Saturday, October 22, 2016

Why Wargaming Works


Synopsis
When a report is titled something to the effect of “Why X Works,” I take notice. Within the first few paragraphs, the authors state that wargaming’s power and success is derived from its ability to enable individual participants to transform themselves by making them more open to internalizing their experiences in a game. Through these “synthetic experiences,” the brain has a chance to utilize a story and the game itself to create a suspension of disbelief that allows the player to internalize the scenario and information.
Via a story, a suspension of disbelief occurs as readers/listeners experience the vicarious emotions and actions brought out by the narrative. This in turn allows the participants to enter the situation being described and, in effect, become one with it, provided they are willing to do so.
When suspension of disbelief occurs, the reader’s brain enters into a state where all of the information provided at the time of reading is believed. As the brain processes the information, two systems come online to process the information at two different levels. The “automatic” system processes the information and believes it. The secondary system, the “systematic” system, starts to parse out information that it believes and does not believe. In fiction, the suspension of disbelieve sedates the systematic system and the information is more readably believed and internalized.
When applied to a game, these effects of story and brain function allow the game to have real weight and impact on the player. It becomes “real” to them, or at least more real than just reading about it via a report could achieve. The base purpose of what the game is trying to convey or teach integrates itself into the player. This takes place via the venue, controls on the game, kinesthetic inputs, social cues, and personal cues. The combined effect is actually strong enough for the authors to point out that there are key issues that need to be controlled for, those being wrong information and a lack of important information.
Finally, Perla and McGrady state that wargaming needs to move beyond from what they perceive as an art form into a more scientifically controlled process. While wargaming should not give up its story telling ability, it needs to be better tooled into a more adaptable device.
Critique
I am hard pressed to find anything I dislike with this. The report is well sourced and from a reputable institution (The Navy War College). The authors look at everything from the fiction in a wargame to how the brain handles these inputs. They caveated their findings with how you can get a wargame wrong and what those are and how to avoid them. If there is one thing, and it’s ultimately minor, some more research into a success rate would have only helped their case. That aside, its well-reasoned and makes sense. In video gaming, immersion is what helps to draw a person into a game and keep them there for hours. If a game’s ability to immerse the player is strong enough, that can carry over into the real world. Messages, ideas, MacGuffins, or other parts of the game can stick with a player for a long time. Why can’t those be applied to a training event that helps a person or team understand a real world scenario? If you insure that the information being provide in the game is as accurate as possible (omissions, embellishments, or falsehoods) then that does strike me as a valid method.
 
        Perla, P. P., & McGrady, E. D. (2011). Why wargaming works. Naval War College Review, 64(3), 111.


6 comments:

  1. Ruark, this sounds somewhat similar to a portion of my article where the author talks about how business wargaming allows managers to experience the consequences of their decisions without taking real-life risks. It seems like wargaming allows people to experience and better understand how their strategies can play-out in reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is pretty much what I found out. It seems like a valid method. You internalize your experiences far better by experiencing them versus just reading about them

      Delete
  2. Ruark, when I read your summary it felt like it is saying (essentially) that 'wargaming works because of the role-playing effect.' Am I correct in thinking that, or would you say there are other factors at play?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based on the report (I have no experience at war-gaming at all), you are correct. I got the impression that, while not necessarily role-playing, being able to enter the exercise and ultimately internalize it affords the participants some "real" world experience. There could be more to it, I am not discounting that. But, with not having experienced it, I can't say (kinesthetic learner myself).

      Delete
  3. I would agree with Hank and Aubrey on the affects of war gaming, particularly on the story front. I would like to know your responses on Hank's question since the same question is in my own mind after reading this. The biggest piece is what are your thoughts on role playing in regards to scenarios and preparedness, particularly in regards to your experiences with the Navy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In actuality, I have had no experience with war gaming, least of all with the Navy. We were still doing Vietnam era warfare when I left in 2010. Its less war gaming and historical reenactment at that point.

      Delete