Simulation and Strategy Games: “Making Decisions Without Knowing the Outcome” An interview with Jean Charroin, Director General of ESSCA

On the occasion of the International Convention of Games and History, taking place in Budapest from October 17 to 19, 2026, ESSCA is joining an event that brings together historical reflection, gaming and strategic analysis. As a partner of the Convention, the leading business school is contributing to an initiative that fosters dialogue between education, research and the exploration of decision-making mechanisms.

For this occasion, Jean Charroin, Director General of ESSCA, agreed to answer questions from Michaël Lefebvre. Trained as an engineer and holding a PhD in Management Sciences, he has built a career at the crossroads of business, higher education and management, with recognized expertise in strategy and governance. An enthusiast of wargames, he takes a particularly close interest in simulation tools, both as a personal passion and as a means of encouraging reflection among decision-makers.

The International Convention of Games and History in Budapest, organized to mark the 70th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, brings together games, history and culture around gaming tables, conferences and a historical exhibition space. In this context, the interview with Jean Charroin offers valuable insights into the role of simulation games in understanding crises, strategic trade-offs and decision-making dynamics.

As the head of a leading business school, how do you view historical simulation games as a tool for strategic thinking?

What fundamentally distinguishes simulation games from conventional analysis is the change in perspective they impose. “In a game, you are inside the situation,” Jean Charroin emphasizes. Whereas a case study analyzes a decision after the fact, simulation requires participants to make decisions under uncertainty, without having access to all the information or knowing the intentions of other players.

This shift is essential. “Strategy is not only about explaining things afterwards. It is about making decisions before knowing the outcome.” Games therefore introduce a dynamic perspective that is very different from more static approaches based on matrices.

They teach players to consider several dimensions simultaneously: the immediate position and the long-term trajectory, resources and room for maneuver, visible results and latent potential, as well as interactions between different actors.

But they also highlight a fundamental limitation: “A game remains a partial representation of reality.” Its relevance depends above all on which variables it chooses to emphasize.

Historical games are often perceived primarily as entertainment. How can they become genuine tools for analysis and decision-making?

“Playfulness is not the opposite of seriousness,” he insists. What makes games powerful is that they transform abstract assumptions into concrete decisions.

Participants no longer simply comment on a situation: they must act, adapt their strategy and face the consequences. This makes it possible to reveal discrepancies that often remain invisible in theoretical approaches. “You can see the difference between what you think you are going to do and what you actually do when faced with uncertainty.”

The analytical value of games rests on several mechanisms: making assumptions explicit, incorporating the reactions of opponents, exploring counterfactual scenarios, allowing participants to make mistakes without real-world consequences, and, above all, observing the decision-making process.

“What matters is not only the outcome. It is the reasoning that leads to it.” A game does not predict the future, but it can reveal blind spots, vulnerabilities and implicit assumptions.

Are there parallels between the mechanisms of simulation games and the situations decision-makers face today?

There are many. In both cases, decisions must be made with incomplete information, under time constraints and in the presence of actors with different objectives and ways of thinking.

Games force participants to clarify what they know, what they assume and what they do not know. They make interdependencies visible and show how a decision that appears appropriate locally can weaken the overall system.

They also provide a better understanding of risk: balancing caution and initiative, preserving room for maneuver and preparing fallback options.

Finally, they develop a key skill: understanding the other person's perspective. “It is strategic empathy,” he explains, and it is essential both when dealing with a competitor and within an organization.

Do these tools have a place in the education of managers and executives? In what form?

For Jean Charroin, the answer is unequivocal: they should have a significant place.

In initial education, simulations can be incorporated through short modules, complementing more traditional teaching. The objective is to make concepts such as uncertainty, coordination and time horizons tangible.

They can also place participants in different roles — companies, competitors, regulators — with sometimes conflicting objectives, reflecting the complexity of real-world situations.

In executive education, formats can evolve toward crisis simulations or “matrix games,” which are particularly well suited to complex environments.

But one point remains central: “The debriefing is essential.” More than the outcome itself, what matters is how decisions were made.

How can taking a historical perspective help us better understand contemporary challenges?

History provides valuable distance. It makes it possible to approach complex situations without the emotional or hierarchical biases of the present.

It also offers the opportunity to observe complete sequences, connecting decisions and consequences over the long term — something that is rarely possible within organizations.

But this approach requires caution: “The risk lies in drawing overly simplistic analogies.” History does not provide ready-made recipes; it helps us ask better questions.

Can simulation games help develop key skills?

Yes, and in a very concrete way. They engage participants in decision-making under uncertainty, systems thinking, risk management and collective work.

They also develop more subtle qualities. On the one hand, strategic empathy. On the other, humility.

“A good decision can produce a bad outcome, and the reverse is also true.” This is why it is important to distinguish the quality of the reasoning from the outcome alone.

Personally, what attracts you to historical simulation games?

Jean Charroin describes a convergence between several interests: history, modeling and education.

“The game sits at the intersection of structure — rules — and freedom of action.” This combination reflects the reality of organizations particularly well, as they are shaped both by constraints and by human interactions.

He is particularly interested in reconstructing historical situations: understanding constraints, logistical considerations and the sequence of decisions.

He also highlights the potential of artificial intelligence, particularly for exploring alternative scenarios and enriching analysis.

How do you see these tools evolving in the years to come?

Several trends are emerging. First, greater integration between physical formats and digital tools. Second, growing use of artificial intelligence, capable of generating scenarios, simulating actors and analyzing decisions.

The personalization of educational tools is also likely to expand, as is their application to new fields: the ecological transition, cybersecurity and systemic crises.

He also calls for these practices to be structured: “We could imagine genuine simulation laboratories,” bringing together researchers, educators and practitioners.

But he also offers a warning: “A highly immersive but poorly designed simulation will mainly produce an illusion of realism.” Conversely, a simple but well-designed system can be extremely powerful.

Are there any limitations or points of caution that should be kept in mind?

Yes, several. First, there is the temptation to search for the “one best way.” “There is not necessarily an optimal solution that exists independently of the context.” Strategy is always situated.

Then there is the ethical dimension: “A game can never reproduce fear, fatigue or suffering.” It should serve the purpose of understanding, not trivialization.

Finally, there is a lesson drawn from experience: complexity is not an end in itself. “Games that are too complex can distract from what really matters: strategic thinking.”

A very warm thank you to Jean Charroin for this rich and stimulating interview, which provides valuable insight into the contribution of historical simulation games to strategic thinking and the education of decision-makers. Our thanks also go to ESSCA for its partnership and commitment to this Convention.

We warmly invite everyone interested in history, strategy and simulation games to join us in Budapest for the 2026 edition. The presence of the ESSCA Budapest campus gives this gathering a particularly strong resonance, placing the event at the heart of the very city that welcomes us.