Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Working group1

2,918 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

×