Dr. Rex Brynen of McGill University comments on my Starcraft post and looks more generally at problems with gaming out war and peacebuilding (I also stole this awesome graphic from him). Brynen asks "[i]f you’re developing a simulation of, say, peace operations or development assistance in fragile and conflict-affected countries, how “micro” or “macro” ought to be the perspective that you provide?" His goal is not to develop narrow games for either tactical-level development workers or strategic games for policymakers, but educate his International Relations students about both sides of the spectrum.
The answer is very complex, as Brynen indicates. On one hand, it is important for students to understand the strategic context of boondoggles such as Somalia or Southern Uganda, but at the same time small tactical events can have large wave effects on the overall situation. Ideally, a classroom game should reflect both ends of the spectrum. There are plenty of interesting classroom examples Bynen gives of games his students conduct where the two sides of the equation are represented: A UNICEF family planning program that ends up being used by rebels a trump card in their overall negotiations, a UN peacekeeping mission struggling to find a way of keeping the peace without going beyond their mandate, and a kidnapping of an aid worker with wide ripple effects.
So how does Brynen account for the problem of micromanagement in his games? He fully exploits his role as a facilitator to actively shape the game in progress:
In many cases I’ve tried assigning multiple students to a role, and giving them different responsibilities as “HQ” or “field.” This helps a little, but not as much as one might expect—because my course simulation runs 12 hours a day for a week, in practice HQ and field staff need to cover for each other frequently (because of courses, work, etc), and the division-of-labour isn’t quite what I intended. You can also try to manage it as simulation moderator by waving students off most tactical decisions (“Don’t worry what spare tires cost or the cheapest type of maize.. your local staff take care of those things” or “You have a third world military.. they don’t follow detailed tactical orders.”) while occasionally throwing the odd tactical vignette their way (“You see UN deminers removing the minefield you’ve laid around your positions.. apparently they’ve launched a demining program without consulting the combatants–what do you want to do?”). In my own experience, this has worked best, and has an added bonus above and beyond highlighting the role of “strategic corporals”—it also makes the simulation more immersive and “real” to the participants.
All in all a very fascinating story that shows one of the biggest side benefits from the development of the kriegspiel--the utilization of gaming for de-escalation, peace building, and peacekeeping as well as warfare.
Comments