Force on Force Training - Scripted vs. Flexible

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
When doing force on force training, one thing I run into frequently is the role-players have a certain “script” they adhere to, regardless of what you try. And I get that, in most cases, the trainer is trying to teach you a shooting-related lesson. If you disarm your opponent via the funniest stand-up routine ever, that’s a great response; but it isn’t what you are paying to learn or what the instructor is trying to teach you.

So at what point do you go with a scripted, unflexible response vs. allowing a more free-form approach to problem solving in force on force. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
 
I think you outlined the benefits of a scripted approach already. You have more control over the skill set or concept being tested. If you can only put one or a limited number of students through the scenario at a time some level of consistency is good to ensure similar lessons learned (it also helps with time limitations that might exist for the day). It's also easier, in my opinion, to have the "bad actors" follow a script than have them react organically. Not every actor may be as experienced as the instructor, or maybe not even more than the student, so asking him or her to create something on the spot can be hard (though I might argue that this approach gets more out of the experience for the actors too).

The downsides are like you said, artificial restrictions that may not be indicative of reality, or at least the reality of that particular student. For instance, forcing a low light encounter if that student normally carries a light, not allowing the use of a bladed weapon (in this case training knife) if the student normally has one, or even removing a firearm (sim pistol) in a "gun free zone" even if the student would ignore the sign/regulation. Other pieces of kit (number of magazines, etc) also fall under the same umbrella. I don't think, however, that those restrictions completely take away any lessons learned and some creativity is required on behalf of the students to think of how that scenario might have played differently without the restrictions after they finish the scenario as intended.

I think good scenarios should allow for a reasonable degree of creativity when it comes to decision making and that needs to be considered beforehand to establish reasonable restrictions. By reasonable I mean if you need to pretend there's a wall somewhere to force an altercation then go for it. I also wouldn't want students trying to tunnel or climb their way out of situations both for fear of them being hurt or defeating the purpose of the scenario entirely. When I did something similar I was simply told no while the scenario was playing, but I was at least allowed to think of it and discuss it afterwards. Students choosing not to engage or to try to avoid confrontation should be allowed in the context of the scenario, however, and I think doing so is very important.

The reality is no scenario can test all possibilities. You can always discuss and think on your own, however.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
I do not subscribe to any substantially "scripted" f on f training.

If a person wants to set up the venue as a bus station, coffee shop, business office .. I am good with that. If you want to designate 1 on 1, 2 on 2 , 2 on 1, 3 on 3 or whatever, that's fine with me. As long as the training adversary has the freedom to attack in when they wish and in whatever manner they wish. In that same spirit, the good guy needs to have the freedom to defend in whatever manner they wish. That's how its going to be in the real world. It goes without saying that these things should conform to responsible safety protocols.
 
I think you outlined the benefits of a scripted approach already. You have more control over the skill set or concept being tested.
Click to expand...
I beieve that the relevant skill sets should be developed and testes before anyone engages in FoF training.

I do not subscribe to any substantially "scripted" f on f training.

If a person wants to set up the venue as a bus station, coffee shop, business office .. I am good with that. If you want to designate 1 on 1, 2 on 2 , 2 on 1, 3 on 3 or whatever, that's fine with me. As long as the training adversary has the freedom to attack in when they wish and in whatever manner they wish. In that same spirit, the good guy needs to have the freedom to defend in whatever manner they wish. That's how its going to be in the real world. It goes without saying that these things should conform to responsible safety protocols.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely.

Well put.
 
OldMarksman said:
I beieve that the relevant skill sets should be developed and testes before anyone engages in FoF training.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it shouldn't. The format I've participated in during the past involves two days of live fire and classroom demonstration followed by a day of force on force. Ideally you'd iterate on that but time and money are factors. Skills can be developed and tested but force on force has a tendency to highlight how well they've been developed. Certain scenarios can also be geared towards the application of specific skills or overall concepts.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Scripted training is a good method of teaching a very specific skill or set of skills. It has its purpose. I’ve opined one other threads that one of the more comically absurd things to watch is basic martial arts training against a simulated knife “attack”. If you don’t make the limitations of your training clear it can become dangerous

If you watched my six year old daughter dodge and counter alternating straight and cross punches in boxing gloves it would be impressive. She is learning very specific skills. Go “live” (unscripted) and the limitations become apparent.

In his book “Raising Men” Eric Davis recounts an illustrative exercise where the best route for completion was non engagement and patience. He notes, given previous training, most people who attempt it make several painful attempts before realizing the lesson

Scripted training is fine as long as it’s limitations are acknowledged and the responses don’t become so ingrained that we escalate when deescalation or non engagement is appropriate.
 
I'm a fan of scripting the actor's end goal and general level of abilities.
E.g Scenario 1 "bad guy" is a robber of limited skill willing to use force to intimidate, but isn't really looking for a fight. Scenario 2 is a drugged up thug with a violent history looking for a fight and is "all in."
 
I'm a fan of scripting the actor's end goal and general level of abilities.
Click to expand...

I think this is fair. It would be nice, after the scenario, to know what would have happened had the trainee not acted aggressively, had acted more aggressively, or had otherwise acted.
 
The vast majority of conflict situations can be resolved without any violence. A number of other situations can be resolved without using deadly force but rather the application of some other kind of force such as soft or hard hands, possibly an intermediate non/less lethal weapon. These things are much more important as this how the vast majority of conflict is resolved instead of with a firearm. These things should be trained if you are learning conflict resolution. In a perfec training enviorment you would be able to use whatever means you would normally have available to you.

The problem is you start running in to resource issues. Time, equipment, instructor skill level, the number of safeties involved etc all become factors that tend to force the training in to certain scripted scenarios.

Essentially it comes down to a resources vs realism.
 
For the record trainers REALLY dislike it when they insist the only viable stance is a weaver stance and you disarm them on the draw with a blue gun several times after objecting and noting that there are many situations where being stance dependent is going to get someone killed.

At least some martial arts instructors, when teaching how to avoid being kidnapped, dislike it when you manage to get a hand free, touch your belt, make your finger into a gun, and say "bang". Also, after you do this, and you have open "moderate" contact sparring sessions later in the week be aware your instructor has been holding back in the past and you are going to wake up the morning after sore and with bruises.

That to me is one of the problems with training. Unless you have a trainer who is willing to be fluid and accepting of other schools of though AND trainees who are willing to listen you hit an impasse where someone is simply going through the motions. Sometimes I fail to be a good trainee too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top