Fog of War: Annoying? Yes. Beneficial? Very.

If you have ever led a project where half the team is quietly making decisions based on information nobody else has, you already understand fog of war. You just call it “silos,” “politics,” or “that one spreadsheet nobody shares.” The frustrating part is not that people are malicious. It is that people act on what they can see, and most workplaces are full of invisible information.

Fog of war and information asymmetry are not just game design tricks. They are practice conditions. They can and should force teams to communicate, coordinate, and make decisions under uncertainty. And that is exactly the environment where soft skills stop being slogans and start becoming behaviour.

If you want to develop decision-making, collaboration, and strategic thinking, it is better to train teams inside uncertainty, not lecture them about it.

Fog of war, information asymmetry, and why they show up at work

Fog of war is when the environment hides information until you explore. Even after you explore, chances are you have to actively monitor for certain information. I’m thinking of Starcraft II or the Civilization games when I say this. Even if you “discover” an area, if you don’t have a unit present, you can’t see if anything changes.

Information asymmetry is when different players hold different information, often permanently. In games, these mechanics create tension, scouting, and mind games. In workplaces, they create misalignment, duplicated work, and slow, brittle decisions.

This is why these mechanics matter for learning. They make the invisible visible. The moment your team feels the cost of acting on partial information, they become motivated to build the communication habits that reduce that cost. It can also help train employees that just because they don't have information, it doesn't mean that information doesn't exist and it requires them to take initiative to seek it out.

Fog of war example from Age of Empires 2 showing 3 different levels of the "Fog of War" - Taken from forum - https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/how-to-design-up-to-date-fog-of-war-by-aoe4/114904

What this mechanic actually trains

Fog of war and information asymmetry are not about “strategy” in the abstract. They train a bundle of behaviours that most teams desperately need.

• Information seeking: asking the right questions, at the right time, in the right channel.

• Sensemaking: turning messy signals into a shared picture.

• Coordination: aligning actions when nobody has the whole map.

• Risk management: choosing when to commit vs. when to scout.

• Trust calibration: knowing when to rely on others and when to verify.

  
  

If you have ever run a meeting where people talked past each other for 30 minutes and then someone says, “Wait, I thought we already decided that,” then you’ve seen information asymmetry at work.

The traditional training problem, why “communication training” rarely fixes this

Most workplace training treats uncertainty like an edge case. People sit in a workshop and agree, intellectually, that communication is important. Then they go back to the job and reality hits.

Reality has:

• ambiguous goals

• coffee room decisions

• disorganized document storage solutions (I’m looking at you, OneDrive)

• changing priorities

• missing context

• incentives that reward speed over clarity

• too many communication channels

  
  

So the team does what humans always do under uncertainty. They simplify. They assume. They fill gaps with stories. Then they act.

The problem is not motivation. The problem is that teams rarely get to practice “good communication” under pressure, with consequences, in a low-stakes environment.

The game-based solution, why play changes everything

Fog of war forces a behaviour loop that traditional training struggles to recreate.

1. You notice you do not know something.

2. You feel the cost of not knowing it.

3. You decide whether to scout, ask, or commit anyway.

4. You get feedback.

5. You adjust.

   
   

That is skill development. It is drills, constraints, and resisted practice, like a coach adding a weighted vest or shrinking the field. The constraint is the point. It creates the behaviour.

If your goal is to build better decision habits, you want the team to experience uncertainty, make a call, and then debrief it while the memory is still hot.

Game examples, fog of war and information asymmetry in action

Below are a few clean examples you can use to think about this mechanic. I am keeping these game examples broad on purpose, because the core learning pattern matters more than the title.

Real-time strategy games (scouting and shared picture building)

In many RTS games, you cannot see the whole map. You have to scout. If you do not, you get surprised, and the surprise is usually expensive.

What it trains:

• creating scouting routines

• sharing intel quickly

• avoiding overconfidence based on early signals

• deciding when to commit resources

  
  

Workplace translation:

This is what good teams do in complex projects. They run lightweight discovery, surface risks early, and keep the shared picture updated.

Social deduction games (partial truths and trust calibration)

In social deduction games, information is fragmented by design. People have different roles, different incentives, and different facts.

What it trains:

• asking clarifying questions

• separating evidence from story

• updating beliefs as new information arrives

• building trust without being naïve

  
  

Workplace translation:

This is negotiation, stakeholder management, and cross-functional work. You rarely have perfect information, and you still have to make decisions.

Asymmetric team games (coordination without identical perspectives)

In many asymmetric games, players have different capabilities, different objectives, or different visibility.

What it trains:

• communicating intent

• delegating based on who can see what

• timing and sequencing

  
  

Workplace translation:

This is how real teams operate. A manager sees one set of constraints, a frontline worker sees another, a finance partner sees a third. The work is stitching those views into one plan.

Implementation strategy, making this real in L&D

If you want to use fog of war or information asymmetry intentionally, design around three decisions.

1. What behaviour do you want to see?

   • Better questions?

   • Faster escalation?

     
     

2. What is the uncertainty you want to simulate?

   • Missing information.

   • Conflicting information.

   • Delayed information.

   • Information overload.

     
     

3. How will you debrief it?

   • What did you assume, and why?

   • What information did you wish you had?

     
     

Success indicators (what to watch for)

You will know this is working when you start hearing:

• “I do not know yet, here is what I need to decide.”

• “Let’s verify that before we commit.”

• “Who has the missing piece?”

• “Here is what I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong.”

  
  

Those are not game behaviours. Those are high-performing team behaviours.

What this means for game-based learning with Rift

Fog of war is a gift for facilitators, because it makes uncertainty practiceable (if that’s not a word, it should be, like “replayable”)

Based on this mechanic, L&D teams should:

• Choose games where uncertainty is designed, not accidental, so the learning is repeatable.

• Run short rounds, then debrief, rather than one long session that turns into chaos.

• Coach the information habits, asking for explicit assumptions, clear requests, and shared updates.

  
  

If you are trying to build collaboration, decision-making, or strategic thinking, fog of war is not a barrier. It is the gym.