Exploring Outcomes & Inaction

 “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.”

— John F. Kennedy

My estimation of serious simulation “wargames” — like tabletop exercises (TTXs) and matrix games — has deteriorated in the past 18 months. Many seek to explore outcomes of various emerging issues with an eye toward affecting policy or future action. These rarely achieve any objective on their own beyond educated speculation how different elements affect the situation and where various actions lead, even with post-game discussion; their success and impact requires subsequent, meaningful action to put the conclusions to any effect in real-world policy. And I don’t see that happening against the overwhelmingly indifferent filter of societal and institutional bureaucracy. The past few years we’ve seen several political simulations, some more tabletop exercises than wargame-adjacent matrix games, intended to “game out” what might happen with various developments in American politics. Many came to presciently frightening conclusions. But this kind of simulation means nothing if participants don’t use what they learned to affect policy moving forward.

I’ve never had faith that wargames can predict the future — few serious gamers believe that — but I think well-crafted immersive simulations can help participants explore outcomes in a scenario. We learn when we take time to reflect on our experiences; we gain nothing from serious games exploring outcomes without looking back to discuss, reflect on, and assess what we learned. And that carries no value beyond the game space unless someone acts on those conclusions.

I’m channeling some first-rate frustration at the current American political climate characterized by a vindictive and seemingly chaotic attitude that ignores conventions of diplomacy and even, arguably, the rule of law. Most responses to threats on numerous fronts seem only to delay the inevitable, though some might characterize them far more pessimistically as confused inaction and ineffective posturing (especially given the lack of traditional forms of opposition). Many Americans chose to ignore plain evidence our current situation could happen...even those who, through serious games, explored possible outcomes and responses and yet could take no meaningful action to influence or mitigate them.

A NASA TTX exploring a potential
asteroid impact on Earth.

I used to love seeing more mainstream news outlets publish articles about think tanks’ serious simulations about emerging political issues. They helped validate a view that such exercises could help explore outcomes to emerging issues, find potential solutions, and implement them. They brought serious “wargaming” into the public consciousness as a tool for coming together to address problems taking into account numerous factors influencing them. These exercises and their findings are all well and good. They provide some insight into possibilities for emerging issues...but little comfort and few realistic courses of action. Certainly the knowledge of how a situation might evolve and the factors influencing it can help us prepare to manage them; yet having plans or systems in place to address these challenges — or adapt them to changing situations — remains more effective than just being aware of what we might face.

In the months before the 2024 American presidential election and even shortly afterward several news stories covered various institutions running serious games exploring possible outcomes, notably Donald Trump’s successful election to a second term as president, as well as their ramifications:*

PAXsims. “Wargaming the effects of a Trump presidency on NATO.” April 4, 2024.

The Guardian.“Washington insiders simulated a second Trump presidency. Can a role-play save democracy?” July 30, 2024. [Spoiler alert: no.]

Rolling Stone. “Wargame Simulation Predicts NATO Collapse If Trump Is Elected Again.” May 12, 2024.

Business Insider. “A wargame simulated a 2nd Trump presidency. It concluded NATO would collapse.” May 12, 2024.

The New Republic. “I Helped Run ‘War Games’ on Trump’s Plans. They Were Not Reassuring.” Nov. 12, 2024.

The Guardian. “We ran high-level US civil war simulations. Minnesota is exactly how they start.” (The most recent story of yet another simulation merely confirming our fears but not really offering any viable, actionable solution or response. Some well-thought-out possible outcomes and responses, but well out of any policy makers’ hands.)

Are you allowed to wargame
in the war room?

These “wargames” took the form of what simulation professionals might call tabletop exercises (TTXs) or even matrix games, all involving experienced and influential people with first-hand knowledge of how government agencies and other institutions might operate in a second Trump presidency. These serious games explored the issues of intersecting dynamics on a particular conflict — in this case the effects of a second Trump regime on various aspects of American government and society — but they could not predict exactly what would happen, only what might happen and, theoretically, how various institutions might react to those events. Participants operated under the assumption that normal procedures and laws would still hold sway despite evidence from Trump’s first term that such norms meant nothing and would barely contain the unprecedented developments some expected — and we now see — in a second term. Inaccurate assumptions can doom wargame simulations when transposing lessons learned to the real world. Few could have imagined the chaotic, vindictive malevolence that would drive the new regime in its first year.

These articles are still out there (for now) lingering on the internet, wistful reminders of how we might have better prepared ourselves. But instead we now scramble to stem the tide of damage inflicted on American society and the international community. These exercises proved worthwhile exploring influential factors affecting the situation and possible outcomes. But what did participants do when they walked away from the game table afterwards? Did anyone, shocked by the seemingly impotent power of existing checks and balances, attempt to rally opposition, form coalitions of resistance, or more seriously explore effective responses?

At least these news stories tried to spread the word, sharing insights about various concerns, scenarios, and institutional and individual forces...and strategies that might help mitigate or even oppose them. But such observations remain useless if people with power and influence — even average citizens — don’t understand and use them. News stories about these exercises noted they drew various conclusions about what might happen and how those with power and influence might respond to maintain the checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of American government. (The New Republic article is particularly good in its analysis.) And none of it was encouraging. Whatever the intent, the active result seems to have been to educate the public through such news articles mentioned above and leave it at that. Nobody could predict exactly what would happen and how...and American society and media painted those who raised concerns, pointing to Project 2025 and other indicators, including these analytical game exercises, as unrealistic alarmists.

Did stigma about serious “play” doom any message news coverage shared about these games? Did the public see them simply as ineffective exercises conducted as some fringe, unqualified activity? Did limited coverage in an often biased and cowed media fail to sway an indifferent public? Did voters simply assume reality could never become as bad as — or even worse than — the tumultuous assault on personal liberties and the Constitution itself?

I am not in any professional capacity involved with serious games or institutional bureaucracies (much as, at times, I wish I were...I could use the job). I am a dabbler, at best an informed gaming generalist, who far too late in my life discovered serious games, games for education, and other useful applications of games to improve society to make any meaningful difference. Most might consider me only a rank amateur casually exploring the field of serious games. I’ve come to believe many games can help us explore issues but cannot predict them.

Dr. Jeremiah McCall’s Cycle of
Gameplay and Analysis.

But I’ve looked at games across the spectrum of gaming — and have written and designed for them — long enough. We learn best from games when we take time to understand the rules, engage in meaningful play, and follow up with reflection and discussion. Educational games have little worth without meaningful reflection afterward; but serious games about emerging real-world issues require examination of the experience, analysis of conclusions, and action based on those findings. Professional military analytical wargaming efforts produce recommendations based on play experiences; no doubt they get passed up the chain of command and into committees, which theoretically take them into account (or even dismiss them) when making decisions about procedures, doctrine, and other relevant issues.

My attention generally focuses on using games for entertainment and education. I’ve always felt analysis — and subsequent action implementing those findings — is just not my thing. It’s the purview of experts in the field well-placed to effect change based on examining issues raised in simulation games. I’m casually aware of debates surrounding various concerns about professional serious games, including their inception and design, their execution, and the outcomes they influence. I keep an eye on developments in this facet of serious games, but I recognize it’s mostly beyond me. More so now. And while I might still have some splinters of faith using games for analysis, I have no faith lessons learned from these exercises can positively change anything in the face of the overwhelming bulwark of institutional bureaucracy and crippled democratic political process.

I still feel professional serious gaming has huge educational benefits for training those tasked with meeting our future challenges by estimating situations and deciding on effective courses of action. Obviously proponents of serious simulations won’t simply abandon them as analytical tools. But for an informed gaming generalist like myself they hold little promise of having tangible effects on the emerging issues they explore. It’s great to identify new challenges, but meaningless if we don’t try implementing solutions to address what we’ve learned.

“He is the best man who, when making his plans, fears and reflects on everything that can happen to him, but in the moment of action is bold.”

— Herodotus

* Yes, stories about what might happen should Trump lose also appeared. They explored America’s response to another January 6-style coup attempt. There was even a Heritage Foundation matrix game examining issues surrounding a possible Trump loss. There were even reports each campaign conducted their own “wargame” studies, though I’m tempted to view these more as a Bunch Of Guys/Gals Sitting Around Talking (BOGSAT) than any structured wargame-style exercises. Also, searching for “wargame trump reelection” produced results from earlier simulations conducted before the 2020 election.