Working group1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Working group1






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



3 Embeds 2,111 2109 1 1


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Working group1 Working group1 Presentation Transcript

  • Working Group 1: Game Lab
  • Game Lab challenge Haiti earthquake HADR scenario as window into methods for tomorrow’s wargames  operations other than force-on-force  chaotic, complex, operational environment involving broad range of DIME/PMESII factors  full glare of international media (and associated political pressures)  highly interagency and multinational  short term urgencies with long-term implications  wargame application/use beyond traditional clients
  • designing for whom? much discussion in all three groups of client needs and characteristics  multiple clients (not all known in advance)  varying range of game experience (and game support infrastructure), high proportion of novices  adaptable to varying needs (time, complexity, subject matter)
  • learning what? groups identified appropriate learning objectives  not a planning exercise or a detailed “how to” game  more about relationships, interactions, harmonizing/deconflicting varying agendas  “nonconventional” learning objectives: chaotic immersion, recognition that no matter how well you do people will die  avoiding “wrong lessons”  population as passive victims  crude view of organizational differences
  • delivered how? digital or manual? moderation with white cell? card-and-board  suitability for level of complexity  adaptability  self-contained influence of design repertoire
  • players groups generally settled on 4-12 players  some elasticity in player numbers  shaped by user and delivery method  US (military + USAID/State)?  UN  NGO (one? two? many?)  Haitian government  survivors?  media?  minor actors represented through events
  • players the challenge of cooperative play with asymmetric victory conditions  reward organizational objectives with additional resources (Group C)  fixed or changing objectives players ought to have different comparative advantages is coordination a quality of game play, or a discrete action or state? changing capacities over time
  • length of game brief suggested 1-2 months what were the natural “eras” of HADR in Haiti?  what are the lessons the game should teach? variable turn lengths to address relief-reconstruction continuum, second and third order effects what are the constraints generated by likely employment of game?  7-12 turns (Group B)  4-8 hours (Group C)  how many game interactions?
  • key variables and processes all groups identified some version of cluster sectors (medical, food, WASH, shelter, security, infrastructure, etc)  Group A also emphasized logistics/supply chain dynamics, and importance of spatial nodes/locations  Group C also wanted a geographic component, ability to model population movement  Group B, by contrast, went for an entirely sectoral approach (map as backdrop) how to measure “success”?  humanitarian conditions  organizational priorities and successes  Haitian politics
  • game mechanics all groups decided on some sort of card-driven mechanism for event generation  combined event/ops/coordination cards? (Group A) individual decks (group C), plus assets (chips)? advantages of a card-based system  broad range of lessons, events, vignettes  rules-on-cards  learning-on-cards  easily modified
  • game mechanics fog of HADR  initially hidden need values (group C) with geographic multipliers population might sometimes self-fix problems need to focus on how player decisions shape situation and how they receive feedback
  • real and alternate histories should the game actually model historical events, or introduce added uncertainty through variable starting conditions?  aftershocks  weather  crime and political stability should earthquake dynamics be tweaked to increase learning outcomes?
  • other considerations idea proliferation and the need for ruthless simplification  how to abstract/simplify without losing immersion and suspension of disbelief? extensible game mechanics porting to other platforms