MdSm 601
Introduction to Modeling & Simulation
Scenario
Building & Gaming Design
There are an unlimited number of
other possible approaches to exploring scenarios, including modeling and
simulation. John Sokolowski
and Catherine Banks, in Modeling and Simulation for Analyzing Global
Events present several approaches used in policy analysis and
international affairs: systems modeling,
agent-based modeling, and simulation games.
·
Systems
model: a construct or collection of
different elements that together produce results not obtainable using the
elements alone.
o
The
value of a system lies in the relationship among its parts.
o
Models
come in many types. Statistical models
are based on patterns found in a large numbers of events.
·
Formal
models: based on rigorous analytical
specification of choices actors can make to produce outcomes.
·
Simulation games permit observation of aggregate behaviors emerging
from interactions of large numbers of autonomous actors—think video games, from
SimCity to the MMOs (massively multi-player online games).
o
Can
be used when real system cannot be engaged.
o
Avatars
(virtual characters) can replace humans for interfacing in complex
communication systems.
o
They
allow the user to
§ explore the ramifications of
choices,
§ to compress or expanding time,
§ to explore possibilities,
§ to diagnose problems or identify
constraints,
§ to visualize a plan and build
consensus,
§ to prepare for change, and to modify
requirements.
·
While much of modeling and
simulation involves extensive research and complex modeling (it costs millions
to create even a fairly simple video game), not all of it is so elaborate.
o
Among the agent-based models,
case-based reasoning uses a set of cases as a form of memory, a storehouse of
previous solutions to specific situations.
o
Simulation games can be fairly
simple (think Risk or Monopoly), and have been used in the past to permit
citizens to weigh in on budget reduction plans or to explore the effects of
transportation changes on city development (SimCity).
Techniques for building
scenarios and simulation games:
·
Seven Tomorrows: Toward a Voluntary History, by Paul Hawken,
James Ogilvy, and Peter Schwartz (Bantam, 1982)
o
The
future is neither a precisely determined, scientifically predictable event nor
is it so indeterminate that one is free to invent whatever future one might
prefer.
§ The future is, at least partially,
the product of human choice among alternative possibilities.
§ In trying to discern these future
possibilities, experts can be misled
·
by
their analysis of trends and abstracted quantitative data into overlooking that
perceptions guide actions as much as, if not more than, facts.
·
tendency to stress the highly visible, big-impact events rather than
the cumulative impact of commonplace, everyday choices.
o
To
capture the range of future possibilities and the human choices that drive
them, they use a tool they call “scenario-building”:
§ A scenario is more than a simple
outline of possibilities, in that there is a coherent story to be told;
§ But it is less than a future history,
in that it is not fully detailed and does not convey the sense of inevitability
that the realized future (from the present looking backward) has.
§ Each alternative scenario must be
plausible and in some sense equally desirable, otherwise one (or a subset)
scenario will dominate the others and take on a sense of inevitability.
§ In building scenarios, one must:
·
Identify factual condition of
relevant variables
·
Identify limited set of basic
“driving trends” (too many trends will make it too difficult to assess the
relevant interactions) among the variables
·
Determine the possible options for
each of the driving trends
·
Identify a matrix of all potential
interactions among each of the options for all of the driving trends
·
Identify most plausible interactions
among driving trends (not all potential combinations of trends are plausible—eg, scarce energy, famine, and a flourishing economy)
·
Write scenarios—stories about
plausible future states, and how it got to be that way from where we are
starting now.
·
Science Fiction Prototyping: Designing the Future with Science Fiction, Brian David Johnson (Morgan & Claypool, 2011)
o
“SF
prototyping, as a kind of fictional prototyping, provides a new lens through
which emerging theories can be viewed differently, explored freely, and
ultimately developed further.” p. 12
o
5-Step
Process (pp. 25-29):
§ Pick your science and Build your
world: Set up the world of your story
and introduce the people and the locations.
“The goal is to pick a topic that grabs your imagination and gets you
thinking about what might happen when people start using it.” p. 26
§ The Scientific Inflection
Point: Introduce the “science” or
technology you are looking to explore in the prototype. This is “all about the effect that this new
science or technology might have on the daily lives, governments, and systems
in your story.” p. 28
§ Ramifications of the Science on
People: Explore the ramifications of your
science in the world you have described earlier. People will adapt and change because of the
technology that was introduced. Has it
made their lives better? Worse?
§ The Human Inflection Point: The characters will either adapt themselves
to the technology, or change the technology to suit themselves. Either way, the change must be believable for
the virtual world to stay within the constraints of science. Staying within the boundaries of this
constraint will make the outcomes of the SF prototype more valuable and
applicable to further investigation.
§ What Did We Learn? What are the possible implications,
solutions, or lessons from Step 4? How
has the world changed? What is next with
the science? What would you improve/do
differently?
o
Types
of SF Prototypes:
§ Story fiction (Cory Doctorow): “I don’t think SF prototyping has much
predictive value, to be honest. I think
it’s the beginning of a critical process by which the use is sound…. If you actually sit down with a science
fiction writer and come up with something contrarian, thoughtful, passionate
and unequivocal, even if you’re wrong, it’s a very productive exercise.” P. 51
·
Algis
Burdys “7-point plot” (p. 54)
o
A
person…. (Step 1)
o
In
a place…
o
Has
a problem… (Step 2)
o
Person
intelligently tries to solve problem and fails… (Step 3)
o
Things
get worse…
o
Until
it comes to a climax…. (Step 4)
o
Afterward
you have the outcome/denoument. (Step 5)
·
Film
(Sidney Perkowitz):
“Movies do something wonderful that novels don’t do. There’s a marvelous thing that movies
have: they do size and scope. They aren’t really good at interpreting. I don’t think they are much on
complexity. But movies are marvelous in
terms of story’s size and sweep that you can hardly do in a novel.” (William
Goldman, p. 74)
·
Comics
(Chris Warner): Comics as a medium of
expression are a mix not only between images and words, but also there is an
element of time…. By placing these
images and words next to each other in a sequence, it creates an effect on the
reader that is quite unique.” p. 84
o
“Comics
by nature must be very precise. They
need to be trimmed down, making an efficient use of space, leaving out as much
as possible but still getting the point across.” p. 93
o
“The
task of pulling together a comic is kind of like an engineering task, it must
be precise and exact. You have to get
across your idea as succinctly as possible and move on. The reader can fill in the gaps as they move
from panel to panel. And it is that
filling which helps us the most with our SF prototype.” p. 94
§ Making the Future: Now That You Have Developed Your SF
Prototype, What’s Next?
·
“Tomorrow
Project” sponsored by Intel Corp. http://newsroom.intel.com/docs/DOC-1490
·
From
fact to fiction to fact again: SF
Prototypes can suggest directions that science can go for the next step.
·
SF
Prototypes can be “thought experiments” (experience
pour voir, as Piaget called them; Gedankenexperimenten,
as Einstein called them)
·
Game-Generating Games, Richard D. Duke & Cathy S.
Greenblat (Sage Pubs., 1979)
o
Develops
a family of “frame-games” that are designed to present a problem or issue and
consider the implications of a set of related factors on that issue.
§ Goal is to improve the quality of
group discussion about a complicated and serious problem
§ “Frame-game” means basic structure
supplied, and then modified to suit specific circumstances.
o
Impasse?
(IMPact ASSessment Game)
§ Composed of IMPASSE Wheel,
divided into as many slices as needed (30 is a good number).
§ Game designer populates slices with
the set of variables related to the problem under consideration, and obtains “expert”
opinion of impact of each variable on problem.
§ Participants (in groups of three) evaluate
each variable on their own copy of the wheel, then
§ Compare their evaluation with the expert’s
evaluation, then
§ Discuss their assessment compared to
the expert.
§ All the groups are reconvened to
compare their discussions, and
§ Finally, to vote on which variables
are most important and what are the anticipated impacts.
o
At-Issue!
§ Game designer populates Value-Ordering
Wheel with the set of variables related to the issues under consideration,
and develops a set of issue-descriptions describing particular events or issues
that are relevant to the domain being considered (15 is a good number).
§ Participants are divided into role-playing
groups
§ Each group assigns values to the
variables on its Value-Ordering Wheel (groups need not concur on the values
assigned)
§ Each group rates the full set of
issues, selecting the three they consider most important.
§ All participants convene and vote on
which issue to consider first.
§ Using the Cross-Impact
Wheel, each group assesses the impact of position on current issue to
probable resolution of other issues.
Cross-impacts should be briefly discussed by all.
§ Using the Variable-Identification
Wheel, each group assesses impact of their position on each of the
variables
§ Determine Perceived Impact
of the current issue for your group.
§ Chart the change created by the
proposed resolution to the issue using the Upper-Limit Wheel
(compare current situation for all variables to anticipated future situation)
§ Discuss results—compare and contrast
group results and perceived outcomes.
§ Repeat for as many issues as
desired.
o
Conceptual
Mapping
§ Creates a wheel, similar to the
wheels in the first two games, but in this case the variables are not
identified in advance.
§ Instead, the participants select
roles and an issue to consider, and then collaboratively identify the variables
which would be affected by the issue.
·
Gamification
o See:
§ Gamification by
Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps, Gabe
Zichermann & Christopher Cunningham (O’Reilly Media, 2011)
§ Fundamentals of Game
Design, Ernest Adams (New Riders, 2010)
§ The Art of Game
Design: A Book of Lenses, Jesse Schell (Morgan Kaufmann, 2008)
o Process of Gamification
§ Designer creates an experience
§ Experience rises out of a game
§ Game consists of elements
§ Elements support a theme
§ A game begins with an idea and improves through
iteration
§ Experience is in the player’s mind
·
Modeling
·
Focus
·
Empathy
·
Imagination
·
Motivation
·
Judgement
o Design components
§ 
Player
Interaction Model Actions Core
Mechanics
Camera Model Challenges
§ Interaction model & Camera model are “user
interface”
§ Actions & Challenges are “gameplay”
o Key elements
§ Creative & expressive play
§ Character development
§ Storytelling & narrative
§ Puzzle-solving
o User Interface
§ Stories take place in worlds which contain characters
and spaces, with a look and feel
defined by aesthetics.
§ Interaction models
§ Camera models
§ Visual elements
§ Audio elements
§ Input & navigation
o Gameplay
§ Hierarchy of challenge (increasing levels)
§ Difference between skill, stress, and absolute
difficulty
§ Saving the game
o Core Mechanics
§ Key Concept
§ Internal economy
o Game Balancing
§ Avoid dominant strategies
§ Balancing skill & chance
§ Fairness (both PvP and PvE)
§ Managing difficulty—challenge vs. success
§ Meaningful choices—head vs. hand
§ Competition vs. cooperation
§ Positive feedback/reinforcement
§ Rewards vs. punishment
© 2013 A.J.Filipovitch
Revised 6 January 2013