Scenarios are vital to #wargaming, but we rarely discuss formal scenario methods. We can distinguish between 1) scenario “start conditions” & 2) events that move the scenario forward in time from the start. “Injects” and adjudicated play are ways to get at the latter. [1/7]
For wargame scenarios, one option is to use an approved, official scenario. This is common in the U.S. Department of Defense. The benefit is organizational acceptance. The negative is it can constrain you to conventional wisdom. [2/7]
One simple scenario method is “Critical Uncertainties” – we used this approach in the 2018 NATO Military Strategy Game. Take the top two uncertainties affecting your ability to operate in the future. Cross them for four scenarios. [3/7]
http://www.liberatingstructures.com/30-critical-uncertainties/
My personal favorite scenario generation method is general morphological analysis (GMA). It handles a number of factors and can structure a complex space. See the appendix of our report for details. [4/7]
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2797.html
Counterfactual reasoning also offers a good framework for thinking about the parts of your future scenario. There is the antecedent scenario (backstory), the intermediate states (ongoing trends), and consequence scenario (future projection). [5/7]
https://csl.armywarcollege.edu/usacsl/publications/Hendrickson_Counterfactual_Reasoning.pdf
A formal scenario method can help generate better scenarios for your wargame. Avoid groupthink, unexamined biases, clustering around “usual” cases, and limiting yourself to straight-line projections. No game system can save you from unimaginative or unimportant scenarios. [7/7]
You can follow @YunaHuhWong.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.