How scripted should force on force training be?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Not too long ago I had the opportunity to do some force-on-force training. In most of the scenarios, the training was very good; but in one of them it was clear I had deviated from anything anticipated by the planners. The result was one of the role-players stuck completely to the script and continued to give responses that were totally strange to what I was doing/saying.

I finally ended up being shot by one of the role-players that came around behind me as the other one continued to bewilder me. In this case, the tactical lesson was still the same regardless of the conversation; but I found it a little weird to have someone responding in a scripted fashion to moves that I wasn't making.

I know we have some NTC folks and other trainers here and I wonder how they deal with students going "off-script" during training? Do you incorporate these into future scripts when it does happen?

 

[Tim Burke]

While the scenario should be scripted to make a particular teaching point or test a particular skill, the role players should be experienced enough to adapt to the trainee that deviates. This is not unusual. After all, the trainee is the only one without a script.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Tim is spot on.... the hard part is the role-players... too often they are just friends, other students, range employees or buddies with the instructors and not actually trained or prepped thoroughly enough to deal with much more than a few verbatim lines and timing/type of attack.


Good Roleplayer training/development and then scripting is one of the hardest parts of doing really good force-on-force. I tend to only use instructors during the highest level stuff because we do a lot of in-role coaching, etc.

Tony Blauer actually runs a program called "Be a Good Bad-Guy" for roleplayer development strategies.

If you don't have instructor level roleplayers that can ad-lib in the context of the scenario and learning points, it is vital that the roleplayers understand as many variables as possible and don't deviate from their script when something goes astray. If/when they do, or in your case, when the student does something unexpected that can't be handled in context, the lead instructor should not be afraid to put a stop to the scenario and get it back on track. I think Ken Murray talks about the "Pause Button" concept to get control of a scenario getting out of control in various situations.

As for incorporating a plan for unforeseen developments, the easy answer is "yes", but the way that I usually handle it is to change the set-up/intro/briefing or some other aspect of the training in order to steer the students to the point that we are trying to make. For example, in one of our Close Quarters scenarios we learned very quickly that even though we were training "counter ambush in a low profile environment" we need to be very explicit about the fact that no matter what happens, the students need to NOT try to take over and control the entire scene (as opposed to saving themselves/dealing with any immediate threat and getting away) when dealing with military team members, as they are usually training to dominate and control an area. Even after 3-4 days of training and discussion on this topic, many students brain-locked under stress and tried to act under their previously trained process, which could only lead to failure or a lot of overly dramatic in-role coaching to get them to figure it out. This one emphasized point made a huge difference in the lessons learned and the student performance during pre-mission training for specific deployments where such a response would be necessary.

This leads to what I think is probably most important part of good F-o-F (assuming that good roleplayers can control for problems in a less than thorough briefing isn't the best strategy):
A thorough procedural briefing that outlines what is expected and what parameters are in place (for safety and learning purposes) as well as the narrative of the scenario.

-RJP

 

[Erik]

"Tim is spot on...."

Agreed.

"...the hard part is the role-players..."

I''ve had good and bad role players, as well as been them. It cannot be stressed enough that the quality of the role players is a significant factor; at least a third and more likely half of what it takes to experience or deliver quality FOF training.

 

[ShackleMeNot]

Good role players are the key to scenario-based Force on Force. Any idiot can roboticly stick to a script. Role players should have general guidelines of the goal of the scenario and then work to guide it in that direction without being too artificial.

 

[sacp81170a]

Being a good role player takes a more training than you might imagine. One of the principles for good FoF training is to start with very simple scenarios at first and increase the complexity as you go. Scripting is vital, but having role players that can deal with deviations is equally important.

Having been on both sides, I will also make the point that the best training challenges you but doesn't present you only with "no-win" scenarios. If a student does something that gets him or her "killed", it's important to walk through their actions, correct them, and give them an opportunity to be successful later in the training. Good role players are vital in this process of adjustment. The object for the role players isn't to "win", it's to provide a constructive learning environment. Large egos need not apply.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A little more detail: the scenario was one where you were in a rural area with a child in the house and had spotted a prowler outside the house. You left the house to check on the prowler and the scenario starts with you returning to the house via the front door.

One of the issues in this scenario is that I was near enough to the range where it was playing out that I could hear the failure of other students with depressing regularity. Not so close I could tell much about what was going on; but I did note two things:

1) There was clearly more than one assailant.
2) Everybody, and I mean everybody, was coming out with hits on them.

My original plan had been "Hey, there is a child in there. Go in shooting and sort it out later. The child is priority number one."

Knowing the mindset of the guys going in there before me was similar and seeing how well it worked for them influenced me to try and negotiate instead of going in guns-a-blazin.

First disconnect: despite the fact that I had announced my presence and encouraged the intruders to take what they want, I was just going to get the kid and leave. The first intruder I encountered (in the room with the kid) acted as if he had not heard a word I said. In fact, it looked like he was waiting for me to appear before he began his movement. When I did appear, he ignored me and my yelling and proceeded directly to the child where he began shaking the child and threatening the child (a doll in this case). In retrospect, it seems to me like the role-player's actions were designed to make sure I was able to observe this behavior and use it to evaluate the situation.

Here is where I made one of my first mistakes. I missed some clear signs that this person was probably not good negotiating material (threatning and assaulting a small child). On the other hand, one of the reasons I missed it is because I was wondering "I am standing here looking at the guy and yelling at him - why is he acting like I don't exist?"

Eventually he turned and looked at me and then took the child hostage while drawing a firearm (mine was still holstered in an effort to try and talk my way out of it).

Despite the fact he could have shot me at pretty much any time, he still stood there and made threatening motions to the child (the purpose being to tie my attention to his actions while his partner came up behind me and shot me). Again, I interpreted this as there being room for negotiation since I figured he would have shot me already if there wasn't. Had I presented a weapon, I could see the value in the tactical lesson here; but here the tactical lesson continued even though it didn't apply to what I was doing.

The final lesson applied real well though... his buddy shot me in the side from close range several times. None of the hits was fatal or even probable to cause a physiological stop; but even after having had deadly force used on me, I didn't draw my weapon because I figured I was pretty well doomed at that point. From the training standpoint, it made sense since Sims aren't pleasant; but I think it revealed a big hole in my mindset. In a non-training scenario, the result of just giving up would have been an even more certain death. For that point alone, the whole scenario was worthwhile.

Any thoughts on how to better improve that scenario in the future?

 

[sacp81170a]

Any thoughts on how to better improve that scenario in the future?

Was there any opportunity for you to scope out the situation and perhaps see what kind of odds you were up against? For one thing, forcing you to enter only by the door you came out of flies in the face of logic. Checking around the house, looking in windows and choosing an alternate entrance are all good tactical principles. I understand the need to keep the scenario limited for the sake of instructional purpose, but taking away too many of your tactical options presents you with such a no-win situation that I question the entire scenario.

Learning to watch for additional BG's, knowing when you can use deadly force (according to AR law, you could have used it immediately against the first guy) and being able to adjust your response are all laudable goals. Did they give the students a chance to walk back through the scenario and come up with a viable solution, or did they just mow everybody down and say, "see what happens when the odds are two to one"?

"Losing" isn't a bad thing, but losing without learning something is. Especially when what you're paying for is the learning part.

I don't want to critique based on a single description of one scenario run in what was obviously a longer class, but what tactical principles were instilled and was there any follow up on what could have been done better?

 

[ShackleMeNot]

My advice is to not game it next time. You know that what you would have done in the real world wasn't what you did in this scenario because you heard and saw what had happened to the students who went before you.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There was a debrief and walkthrough of the scenario tailored to each student after the scenario. It was also a good two-sided conversation and not just a "you did this wrong" lecture to the student.

On the entry points; part of that was due to the way the shoot house was constructed. The looking around the house, exiting and entering, etc. was all discussed as part of the pre-scenario briefing.

My advice is to not game it next time. You know that what you would have done in the real world wasn't what you did in this scenario because you heard and saw what had happened to the students who went before you.

Yes. One thought is that the students need to be kept further away from the scenario. Logically I knew I shouldn't game it but it is hard not to adjust your plans based on what you are picking up.

The flipside of this is that it takes a lot of time to run these scenarios and long trips/delays between each student add to that problem.

 

[strambo]

Another thought...yes he ignored you and acted irrationally...is that really unrealistic? There are some serious drugged up nut-bags out there. It is a big mistake to assume or expect any given action/reactions on the part of another human being. Don't hinge your plan on an expected response from them...do what you need to do irregardless of what they do/say. If they comply or negotiate it is a bonus, I'm not saying don't try to negotiate, just don't expect a response.

I always tried to disengage my verbal commands from my physical awareness. As in, I would give commands or talk/negotiate with the person while not letting what I was saying or their response effect my expectation of whether they would go physical or not. If they say "everything's cool, I'm leaving" I would be no less expecting an attack after they said that as before. I got all my experience working hospital security and have had people act in some very weird ways and ignore loud verbal commands.

 

[ctdonath]

"I am standing here looking at the guy and yelling at him - why is he acting like I don't exist?"

I ran into that thought the hard way in one training scenario - and it made a huge impression on me.

Scenario:
In parking lot, guy on other side of car pulls a knife. I draw and start shouting the usual "drop it! don't move!" line. Talking in a remarkably soft, calming, and methodical tone, he slowly works his way around the car ... and into striking range. Scenario ends without a shot.

I'm left with a feeling of shock and betrayal. Despite a show of superior force and loud commands, I was ignored and defeated. It's not fair! I feel betrayed! He ... I ... it ... !!!

I learned the lesson I needed to, precisely because the other guy stuck to the script. It wasn't that he didn't respond to me, it's that (in my mind) I "moved the box" and he operated outside my box. I expected him to respond to me, and learned that he didn't have to ... with terminal effects. I found it weird to have someone responding in a scripted fashion that didn't rationally follow the moves I was making.

...and that's where I learned that the whole issue of defense requires a presumption that the opponent will NOT operate according your terms, that he may very well act in an irrational or contrary way. You do not essentially engage in a conversation and come to an agreement in such a situation, you apply the "Condition Red" if-then indicated response. Too often our visceral reaction is to engage rational discourse and talk it out; training is to replace the incorrect visceral response with "if this, do that".

BTW: The training technology was projected video (allowing live fire). The opponent couldn't deviate from the script.

 

[conw]

ctdonath, this

Too often our visceral reaction is to engage rational discourse and talk it out; training is to replace the incorrect visceral response with "if this, do that".

is amazingly well-said.

As far as the projected video, I'm not a jeenyus, but doesn't that kind of allow for very limited applicability?

 

[ctdonath]

Training involves many tools. Projected video allows for rapid cycling thru a wide array of situations, along with live-fire response.

The CAPS system:

 

[JoeSlomo]

Hmmm...


Interesting.

Good scenario's start with the learning point, or points, you want to make, and are then created to meet those learning points.

I can't place the exact learning point of that scenario. Were they trying to teach an escalation of force, rapid draw and shoot, tactics, decision making?

Role players are vital, and can either make or break the effectiveness of any scenario.

Scenario design MUST account for the unpredictability of both role player and participants to achieve the max benefit. ANY scenario that requires a performance in accordance with a DETAILED script could probably be broken down into smaller scenario's that allow more flexibility for both role players and participants. SOME scripting is required to achieve your learning point, but without flexibility, scripts detract from the actual training.

 

[ctdonath]

Often the point of such scripted training is to drag the student through a particular situation, and if the student insists on deviating then he won't learn what he's there to learn. The role-players stick to script precisely to persuade the student back into the script; it's not a test, it's an exercise. The idea of the training is to teach the reactive subconscious to do X in scenario Y by actually doing X in scenario Y; doing Z instead just makes the whole thing pointless. In the lead scenario, the whole point may very well have been to drill in the idea that "if you do P, you're gonna get shot"; by trying to deviate based on overheard intel ("they're all doing P with result D, I'll cleverly try Q instead") the intended lesson was missed.

Also, scripted training may be needed for safety reasons. The student may not realize that going off-script can have grave consequences. I've watched Ayoob pound someone into submission precisely because what was supposed to be a demonstration & exercise was dangerously transformed by the trainee unexpectedly deciding to "try something", putting the instructor at risk.