Presentation at Universite de Montreal


Photo by Marc Guenette. Pensive pose provoked by perspicacious pupil’s point.

What a great time! The students asked so many great questions, very thought-provoking.  What was supposed to be a bit over an hour took over two hours. Afterwards we went upstairs to see the students’ graduating projects, both video and table games. Excellent work, they are so inventive!

Tomorrow starts Stack Academie, the game convention, and some of them will be there to give my work the once-over. Gulp.

Meanwhile here are my script and slides. They shot a video too, but I don’t know what they are going to do with it.

UdeM class 2016 26 apr (script)

UdeM 5may slides (slide deck, PDF)



About brtrain
This blog is mostly devoted to posts, work and resources on "serious" conflict simulation games.

One Response to Presentation at Universite de Montreal

  1. defling says:

    Okay, allow me to launch two provocations.

    In the first: Your slide “Lines of Attack” slide makes me wonder if wouldn’t put students off of conventional wargames. I doubt you see the two categories as opposites, given the number of force-on-force conflicts you’ve designed games around. Had I been in the audience, I might have put you on the spot about deliberate simplifications necessary to bring off an asymmetrical design. Just as force-on-force conflicts have to be shoehorned into a model, I wonder if irregular ones suffer even more.

    Next, there seem to be cycles where design fluctuates between discursion in hopes of gaining new terrain against old problems and those where the task is to normalize out the churn this causes for play. My bias toward the utility of matrix games is known by anyone I’ve spoken with for more than five minutes. (This is a little embarrassing but, I hope, short of evangelism.) My point is that there is much churn in the game play of COIN titles.

    For those who enjoy the churn, the bloom may come off once designers invent less discursive vehicles for treating pol-mil conflicts. Which is another way of saying that, ultimately, I don’t accept a mimetic defense of irregular warfare games — that the endless back and forth and shifting political terrain are mimetic of the conflict itself, therefore somehow valid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: