{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017793594306049824, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0071174377224199285, 'mean_word_length': 5.859756097560975, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gaming: An Emergent Discipline

Experiential learning efforts in the 1950s mimicked the logistic operational gaming of World War II; the results were encouraging. Subsequently, funded research efforts over three decades focused on gaming phenomena. Computers permitted more elaborate games, creating the illusion that they might be used for prediction; subsequent research established the potential of games for communicating complexity. By the late 1970s, large organizations were losing faith in the ability of other disciplinary approaches to deal with complex decision environments that defied quantification. Prompted by crisis, these clients sought to employ gaming for developing strategic plans. Many gaming projects, national and international, presented the context for observations about the evolution of knowledge of the disciplinary characteristics of gaming. Both advantages and disadvantages of viewing gaming as a disciplined activity are considered. The evolution of professional organizations, related academic activity, the game design process, and the need for consistent use of terms are also addressed.