1. Working Group 1: Game Lab

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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