Working group1

2,616 views
2,564 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,616
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,224
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Working group1

  1. 1. Working Group 1: Game Lab
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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)
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. delivered how? digital or manual? moderation with white cell? card-and-board  suitability for level of complexity  adaptability  self-contained influence of design repertoire
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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?
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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?
  13. 13. 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

×