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