Books etc

In this chapter, I explore Cathy’s and Dick’s impact on Japanese researchers, based on their books Designing Games and Simulations: An Illustrated Handbook (1988) by Cathy and Gaming: The Future’s Language (1974) by Dick. These books were translated into Japanese in the early stage of the Japanese simulation and gaming research. They served as a source of shared understanding and knowledge for Japanese researchers in their native language. The availability of these books in Japanese enabled the expansion of our field at a time when it was struggling to develop. Books written in Japanese are more accessible for newcomers in the field. Therefore, these two books have been indispensable textbooks for Japanese researchers. In this chapter, I share some of my personal memories of Cathy and Dick. Other Japanese researchers have had similar experiences; however, different in the details. In addition to my experiences with them, I also elaborate on the huge impact their work has had on Japanese researchers. I would like to conclude that both Cathy and Dick were like lighthouses for Japanese researchers in establishing and developing the simulation and gaming field.

In this chapter, I demonstrate how gamification is grounded in Japanese society, especially in the field of disaster prevention and awareness. Japanese people generally are culturally familiar with many games, including tabletop exercises, board games, card games, and digital games. In the field of disaster prevention and awareness, games and game-related activities have been common and pervasive. The game "Crossroad", a tabletop exercise, is a pioneering game in that it increased awareness of the effectiveness of gamification in this field. After the game gained popularity, various games were developed by ordinary people, especially people who have experienced natural disasters or are expected to be victims of future disasters. The trend toward games designed by ordinary people can be interpreted as one of the characteristics of Japanese gaming culture. People design games and then continue learning using their games. This could be a reflection of Japan's generally bottom-up culture. The success of the Game Market, which is held three times each year and where mainly independent game designers develop games, could be further evidence that gamification is embedded in Japanese society. In addition to this grassroots movement, researchers also contribute to disaster prevention and increasing awareness by designing learning environments employing games.

The aim of this chapter is to introduce the basic terminology and methodology of gaming simulation. We describe the main building blocks and elements and the steps in the gaming process. Also, we discuss a concept from Jan Klabbers who pointed out that the actors in a gaming simulation represent two distinct branches of science: the design and analytical sciences. We show the interconnections, differences, and commonalities of gaming and simulation game design with other widely discussed concepts and terms, such as serious games and gamification. Finally, we refer to some historical aspects and cultural issues.

This chapter focuses on the issue of transferring game experience to reality based on Kolb’s learning cycle (1984). When game experts, that is, game designers, facilitators, teachers, etc., use games for educational purposes, for example, in classrooms or workshops, we emphasize the importance of debriefing as well as facilitation as a whole. However, when we scrutinize Kolb’s cycle, we as facilitators can help participants reach the third cycle, which is abstract conceptualization. The fourth cycle, active experimentation, cannot be done within classrooms or workshops because of limitations of time in addition to the fact that we as facilitators cannot interfere with participants’ real lives. This means that there is no guarantee that participants will apply game experiences to the real world or actively experiment with experiences learned from the games. In other words, the learning cycle may not be accomplished in real life. Therefore, the important question is as follows: How can we, the game experts, motivate participants to actively experiment with their game experiences to ensure effective learning? I will tackle this question and offer some suggestions to connect the third and fourth cycles by providing some concrete examples. In addition, in the post-truth era, active experimentation in the real world has become more complex. I am suggesting two possible solutions to the issue for further discussion.

In this chapter, we examine the manipulation that may occur through gamification, facilitation, and debriefing processes. We focus in particular on “unintended” manipulation that even professional facilitators or game designers may practice. First, we examine gamification, followed by gaming and simulation. Although gamification, which is a relatively new field, is associated with issues of manipulation, the gaming and simulation field, which has over five decades of history, is seldom affected by manipulation issues. Of course, facilitators’ ethics have long been the subject of much discussion; here, we focus on the more subtle and unintentional aspects of manipulation, which have been relatively overlooked, additionally in relation to the embodied experience. In the chapter’s final section, we provide a list of recommendations aimed at supporting game professionals in minimizing manipulation. These questions may be used as guidelines for future game practices and research, leading to the development of a code of ethics for game studies.

This chapter delves into the contributions of Richard Duke and Cathy Greenblat to the field of gaming simulation, outlining their pioneering roles in establishing foundational methodologies that continue to shape the discipline. Richard Duke, an urban planner, often referred to as the “founding father” of gaming simulation, introduced the concept as a transformative tool for addressing complex urban planning and policy challenges. His systematic frameworks, particularly the renowned 21-step design model, emphasize iterative, participatory processes to model and address real-world problems through simulation games. Duke’s work positioned gaming as a “future’s language,” capable of facilitating gestalt communication and fostering systemic understanding in complex decision-making contexts [Duke (Gaming: The future’s language. Sage, 1974)]. Cathy Greenblat, a sociologist, complemented Duke’s contributions by integrating psychological and sociological perspectives into the design and facilitation of simulation games. Her focus on group dynamics, emotional and cognitive learning, and the quality of debriefing enriched the pedagogical and ethical dimensions of gaming [Greenblat (Simulation & Games 5(1):3–21, 1974)]. Together, they advanced participatory design methodologies, emphasizing the importance of “multiple realities” through perspectives and stakeholder involvement to ensure holistic system modeling and game design. The chapter explores their collaborative works, such as Principles and Practices of Gaming Simulation, which synthesized their shared vision of simulation games as tools for education, policy development, and organizational transformation. It also highlights the enduring relevance of their concepts in contemporary applications, addressing issues like ethical considerations, diversity, and the transfer of insights from gaming into real-world contexts. Their legacy underscores the potential of gaming simulation to not only simplify but also enhance the understanding of complex systems, fostering creative problem-solving and organizational learning in diverse fields.

In this chapter, I discuss the issue of manipulation, intentional and unintentional, in games. First, I introduce a number of cases involving ethical issues, which, despite the presence of these issues, are common in gaming due to their importance and/or playability. Second, I discuss the relationship between ethics and fidelity and the reasons why we, as game designers, researchers, facilitators, and teachers, i.e., people in the simulation and gaming community, cannot easily give up ethically problematic games in the face of achieving high fidelity given that, with high fidelity, participants can easily connect their game experience to reality, and this connection can lead to better educational effects. Third, the issue of intentional manipulation is explored, as we must recognize the darker side of game use for propaganda purposes. Fourth, two subtle types of manipulation are discussed: one with ill intent and the other unintentional. Finally, I note changing attitudes on the part of the game industry and an increased awareness of ethical issues in game design and how to solve them.

In this chapter, the results of a survey on the Internet on the current status of Japanese tabletop gamers are discussed. Tabletop games refer to board games, card games, role-playing games, and wargames. They are also known as nonelectronic games and unplugged games. Although the survey included questions about digital games in Japan so as to compare them to tabletop games, they are not discussed in detail. In recent years, the market for tabletop games has expanded. The Game Market, which is the biggest tabletop game event in Japan, is held three a year. Its increase in popularity is evidenced by the fact that 22,000 participated in the 2018 autumn market. Most of the Game Market’s exhibitors are independent game designers. However, reasons for the increasing popularity of tabletop games have yet to be explored. Accordingly, two surveys, the first in June 2018 and the second in September 2019, were conducted with active gamers between the ages of 20 and 69 years. The results revealed that most active gamers are in their twenties and thirties, thus indicating that the relatively younger generation could accelerate this recent trend. Furthermore, men tended to be more active gamers than women. The younger generation and men had more positive attitudes toward games. Frequent players, who were mainly men, evaluated games positively. They also agreed that games have connections to the real world and game experience can be useful in the real world.