PAXsims is devoted to peace, conflict, humanitarian, and development simulations and serious games for education, training, and policy analysis.
If you wish to be notified when new material is posted here, use the “subscribe by email” option below.
Relevant comments are welcomed.
PAXsims operates on a non-profit basis. You can donate to support our activities via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PAXsims
Join 3,538 other subscribers
Recent Posts
- Simulation & Gaming (June 2024)
- Fight Club International: The Readiness Micro-Game
- Scholarship opportunity for women interested in wargaming
- Using digital outbreak simulations in academic settings
- GPPI: Gaming the Political Economy of Conflict
- Wargamer Job at NDU
- Registration for Connections US 2024 now open
- Connections UK 2024
- All that’s left is the grading…
- Wargaming the effects of a Trump presidency on NATO
Top Posts
Categories
- call for papers
- conferences
- courses
- crowd-sourcing
- forthcoming games and simulations
- gaming vignettes
- job opportunities/positions vacant
- latest links
- methodology
- not-so-serious
- playtesters needed
- reader survey
- request for proposals
- scholarships and fellowships
- simulation and game reports
- simulation and game reviews
- simulation and gaming debacles
- simulation and gaming history
- simulation and gaming ideas
- simulation and gaming journals
- simulation and gaming materials
- simulation and gaming miscellany
- simulation and gaming news
- simulation and gaming publications
- simulation and gaming software
Archives
Associations
- Australian Defence Force Wargaming Group
- Connections Netherlands
- Connections North (Canada)
- Connections Oz (Australiasia)
- Connections UK
- Connections US
- Georgetown University Wargaming Society
- International Game Developers Association
- International Simulation and Gaming Association
- MORS Wargaming Community of Practice
- North American Simulation and Gaming Association
- SAGSET
- Serious Games Network – France
- Simulations Interoperability Standards Organization
- UK Fight Club
- USA Fight Club Wargaming Group
- Women's Wargaming Network
- Zenobia Award
Institutions (public and commercial)
- Advanced Disaster, Emergency and Rapid Response Simulation
- Booz Allen Hamilton—experiential analytics
- BreakAway—serious games
- Brian Train-game designs
- Civic Mirror
- CNAS Gaming Lab
- ConSimWorld
- Decisive Point
- Fabulsi—online roleplay simulations
- Fiery Dragon Productions
- Fletcher School/Tufts University—SIMULEX
- Fort Circle Games
- GamePolitics
- History of Wargaming Project
- Imaginetic
- Kings College London—Kings Wargaming Network
- LBS – Professional Wargaming
- LECMgt
- McGill Model UN
- MCS Group
- MegaGame Makers
- MODSIM World conference
- Naval Postgraduate School—MOVES Institute
- NDU—Center for Applied Strategic Learning
- Nusbacher & Associates
- Nuts! Publishing
- Peacemaker Game
- Persuasive Games
- PlanPolitik
- RAND Center for Gaming
- Serious Games Interactive
- Slitherine Software
- Statecraft
- Stone Paper Scissors
- Strategy and Tactics Press
- Track4
- Utrecht Institute for Crisis and Conflict Simulation
- Valens Global
- Wargaming Connection
- Wikistrat blog
- World Peace Game Foundation
Journals and Publications
- Battles Magazine
- C3i Magazine
- Eludamos: Journal of Computer Game Culture
- GAME: The Italian Journal of Game Studies
- International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations
- International Journal of Role-Playing
- Military Training & Simulation
- Sciences du jeu
- Simulation & Gaming
- The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation
- Training & Simulation Journal
- Virtual Training & Simulation News
Simulations and Games
- Active Learning in Political Science
- Barnard College—Reacting to the Past
- Best Delegate
- Beyond Intractability—Exercises and Simulations
- BoardGameGeek
- Class Wargames
- Columbia American History Online—classroom simulations
- Community Organizing Toolkit—game
- ConSimWorld
- CRISP: Crisis Simulation for Peace
- CUNY Games Network
- Darfur is Dying—game
- Economics Network—classroom experiments and games
- Emergency Capacity Building project — simulation resources
- EuroWarGames
- Game Design Concepts
- Game Theory .net
- Gameful
- Games & Social Networks in Education
- Games for Change
- GeoGame
- Giant Battling Robots
- Global Justice Game
- Grog News
- Guns, Dice, Butter
- Ian Bogost
- ICT for Peacebuilding
- Journal of Virtual Worlds Research
- Little Wars
- Ludic Futurism
- Ludology
- Mike Cosgrove—wargame design class
- MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program—simulation materials
- MSSV
- National Center for Simulation
- National Security Decision-Making game
- No Game Survives…
- North American Simulation and Gaming Association
- Oil Shockwave Simulation
- Pax Warrior
- Pervasive Games: Theory and Design
- Play the Past
- Play Think Learn
- Purple Pawn
- Serious Games at Work
- Serious Games Network France
- Strategikon (French)
- Technoculture, Art, and Games
- Terra Nova (Simulation + Society + Play)
- The Cove: Wargaming
- The Forge Wargaming Series
- The Ludologist
- The Open-Ended Machine
- Tiltfactor
- Tom Mouat's wargames page
- Trans-Atlantic Consortium for European Union Studies & Simulations
- United States Institute for Peace—Simulations
- University of Maryland—ICONS Project
- US Army—Modelling and Simulation
- USC—Institute for Creative Technologies
- Wargame_[space]
- Web Grognards
- Zones of Influence
Stephen,
I think you might find Neal Durando’s last four or five posts on his blog here very interesting about game development and the relation of developer to testing. Unfortunately Neal, a very smart guy, has not posted here for some time but what he has written is very good. http://defling.com/blog/
For more on playtesting, I would name off the usual suspects in their usual books – Phil Sabin in Simulating War, James Dunnigan in the Complete Wargames Handbook, and Rules of Play – Game Design Fundamentals (Salen and Zimmerman) has some interesting parts too. They all bang on the same points – multiple iterations by multiple groups in parallel, the need for blind testing (perhaps not so much for professional wargaming, because you are not looking to develop watertight rules, just avoid game-breaking holes, tricks and omissions), and the pursuit of polishedness, so anyone can play the game with no help and stay interested.
DR — I deal with the issue of small group discussions and wisdom of crowds during wargames in my Connections North 2019 paper “Group Dynamics in Wargames and How to Exploit Them” (https://paxsims.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/group-dynamics-in-wargames-sdm-20190216.pdf).
Phil — I agree on the difficulty of doing facilitation/adjudication/data recording simultaneously. One can obviously add a data recorder who will also be able to note emotional ambience of the game, level of animosity or otherwise between the participants etc. which would be of value. It’s a matter of deciding how much one wants to pay for good data — and I’m all for good data!
Brian — Can you point me to a write up of commercial game play-testing best practice? I’d like to dig deeper into what we can learn from that (despite the different motives and desired outcomes).
The 2014 UK Army Wargaming Symposium “looked” like it was doing swarm gaming (see photos at http://www.professionalwargaming.co.uk/2014S.html) but I don’t know if data was being collected or role rotation was occurring.
Stephen the reason for my hesitancy on using Matrix games adjudication for your plan is pretty much voiced by Phil Pournelle,
(sorry for the delay in reply I had really important Rugby semi final watching to be done :)
In essence if the results of ‘stuff ‘ : combat or contest results, success, failure, plausibility of an action etc, are decided by 3 people only, then the whole theoretical point of ‘wisdom of crowds’ adjudication (Matrix), eg diversity of opinion and balancing of arguments will, I suggest, rarely occur within such a small group approach.
I personally have a lot of problems with Matrix as an adjudication method in large groups in any case, for a list of reasons not limited to: probable lack of subject matter knowledge of the players, rank or character bias, the start point for success being over 50% in some methods, and just the avoidance or ignorance of Inherent Military Probability (IMP) a la Burne.
As you have pointed out in previous pieces about manipulation of results and bias, (conscious or unconscious), I fear Matrix as a method actually encourages that phenomenon – and if it is masked in a small group environment then that effect could be further amplified over a broad group of games.
However rather than just bleat about it, I suggest that if the games are small and simple, and repeatable – then something like Brian Trains observation about using repeat playtesting methods would clear up some basic rules of thumb, mechanics and probabilities quickly, certainly within a few iterations, and so your results would be a bit more realistic over time than some of the usual Cyber Magic Missiles and Twitter barrages from space. David
Massively parallel wargaming, was my first thought… and why not?
In a sense, this is in large part what we do with playtesting a commercial game.
Many people play a game in pairs or small groups (also solo, but the point is–) independently of each other, testing the rules and situation as if it were a complex problem, looking for badly tuned parts of the machine that will make it fly apart, or for Stupid Gamer Tricks… anyway, things that are analogous to unexpected or overlooked events and contingencies.
Then the groups report back, the designer and developer make changes to address the problems, and you do another iteration… and so on, for as long as you can keep people interested in the project (because they are not paid to be there, and have outside lives).
The goal with a commercial game is a balanced, interesting enjoyable contest which of course is not the goal of a professional wargame, which is to generate a range of outcomes and responses to problems within the problem (and there are different ways to break apart the problem into manageable smaller bits you can play out).
But there is no reason why the same processes cannot be used.
I like the concept but I think there will be some challenges.
To start, the reason why a matrix style game is conducted is to gather the various experts together who have insights into elements of the problem. As an analyst, I’m keen on observing and collecting those argument for future analysis. The experts providing various perspectives on the problem are likely to advance our understanding of the problem.
Swarm games may offer two opportunities after a series of matrix games. In the first case when enough matrix games (and post game analysis) has been conducted, your participants may have a reasonably level (equal?) knowledge base to then intelligently advance the ball independently. (and remove the group think Stephen is constantly fighting against). Alternatively the area of interest is so unknowable that the utility of swarm games is to generate a very large body of outcomes from semi-random outcomes for further analysis.
The Game designer of Swarm Games must play close attention to the span of control capacity of the players. Quite often the reason why we have certain team structures (and why military echelons and structures exist) is to divide and effectively synchronize and employ forces. Pay close attention to how many elements a player must control, the range of actions each element can take, and the state each element can take on.
Related to this is the challenge of having a rotating player take on both roles of adjudicator and rapporteur. I fear a lot of useful data will not be collected, I would advise keeping the rapporteur a separate person. This is especially true when the goal is to generate and collect a large set of argument for future analysis.
D R — I included Matrix gaming since it can be run with only three participants (red, blue, facilitator) and can be run quickly. Can you expand on your thinking about why that technique does not help? Thanks for your interest!
Stephen, I agree with all of your article apart from the Matrix game comment – I do not think that technique, in general , helps achieve your objective…other than that – violently agree.
Here’s a mind map of the thinking that went into the article.
I usually diagram out my thoughts, write the paper, then iterate between the two.
(Many of the nodes are linked to external websites, so you might want to right-click on them and select “open in new tab” or whatever similar option is available in your browser.)