What Games do you Play to Problem-Solve?

[Jack7]

I play games (Role Playing Games and other types of games), not just for entertainment, or to train for something, but also to Problem-Solve.

Occasionally I will play D&D, or my variant of it at least, or other RPGs with some problem I am working on written into the scenario/mission/adventure/campaign I am constructing or playing. Sometimes seeing how my players react to it will give me new ideas on how to solve the Real World Problem. Or maybe just seeing the scenario played out in a different format, or setting, or from a different angle will give me new problem solving ideas. (This doesn't always happen but sometimes it can be a very successful problem solving technique, or will at least give me new insights or ideas about how to solve the problem.)

This is what I call Alternate Direct Problem Solving, through gaming or other means. But I also engage in Alternate Indirect Problem Solving.

ADPS usually takes the form of an RPG, ARG, or PRG. Because the problem or problems can be "written directly into" the gaming or scenario script. (Sometimes just writing the problem out in a script format for game construction will help me see the solution or possible solutions to the problem or problems I face.)

AIPS though usually takes the form of Wargames or sometimes board games. For instance my favorite game for indirect problem solving is Star Fleet Battles (the map and paper game, not a computer game), or sometimes Chess or Risk or Stratego or Scotland Yard. With indirect problem solving I don't write the actual problem into the game itself as much as just imagine the game components to be different aspects of the problem. For instance in my mind my ship might represent a possible workable solution, and the other ships might represent different aspects or elements of the problem I'm facing.

(As a little side-note I think that the reason physical games with maps and counters and paper etc. are useful to me as problem solving aids, and computer and video games are usually not, is because I can touch and feel the physical game elements. Which to me adds a sort of "solidity" to the problem or the elements of the problem I face. I can pick up an enemy ship marker, or a figure, and feel it and turn it over not just in my mind, but in my hands. Those tactile and visual elements help me problem solve.)

The kinds of problems I generally use games to help problem solve are usually business (I own and run a communications company), or career (I write and invent) related. Though occasionally I use games to help me problem solve cases or experiments. If I'm missing something.

Theoretically though games could be useful in helping solve all kinds of problems. It's just I use them mainly as aids for solving business and career problems. But they needn't be limited to that kind of problem-solving.

Anyway, what games do you guys play to either directly or indirectly problem solve, or what games do you play that are helpful to you with problem solving?

 

[Argyle King]

If I were to use a rpg I am familiar with to 'wargame' out a real life problem, I would probably use GURPS 4th Edition. I realize that real life is the best model for real life; however, the game is built with more of a lean toward realism than the other games I play are. As such, I believe I would have a more accurate portrayal of how something would play out for real by using a system which tries to cater to some sense of realism.

 

[Janx]

i think the viability of problems to translate to the game space depends on the nature of the problems.

If you are a police detective, your day job ought to be a cornucopea of crimes to adapt to the game.

If you are a software developer, most of my problems don't translate that well.

I suspect people problems translate very easily. crimes are basically people problems.

Technical problems, maybe not so much.

 

[Jack7]

If I were to use a rpg I am familiar with to 'wargame' out a real life problem, I would probably use GURPS 4th Edition. I realize that real life is the best model for real life; however, the game is built with more of a lean toward realism than the other games I play are. As such, I believe I would have a more accurate portrayal of how something would play out for real by using a system which tries to cater to some sense of realism.

Sometimes I think people totally misunderstand what I mean by mentioning gaming as a "training simulation" and game realism as a training tool, or even using gaming to play out real life problems. So I thought I might explain my position a little better. This is not meant as a criticism of your comment of course, merely a clarification of my position.

For instance in an RPG like D&D you're not gonna have exact one to one representations of the scenario you might face in real life, nor will you have exact correspondence to the problems you'll face in real life. Game events are representative, not exact copies of real life events. Games often have imaginary correspondences and correlations, not actual or exact ones, though sometimes they can come awfully close. (And I guess I first noticed this type of correlation through playing historical wargames, but I also early on noticed the real potential in RPGs in this respect, especially because of the way in which RPGs play out. They are "open behavioral systems.")

If I were running an Op to attack an offender who has taken hostages then I could play out (and have) a real life simulation or a training exercise to do so. That is often excellent training. However it is also predicated upon a rather rigid script which assumes that the simulation perp will recite as would a real life perp. This is rarely the case precisely because good guys and bad guys rarely think and act alike (or they'd be the same in nature and behavior, and they are not) and unless the training target has studied offender behavior it's rarely a complete training scenario at best. And that's not even counting things like mentally disturbed or radicalized opponents, who are often very unpredictable (especially to those who typically write training scenarios, and assume everyone wants everything to turn out well, when this is not true at all). And finally there is always the scenario where unexpected elements appear (such as citizens unaware of the danger) or targeting mistakes, where the wrong target or locale has been picked, or the Intel is bad. The last especially is rarely considered in training scenarios but it happens often in real life. And I have also written "real life dangers and disasters" like these into gaming scenarios on more than one occasion to hear a player say, "man, I'd hate that to happen in real life." But because they've gamed it, they know it as a possibility.

Terrorists, criminals, the deranged, etc. rarely act and react as you expect them to and unless you get very good at copying and/or anticipating their behavior most training simulations are rather stale, rote, and predictable. Many times they are completely misleading, not intentionally so, but merely because they are so rigid in conceptual structure. Often they use completely artificial and inanimate targets who are not thinking, reacting opponents - and this is the key to why gaming often allows a much looser, but vastly superior "behavioral simulation." (Now, as triaging methods have improved over time so have training simulations, but for the most part most remain extremely primitive when it comes to considerations of the real behavioral nature of the potential enemy faced.)

In game, action and reactions are limited only by the referee's and player's imaginations. Often they are intentionally trying to outwit and out-maneuver each other. So although an in-game attack by six Goth desperate raiders is not like getting caught in a full-blown looting riot in a gang neighborhood, it can and often is a much better "mental and behavioral simulation" than any training scenario using static or artificial or narrowly trained opponents, and teaches much more flexible, out-of-the-box thinking and reaction methods to those running through the scenario. (This of course assumes good, flexible, referees and smart, adaptable, players with interesting and chanllegening situations to play.)

Plus in games you can often insert environmental obstacles which make the mental preparation for a difficult situation far more interesting and challenging than you can running through a basically static training field you have faced a dozen times and already know by heart. That is in a game you can constantly insert new situations, new characters, new environments, new obstacles, new dangers and therefore if it is done correctly, train harder (at least mentally, at skill use, and behaviorally) than the situation you're likely to face in real life.

It is often said "Train like you fight," but it is always much better to "Train harder than you fight."

So I am not saying games offer a one-to-one correspondence between a real life scenario and an imaginary one. But they can often offer a better than one-to-one correspondence, at least in certain respects, than many current training scenarios and programs. Because they are more flexible and unhindered by preconceived expectations and resource limitations.

And the same is true in the same respect for games used as Problem-Solving tools. Games are not problem-solving tools of exacting realism, but then again if they were they'd offer only already known options of operation. Instead games often allow you to step outside of the problem, or step back into the problem, in a unique, unorthodox and non-linear approach to problem resolution.

And that's what I chiefly mean when I say gaming is so useful in these regards.

 

[Jack7]

i think the viability of problems to translate to the game space depends on the nature of the problems...

Technical problems, maybe not so much

I think you have a point Janx, and that's where I think Indirect Problem Solving through games is sometimes more effective than Direct Problem Solving through games.

 

[Janx]

I think you have a point Janx, and that's where I think Indirect Problem Solving through games is sometimes more effective than Direct Problem Solving through games.

case in point (The intern's current problem):
why did all the pages start showing blank after lunch?
All pages use the same MasterPage which contains a menubar and a right rail of various other controls.
the default.aspx page is otherwise empty, and it too is blank.

Engineering problems (especially software ones) don't tend to map to something someone not versed in the art can understandd. I suppose with creativity, I can make some RPG scenario inspired by the problem, but the solution players come up with won't really apply (because ultimately, the solution is go to line X in file Y and change it to Z).

Whereas I see it as ridiculously easy to apply a crime scenario to D&D. The crooks are orcs, the PCs are vigilante's or cops, go.

It certainly could be useful for a player if they ever do encounter the situation in real life "Hey, I know how to handle Terrorists! This is just like last month when the Orcs of Red Valley swarmed in to hold the town hostage in exchange for government cheese!"

I'd certainly be curious if someone can apply Jack's idea to my problem (to translate it into an interesting challenge, puzzle or scenario in an RPG).

PS. The intern reports he left the "disable javascript setting on" from his earlier testing.

I do agree that the rule system doesn't really matter. In modeling a crime scenario, it's not really important that the orcs have pistols, swords or crossbows. It's mostly, what do the players do based on the orcs position, and how to the orcs react. As Jack described in real life training, the bad guy scripts get a bit dumb. Whereas, by playing them out as orcs, the GM is detached from the 'this is a training exercise" and can get into the mindset of "how do my orcs react to what the PCs did?"

 

[Jack7]

I do agree that the rule system doesn't really matter. In modeling a crime scenario, it's not really important that the orcs have pistols, swords or crossbows. It's mostly, what do the players do based on the orcs position, and how to the orcs react. As Jack described in real life training, the bad guy scripts get a bit dumb. Whereas, by playing them out as orcs, the GM is detached from the 'this is a training exercise" and can get into the mindset of "how do my orcs react to what the PCs did?"

In a case like you described that's exactly right. You have "fluid behavioral response" precisely because the opponent is a living, thinking, breathing human being, not a scripted or artificial version of an imaginary opponent. That is to say, the human player brings not only his character to the problem and the situation, but himself. All his own experiences and capabilities.

Also I think it is very good when the situation is being created to think of it as a training exercise or a problem solving session so as to incorporate the proper elements into the scenario. But once it is played it is far better to "step outside the original situation" and instead think of it as a game and a particular "adventure in its own right."

This has two advantages. Play and games allow much more open creativity for problem solving, and this expansive viewpoint actually helps you to see things you previously missed in considering the problem. Play encourages non-linear thinking and action. But secondly, and this is also an important point to me, you have associated in your mind the problem or situation you face with fun (game fun, but still fun). This psychologically shifts the mental load from one of "burdensome work problem" to one of "problem I can have fun in solving." Thus you both open your mind to different ways of approaching the problem while you also psychologically shift your own viewpoint upon the problem from "this is a drag and an encumbrance" to, "this situation is actually fun and there may be some very creative ways to solve it."

However at any point during play, or even afterwards (often this is best - though you can take idea notes at any time) one may debrief and then analyze what actually happened in game and then apply it to the problem solving or training efforts you're pursuing. Just as you can Game Debrief for lessons learned in game, you can likewise Game Debrief for lessons learned and applicable to the problem you face or the capabilities you hope you improve for Real Life. So you just keep two different viewpoints in your mind at once.

During the game the game is at the forefront of your thoughts. But at any point during it, or after it, you can switch gears and use the game as a problem solving tool, applying it to your real problems.

As to your current situation this is an example of what I call a "Negative," or a "Terminal Problem." You begin at the end with the problem but you're not really sure what caused the malfunction or what will be necessary to fix it. But in your case you apparently have some clues, what with what the intern disclosed.

In cases like that I personally prefer an Indirect Problem Solving method. If I were to use a game, or something game-like to solve this, then I'd create a monster or a ship (I'd play this out as a wargame) or an opponent to represent each element I thought was a likely contributor to the problem, and a wild-card or cards (ship or opponent) that represented some element I suspected (but wasn't sure about), or some element I had no real idea about that could be contributing to the problem.

Then set about interacting these elements and seeing the differences in outcomes between when all know elements interact, versus how all known elements interact when you also introduce the wild cards or the unknown variables.

But maybe others have better ideas or personal experiences that are more directly applicable to your situation.

Good luck and Godspeed in either case.

 

[Argyle King]

I think it's important to point out that there is a difference between players trying to outwit each other and characters trying to outwit each other. In the latter, I believe you would get a more accurate portrayal of a situation because meta-game knowledge would not be used to change the actions of the characters.

As for bad intel and mental quirks - that is something which GURPS also addresses. As such, that would still be my choice.

Everything in your post actually fortifies my opinion. I completely agree that flexibility helps train for multiple situations, and, as such, I would want a system which was flexible enough to handle multiple factors and situations. As it is a toolkit system, I can simulate a very wide range of scenarios. Likewise, I'll again mention that I would want a system which gives me results which seem most probable. If I want to account for variables, I can run the scenario multiple times and change certain factors.

As for typical training being stale and rigid, I think that would highly depend on what kind of training. There are training methods for some things which I would say approach the flexibility of imagination and rpgs. One example would be the MILES gear used by the military. However, one of the problems with MILES gear is that the fear of being shot/hurt isn't as much of a factor as it should be; as such, some units use 'simuntion' rounds which hurt when you are shot by them.

 

[Jack7]

I completely agree that flexibility helps train for multiple situations, and, as such, I would want a system which was flexible enough to handle multiple factors and situations. As it is a toolkit system, I can simulate a very wide range of scenarios. Likewise, I'll again mention that I would want a system which gives me results which seem most probable. If I want to account for variables, I can run the scenario multiple times and change certain factors.

As for typical training being stale and rigid, I think that would highly depend on what kind of training. There are training methods for some things which I would say approach the flexibility of imagination and rpgs. One example would be the MILES gear used by the military. However, one of the problems with MILES gear is that the fear of being shot/hurt isn't as much of a factor as it should be; as such, some units use 'simunition' rounds which hurt when you are shot by them.

Good points.