1. Games and Guided Discussions
CDR Phil Pournelle
Dr. Yuna Wong

2. Agenda Renewed DoD Interest in Wargaming What is DoD “Wargaming”?
Differences in Games vs. Guided Discussions
Professionalizing Guided Discussions
Professionalizing Gaming
Recommendations

3. Renewed Interest in Wargaming
Senior leader interest
SECDEF memo on the DII (Nov 2014)
DEPSECDEF memo (Feb 2015)
SECNAV memo (May 2015)
Bottom-up interest
MORS Wargaming CoP
Connections wargaming conferences
Demand for education

4. But What Does DoD Mean by “Wargaming”?
DoD uses the term “wargaming” to cover many types of events
Many of these activities are facilitated group discussions but not “games”
Both facilitated group discussions and games are useful to DoD but have:
Different purposes
Different mechanics
Different design considerations

5. DoD “Wargaming” vs. Gaming
Wargames as defined by Peter Perla
DoD “Wargames”
Gaming
Title X Game
Role Playing Games
Sand Table Exercises
Peace Games
DOTMLPF Gap Discussion
Board Games
Planning/ StaffEx
Pol-Mil Games
20XX Games
Smart Phone & Tablet Games
Seminar Discussion
Rainbow Plans
Card Games
COA Wargames
Social Media Games
TTX

6. Games vs. Guided Discussions
Historic differences
Philosophical differences
Mechanical differences
Product differences

7. 1. Historic Differences Games Guided Discussions Intellectual origins
Chess
Kriegsspiel
Commercial games
Planning process
Academic seminars
DOTMLPF gap lists
Champions
War Colleges
Amateur gamers
Tactical trainers
College professors
Joint Staff
Systems analysis
Services at top level
Wargamer “skillset”
(legitimizing background)
Avid board gamer
Minatures wargamer
Political scientists (some)
Military planners
Novice facilitators
Computer modelers
Political scientists (other)
Examples
Schelling nuclear games
ONA 20XX games
Sandtable exercise
Title 10 games
Gap list validation “games”
Staff exercises (planning)
Current DoD standing
Minority view of wargames?
Dominant paradigm?

8. 2. Philosophical Differences
Games
Guided Discussions
Path dependence
Path-dependent on specific adjudication outcomes (not predictable)
Result path-dependent on scripted scenario or discussion agenda
Participant perspective
Is a player actively taking on a role
Is a subject matter expert (SME) who is discussing their area of expertise
Goal of Participant
Win the game
Raise meaningful issues
Goal of Sponsor
Training
Diagnose competition
Inform decisions
Identify contributing factors
Produce planning products
Identify generalized gaps
Align participants
Validity
Difficult to align with science-based concepts of experimental validity
Comments by participants “validate” issues & gaps
Overall focus
Emergent interaction between opposing sides
Blue processes and organizational issues

9. 3. Mechanical Differences
Elements
Games
Guided Discussions
How the events progress
Adjudicated events
Discussion agenda
Scenario
Is the departure point
Is the scripted backdrop of the entire discussion
White Cell/Facilitator
Determines consequences of player actions
Guides discussion
May give planning guidance
Red Cell
Is an active player with equal ability to shape the outcome as the Blue Cell
May not exist
Often not an equal or active player
Design
Can be similar to board games, turn-based games
Can be similar to DoD planning process or a political science seminar discussion group
Probability
May be a key mechanical element (frequentist)
Is never an element

10. 4. Product Differences Elements Games Guided Discussions
Overall output
Synthetic history and path-dependent outcome
Planning details, coordination issues, implementation issues;
thorough but usually mostly one sided
Hypothesis generation
Dialectic with two sides presenting opposing; hypothesis in fully constructed form (orders)
Only one thesis is complete in form but may be more detailed
Diagnosis of competitive environment
Exploration of possible actions by competitive factions
Explorations of potential factors on competitive environment (technological developments, etc.)
Red activity
Coherent and adaptive behavior that emerges from the game play
No new red activity: scripted or static and pre-defined by the scenario

11. How Should We Understand Differences?
Organizational purposes?
As part of a larger set of processes?
Types of cognitive tasks being asked of participants?
Identifiable points of divergent versus convergent thought?
First person role-playing (imaginative play) versus drawing upon expert knowledge?

12. Commonalities Across Both Games and Guided Discussions
Participant input as a primary element
Otherwise it’s a study or model
Heterogeneity between events
Participant “quality” and level of engagement is key!
Bad events merely “beat the data” out of SMEs
Marginalized participants are a sign of issues
Human behavior, perceptions, beliefs, interactions are at the heart

13. Joint Planning Process
Planning Initiation
Mission Analysis
Red threat (including Centers of Gravity)
COA Development
Enemy Courses of Action: Most Likely, Most Dangerous, Strengths and Weaknesses
COA Analysis
Action, Counter-Action, Reaction
“The most sophisticated form of wargaming is computer-aided modeling and simulation.” (JP-5, IV-28)
“The red cell is normally composed of personnel from the joint force J-2 staff and when available they may be augmented by other subject experts.” (JP-5, IV-33). J-2 Staff have a stake in the COA development process.
COA Comparison
COA Approval
Plan/Order Development

14. Joint Planning Process
Origin in General Eisenhower Headquarters
Perhaps earlier in Napoleonic HQ organization
Product/Process oriented
Based on Operational Art and historic examples
Mission Analysis dominated by higher HQ mission statement
Not designed to diagnose the competitive environment

15. Current State of the DoD Wargaming Community
Community is largely self taught
“Tribes” centered around individual techniques, often in isolation from one another and other closely related fields
Groups often do not find approaches from other groups to be legitimate
Little formal or continuing education
Little in the way of formal theory about gaming or guided discussions

16. Facilitation in Wargaming
DoD “wargame facilitators” are self-identified and have an uneven level of skill
International Association of Facilitators (IAF)
Has accepted professional standards
Certification in facilitation with core competencies
Distinguish between process and context
Database of 500+ facilitation methods
Other facilitated methods: PSMs, SATs, etc.

17. IAF Methods Database

18. IAF Methods Database

19. Structured Analytic Techniques

20. Red Teaming & Liberating Structures

21. Professionalizing Guided Discussions
Formalization of facilitation skills
More training and certification
Deliberate identification of core competencies
Conscious methods
Problem structuring methods
Structured analytic techniques
Red teaming/liberating structures
Combining methods into overall research design
Formal data analysis methods

22. Professionalizing Gaming
Formal facilitation methods
Incorporation of interdisciplinary research designs and methods currently lacking
Theories of learning and empirical methods of studying learning (education)
Positive and negative small group dynamics (industrial/organization/small group psychology)
Formal data analysis methods consistent with prevailing standards of research in other fields
Add structured methods to hot washes

23. Synthesis of Methods
Research design can incorporate good combinations of methods
Examples of research designs:
Realistic red & blue planning (JP 5.0) + wargame with equal standing + structured brain storming  improved planning and wargames and WFF issues
Seminar discussion + scenario development method + seminar wargame w/ narrative analysis + structured analytic technique in hot wash  enhanced exploration of an emerging topic

24. Current State of the DoD Wargaming Community
Participants in DoD wargaming largely self taught
Many tribes which matches the many purposes of games, many isolated from work elsewhere
Development of skillsets
Game or event design
Facilitation
Formal analysis methods
Theoretical development of the field
Professional, continuing, formal education

25. Recommendations
Professionalize both guided discussions and gaming by improving quality of facilitation and structured methods
Draw on known small group theory and formal research methods to be systematic in analysis and ability to see empirical markers of good games and guided discussions
Education: continue with PME, CoPs, continuing ed, wargaming classes in existing programs, and formal degree programs