Complexity in simulation gaming


  • Marcin Wardaszko Kozminski University


complexity, validity, fidelity, game design


The paper offers another look at the complexity in simulation game design and implementation. Although, the topic is not new or undiscovered the growing volatility of socio-economic environments and changes to the way we design simulation games nowadays call for better research and design methods. This paper offers an interdisciplinary look at the role and place of complexity from two perspectives. The first perspective is knowledge building and dissemination about complexity in simulation gaming. Second, perspective is the role the complexity plays in building and implementation of the simulation gaming as a design process. In the last section, the author offers a new look at the complexity of the simulation game itself and perceived complexity from the player perspective.


Bekebrede G., Lo J., Lukosch H. K. (2015). Understanding complex systems through mental models and shared experiences: A case study. Simulation & Gaming, 46, 536-562.

Boumas M., (1999), Built-in-justification. In Morgan M.S. & Morrison M., (eds), Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social sciences. Cambridge University Press

Brehmer, B. (2004). Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex systems. Acta Psychologica, 81, 211-241.

Burgess, T. F. (1995), Cycle Time, Decisions, and Complexity in Business Simulation/Games. Simulation & Gaming, Vol 26, Issue 3, pp. 376

Burns, A. C., Gentry, J. W. & Wolfe, J. (1990). A cornucopia of considerations in evaluating the effectiveness of experiential pedagogies. In James W. Gentry (ed.). Guide to Business Simulation and Experiential Learning. East Brunswick: Nichols/GP Publishing, 253-278.

Cannon, H. M. (1995). Dealing with the complexity paradox in business simulation games. Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Exercises, 22, 96-102. []

Cannon, H.M., Feinstein. A.H., & Friesen, D.P. (2010), Managing Complexity: Applying the Conscious-Competence Model to Experiential Learning, Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, Volume 37, 2010, [].

Cannon, H.M., Friesen, D.P., Lawrence, S.J. & Feinstein. A.H. (2009). The Simplicity Paradox: Another look at complexity in design of simulation and experiential exercises. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, vol. 36, []

Cohen, J., & Stewart, I. (1995).The collapse of chaos. Discovering simplicity in a complex world. New York: Penguin.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Duke, R. D., & Geurts, J. L. A. (2004). Policy games for strategic management: Pathways into the unknown. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Dutch University Press.

Feinstein, A. H., & Cannon, H. M. (2001). Fidelity, verifiability, and validity of simulation: Constructs for evaluation. Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 28, 57-62.

Feinstein, A. H., & Cannon, H. M. (2002). Constructs of simulation evaluation. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 425-440.

Feinstein, A.H. & Cannon, H. M. (2001). Fidelity, verifiability and validity of simulation: Constructs for evaluation. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, vol. 28, [].

Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2012). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 207-219.

Klabbers, J. H. G. (2000). Learning to handle complexity in social systems. In I. P. McCarthy & T. RakotobeJoel (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Complexity and Complex Systems in Industry (pp. 616-638). Warwick, UK: University of Warwick.

Klabbers, J. H. G. (2006a). A framework for artifact assessment and theory testing. Simulation & Gaming, 37, 155-173.

Klabbers, J. H. G. (2006b). The magic circle: Principles of Gaming & Simulation (Vol. 1). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Kriz, W.C. (2003). Creating Effective Learning Environments and Learning Organizations through Gaming Simulation Design, Simulation & Gaming, 34 (4), 495?511.

Lainema, T., Makkonen, P. (2003). Applying Constructivist Approach to Educational Business Games: Case REALGAME, Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory, Practice and Research vol. 34, 131

Lankveld, G. , Sehic E., Lo J.C. & Meijer S.A.(2016) Assessing Gaming Simulation Validity for Training Traffic Controllers. Simulation & Gaming Vol 48, Issue 2, pp. 219

Mayer, I. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 825-862.

Meijer S. A. (2015). The power of sponges: Comparing high-tech and low-tech gaming for innovation. Simulation & Gaming, 46(5), 512-535.

Meijer, S. A. (2009). The organisation of transactions: Studying supply networks using gaming simulation. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic.

Meijer, S. A., Mayer, I. S., Van Luipen, J. J. W., & Weitenberg, N. (2012). Gaming railway cargo management: Exploring and validating alternative modes of organization. Simulation & Gaming, 43, 85-101.

Meijer, S., Reich, Y., Subrahmanian, E. (2014). The future of Gaming for Design of Complex Systems. In R. Duke & W. Kriz (Eds.), Back to the Future of Gaming (pp. 154-167), WBV.

Morgan M.S. & Morrison M., (1999), Models as mediators. Perspectives on natural and social sciences. Cambridge University Press.

Norris, D. R. (1986). External validity of business games. Simulation & Games, 17, 447-459.

Paavola S., Lipponen L., Hakkarainen K. (2002) Epistemological foundations for CSCL: a comparison of three models for innovative knowledge communities. In: G. Stahl (eds.) Proceedings of CSCL 2002, Hilsdale, New York: Erlbaum, pp. 24

Patasiene, I., Rakickas, A., Skuncikiene, S., Patasius, M. (2014). Increasing complexity of business simulations and games is expected in the future. In R. Duke & W. Kriz (Eds.), Back to the Future of Gaming (pp. 228-241), WBV.

Peters, V., Vissers, G., & Heijne, G. (1998). The validity of games. Simulation & Gaming, 29, 20-30.

Sfard A. (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Edcational Researcher, 27(2), pp. 4

Sterman, J. 2015 Learning for Ourselves: Interactive Simulations to Catalyze Science-Based Environmental Activism. In P. E. Stoknes and K. A. Eliassen (eds.) Science-Based Activism. Bergen, Fagbokfolaget: 253-279.

Stewart, P. (2001). Complexity theories, social theory, and the question of social complexity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 31, 323-360.