Always keep my eye on thinking about networks - it's a spatial metaphor which I think suits the notion of the player best, rather than say 'society' or 'community'. Partly that's because a life lived as a player is a necessarily complex affair - full of individual initiative, goals and agency, but not expecting predictable results and outcomes from this. Which is very much how networks, in many other realms, form themselves - local iterations and connections building up to big forms and structures. (The think-tank I'm an associate of, Demos, has an excellent set of papers on Network Logic).
And here's some fascinating news from the labs, about how networks from four wildly different areas - "the World Wide Web; a network of actors who have been in films together; networks of proteins with links between those that can bind to each other; and networks of other cellular molecules with links between molecules involved in the same biochemical reactions" - exhibit 'self-similarity', meaning that they look roughly the same at any scale (see graphic above). This wasn't expected, precisely because each network comes from such a different locus.
It's mind-wrenching to think that so many different phenomena - from actors to proteins - might be constituted according to a common network-like process of development. But from a play perspective, which already presumes that play is a deeply biological and natural process, this isn't so scary. In the Play Ethic book I quote a lot from Erik Davis, who has investigated what kind of consciousness and ethics is required to live with a networked reality. I recommend this piece from Erik on 'the network path', and also David Loy's classic on Indra's Net, as well as Fritjof Capra's essay [PDF] in the Demos collection.