spike evidences the motivation of participation via “common endeavor” over identity. This dismantling of hierarchical and organized socialization by both Spike and Giles highlights Woodyer’s (2012) point about play’s socially disruptive nature. While certainly not in every instance, at The Glass Die play is the primary motivation for social engagement among its participants. Indeed, this is a common theme that will appear across multiple statements throughout this paper.

Another way the common endeavor facet manifests at The Glass Die is through the regular gaming groups who meet to play their weekly games. Several of these active groups formed among participants at The Glass Die out of excitement to play the game of choice rather than any identifier. One of the most frequently mentioned expressions of these organized groups was for Dungeons & Dragons (or other role-playing games).

Indeed, six of the participants in this study indicated they participate in a standing weekly or biweekly role-playing game, including some of the staff. These provide example of 46 both small group and larger collective efforts at a shared activity. Cordelia, one of the bartenders, commented, “If I'm here and I'm not working, I'm either playing D&D or I'm learning a new game.” Similarly, Angel acknowledged that he frequents The Glass Die for “Mostly Dungeons & Dragons. Though I do play board games, not as much as I used to, for sure… and just kind of hanging out.” For both individuals, The Glass Die serves as a location to engage in a variety of tabletop activities, as well as social engagement.

Indeed, the adult play space that The Glass Die offers provides group engagement options outside of their own homes.

I do have a regular group. Every Tuesday, I run a Dungeons & Dragons game based in Forgotten Realms5 that I am writing the story for. We came here for a session zero6 and might come every Tuesday or so often just when we feel like not being in my house. (Xander, 1/17/2020)

Role-playing game sessions frequently run three-to-five hours long, depending on the group members. This investment of both time and effort in role-playing games will be explored more later, but here it further develops the shared endeavor within the boardgame bar.

I also have several standing weekly games at The Glass Die: a Dungeons &

Dragons campaign, a Star Wars RPG campaign, and one regular board game with some of the staff who work at The Glass Die before the bar actually opens on Sundays.

Typically, at this board game session, we engage in legacy games, boardgames that have a branching storyline along the 10 to 15 consecutive playthroughs. Typically, players

5 A campaign setting within Dungeons & Dragons. A socially and politically developed fantasy world of countries, nations, organizations, and individuals. Such campaign worlds, when well-crafted, are an impressive collection of geographic wonder. 6 A “session zero” in a role-playing game is (typically) a non-gaming meeting to work through character creation and backstory, develop connections among the characters, and directly interact with the gamemaster (or GM) to customize or specialize a player-character’s play-style. 47 retain the same character or political entity throughout these sessions, but both the characters and the game board change over time as events and decisions occur within game’s story. Indeed, legacy games are a distinctly geographic permutation of boardgames, with the characters and the “place” of the boardgame influencing each other as the story progresses and in-game consequences play out. Similarly, I have been invited to engage in several lengthy board game experiences with other random participants at

The Glass Die. Two of those games, Twilight Imperium and Western Empires, both ran for 6+ hours and as such they are meant to be experiential games. Indeed, both games were a struggle, but it was the endeavor and engagement that motivated my interest more than anything else.

Although there are numerous examples of the common endeavor taking priority over identity in this affinity space, this is not to say that all people’s experiences in these play-centered spaces are as welcoming. It should be recognized that gatekeeping (and identity discrimination) can exist even within affinity spaces. Gee acknowledged in his description of this aspect that, although identity details “are backgrounded, […] they can be used (or not) strategically by people if and when they choose to use them for their own purposes” (2005). Not all participants in an affinity space are as welcoming of others.

Buffy, one of the bartenders at The Glass Die, shared an experience she had at a different non-bar, tabletop gaming retail space in Reno.

I've never played a game there because the staff are very standoffish to brown girls, and just girls in general, but they're very standoffish, very rude and very closed off groups. Straight up ignored for like 10 minutes. Verbally asking for help and still ignored. There's only one person who works there who will talk to me if I'm there by myself. When I’m there with Xander, they’ll ask him if he needs help because he's male-presenting, and probably will buy something. But 48

there's only one person who will talk to me, and I think he's either a manager or owns the shop because he's there all the time. (Buffy, 1/12/2020)

Buffy’s encounters at that other retail space bring attention to the fact that it is still people who determine the experience of affinity space participants. Clearly, some individuals do not value the inclusion of different perspectives or backgrounds. Whether misogynistic or racially motivated, Buffy’s experience highlights that the shared common endeavor above identity is an active intention. Certainly, there is an anonymity to the virtual spaces

Gee describes that is not present at The Glass Die. As a result, analog boardgame bars

(and similar places) represent sites of friction between the intention to deconstruct identity and hierarchy through play and the pre-conceived and assumed identities held by some individual.

Despite such occasional failings, the tabletop gaming affinity space at The Glass

Die has created a place for people of any background to participate. Whatever their identity and whatever the preferred play activity, The Glass Die serves as a meeting ground for participants to interact and engage with each other in pursuit of their shared interest. Their connections often transcend typical identity “boundaries” so that the collective experience can be enjoyed together despite those artificial obstructions.

However, these are not the only way such hierarchical limitations are surpassed.

“Playing with randos”: Newbies and masters and everyone else share common space.

While participation at The Glass Die tends to focus on the common endeavor of play and play-like activities, the social component of those activities necessitates group engagement. Through this association around the activity of play and learning new 49 games, participants will engage in the activity both with a regular group and occasionally with random individuals, depending on the situation and game. This connects with Gee’s second aspect of affinity spaces: all participants, from experts to newcomers, and everyone in between, are able to make use of the space. However, it should be acknowledged that expertise is entirely dependent upon which game is being played.

Given how frequently new games are played in an establishment with over 900 titles, with new ones coming in as soon as they are released, one participant may understand certain game concepts better than another, but each game plays distinctly differently, occasionally negating any single player’s apparent advantage.

Among those interviewed at The Glass Die, there is a wide range of how they engage with other participants, often depending on the activity or for strictly social reasons. For some games, there is a logic to having a set group, others allow for any set of people to engage. Cordelia, one of the bartenders at The Glass Die commented, “For

D&D, I come with a very set group of five additional people other than myself. New games, it varies. I either come with a couple set groups or we invite new players as well.”

This variability depends greatly on the game to be played. A typical Dungeons &

Dragons campaign, for instance, often involves stories that revolve around specific player-characters, necessitating consistent player engagement. By contrast, boardgames often allow for different players each time, although not always the case as with the legacy boardgames mentioned above. Cordelia’s comments were mirrored by Giles.

“There are times when I'll go by myself and then other times, once a week, I do have a regular game group, where we get together. There's four of us, including myself that we get together and play games, five o'clock in the evening until closing.” While some 50 games allow for rolling or random participation, his regular group enjoys trying out new games together, collectively expanding their game repertoire. Similarly, this small recurring group creates an opportunity for the members to develop a generalized expertise. Each new game may play differently, but by learning a broad range of tactics the participants are able to challenge each other in unique ways. They are at once masters and newbies each time they gather around a new game. This variability and frequent interpersonal challenging speaks to Woodyer’s (2012) commentary when citing Malbon about playing and the political. “By emphasising vitality as the internal purpose of playing, he positions this phenomenon as ‘inwardly oriented’: engaged with ‘an expression of a different facet of power altogether. This power comes not from above – it is not ascribed – but from within – it is achieved’” (Woodyer, 2012, p. 319). The political expression through playing is one of self-empowerment and resistance to an external force, whether that be one’s opponents or even the game itself in some instances. While there are benefits to playing with a consistent group over time, there are those that enjoy playing games with different or random people. Whether to expand one’s social circle or for introducing new people to The Glass Die, some regulars frequently engage in play with different groups. One regular, Oz, greatly enjoyed such variability.

Girlfriend, for sure, but not necessarily. I kind of had the luxury of having different types of friends that we'll get together. So, work friends that haven't been here before or other people that we just know or it’s “Hey, this would be a fun place to go check out.” It's people that we expect to play with and people that we maybe didn't expect to play with. (Oz, 1/07/2020)

Oz’s eagerness to try something new with different groups of people is a prime example of Gee’s second aspect of affinity spaces. Whether it is masters at a game or complete newcomers, he much rather enjoys the act of playing over the ultimate results of the 51 game. For both Oz and Giles, while there may be an element of mastering a game, the greater endeavor is to continue exploring something new; any purported status being secondary. To that point, Oz evidenced an equal excitement to teach new games to inexperienced players.

There's definitely situations where I will teach a game to someone, and I will offer, “if you'd like I can sit in with you in play,” So probably once a month out of all those sessions of three times a week, once a month, it will be playing with randos7. (Oz, 1/07/2020)

With so many titles available to play, new participants at The Glass Die can be overwhelmed by the options and daunted by the task of learning a new game. Oz’s enthusiasm to assist new players in learning a game or finding something new exemplifies this second facet. By offering his experience to newbies, Oz readily breaks down the hierarchy which artificially divides new players from expert ones.

Given the dubious value of mastery in a place like The Glass Die, as well as the very public and open nature of the place as a bar, participants spoke to efforts to avoid gatekeeping by welcoming strangers and mostly unknown acquaintances into a session.

As relatively few titles require a consistent group, there are many opportunities to allow random other players to join in, although there continues a Deterding-esque trepidation to blindly let someone new jump in. Even within a space designed for adult play, there is perceived risk of social embarrassment when allowing a stranger into a game session.

Often the only requirement to alleviate this concern is an acquaintance with one or another player. As Willow put it, her own willingness to branch out from her usual group was dependent on such association. “Only if there’s still at least one connected person,

7 Derivation on the word “random.” Often refers to unknown people. Can have negative connotations, but not always intended. 52 like Xander’s birthday. For somebody’s birthday, I might know one or two people but then everyone else is new. I'm not gonna usually do it unless I know at least one person.”

This was echoed by Angel who commented on his own eagerness to play games with strangers.

Rarely, but never before here, that's for sure. That was never a thing that ever happened. I don’t know. No, it's kind of the environment, a little bit. If that makes sense? Like it's easier to… if there's someone that's interested, or if there's someone that knows someone else even. Couple degrees of separation sort of thing. It's much easier to just be like, “Yeah, come on. Let's give it a shot.” (Angel, 1/05/2020)

This friend-of-a-friend proximity when it comes to new players is a mostly unsurprising theme to find, particularly given how these interviewees self-identified along the extrovert-introvert spectrum; most leaned towards introvert. However, the beginning of

Angel’s comment acknowledged that before coming to The Glass Die, he was highly unlikely to play games with unknown people. This brings attention to the ability of the affinity space to alter a participant’s preferences. The ability to manage the audience that the space provides lessens some of the social embarrassment Deterding (2018) spoke of, players new and old are in the space for the same purpose and should be trustworthy.

Through his play interactions at The Glass Die, Angel has changed his behavior and become more welcoming of new people into his play experiences. Another regular,

Wesley, although self-identified as more extroverted, is more cautious about inviting new people into his own group’s games.

Fairly rarely. Out of our group, I'm probably the least likely to suggest doing that. My game style is really a lot of psychological warfare. It doesn't lend itself well to playing with new people that don't understand that. I'm more than willing to play like party games or lightweight games but that's a completely different scenario. (Wesley, 1/10/2020) 53

The familiarity and developed skills within his group allow for certain playstyles to develop, creating a pseudo-adversarial encounter within his group. For those in-the- know, it becomes a type of running joke, but it could easily turn someone away who is unfamiliar with their personalities. This sentiment was mirrored by Giles, but more so to protect strangers from the “bad behavior” of their group.

I don't mind playing with new random people, but if I have a group that I traditionally I play with, I would rather play with them, because I can be more myself and not be judged, or you know any of those kind of things for the stupid things I say or do. (Giles, 1/08/2020)

Neither Wesley nor Giles were overtly opposed to welcoming in new players, but rather their hesitation stemmed from a concern that strangers would be offended by their group dynamics or playstyles. In my own experiences joining their group in a game or two8, their interpersonal dynamic is playfully confrontational; they actively challenge each other to achieve more. Personal empowerment through play comes up once more

(Woodyer, 2012). Indeed, in groups that have played together for some time, there can develop some unintentional unwelcoming habits and interactions; acceptable within a close circle, but potentially difficult for those outside that circle.

However, for some The Glass Die creates a space that allows for new connections to be made. Despite any anxiety around inviting new people into a game, there is also a recognition that welcoming others in expands and enriches the experience. One such enthusiast, Spike, commented on both sides of this concern.

I do [play with new people], often enough, and I think that started because of The Glass Die. I wouldn't be doing it if it didn't offer a sounding-off board for people of similar interest to get together and say, “Hey, I'm running this game. Are you interested in playing with me?” Otherwise it would be impossible. Or it wouldn't

8 And yes, I will readily acknowledge that I was thoroughly outclassed and lost. 54

be impossible, but it'd be more difficult. I wouldn't be as encouraged to broadcast that on any other sort of space. If I were to go on Reddit, or just do a blanket Facebook ad or something, it just wouldn't feel as organic. It would be sketchier, I think to use any other medium to broadcast those games. (Spike, 1/10/2020)

An avid Dungeons & Dragons player, he frequently throws together a new campaign or one-shot session as readily as one might grab a new boardgame from the shelf. From my own experience playing in one of his random sessions, and despite his own relative newness to it, Spike has quickly adapted to and “mastered” the craft of dungeon mastering. His eagerness to invite new players into the game is tempered by cautionary wisdom about certain online platforms, but he sees The Glass Die as a fertile space to meet and find new players. Whereas Gee discussed how the anonymity of virtual spaces can facilitate the newbie-master exchange, Spike’s experiences demonstrates that online anonymity can also be a deterrent for the engaging “newbie.” Likewise, Xander found

The Glass Die to be a gathering of like-minded individuals hopeful to engage in these new playful experiences. When commenting about his own opportunities of playing games with new people, he replied enthusiastically.

Yeah, shit, a bunch. I met you here. I met a bunch of other really cool people. Oz, for example, someone who I just like randomly decided to start playing games with just because he was so excited about them. It was just so nice to be with someone who's so fucking enthusiastic about it, like that is so hard to find someone who is just a good dude who just wants to hang out and fucking play board games. That is so tight. And same with the most bartenders here like it's just fun to come and play a boardgame. Often get my ass kicked. (Xander, 1/17/2020)

As a relative latecomer to the gaming hobby, Xander still sees himself as a newbie, but as his interview later evidenced, he thoroughly dove into learning about certain aspects of the hobby. The Glass Die allowed him to find a collective of people who could introduce him to these games and the larger tabletop gaming hobby. His experience showed how 55 quickly one can engage and expand in this affinity space. Willow found The Glass Die and the people within it to be welcoming and supportive in her own efforts to participate in board games and role-playing games.

Developing those skills I think is probably the most direct way, but then indirectly, I think it’s sending this almost subliminal message that these topics, these interests are okay, and other people share them too, because it’s got this like stigma on it. So, people hardly ever want to engage, but when you’re in a room full of people that are here, you’re likely going to be able to connect with like 80% of them at least. So I think it kind of cultivates that exploration and that acceptance of yourself and others (Willow, 1/03/2020).

By finding like-minded individuals who just as readily engage in tabletop gaming,

Willow felt emboldened to further expand her knowledge and experiences within the hobby. Her comments directly alluded to Deterding’s (2018) discussion of audience management. It is interesting that these dismantled hierarchies resemble the ready camaraderie made in child’s play. Aside from creating a place to collectively explore tabletop gaming, as an affinity space The Glass Die serves the secondary purpose of establishing a safe space for those who participate in the hobby. Once more, it is often more about the activity in the space than a fixed identity.

“In this place where I could use my mind”: Some portals are strong generators.

While at The Glass Die, participants are able to playfully engage with the space, with each other, and with themselves. This social and self-playfulness is facilitated by the games and other opportunities for play available within the space. In James Paul Gee’s description of semiotic social spaces, generators are a “reason” for a space to exist, what creates it. For The Glass Die, a generator could be any of the tabletop games available in the bar, at least in a general undecided sense (as in “there are games there to play, but we can decide which one after we get there”). By extension, portals are the specific games 56 that people would want to play and the resources to enable that engagement (e.g. the physical space to play, the available game knowledge to learn a new game, or even the

“social lubricant” of alcohol). While there is indeed a very fine distinction between generators and portals, they provide a raison d’être for people to engage with the space and each other. Gee acknowledges that for affinity spaces, portals and generators can often be the same thing, serving as both the general and specific draw and access point for participants to the space.

As has been discussed, The Glass Die is not your typical bar. Aside from social and alcoholic motivators, there are multiple other reasons to inspire someone to frequent

The Glass Die. For example, there is the collection of game titles, frequently added new titles, like-minded guests, and substantial table space to play, just to name a few. This confluence of place, options, and opportunity strengthen the potential attraction for those who engage in the space. Several interviewees indicated that the variety of games is one of their primary motivators, including one of the bartenders, Buffy.

I play a lot of games that other people introduce me to more than anything else, but mostly I play a lot of Euro games, but more in the vein of stuff that have a fun tactile element are some of my favorite games, or worker placement games and deck building games are all games that I like as well. Roll n’ writes are also awesome. All over the place (Buffy, 1/12/2020).

As can be seen for Buffy, her boardgame interests are wide-ranging and she readily welcomes suggestions made by others. Indeed, with so many options available at The

Glass Die, she is able to explore this vast array with ease. While she is comfortable with a wide selection of game styles, another interviewee, Riley, acknowledged his own interests in game complexity. “I think I'm kind of all over the place. I can go super simple. It depends on the mood I’m in. I also like heavier stuff, though I think I probably 57 gravitate more toward mid-weight. I mean, I started off as a war gamer in the late 70s.”

Riley recognized his own willingness to experiment with all types of game complexities, anywhere from less than an hour for a playthrough to six hours or more. For context, the older wargames which established some of the board gaming genres could take several day-long sessions to play through and complete depending on the scenario. Both interviewees appreciated that the act of playing is ultimately more important than what specifically is getting played, in much the same way that identity is secondary to activity at the start of this chapter. Play offers substantial latitude to those who engage in it, a flexibility that will continue to be seen throughout these interviews and one that holds even more significant consequence for participants.

As has been acknowledged previously, play is a highly social activity. Those who join in the activity often do so in order to spend time with others, whether friends, acquaintances, or even strangers. This social component serves as a potent generator for

The Glass Die as a board game bar. Unsurprisingly, the tabletop games that offer more social interaction tend to have a large following. One such game genre that fits this bill is the co-op (short for cooperative). In this type of game play, participants work together against the game’s environment or an “automated” enemy. It is an occasionally contentious game style to be sure, but it has significant draw for some people.

I play a lot more co-op games, for sure, especially with my wife. But I've tried quite a lot of new things coming in, for sure. I like those kinds of games where you're working together to achieve something against the game. Betrayal [Legacy] was fun in that sense, even though it does turn into everybody gets everyone else. Things like the Forbidden Desert-type games are interesting, where you're trying to map out the problem and solve the puzzle together. That stuff is really cool. Even that X-Com game. While really stressful, it’s really fun (Angel, 1/05/2020). 58

Angel and his wife are particularly fond of co-op gameplay, particularly because of the non-competitive problem solving at the heart of those cooperative games. Another type of highly social games on display at The Glass Die are role-playing games. For Willow, her draw to The Glass Die was in part based on storytelling. Not only is she writing a book, but she is also drawn to games that evoke their own stories, and few games do that as much as role-playing games. Indeed, a significant portion of the people interviewed participate in at least one regularly occurring role-playing game or similar long-form game, and there are a wide range of systems and settings to engage in. Spike was deeply enamored with the social potential and storytelling capacity of RPGs.

I categorize the games I play as social problem-solving games, heightened by risk. Dungeons & Dragons, Call of Cthulhu, Legend of the Five Rings. Effectively, I play tabletop role-playing games, in the throwing d20s or some set of dice to adjudicate action, and people kind of putting in their own improvised interpretation of the situation and acting on it (Spike, 1/10/2020).

I have played in several games with Spike, either as a player or as a dungeon master

(DM, or game master, GM) since we’ve met, and indeed he has a deep interest in the game and its social capabilities. In his own words, “Because of The Glass Die, I have started to DM. At the height of it four weeks ago, I was involved in eight games per week.” At my own peak, I was up to four games a week (one I ran and three I participated in). For several of those interviewed, role-playing games are one of the primary ways they engage in play.

Another part of the motivation to participate at The Glass Die is the extensive variety of game options. Wesley commented about his preferences when it comes to his regular group and when new players are involved. 59

In my brain, there's kind of three different levels. One are those intro party games that anyone can play. It's easy enough to explain and everyone's gonna have a good time no matter what. Then there are, after that category, I kinda split everything else into two types. One is Euro or really thinky games that are more like a puzzle and I really want to dive in and make my brain work, the brain burners. And then there's the trash, that's just I'm having fun and I don't really care what happens. I'm just chucking dice and trying to kill monsters. I would say [that aligns with the rest of the group]. I think that's typically what we tend to think about. If it's just the main core group, it's either, “how much does everyone want to think tonight” or “I really want to kill some monsters,” or something like that. And then if we have other people, well then, we're going to switch to those intro ones (Wesley, 1/10/2020).

This flexibility of options and playstyles depending on both mood and group shows the breadth of what can be achieved within this affinity space, but also the willingness and capability of those engaged to branch out and experiment from their usual habits.

This flexibility extends beyond just what games players are willing to engage in, the potential for self-change is also a draw. As discussed previously, Plato recognized that play allows for a separation from objective reality into a space of creative assessment

(Hunnicutt, 1990). Woodyer (2012) saw the same capacity for critical subjectivity in the self. One interview participant directly acknowledged this behavior.

No, it’s mostly I expect to see people here. Often, the figures that I come to see are friends I would like to be better friends with, and so drives me here rather than most other bars which don't really provide the kind of atmosphere that invokes the use of the mind instead of the ego. Where I would like to be is more in this place where I could use my mind a lot more. That's the thing that I want to grow in and use. (Xander, 1/17/2020)

Xander has detected this self-observant and self-mutable facet of The Glass Die and acknowledged its utility. The creative capacity permitted to participants in this playful affinity space allows for growth and innovation. For some people at The Glass Die, this is an important draw and a necessity in their life, to learn, to grow, and to have new experiences. 60

“Tell a story together”: Internal grammar is transformed by external grammar

The new experiences sought by participants at The Glass Die, and indeed the larger tabletop gaming affinity space, are the games to be played and stories to be told with their fellow players. They are the skills to be learned, the techniques to be mastered, and the means with which to create more experiences through play. While the games are the portals and generators that draw participants into the affinity space, it is the players who turn that box of cardboard and plastic pieces into a lived experience through their playful social engagement. For this facet of the affinity space, Gee recognizes that the online forum discussions and commentary on gameplay by players (external grammar) can have a direct impact on the programming and design of the original game itself

(internal grammar). By listening to their audience’s complaints and praises, a studio is able to address the weakness and amplify the strengths of their product, hopefully making their game even better and more appealing. However, Gee was referring to only one videogame title and the semiotic social spaces that directly orbit it. By contrast, since there are abundant individual boardgame titles, the semiotic social space of the tabletop gaming hobby demands a broader view of the two grammars and how they apply. While indeed, player commentary has affected how certain boardgame genres have evolved over time, player experiences in the broader hobby also affect how they interact with specific games. It is thus necessary to explore both of these perspectives.

As to the first perspective, player experiences affecting the game titles with which they interact, some game genres have changed as each new iteration within the genre address the weaknesses of prior titles. It must be acknowledged that The Glass Die does not represent the sole influence in this regard, but rather a stage upon which these 61 problems and changes can be displayed. One such example is the war game, a game style that effectively started the strategy game genre. Riley, who started his gaming hobby as a war gamer back in the 1970s, acknowledges that the newer titles allow for the same feeling captured in games that used to take several day-long sessions previously.

I was talking to a couple guys that play war games here on Thursday nights, and discussed some of this stuff they did. As much as I like those older games, the new stuff, even war game-style, gives me the same feel but in 45 minutes to an hour, instead of spending a month to play it. I have the patience to do it, but I'm finding I’ve really got to be in the mood to play it now. (Riley, 2/02/2020)

Over the decades since he originally started, there has been a constant development and redevelopment of the play experience for war games in an effort to distill and capture the same experiences. Similarly, Giles used to play a World War II miniatures game during a period when he lived in Australia. “There was a gentleman whose kids were grown, so he had two bedrooms he converted to just gaming for this ONE game. There were six of us that met there, and it was insane to have four big gaming tables to play, with all the miniatures he had painted and built on shelves.” For some war game enthusiasts, this level of commitment to their chosen games is well worth the effort, but both this spatial investment and the time commitment as mentioned by Riley create barriers which may prevent the more novice players from engaging in certain game styles. While a place still exists for these complicated types of games, there are an increasing number of game titles in the same genre that have reduced the commitment and yet still allow for a similar experience.

Through player feedback and experience, boardgame makers are able to counter the weaknesses found in prior game titles, incrementally improving the various genres while making their own marks on the tabletop industry. In the earlier discussion 62 regarding Angel and his wife’s appreciation of cooperative games, a recurring problem that appears in that genre is that of “quarterbacking.” Although all of the players are trying to win the game together, there is also a possibility that one player can dominate the decision-making process for everyone else. Understandably, this can spoil the fun of playing for the other people involved. This problem is addressed in later titles, with the implementation of rules for simultaneous and silently decided actions, or thematically enforced ignorance of other players’ statuses in betrayal-type games. Another avenue of game improvement includes playtesting of new titles, an event I witnessed on several occasions during my observations of The Glass Die. Local Reno boardgame makers have used The Glass Die as a place to test their in-development titles. On several occasions, local game creators have brought in prototype copies of their games as a way to test out mechanics and receive player input on what works and what doesn’t. While the creator is able to test and fine-tune their game, the players are able to get a sneak peak at an upcoming title. While this is a very direct means of internal grammar being changed by external grammar, it is an infrequent but not insignificant event at The Glass Die that exemplifies external-internal grammatical exchange on a micro-scale.

As to the second perspective with which to view internal grammar being affected by external grammar, there is a shift in thinking that must occur from James Paul Gee’s initial intent for semiotic social spaces. Rather than a singular game title and the support structures in place to better learn and modify that one game, The Glass Die and the tabletop gaming hobby as a whole, are part of a semiotic social space. Internal and external grammars become more convoluted when the SSS contains the breadth and width of tabletop gaming. Few participants at The Glass Die play only one game ever, 63 and this is where the two types of grammars interact. Each game and play-adjacent activity has its own internal grammar while each player’s experiences with other games and activities form external grammars that influence how people engage with the larger hobby. Spike, one of the most active players of role-playing games, spoke prolifically about the personal changes he has experienced through running those games.

The second skill I picked up was soliciting people's thoughts and acting on it. This idea of accepting what people are bringing to the table and working with it, versus trying to railroad it, for lack of a better word. Adapting, yeah, adapting is probably the big one. The social skills, more discreetly, being able to be self- aware and regulate my own emotions, because it gets emotional. It gets frustrating. Sometimes you deal with people who hog the limelight. That requires a certain degree of emotional regulation, and coming to terms with that. So, socialization, yes that. In terms of reasoning skills, scheduling skills, it's forced me to get better with scheduling, obviously, but I actually struggle with that a lot. (Spike, 1/10/2020)

As he indicated, engaging with multiple people to play a game like Dungeons &

Dragons, which focuses heavily on creativity and improvisation, is exceedingly challenging. Spike recognized how his regular gameplay challenged him to improve his craft. “Oh, and the craft of dungeon mastering. Oh my god, it's beautiful. There is so much nuance and richness and depth to being able to sit down with a group of people and tell a story together, that is left to the Dungeon Master's devices.” Spike was keenly aware of the personal growth he attained while playing and running the game. Another interviewee, Willow, saw a direct connection between her gameplay and her own efforts at writing a fantasy novel.

I think, generally speaking, you can just boil it down to confidence because you get actual social engagement practice from RPGs. But then as far as writing goes, I'm hearing all kinds of dialogue, and I'm hearing it from different people, not just inside my own head. So you have that outlet of different perspectives and problem-solving. I like exercising that, that's why I like games that problem-solve with storytelling. That's why I like video games. That's why I like those kinds of 64

board games, just like problem-solving with numbers means nothing to me, it has no value to me. But when you have these narratives that are intertwined and engaged, I'm working my brain because you have different things to keep in mind or trying to solve a crime. (Willow, 1/03/2020)

Through play, specifically interactive storytelling, and engaged problem-solving with other players, Willow was able to gain confidence in and hone her craft at writing.

Playing with others through fantastical conundrums, listening to and participating in the interplay among player characters, and observing the social dynamics of independent actors, improved her writing ability. This capacity to experiment and learn through play is a direct callback to Brown and Vaughn’s (2009) exploration of play’s benefits. Both

Spike and Willow, and others as will be explored further, found that play helped them to improve their skills and capabilities both in-game and externally. These changes to their abilities represent changes to their core self, making the simple act of play a life-changing and identity-altering action.

As an affinity space, The Glass Die is supported by the connections and relations formed among its participants, the dynamics between them, and their motivations for engaging in the space. With play being the driving function of this tabletop gaming bar, participants see the activity itself as inspiration to collaborate with each other.

Considerations like identity or individual expertise in a particular game often bear little significance when participants wish to engage in a game. Indeed, the games themselves often serve as a gateway for new people to find their way into the affinity space, although the social interaction offered by those titles is just as much of a draw. Via these games, players are capable of assessing both the game being played and themselves through the act of playing, gaining inspiration, skill, and experience. Ultimately, these four facets of 65

Gee’s affinity spaces lay the foundation for the next group of aspects, the cultivation and dissemination of knowledge.

Results and Discussion II: Learning & Knowledge

About a week later, you’re back at the bar top of The Glass Die talking with your soon-to-be dungeon master (still a cringy title), trying to learn how this Dungeons &

Dragons game works and discussing your character options. One of the other players has joined you too. Apparently, you’d already met them a couple months back when they offered to help your group learn a new-to-you game. Definitely a friendly and seasoned player; you got along well enough despite the slight awkwardness of playing with a stranger. Seems like it’ll be a good group to play with for this campaign though, so you’re relieved they’ve taken the time to walk you through this part of the character creation process. They start by asking you what sort of character you wanted to play, so you name a few fantasy movie archetypes that are appealing. After some humorous reminiscing about those movies, you whittle those choices down to one option and the two start providing guidance to help you build the character to your expectations. The conversation takes several tangents while the two talk through how the rules apply to your character choices. They put a couple of source books in front of you at the pages with some pertinent information and one of them suggests a website that gives some other interesting ideas to play with. As you start grasping the details they’re sharing with you, you strike upon an interesting character backstory idea. The dungeon master and the other player exchange a knowing glance. Oh no…

According to Gee, the primary function of an affinity space is to serve as a learning environment. In particular, he perceived them as informal learning spaces where 66 a participant’s passion about the topic drives their self-education. However, even though the learning process is self-motivated, the affinity space serves as a support structure by connecting participants to others, their knowledge, and information held elsewhere. The next four aspects of Gee’s concept all focus on knowledge production in the affinity space:

 Encourages intensive and extensive knowledge,

 Encourages individual and distributed knowledge,

 Encourages dispersed knowledge, and

 Uses and honors tacit knowledge.

Participants within an affinity space like as The Glass Die earn and share their tabletop gaming experiences and knowledge with abandon. As a result of this enthusiastic hunger for the tabletop gaming hobby and ready availability of information through various forms of media and platforms like YouTube or BoardGameGeek.com, the distinction among these four categories can (and often does) become blurred. Gee’s subsequent explorations of affinity spaces (Gee, 2015, 2018; Gee & Hayes, 2012) as well as research conducted by others (Curwood et al., 2013; Davies, 2006; Lammers et al., 2012), have each indicated a variability in the importance of certain aspects, noting that some sites would have different priorities than others resulting in some facets being highlighted more than others. Perhaps the muddied distinctions of these facets are indicative of physical affinity spaces, or another situation altogether. Although the boundaries among them may prove indistinct, the following sections will attempt to highlight each of the four facets in turn through the experiences of particular interview participants. Where 67 overlaps and bleed occur amongst these aspects, attention will be paid to highlight the interconnectivity and complex associations of these facets.

As has been established, The Glass Die serves as a place for many groups to meet up to play games, often on a regular basis. This frequent friendly rivalry around the gaming table demands that each of the participants learn on the fly, improving their skills and strategies. However, all of this exploration, experimentation, and challenge, though competitive, does not put the players at any real risk of harm. As Brown & Vaughan

(2009) indicated, such harmless competition creates an environment for growth and change. The array of games and other activities that people are able to engage in at The

Glass Die provides an extensive learning opportunity to those who participate. While learning how to play these games and through play encounters, participants gain knowledge. This knowledge can come from a variety of sources, not only that particular game’s rulebook. However, even within the rulebook or on the box, there may be flavor text that subtly informs about the game world, influencing a particular mindset for how to approach it. There may be secondary titles related to the first which expand upon the game and/or the game world, creating a more vibrant fictional universe and play experience. Individuals who have already played the game can be a wealth of information to a new player, while similarly, websites and tabletop gaming applications further expand upon that game and in-world knowledge. Indeed, there is nothing that prevents a player from inquiring after this information if they want to better understand a game as it is often valued for the unique perspectives those other sources provide. The experiences and knowledge earned by each player and participant become resources from which 68 others may learn. All these varied sources of knowledge and information are essential to an affinity space, and as a site of the tabletop gaming, The Glass Die is no different.

“Reading a rulebook”: Encouraging intensive and extensive knowledge

For this first facet regarding knowledge within affinity spaces, Gee (2005) recognizes both the highly specialized information that come from close study (intensive) and the more general familiarity gained from being surrounded by the material

(extensive). Intensive knowledge within an affinity space requires a participant to engage thoroughly with the information in question, to dive deep into the rules and structures to understand a game’s inner workings, or using that knowledge to manipulate and change how the game works for better playability. Extensive knowledge is shallower but also far broader. While it may not require the same investment of mental resources to grasp the mechanics at play, the spread of associated knowledge and details can be equally daunting despite the superficiality. As a result, it is also difficult to fully assess extensive knowledge directly through the interview data, it is best viewed in contrast to the intensive knowledge readily on display. Gee’s emphasis here is that individual participants in the affinity space, while interested in the same general topic, would possess different intensive knowledges while also understanding its place in the larger collection. These individualized specializations would (albeit imperfectly) cover the wider range of information. One of the portals within the tabletop gaming affinity space to exhibit such breadth and depth of knowledge is that of Dungeons & Dragons, and as mentioned previously, there are many people at The Glass Die who engage in that activity. 69

Cordelia, one of the bartenders at The Glass Die, was not well-versed in tabletop gaming before she started working there, although her other interests were not unaligned.

Her childhood included some of the “standard tropes of Sorry, Monopoly, and The Game of Life,” then during her young adulthood, she became far more interested in video games which led to her side job as a video game streamer. However, after taking her current position at The Glass Die, Cordelia’s exposure to tabletop gaming vastly changed her interest in the hobby. She was invited to join a game of Dungeons & Dragons by one of the customers there and soon adopted the game as a new favorite.

It has made it to where instead of wanting to like sit at home and play a video game for hours on end, I'm much more interested in reading a rulebook and going through game components. Last night, I spent a good 30 minutes organizing spell cards for my D&D character, and that is more interesting to me than anything else, which I don’t think I would have said a couple years ago. It's definitely had a huge effect on me and my life. (Cordelia, 1/05/2020)

Cordelia quickly became enamored with the game and any information about it, in particular the character creation and advancement options. She initially developed an intensive knowledge of the ruleset when learning the game, and as she dove into other sources of information outside the core rules, she deepened her understanding of the character creation process. “I’ve become quite a little D&D maniac based on campaigns, classes, sub-classing, spells, not only my own characters, but other characters, is really cool especially in this particular setting at this particular bar.” Beyond character details,

Cordelia grew a particular fondness for playing as magic users9 in her campaigns. As a

9 In terms of role-playing games, magic users are characters that cast spells for both combat and social encounters in a game. In most RPGs, these tend to be more rule-intensive characters and not necessarily meant for beginning players. They sure are fun to play though; there’s a reason why the fireball-flinging wizard is such an iconic image. 70 result, she developed a strong understanding of the magic system10 and how those rules operated. This growing body of individual knowledge on these two particular subsets within the D&D rule set is a key example of specialized, intensive knowledge. While she understood the rules of the whole system well enough to play the game, her intensive knowledge has become a resource to others. Given Cordelia’s online presence, her individual knowledge of the game could be shared with others through her streaming content. This ability to share her expertise with others, whether online or in-person, is an early example of dispersed knowledge as will be explored soon. Despite her relative inexperience with tabletop gaming at the start of her employment at The Glass Die,

Cordelia quickly became knowledgeable about the games and information that surrounded her. While certainly beneficial from a job performance perspective, the expertise and enthusiasm she developed for the material went beyond what was necessary. By developing her own proficiency with the D&D system, Cordelia has also helped to inform and support other participants in the affinity space.

“Creativity and exploration”: Encourages individual and distributed knowledge

Unlike the intensive-extensive duality of the prior section, this next paired facet of affinity spaces can more readily be expressed separately. Individual knowledge represents the information each participant possesses and gains in regards to the affinity space. While indeed Cordelia’s experience with Dungeons & Dragons evidences her own journey into the lore and mechanics of that system, there is yet more to be explored

10 For each different role-playing game system, there are rules that adjudicate how actions and combat occur. One subset within those rules involve the operation of magic effects (assuming the system being played has magic within it). These rules can be detailed and complicated, so player mastery of them is both useful and impressive. 71 regarding individual knowledge and growth in an affinity space. By contrast, distributed knowledge is the information held outside of the self. This could be details known by other participants in the affinity space or held within other “local” sources, like books or different games in the case of the The Glass Die. As has been implied about affinity spaces, information and knowledge is a resource to be shared with other participants in the space. People are hoped to make their own knowledge available to others, while also making use of the information available around them.

“Growing skills I didn't have, building upon things I already knew”: Individual knowledge

For some participants at The Glass Die, there is an active recognition of how much there is to learn in the affinity space. Xander, a regular at The Glass Die, came to the tabletop gaming hobby more recently in his life. He was introduced to the art and creativity in roleplaying game materials at a younger age, but didn’t have the opportunity to start playing until the past few years. For him, he sees personal growth and learning potential in tabletop gaming, and actively seeks inspiration from the numerous gaming opportunities is able to experience.

I try to play as many boardgames as possible, just so that I have a wider breadth to pull upon. Growing skills that I didn't know I didn't have, learning and building upon things that I already do know pretty well. There were certain games that I am just extremely fucking good at for no other reason than my mind works well with it. And then most the time I shit the bed and I try my best. (Xander, 1/17/2020)

His direct recognition of the knowledge and capabilities he gains from playing tabletop games evidences the willful potency of this playful affinity space. Across multiple interviews, there was an active acknowledgment by participants at The Glass Die that the 72 insights earned through playing games is directly beneficial. Xander commented on his own aspirations given the experiences he has had learning and play games there.

It is one of creativity and exploration. I've seen what is possible with the minds of other people and what they have created themselves in doing the workouts and bench presses of literature and design to become people who create things of these scales and scopes. And I would like to one day be able to make these kinds of things, but I know that I'm not capable now. So yeah, I’m just basically using this as a means by which to grow my mind. (Xander, 1/17/2020)

In particular for Xander, he is inspired by the creations and innovations that game designers and RPG authors produce. He hopes his experiences and increasing knowledge about the games and systems he tries will allow him to develop similar skills and produce something of his own. His aspirations aside, he deeply values the experiences and connections he has developed while spending time at The Glass Die. Although initially asked how tabletop gaming has affected his own capabilities, Xander was also keenly aware of how transformative the affinity space is.

Tactician abilities, understanding the power of movement, and hmmm… this is all quite big. I don't know how best to answer that kind of question, because I've gained a lot, I've gained a higher scale of understanding things. I have gained dear friends who I wish to have for a very long time. I feel like this has just become the life that I've always wanted to live, and I'm happy about that. (Xander, 1/17/2020)

Xander was particularly cognizant of the changes and knowledge he earned from his engagements at The Glass Die, even if he wasn’t able to directly name them. He recognized the very real effects and chances to learn these opportunities of play had on him. Plato’s assertion of play as a vital learning space, Brown and Vaughan’s recognition that creatures who play thrive, and Woodyer’s declaration of play’s insightful singularity are easily in evidence. These playful affinity spaces are intentionally transformative for those who engage in them. 73

“We have so many informed people”: Distributed knowledge

There was an equally active acknowledgment of the information available surrounding participants at The Glass Die and a ready willingness to make use of such resources. Here we return to Oz, who’s enthusiasm for the tabletop hobby quickly grew after he started coming to The Glass Die, although he readily admitted that his proximity to the bar certainly contributed to that eagerness. Oz was always excited to try something new and the knowledge of the staff and owner to inform him of something he might have missed was something he deeply valued.

And that's where it's great here at The Die where we have so many informed people that work here who can introduce you to so many new games, especially with Jeff. Jeff's always in-the-know on what's coming out, I found myself getting more excited about what's coming. Places like this have definitely changed my opinion on board gaming and group playing. (Oz, 1/07/2020)

The concentration and availability of so much gaming knowledge has made The Glass

Die particularly useful for people getting into the hobby, not just for Oz. The owner of

The Glass Die, Jeff, is a wealth of information about tabletop gaming, not to mention quite enthusiastic about sharing that knowledge. This distributed knowledge has helped

Oz to develop his own individual knowledge of games and their systems.

Well, it's always good to keep the mind sharp, and I think the problem-solving aspect of board games is very crucial to that. It's very fun to learn a new game, in that where you learn a new mechanics. Deck-building11 wasn't even a term that I understood before I started coming here, and then I learned about them through games like Clank and Undaunted: Normandy. (Oz, 1/07/2020)

11 Deck-building games are a type of tabletop game wherein the primary mechanic is to use your initially small hand of cards to “purchase” or otherwise earn more cards to add to your hand. The goal of these games is often to accrue more potent or valuable cards that help the players achieve that game’s victory condition. Think of it as a more detailed version of the standard card game War. 74

Like Cordelia and Xander, by drawing upon the information and knowledge around them, it has been far easier for Oz to learn about new titles and game styles. By taking in this available information, and in a similar fashion as Cordelia, Oz has himself become a resource for others within The Glass Die affinity space. In an earlier section, Oz commented on his enthusiasm to teach others a new game.

I think that comes with the experience of the territory, when you see groups that come in and they don't seem to play games a lot or they grab a game that they don't really know. Especially if it's a game that I know, I usually walk by and say, “Hey, oh that's a great game. Do you guys know what you're doing? Do you need any help here or there?” But to answer your question more directly, I will constantly offer help to people, I make myself available is the best way to say it. (Oz, 1/07/2020)

Being able to connect with other participants and resources in the space has provided Oz access to a breadth of knowledge available about tabletop games and the industry. This in turn has shifted into an eagerness to share what he learns with others as they become involved in the space. While it is presumptuous to assert that such ardent welcoming is a result of this ready distribution of tabletop gaming knowledge, there were several instances of similar comments in other interviews. Perhaps as with child’s play’s quick associations, playful affinity spaces welcome new connections.

“Oh, I’ve heard of this game”: Encourages dispersed knowledge

Somewhat distinct from distributed knowledge, is dispersed knowledge. Where the former represents information held outside of the self but still within the direct affinity space, such as that held by others or within various books or games, the latter is information available “off-site.” This could be knowledge held on other websites

(boardgamegeek.com, shutupandsitdown.com, etc.), video or podcast series (such as

TableTop, Critical Role, The Adventure Zone) through hobby-oriented cell phone apps 75

(like Board Game Stats), or even just held generally as at a library or learned at school.

Dispersed knowledge is admittedly a catch-all for “everything else,” but in regards to a tabletop gaming affinity space like The Glass Die, there are some external resources that frequently get used or referenced.

One participant at The Glass Die who makes extensive use of dispersed knowledge in his pursuit of the tabletop gaming hobby is Giles. As mentioned previously,

Giles has been coming to The Glass Die with a regular group since shortly after it opened. And indeed, he has pursued the hobby for nearly three decades and thus has a particular familiarity with the numerous methods of learning new information about the hobby. When asked how he usually learns how to play new games, Giles replied:

Nowadays, it’s part of my morning routine. I'll watch a video of how a game works to get a feel for if I will like it. I tend to like the instructional videos of how to play versus a review video, because I can get a better idea of how the game works and decide if I want to try it. I go through BGG12 because I'll realize, “Oh, I've heard of this game,” or I'll be reading something in the news section about that game. I just click right on the game and there are all the videos right there and I can see this one's an instructional one and it usually will say in the title “Learn to Play” or something like that. So I click on it and boom. (Giles, 1/08/2020)

Indeed, it is often considered “best practice” to learn a game ahead of time by reading the rules online or finding a tutorial videos such as he described. If a game is more complex, studying ahead of time means less play time lost from learning during those regular meetups of his group. Such dispersed knowledge comes in numerous flavors: tutorials, strategy guides, or in-world fiction, just to name a few. Giles makes significant use of these external resources as part of his connection to the affinity space, particularly as he

12 The website www.boardgamegeek.com 76 greatly values play in his life. “It plays a couple of different roles. I really like using my brain. And it goes back to that strategic and tactical aspect of gaming I really enjoy. It fulfills that thinking deeply and using the brain whether it’s 3D, spatially, or tactically.”

His own understanding of the tabletop gaming rivals that of The Glass Die’s owner, Jeff, and indeed the two are fascinating to listen to as they discuss the intricacies or news of the tabletop industry. Oz alluded to his own enthusiasm for new titles coming out, but

Giles’s use of dispersed knowledge takes it to another level.

Well, I do like new games. In board gaming, there's something called the “cult of the new.” I like to play these new games. What I do in the mornings when I'm at home, after waking up, drinking coffee, I'll get on Board Game Geek, just to kind of see what the news is and read. I'm always willing to give anything and try. (Giles, 1/08/2020)

For Giles, there is always something new to play, a new challenge to be found in tabletop gaming. Staying up-to-date with the pertinent information available on hobbyist websites and various social media helps to support his engagement with the hobby. While this paper specifically focuses on The Glass Die as an affinity space, it is important to recognize how participants like Giles make use of other spaces and knowledges to support their play. Connections to additional virtual and distant spaces of play are part of the broader network of signs and meanings that form the semiotic social space.

“It's like a compost heap”: Uses and honors tacit knowledge

Lastly among the knowledge aspects of affinity spaces is that of tacit knowledge.

Tacit knowledge is the broad experience players gain from practice and engagement; however, have no direct language to describe it. This learning through doing can occur during gameplay or even while watching others play or reading articles on those dispersed resources. During the process of learning how to play a game or to use a 77 particular system, some pre-cognitive, affective details are gained. As Woodyer pointed out, play “prioritises non-cognitive processes and allows a greater role for the irrational”

(2012). This aspect of affinity spaces insinuates a constant transformative experience while participants engage with such playful spaces.

The availability of new play experiences through The Glass Die bolsters many different participant efforts in sometimes subtle and indirect ways. A relative newcomer to the Reno area, Willow quickly adopted The Glass Die as her hangout soon after she moved to town. As mentioned previously, she was in the process of writing a fantasy novel and has benefitted from the wisdom and expertise of other patrons and resources available at The Glass Die. Having access to all those different perspectives and such a variety of ways to explore systems and stories has only helped strengthen her project.

Having long wanted to try a role-playing game, Willow enthusiastically joined when I offered to run a quick Dungeons & Dragons campaign with some mutual friends. She and I have since participated together as players in three other role-playing games since then. Through those experiences, Willow recognized she gained far more out those weekly session than just playing a game.

But I think the next biggest component is how D&D specifically, is very cathartic for me. Especially having been in theater before, that's what it connects to for me but it's much more relaxed and a lot more predictable. Even though none of it is. Yeah, it's a very much almost therapeutic for me. (Willow, 1/03/2020)

The shared adventures she enjoyed while playing Dungeons & Dragons proved more than simple entertainment. The affective nature of play, and in particular role-playing games, offered Willow insights into her own real-world obstacles. Thanks to her playful engagements through RPGs, she has observed how others engage and interact in those 78 games. “But then as far as writing goes, I'm hearing all kinds of dialogue, and I'm hearing it from different people that's not inside my own head.” While not explicitly learned techniques, these experiences have allowed her to adopt new ways that her book’s characters can communicate. Having developed such instinctive knowledge through her participation at The Glass Die, Willow’s efforts at writing her novel benefited greatly from engaging in play and similar endeavors. “Yeah, I mean creatively, as Neil Gaiman said in his Masterclass, it's like a compost heap. It's gathering experience. And that can be something as simple as learning someone else's name to the experiences that you have from gaming.” Each occasion she had to play gave Willow the opportunity to learn a new game or further explore a fictional universe, and through that improve her own abilities as a writer. Those experiences offered different perspectives and takes on how things work in-game or in-world, forming a collection of ideas and fragments from which new inspiration can form.

These four knowledge aspects evidenced the educational and transformative nature of a playful affinity space. With learning and information so readily available in and connected to the space, whether through other participants or via resources like books, websites, or videos, people are able to quickly build new knowledge in this informal setting. Motivated by their own desire to learn a subject, participants benefit from the shared and offered expertise of others. This learning goes beyond just understanding the rules of a game system or even the expanded lore encompassing any particular game setting. As the earlier defined ideas behind playful education indicated, learning is often more effective when it purposeless. As one interview participant mused, 79

Knowledge comes from a place of acceptance and practicing zen, being present with the moment. I don't think the players realize, but whenever I'm sitting back, I am just soaking in the fact that there's four or five people here talking over each other, beaming with their smiles, eating food together, and just spending precious minutes under the sun (or night), choosing to be with each other for a brief moment. I learned to accept the fleetingness of life and just to savor. That's probably the biggest skill I've learned from D&D, to savor it. Don't worry about the end story, don't worry about the end game, don't worry about getting that piece of loot. Savor that moment. That's probably the biggest thing I picked up. (Spike, 1/10/2020)

Through engaging in the apparently purposeless activity of play, Spike was able to learn and develop a new appreciation for gaming. Here the outcome-driven profit-motivated imperative is outshone by an almost subversive emphasis on the playful social experience. These transformative learning moments are part of the nature of play

(Huizinga, 1949; Hunnicutt, 1990; Woodyer, 2012), compelling participants to regularly reevaluate their prior conceptions. The significance of knowledge in an affinity space cannot be understated. As an informal learning space, The Glass Die and its participants make their knowledge and resources available to other guests in the space, inspiring each other to achieve and grow. This individual growth and self-improvement is then turned back towards the affinity to further assist others.

Results and Discussion III: Mastery & Influence

It’s been a little over a month since you started playing Dungeons & Dragons with this group on Wednesdays at The Glass Die. It’s been really fun and you really enjoy stepping into this different character once a week. Sure, it’s a little awkward not responding exactly the way you would yourself, kinda embarrassing too, but that’s part of the appeal. While you’re playing the game, you’re technically not yourself. Tonight’s session just finished and you’re sitting at the bar top with a player from another group 80 whose game also just finished. Their sessions started only a couple weeks ago, but apparently, the two of you are playing similar types of characters and they’re asking your understanding of an ability that your characters share. You had to look this up a few times when you started, too. You grab the book that explains the rules but also pull out your phone to look up this one discussion thread you found that helped the most. While the book explained the mechanics of your characters’ power, this other source offered a far more useful description of the ability in action. You talk the other player through the confusion, but then recognize how only a few weeks ago you were in the exact same boat. Huh… oh, well.

Each of the forms of knowledge generated and valued within an affinity space supports the activities of the people involved in that space. Such knowledge is meant to enhance the abilities and skills of participants, but also be improved upon and further shared, even beyond the affinity space. For the tabletop gaming affinity space, and places like The Glass Die, the distribution and demonstration of these skills and knowledges varies from person-to-person and group-to-group. However, as the eager sharing of knowledge in the previous chapter showed, there is an enthusiasm to present this information to others in whatever form that might take. This chapter explores the individual ways that knowledge is extended outward and freely offered. In terms of Gee’s affinity space aspects, this involves concepts of Mastery and Expertise.

 Many different forms and routes to participation.

 Lots of different routes to status.

 Leadership is porous and leaders are resources. 81

These facets speak to the playful political empowerment discussed by Woodyer (2012), as well as Brown and Vaughan’s (2009) play-motivated self-improvement. This final discussion chapter represents a culmination of the prior two, bringing together the social variability of participant engagement with the wide array of knowledge sources and opportunities to learn. Though themed as Mastery & Influence, this chapter isn’t meant to imply any extensive leadership roles amongst the participants of the affinity space. Given the transformative and transient nature of The Glass Die’s social dynamics and readily available knowledge, leadership is exercised often as support for other participants.

Indeed, each of these facets highlight a flexibility of knowledge and participation.

“Depending on what I need at that given time”: Many different forms and routes to participation

In this aspect, Gee acknowledges that each individual participant in an affinity space engages with the subject material in a different way and that their involvement may vary over time. Whether a participant contributes through coordinating a role-playing game campaign, participating in a weekly board game session, or by simply hanging out at the bar to tackle homework, this facet evidences a continuing elasticity in how members engage in the affinity space and with each other. As has been seen through the facets in the prior chapters, participation and knowledge take on many different shapes and flavors in the tabletop gaming affinity space. This section ultimately looks at some of the transient and variable ways participants connect to The Glass Die, other patrons, and the larger tabletop hobby.

As an affinity space, The Glass Die serves as a site of player engagement. How exactly that engagement manifests depends greatly on the person, what they’re in the 82 mood for, and what is currently happening at The Glass Die. None of the members of the space have defined roles or expectations; how they contribute to the tabletop gaming hobby and the space can (and will) change from day-to-day. Even though The Glass Die is a bar, and certainly many people go there after work or school for a drink, as one interviewee, Riley, put it, “I think it gives people an alternative instead of just sitting in a bar, you're actually playing a game.” The Glass Die offers participants far more options than just that evening drink, and that variety is what facilitates the differences in participation. Likewise, participant and bartender, Buffy, commented on her own variable interaction when she’s not working. “Depends on the game. It's either a brain teaser exercise like Shobu or it's a nice way to relax, but it's a way to spend your time without just watching TV or being mentally sedentary.” Both she and Riley recognized that despite The Glass Die’s status as a bar, it is still about participating and engaging with the hobby.

At this point, just for clarification, I will acknowledge a distinction between employee roles and their participation in the tabletop gaming aspect at The Glass Die.

While their work roles may be defined, those do not fully dictate their engagement in the hobby, except when they do. Both Buffy and Cordelia, as well as the third bartender,

Warren, occasionally receive requests from the owner to learn new games, though often this is to facilitate an event they will be on-shift for. Additionally, their knowledge of game titles and genres does support the retail side of the business, but does not require knowing how to play every game on hand. As can be expected, all three are a little more judicious about their own engagement at The Glass Die when they are not on shift.

However, each of them has standing game sessions that they participate in, whether it be 83 an RPG campaign or a legacy board game group. Although their employment may require certain responsibilities, tasks, and knowledges, it by no means demands a continuing participation in the hobby at the same level of engagement.

As for customers at The Glass Die, there is even more variation in how they participate. Once more we can be guided by Oz’s enthusiasm for tabletop gaming. As discussed previously, he eagerly jumped into the gaming hobby after he started coming to

The Glass Die. Oz recognized how often his involvement varies and the influence other participants in the affinity space play in that.

I like to gravitate more towards the games that I played before, and then I try to learn new games. I know last year we had a six-month run where it was every week, we learn a new game. So that's where it kind of screws up my numbers, how often, because there was a time where we were, “Hey, no, we're playing a new game and we're not playing anything else.” And that's where it's great, especially here at The Die where we have so many informed people that work here that introduce you to so many new games (Oz, 1/07/2020).

Oz appreciates the variety of options he has whenever he comes to The Glass Die and the array of knowledge available through others in the space. For example, he joined one of the war gaming groups to play the Song of Ice and Fire miniatures game. Soon after, he has started learning how to paint those miniatures. More recently, he began coordinating and running a Star Wars roleplaying game for six other players (including myself). In the first example, he is an active participant, in the next he is a pupil, and in the last he is the leader of that game. These are only a few instances of Oz’s continuing engagement at

The Glass Die, but each has a different level of commitment. Such variability is a common occurrence among most of the people who frequent The Glass Die.

What motivates individuals to interact with the affinity space and other participants can vary just as much as the level of engagement. For Spike, who as 84 discussed previously focuses heavily on Dungeons & Dragons, his motivation to pursue tabletop gaming came after a harrowing experience.

As a little bit of TMI, I got back into it because of a near-death experience after skiing. It helped me process that. Dungeons & Dragons forced me to be with the community. More importantly, the campaigns I run have a prominent theme of death, and it helps me process that. (Spike, 1/10/2020)

Spike’s engagement with the tabletop hobby very much focuses on role-playing games and story-telling games that gather people around the table. He enjoys the problem- solving aspects such games provide and the camaraderie that forms among the players, in part for the obvious social component but also the ability to indirectly work through traumatic experiences.

When I started out, gaming was mere hobby. More socialization than anything, an indulgence. When I picked it up two years ago, it was therapy. Honest to God therapy. A way to make sense of something so difficult. Now, I feel like it’s a contribution to the community. I DM partially, yeah, there's an ego element to it, I want to get better at it. There's that learning element to it, but there is something supremely satisfying about getting people into it. And just seeing their eyes light up, their eyes get all glassy with awe about how much they can do. It's that feeling when you open up a really good video game for the first time. Just that wonder. I do it for that now. (Spike, 1/10/2020)

Spike’s commitment to running role-playing games has changed over time. From his initial start just to learn it, it evolved into therapy and self-improvement, then more recently as a way to bring people together and share the hobby. While his role in this regard changed little, the shifting motivation and subtext of his games influenced how his games ran and the experiences of his players. However, this isn’t to say Spike only ever played the role of dungeon master, to the contrary, he quite readily joined other games as a player including in a couple of my own games. Often his engagement at The Glass Die would depend entirely on responsibilities he had outside of the tabletop gaming affinity 85 space, particularly as he was finishing his doctoral dissertation, although his dedication to his various groups was impressive.

Speaking of schoolwork, The Glass Die also serves as a workspace for writers and people in school. Although not exactly tied to play, the distinctly café-like environment makes this bar particularly useful for study and writing. The space exudes a creative energy that several individuals found beneficial to their homework, including myself. For

Wesley, his involvement would frequently vary when he came to the site.

On every Tuesday, I have a regular gaming group, one that pretty much meets every week. And then other days, most of the time I just either sit at the bar or work, and then just hang out after working. Typically, there are a lot of people also doing the same thing, which makes it nice. There's Wi Fi there, which is essential for everything. Also, they have both coffee and beer. So, depending on what I need at that given time point, I can get it. In some places, it's weird to sit at a bar with headphones, but at The Glass Die people do it all the time so it doesn't really matter. (Wesley, 1/10/2020)

Wesley values the highly variable levels of interaction and the ability to work while just sitting at the bar. With his weekly games, research work, and occasionally random other associations, Wesley was able to alter his participation each time he came, deep diving into a new board game with his group one evening or isolating himself to work at the bar top on another. Willow, another regular at The Glass Die, started coming quite frequently immediately after moving to Reno. Aside from her engagement with role-playing games, she has also used The Glass Die as part of her creative projects and for work.

I'm writing a book. If I was in school though, I would come here for schoolwork. And I have done some stuff for work and continuing education classes and stuff, but what started me coming here, aside from the time I didn't live here and was visiting, then I'd come up here and just hang out and play games with my friends that I hadn't made from this location at the time. So, barring that, I came here with the intention to work on my book. (Willow, 1/03/2020) 86

She is writing a novel set in a fantasy world of her own devising. Although she created much of the content on her own, she has found the people who frequent The Glass Die to be supportive and a valuable resource to fleshing out her world. Although, isolated by their work, a camaraderie is still recognized among those engaged in their solitary tasks while working in The Glass Die. This includes myself as well, especially during the early days working on this project. On more than a few occasions, the bar top would be filled with people on their laptops or deep in papers, working on homework.

Beyond pre-set commitments to join in a game, participants at The Glass Die are not expected to maintain the same role in the affinity space every time they decide to come in. In the discussions of play’s commonplace nature, both Huizinga (1949) and

Woodyer (2012) spoke to how readily play can be enacted and engaged. A ubiquitous ease shows itself through this facet, play and playfulness can be engaged or set aside in different ways when the mood strikes. Although each of these individuals appreciates and embraces their activities and the space itself, they likewise value such variability in their roles there.

“I just wanted to see if we could get a radio show on the air”: Lots of different routes to status.

Much like the alterability of participation in the previous section, individual status in an affinity space is not tied to a specific role or expectation. This aspect of Gee’s affinity spaces acknowledges that each participant in the space, no matter their level of engagement, is capable of achieving a measure of notoriety and status. However, status here is not intended as a particular role or expectation among those who engage in the activity, but rather a recognition of talent, ability, and contribution. Whether a participant 87 masters a particularly challenging solo-play game or helps promote the tabletop gaming hobby on the airwaves (radio show, YouTube channel, streaming, etc.), status here is just as variable and flexible as other facets of affinity spaces. In the tabletop affinity space, such routes to status are numerous, and while they may vary in scope, each is valued by some portion of the population. Among the people interviewed at The Glass Die there were several who contributed to the tabletop gaming effort either at the bar itself and/or to the larger gaming hobby beyond those walls. As has been discussed already in the prior knowledge chapter, the many sources of knowledge within the affinity space are highly valued. From Jeff’s familiarity with gaming industry knowledge to Cordelia’s command of Dungeons & Dragons material, there are many minor ways that participants in the space may contribute to hobby that each garner some level of renown.

Within the larger tabletop affinity space, there are many gaming-focused conventions both nationally and internationally. There are highly focused tabletop gaming conventions such as Spiel in Essen, Germany or Gen Con, in Indianapolis, as well as more broadly appealing conventions like Comic Con in Los Angeles or PAX in

Seattle which include a tabletop gaming component despite catering primarily to comic books and video games, respectively. Reno also has its own local event called

RAGECon, the Reno Area Gaming Expo and Convention, at which The Glass Die and many of its patrons participate in annually. One interviewee, Riley, has supported and volunteered at the convention for many years. While undoubtedly motivated by his own interest in the tabletop gaming hobby, his frequent participation has afforded a level of recognition for his efforts. 88

I've offered a lot of help with the setup, GM a lot of games, and the like. This year, I missed a couple of our planning meetings, but the man who runs it said, “He always comes. We're gonna give him a job now.” Even though I missed a couple of them, I'm now in charge of training for the game library, the registration desk, and stuff like that. (Riley, 2/02/2020)

Riley’s contributions to the local convention over the years afforded him a more significant role in the event this year. His frequent presence at and familiarity with

RAGECon have earned him some recognition not only among the organizers of the event, but also among the participants at The Glass Die. As a regular patron at The Glass

Die, his known association with the convention makes him a valuable resource to others for information regarding the event. Riley’s contributions to RAGECon have provided him a measure of status both at the convention and at The Glass Die, both components of the larger tabletop gaming affinity space.

Others sometimes create their own unique route to status. Wesley, in a solo-play competition with Jeff, have both started playing through every scoring combination of a specific one-player game, Sprawlopolis. This simple 18-card game has numerous scoring conditions based on city district adjacencies and road placement. Each card has its own scoring condition on the back, three are chosen, and the game is played with the remaining 15, usually in less than 10 minutes per game once they get going.

And so, there's 816 combinations of goals that you can play. I made a random list of all the potential goals and Jeff and I are trying to play through all of them, which I don't know if anyone's ever done it before. Even the designers said they have never played all the combinations. We recently just broke the 200-game barrier. We're keeping track of all of our stats to compare to one another, and just kind of learn about how we improve as we play the game. and then we're also posting our results on a website, Board Game Geek to tell everyone else what we're up to and people seem really interested in it. (Wesley, 1/10/2020) 89

Despite the daunting number of iterations, both Wesley and Jeff have made significant headway in this endeavor. They have also gained a minor following on their Board Game

Geek forum discussion and among patrons in The Glass Die interested in their progress.

According to Wesley, the idea for this undertaking was a spur of the moment inspiration, one that Jeff eagerly got behind and pushed forward. However, he also acknowledged, “I don't know if I would ever do it again, but I think we'll be able to finish. I know it's kind of crazy.” While indeed a very niche challenge, they both find the attempt worthwhile, even if only to say they accomplished it. But beyond the two of them, it is nonetheless a curiosity that intrigued several people and the developers, creating a certain notoriety for the two.

Similarly, Spike’s efforts at serving as gamemaster for so many different role- playing games at The Glass Die have earned him some recognition within the larger tabletop gaming space. His prolific gaming activities and ability have seen him begin to support some local fundraising efforts and the larger gaming hobby via broadcast. A

Reno non-profit arts and music initiative held a fundraising activity last year by running multiple consecutive short role-playing game sessions with several different local gamemasters, Spike being one of them. The significant success of the event has already created a desire to host another one. Spike’s support of and talent at the hobby help to sustain the gaming affinity space and evidence one of his routes to status. Beyond his volunteer work to benefit the local non-profit, Spike and one of his regular Dungeons &

Dragons groups also have a community radio show and podcast (although it is not the only such show out of Reno). 90

+775 to Hit is the community D&D radio show. It started off at probably at 10% seriousness. I just wanted to see if we could get a radio show on the air. I pitched it to the manager of the station, who in turn said, “Yeah, there's been generating interest and we're keen on exploring that possibility.” After that, I sought out some of my friends who I thought would be exceptionally good role players, just very dynamic, very excited people, and even keeled. (Spike, 1/10/2020)

This very public performance of tabletop gaming affords far more exposure for the hobby and follow in the footsteps of such Internet-based shows as Shut Up & Sit Down,

Tabletop, Critical Role, and Dimension 20. Even though Spike’s is a smaller production, it contributes to both the larger tabletop gaming hobby and the affinity space of The

Glass Die. For those who participate in the show, it created an explicit path to status.

As can be seen, some of these routes to status aren’t necessarily directly tied to

The Glass Die itself but rather support the tabletop gaming hobby as a whole. Whether internal to the affinity space or reaching beyond, any contribution to the expansion of the affinity space is recognized and appreciated by participants. By “putting themselves out there” and reaching to exceed the current boundaries of the hobby, participants are engaging in the resistant acts Woodyer (2012) described as central to the politics of playing. These acts push against the societal restrictions that circumscribe our ability to play, as described by Henrick’s (2015). Through their engagement with the affinity space and its participants, status is available to any individuals who seek to push at the prescribed boundaries of the hobby.

“I watch the experts”: Leadership is porous and leaders are resources.

Finally, for the last aspect of affinity spaces, Gee indicates that leadership within such spaces can easily change over time and that those with status serve as valuable sources of information. Following the previous sections, it is understood that all 91 participants are capable of finding new status within the affinity space, assisting others in the space, and also of changing their role when they need to. One of the informal functions these individuals serve is to share their knowledge of the larger affinity space.

This has already been explored through numerous participants in the previous chapter on the various forms of knowledge within The Glass Die affinity space. Still, it is useful to reiterate some of those prior examples within this context of leadership and how their respective resources are shared. One such interviewee who exemplifies this aspect is the bartender, Cordelia, and her enthusiasm for Dungeons & Dragons. Her introduction to

D&D after starting work at The Glass Die quickly changed into to an exuberant exploration of the roleplaying game system and its lore. This led to a firm command of the material and a desire to share this information with others, both in-person and online.

She found status as a resource of knowledge, falling into a leadership role for those interested in the game. Likewise, Jeff, the owner of The Glass Die, was recognized by several interviewees as having a tremendous knowledge of games and the larger boardgame industry. Although his primary role is as a business owner and bartender, patrons also value his understanding of boardgames (and not just regarding what they have for retail sale). Jeff possesses a surprising command of many different boardgames, having played a great number of them even before he opened the bar, but especially after.

The same can also be said for Giles as he discussed in the earlier Learning & Knowledge chapter. His morning routine of reviewing tabletop gaming news and hobbyist websites, and his conversations with Jeff regarding recent and upcoming games both show an understanding of the industry and serve as a font of information for the affinity space. 92

These are but a couple examples of leadership and their role as a resource from prior sections, though they are by no means the only ones.

Some individuals at The Glass Die play subtle leadership roles and demonstrate the dynamic and multi-scalar dimensions of leadership. During Wesley’s interview, he discussed how his regular gaming group learned new games. One of their number,

Graham, apparently was the designated reader of the rulebook.

Graham is the best person I've ever met at just opening a rulebook and being able to get 95% of the rules right on a brief skim. He will look at the rules, you give him 10 minutes, and he's got it. He’ll explain to us the rules. I mean, we're less likely to try new games if Graham’s not there. But if he's there, we go for it! (Wesley, 1/10/2020)

Given the regularity and length of time this group has been playing together, it is possible that Graham developed a sense for the rule patterns that occur across so many gaming experiences. Nonetheless, Graham’s ability to skim the rulebook and easily explain them to the rest of the group is a useful talent that allows them to quickly get into a new game.

Wesley even acknowledges that if Graham isn’t present for an evening, the group would much rather fall back on a previously played title than explore a new one. This is a more subtle leadership role but a valuable resource to be sure.

The availability of leaders as resources within an affinity space is a great boon for participants in the space. One such example was shared by Spike when he discussed how he learned new role-playing games.

I watch the experts. I have a very hard time reading through the core rulebooks or just having pamphlets thrown at me. Actually, that is probably the only way I've picked up D&D so far is through observation. It's this idea that here's a person who's been playing it for so many years; they seem to have it down, why not just mimic their patterns, and then start tweaking from that? Despite how accessible the new editions of tabletops are, there are still a lot of rules. You're talking about 300-500 page rulebooks. (Spike, 1/10/2020) 93

Spike’s introduction to gamemastering Dungeons & Dragons came primarily from observing others doing the same. And indeed, learning new RPG systems can sometimes be a daunting task given how large those rules sets can be. After being invited to a group,

Spike quickly learned who could be a valuable mentor.

This is before The Glass Die but when I got invited to gaming groups, it's pretty easy to tell who's been doing it for far longer. You just start to observe and you start to take mental notes in your head, “Ah, I like the way this guy's doing that. I like the way this guy role plays. I like the way she describes actions.” You start to pick those up and you do your best to commit them to your long-term memory. (Spike, 1/10/2020)

Even though Spike started learning Dungeons & Dragons before The Glass Die opened, just having access to those experts supported his introduction into the hobby. However, the concentration of many different types of masters and leaders available through an affinity space like The Glass Die can make such initiations much easier.

As with many of the earlier sections, leadership roles within the affinity space are impermanent and flexible. While possessing a level of status might create instances where other participants point to that individual as an expert on that particular topic, this does not establish a specific function. It does, however, create a new avenue of knowledge within the affinity space. The mastery possessed by such individuals can be tapped by others to improve others’ skills and achieve similar goals.

Conclusion

Ultimately, this paper sought to assess the socio-spatial significance of The Glass

Die, a tabletop gaming bar. As a relatively new phenomenon in metropolitan areas, such sites have not warranted much academic attention, and as a result, how they align with geographic considerations remains in question. The Glass Die is a space dedicated to 94 adult play, and while such an activity is problematized by some societal perspectives, research into play describes it as a potent and transformative activity. By applying Gee’s affinity space concept to The Glass Die and framing it as a site of informal adult learning, what emerges is a place of dynamic social connections and shared experiences that celebrates creativity and growth.

Much of this paper stemmed from and relied upon play literature, a substantial and varied body of work. For all its contributions and discoveries, play remains a complicated and elusive topic within academia, with gaps pockmarking the literature.

Even though play is recognized as a substantial force of innovation and personal development, it is also dismissed as frivolity and distraction. Despite the numerous descriptions and indications of what it is capable of, play remains a mystery. “Another reason I resist defining play is that at its most basic level, play is a very primal activity. It is preconscious and preverbal—it arises out of ancient biological structures that existed before our consciousness or our ability to speak” (Brown & Vaughan, 2009). It is clear that the language to adequately explicate play currently does not exist, and that societal pressures hinder our understanding. On several occasions when describing this project, I received light derision or poorly hidden eye-rolls that indicated disapproval even from academic peers. Play still has a long way to go despite its pervasiveness in society.

In regards to the interpretation of The Glass Die as one of Gee’s affinity spaces

(2005), interview responses evidenced many of the facets delineated by Gee. Through the common endeavor of the space, play and tabletop gaming, most participants are drawn together to interact no matter their skill or ability, dismantling the hierarchies and structures which isolate them. While engrossed in their games, players are able to detach 95 from their identities and social stratifications, connecting with each other as players first and foremost. These playful engagements create social connections among the players and with the space itself, but also allow participants to begin a process of unstructured learning. Knowledge and ideas are freely shared among the participants in The Glass Die, allowing even the newest of players to quickly learn what the space and others are capable to teaching. Although The Glass Die presents as an informal learning space, by no means are those engaged in the space required to be leaders. The information and expertise offered to other participants can be gleaned through observation and involvement – after all, games are meant to be played together.

Some differences with Gee’s concept arise as a result of The Glass Die representing a physical counterpart to the virtual spaces Gee originally discussed. Unlike the anonymity available through online spaces, identity and assumptions are far more on display. It is a conscious effort by participants to maintain the central playful motivation of the space. Indeed, one curious point of friction at The Glass Die is the paper towel dispensers in the restrooms, upon both of which is a “Good Night White Pride” sticker with Garfield, the cat from the comics, kicking a broken swastika while stating, “Fuck off and die bastards!!!” The sticker has been removed and replaced numerous times over the course of the year prior to this project; someone who visits the space clearly does not appreciate the sentiment. Unfortunately for that person, The Glass Die has a large stack of replacement stickers. Another discrepancy between this physical affinity space and its online equivalents is that information sources are less delineated by participants. While most recognize that helpful details can be found through numerous avenues, there is less acknowledgement of the differences between them; they are often simply perceived as 96 other sources. Despite these variations, the idea to frame The Glass Die as an affinity space still helped to assess the social qualities of the space, and allowed for a clearer portrayal of these understudied playful urban phenomena.

Unsurprisingly, COVID-19 interfered immensely with this project. Aside from missing out on nearly a year of additional observation data and potentially more interviews, I was unable to follow-up with interviewees to learn how they’ve individually adapted their ability to play socially. Several online platforms such as Roll20.net or

Tabletop Simulator have risen to fill the gap enforced by social distancing, allowing for distanced gameplay to still happen, although from other conversations I have had, they don’t really compare to the real thing. Some role-playing groups have still met in-person, balancing caution and risk as best they can (though I know of one group that did have a

COVID scare).

As for The Glass Die, it has been challenged by state and local restrictions to ensure public safety. While they have shifted their model to that of a retail space for games and craft beer; they have dropped from four to two employees, fortunately both were seeking opportunities elsewhere rather than having to be let go. Thanks to the holidays, December 2020 was the first month they turned a profit since the previous

March, when Reno’s business restrictions began. The losses have been mitigated by federal, state, and local grants and loans. The Glass Die has remained afloat through all this, but similar spaces in other states have not fared so well. A location in Portland,

Oregon that opened about the same time as The Glass Die, shuttered its doors within two months of COVID restrictions. Another space in Los Angeles lasted only a few months longer. 97

Even as the social distancing guidelines of the past year are relaxed or removed, many of us continue to lead atomized lives, isolated from each other for stretches of time during the day or even week. An affinity space like The Glass Die lets us gather with people we value and allows us to play, to create a collective story that binds us back together.

We're doing something that our ancestors did thousands of years ago, and it is just as good now as it was then. That is enjoying the day, reflecting back on it, and telling stories of heroism, tragedy, all that good stuff. It’s like breaking bread. And I hazard that the reason we tell stories, not just to reflect on the day, but to throw an idea out into the future of what we want to be, together. We want to be heroic. We want to be kind. We want to be… murderhobos13. (Spike, 1/10/2020)

13 Murderhobo n. A player-character in a role-playing game who indiscriminately kills and loots non-player characters, no matter their rank, significance, or whether they did anything wrong. Usually a consequence of open-ended nature of player autonomy in-game. Often a derogatory term. plural murderhobos. In this regard though, Spike is referring to the unfettered freedom this playful storytelling provides. 98

References

Aramini, S., Devine, D., & Kluka, P. (2018). Sprawlopolis. Button Shy.

Ash, J., & Gallacher, L. A. (2011). Cultural Geography and Videogames. Geography Compass, 5/6, 351–368.

Austin, Z., & Sutton, J. (2015). Qualitative Research: Data Collection, Analysis, and Management. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68(3), 226–231.

Barton, J. (2018, April 25). Spread of board game bars rides industry boom and digital backlash. WikiTribune. https://www.wikitribune.com/article/63354/

BBC News. (2019, September 27). Why are board games becoming so popular? https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-wales-49859688

Benjamin, T., & Thompson, D. (2019). Undaunted: Normandy. Osprey Games.

BoardGameGeek – Gaming Unplugged Since 2000. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2021, from https://boardgamegeek.com/

Bosco, F. (2010). Play, work or activism? Broadening the connections between political and children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies, 8(4), 381–390.

Brown, K. M. (2014). Spaces of play, spaces of responsibility: Creating dichotomous geographies of outdoor citizenship. Geoforum, 55, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.05.002

Brown, S. L., & Vaughan, C. C. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. Avery.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (1996, June 1). [Action, Drama, Fantasy, Romance]. Mutant Enemy, Kuzui Enterprises, Sandollar Television.

Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play, and games. Free Press of Glencoe.

Clifford, N., Cope, M., Gillespie, T., & French, S. (Eds.). (2016). Key Methods in Geography (Third Edition). Sage Publishing. https://us.sagepub.com/en- us/nam/key-methods-in-geography/book242938

CMON Games. (2016, September 30). The Rise of the Board Game Cafe. https://cmon.com/news/the-rise-of-the-board-game-cafe

Costikyan, G., Smith, C., Slavicsek, B., & Fantasy Flight Publishing. (2018). Star Wars: The roleplaying game. Fantasy Flight Games.

Coupland, A. (Ed.). (1997). Reclaiming the city: Mixed use development. E & FN Spon. 99

Cross, T. (2017, December 26). Welcome to the golden age of board games—Brought to you by the internet. Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/lifestyle/welcome-to- the-golden-age-of-board-games--brought-to-you-by-the-internet-20171219- h07a36

Curwood, J. S., Magnifico, A. M., & Lammers, J. C. (2013). Writing in the Wild: Writers; Motivation in Fan-based Affinity Spaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(8), 677–685.

Darrow, C., & Magie, E. J. (1935). Monopoly. Hasbro.

Daviau, R., Cohen, N., Honeycutt, J., Miller, R., Neff, B., & Veen, A. (2018). Betrayal Legacy. Avalon Hill Games, Inc.

Davies, J. (2006). Affinities and Beyond! Developing Ways of Seeing in Online Spaces. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2006.3.2.217 de Haan, F., de Haan, G., Rodriguez, J., Tresham, F., & Vohwinkel, F. (2019). Western Empires. 999 Games.

DeLyser, D., Herbert, S., Aitken, S., Craig, M., & McDowell, L. (Eds.). (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography (First Edition). Sage Publishing. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative- geography/book228796

Dennen, P. (2016). Clank!: A Deck-Building Adventure. Renegade Game Studios.

Deterding, S. (2018). Alibis for Adult Play: A Goffmanian Account of Escaping Embarrassment in Adult Play. Games and Culture, 13(3), 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017721086

Donoff, G., & Bridgman, R. (2017). The playful city: Constructing a typology for urban design interventions. International Journal of Play, 6(3), 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2017.1382995

Elkind, D. (2009, May 12). Play and Work in Montessori Education. NAMC Montessori Teacher Training Blog. https://montessoritraining.blogspot.com/2009/05/play- and-work-in-montessori-education.html

Ewing, R., Greenwald, M., Zhang, M., Walters, J., Feldman, M., Cervero, R., Frank, L., & Thomas, J. (2011). Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments—Six- Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 137(3), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000068 100

Flusty, S. (2000). Thrashing Downtown: Play as resistance to the spatial and representational regulation of Los Angeles. Cities, 17(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(00)00009-3

Formichelli, L. (2017, October). How Board Game Restaurants are Winning Big with Customers. FSR Magazine. https://www.fsrmagazine.com/emerging-brands/how- board-game-restaurants-are-winning-big-customers

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Second Vintage Books edition). Vintage Books.

Fung, C. (2017, April 19). Roll of the Dice: Checking Out Reno’s Premier Board Game Parlor. https://thisisreno.com/2017/04/roll-dice-checking-out-renos-premier- board-game-parlor/

Garcia, A. (2017). Privilege, Power, and Dungeons & Dragons: How Systems Shape Racial and Gender Identities in Tabletop Role-Playing Games. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(3), 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1293691

Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic Social Spaces and Affinity Spaces: From The Age of Mythology to Today’s Schools. In Beyond Communities of Practice: Language Power and Social Context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. P. (2015). Accountable Talk and Learning in Popular Culture: The Game/Affinity Paradigm. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 197–204). American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_15

Gee, J. P. (2018). Affinity spaces: How young people live and learn on line and out of school. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(6), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718762416

Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. (2012). Nurturing Affinity Spaces and Game-Based Learning. In C. Steinkuehler, K. Squire, & S. Barab (Eds.), Games, Learning, and Society (pp. 129–153). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139031127.015

Glenney, B., & Mull, S. (2018). Skateboarding and the Ecology of Urban Space. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 42(6), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723518800525

Gobet, F., Retschitzki, J., & de Voogt, A. (2004). Moves in Mind: The Psychology of Board Games. Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/knowledgecenter/detail.action?docID=19920 0

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Aldine Pub. Co. 101

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row.

Haskell, P. T., & Storey, W. H. (1929). Sorry! Hasbro.

Hay, I. (Ed.). (2016). Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (Fourth Edition). Oxford University Press.

Henricks, T. (2015). Play and the Human Condition. University of Illinois Press.

Henry, J. (2015). Tabletop Simulator. Berserk Games.

Holloway, S. L., & Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2014). Enriching Children, Institutionalizing Childhood? Geographies of Play, Extracurricular Activities, and Parenting in England. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(3), 613–627.

Holloway, S. L., & Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2018). Reconceptualising play: Balancing childcare, extra‐curricular activities and free play in contemporary childhoods. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 43, 420–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12230

Holt, N. L., Lee, H., Millar, C. A., & Spence, J. C. (2015). ‘Eyes on where children play’: A retrospective study of active free play. Children’s Geographies, 13(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2013.828449

Horton, J. (2017). Disabilities, urban natures and children’s outdoor play. Social & Cultural Geography, 18(8), 1152–1174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2016.1245772

Horton, J., & Kraftl, P. (2006). Not just growing up, but going on: Materials, Spacings, Bodies, Situations. Children’s Geographies, 4(3), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280601005518

Horton, J., & Kraftl, P. (2018). Three playgrounds: Researching the multiple geographies of children’s outdoor play. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(1), 214–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17735324

Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens (Vol. 3). Routledge.

Hunnicutt, B. K. (1990). Leisure and play in Plato’s teaching and philosophy of learning. Leisure Sciences, 12(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409009513101

ICv2. (2013, July 15). Hobby Games Entering Fifth Year of Growth. ICv2. https://icv2.com/articles/games/view/26211/hobby-games-entering-fifth-year- growth 102

ICv2. (2014, October 22). Another Strong Season for Game Sales. ICv2. https://icv2.com/articles/games/view/29995/another-strong-season-game-sales

James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Teachers College Press.

Jolin, D. (2016, September 25). The rise and rise of tabletop gaming. The Observer. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/25/board-games-back- tabletop-gaming-boom-pandemic-flash-point

Katz, C. (2004). Growing up Global: Economic Restructuring and Children’s Everyday Lives. University of Minnesota Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/knowledgecenter/detail.action?docID=31068 3

Klamer, R., & Markham, B. (1860). The Game of Life. Milton Bradley Company.

Lammers, J. C., Curwood, J. S., & Magnifico, A. M. (2012). Toward an affinity space methodology: Considerations for literacy research. English Teaching, 11(2), n/a.

Lang, E. M. (2015). XCOM: The Board Game. Fantasy Flight Games.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.

Leacock, M. (2013). Forbidden Desert. Gamewright.

Levy, J. (1978). Play Behavior. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lexico.com. (n.d.). Play | Definition of Play by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of Play. Lexico Dictionaries | English. Retrieved July 12, 2020, from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/play

Lovato, J. (2017, November 21). Glass Die: Reno’s hottest board game bar. The Nevada Sagebrush. http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2017/11/21/glass-die-renos-hottest- board-game-bar/

Malizia, E., & Song, Y. (2016). Does downtown office property perform better in live– work–play centers? Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(4), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1056212

Massey, D. B. (1991). A Global Sense of Place. Marxism Today, 38, 24–29.

Massey, D. B., & Allen, J. (Eds.). (1984). Geography matters! A reader. Cambridge University Press in association with the Open University.

McElroy, G., McElroy, J., McElroy, T., & McElroy, C. (n.d.). The Adventure Zone. 103

McKendrick, J. H., Kraftl, P., Mills, S., Gregorius, S., & Sykes, G. (2015). Geographies for play in austere times. International Journal of Play, 4(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2015.1106051

Mearls, M., & Crawford, J. (2014). Dungeons & Dragons (Fifth edition). Wizards of the Coast.

Mercer, M. (2015). Critical Role. In Critical Role.

Mulligan, B. L. (2018). Dimension 20. In Dimension 20. CollegeHumor.

Norfolk, S., Nollen, A., Guo-Qiang, C., Dimmock, J., Lubow, A., Jason, Henig, R. M., Toumani, M., Black, B., & Pinney, M. A. (2008, February 17). The New York Times Magazine, February 17, 2008: Why Do We Play? The New York Times Magazine.

O’Connor, P. (2018). Handrails, steps and curbs: Sacred places and secular pilgrimage in skateboarding. Sport in Society, 21(11), 1651–1668. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2017.1390567

Pac-Man. (1983). [Arcade]. Midway.

Petersen, C., Beltrami, D., Konieczka, C., & Schomburg, S. (2017). Twilight Imperium. Fantasy Flight Games.

Petersen, S. (2014). Call of Cthulhu (Seventh edition). Chaosium.

Roll20. (n.d.). Roll20. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from https://roll20.net

Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. (2016). An Introduction to Qualitative Research: Learning in the Field (Fourth Edition). https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/an-introduction-to- qualitative-research/book246120

Schank, H. (2014, November 23). What Is the Deal With Board-Game Cafes? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/11/board-game- bars/382828/

Schechner, R. (1993). The future of ritual: Writings on culture and performance. Routledge.

Shaw, A. (2012). Do you identify as a gamer? Gender, race, sexuality, and gamer identity. http://journals.sagepub.com.unr.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1177/146144481141039 4

Shaw, I. G. R., & Warf, B. (2009). Worlds of Affect: Virtual Geographies of Video Games. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41, 1332–1343. 104

Shut Up & Sit Down. (n.d.). Https://Www.Shutupandsitdown.Com/. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from https://www.shutupandsitdown.com/

Skelton, T. (2009). Play, Work, Mobilities and Migration. Geography Compass, 3/4, 1430–1448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00240.x

Smith, P. K. (2009). Children and Play: Understanding Children’s Worlds. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/knowledgecenter/detail.action?docID=42798 4

Smith, Q. (2013, March 23). Shut Up & Sit Down Presents: Board Gaming’s Golden Age - Shut Up & Sit Down. Https://Www.Shutupandsitdown.Com/. https://www.shutupandsitdown.com/videos/board-game-golden-age-talk/

Stang, S., & Trammell, A. (2020). The Ludic Bestiary: Misogynistic Tropes of Female Monstrosity in Dungeons & Dragons. Games and Culture, 15(6), 730–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412019850059

Stevens, Q. (2007). The Ludic City: Exploring the Potential of Public Spaces. https://www.routledge.com/The-Ludic-City-Exploring-the-Potential-of-Public- Spaces/Stevens/p/book/9780415401807

Team Building Kits. (2019, February 25). 10 Reasons why Board Games are Making a Comeback. Team Building Kits. https://teambuildingkits.com/10-reasons-why- board-games-are-making-a-comeback/

Teuber, K. (1995). Catan. KOSMOS.

The Economist. (2018, October 4). Britons are increasingly turning to tabletop games for entertainment. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/10/04/britons-are-increasingly-turning- to-tabletop-games-for-entertainment

The Rise of Board Games in Today’s Tech-Dominated Culture. (2020, April 10). Pittwire. http://pittwire.pitt.edu/news/rise-board-games-today-s-tech-dominated- culture

Thorsted, A. C. (2016). Communities of play – a collective unfolding. International Journal of Play, 5(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2016.1147292

Vissering, E. (2014). Board Game Stats (Version 3) [Computer software]. Eerko.

Vranas, M., & Sajdak, J. (2019). SHŌBU. Smirk & Laughter Games.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press. 105

West, S., Hoff, E., & Carlsson, I. (2017). Enhancing team creativity with playful improvisation theater: A controlled intervention field study. International Journal of Play, 6(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2017.1383000

Wetli, P. (2020, February 11). The Board Game Biz is Booming, and Chicago’s Ready to Play. WTTW News. https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/11/board-game-biz-booming- and-chicago-s-ready-play

Wheaton, W. (2012). TableTop. In TableTop.

Woodyer, T. (2012). Ludic geographies: Not merely child’s play. Geography Compass, 6(6), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2012.00477.x

World of Warcraft (video game). (2004). [Computer software]. Blizzard Entertainment.

Yoon, B., Wan, F., Wick, J., Wulf, R., Mason, S., Carman, S., & Hobart, R. (2018). Legend of the Five Rings (5th edition). Alderac Entertainment Group.

106

Appendix

Semi-Structured Interview Questions

How often do you come to The Glass Die?

Do you come with a regular group?

Do you meet with that group elsewhere? Where?

Do you ever play with other/random/unfamiliar people? How often?

How do you categorize the types of games that you play? Style of play?

How often do you try new tabletop games?

How do you typically learn new games?

Do you ask others who have played it? Youtube?

What other tabletop gaming locations have you played at?

Reno? States? International?

Did you play many boardgames/tabletop games when you were growing up?

Have your gaming habits changed since you started to come to The Glass Die?

What role do you feel gaming plays in your life?

Have you picked up any skills or knowledges from your gaming? What? How so?

How long have you lived in Reno?

Did you know any of the employees before starting to come here?

Do you consider yourself more of an introvert or an extrovert?

What type of work do you do?

What does this place provide you that you can’t find anywhere else?