Simulation versus emulation
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 04. 2024
- In Episode 107 the guys have been thinking about the difference between simulation and emulation in mins games. They've spoken about this before the channel, but it bears repeating and examining again, so they do.
Check out Man O' Kent Games here: www.manokentgames.com
Check out Planet Smasher Games here: planetsmasher.games
The Rule of Carnage discord server: / discord
If you want to support the channel financially you can join Mike's Patreon here: / planetsmashergames
If you want the number on Glenn's Patreon to go up one, you can join his Patreon here: / manokentgames
In a Billion suns, Mike had the vision of ships coming out of hyperspace and smashing into other ships, so he put in rules that when a ship comes out of a jump gate, it has a shock radius that does damage to smaller ships.
This feels like emulation intent. It's a rule put in to get a cinematic result. But It's also sort of a natural effect of a thing blipping onto the board, simulating that effect. I think this is a good state to have achieved, where it fits into both categories reasonably simply.
I find this conversation interesting. One thing that comes to mind when it comes to games the use movie physics instead of real world data is that it is much easier to get people to just accept that. I feel like the games that try for realism suffer because there are competing thesis on what ‘real’ warfare is like. So a rule set that tries to be realistic only appeals to people who agree on things at a theoretical level. Basing a game off of movie logic, or anime logic, if nothing else, puts players in a mindset to suspend disbelief and just enjoy the game.
Also, to throw other definitions into the mix. I think the way we (hobby/fantasy gamers) use the word simulation is unsurprisingly different from how professionals use it. If i understand correctly, they would say that the rules we use are a model. The rules for rolling to hit, for example, is a mathematical “Model” that represents the variables involved in ballistics. Models have varying degrees of fidelity based on how accurately they represent the real world. The “simulation” occurs when you roll the dice, accounting for all the variables on the games charts and you see if you hit or not. So in that way, a rule set is really just a collection of interrelated models that are used to run various simulations, which are specific contexts. They might say that we don’t actually have a simulation until we have 2 or more army lists, a table, and a scenario. I could be wrong, but that’s my understanding. I’m also not entirely convinced that their definition is helpful for what we are doing in our space.
The concept I am recalling is internal consistency. You can play with physics in all sorts of ways, but when you break the internal rules, you break the illusion.
Certainly a game needs to be internally consistent. It needs to tell you how things work in its world, and then show that it actually does. If "the way it works" is "like our world" then you need to care about real physics. Which I think is the temptation of simulation for a designer, its incredibly simple to explain how things work. The problem with it is, its incredibly difficult to achieve, because real world physics are insanely complex.
Great vid. Love you guys.
I want to see/hear you two talk about Profesional Wargaming vs. Commercial Wargaming
Not really sure what you mean by those.
I am reminded of one of the clear Venn diagrams from my HeroClix days to explain the rules and their lack of basis in reality, there are Real World Physics, Comic Book Physics, and HeroClix Physics. The overlap was small, but the HeroClix rules won out every time. In the real world and in the comics, the Hulk could carry the Wasp. But in HeroClix, the Wasp could carry the Hulk.
I like turtles
I personally would call it Portrayal of stuff on the tabletop, rather than Emulation, means more sense to me atleast
Personally, I don't feel like simulation is possible in tabletop miniatures game. Emulation of varying levels seems to be the only real possibility. Potentially battle outcomes in a historical battle context could be simulated, but even then, the chaos theory of real world physics makes any true simulation impossible. I think that it is more as Glenn hinted "what are we going to emulate". If we include a rules process for aiming and firing, and a seperate one for reloading, plus one for gun maintenance, we are just emulating more elements, not really simulating anything.
Perhaps it is possible to simulate being a general, in a game where you have limited control over troops and issue orders and watch them unfold. That is something which might be considered to simulation, as the player is actually engaging in the same behaviour as the real world counterpart.
I think that practically speaking it would be impossible to make a fun literally simulationist tabletop miniatures game. As I say, for me, realism is just another genre which you emulate.
5:20 It was Olivier....
That's what the scrolling text says, yep.
@@RuleofCarnage I Missed the text!
Would Narrative work as an opposite to simulation? In one RPG, you record each bullet used, but in another you have a bad roll and the penalty is that you are out of ammo?
I think you may not be able to simulate the related feelings of sending people to their deaths to accomplish a wargoal, but you can simulate the consequences of sending people to their deaths to accomplish a wargoal.
I think you could have a system which simulates what the results of a given tabletop miniatures game would result in, but those would be structures around the main game which while they could be interesting, I think that would be misplaced level of effort.
@RuleofCarnage I think in that type of game managing Force Morale, Strategic Interest, Command & Control, and Losses/Risk vs. Gains/Rewards would be important.
@@nathanculver9252 Important for a game maybe, but not as a simulation of a viewpoint. The sort of viewpoint for which those elements being simulated is relevant for tends not to be the sort of viewpoint that connects to the tactical movement of squads on the battlefield. Miniatures games are generally focused on tactical engagement. There could be a game that showed the important viewpoint of a squad leader, and the important viewpoint of a battlefield commander and the important viewpoint of an overall commander of the forces of a nation, but it wouldn't really be simulating any actual viewpoint or experience.
So, I would say it is possible to approach that emotional impact of the decision to put people’s lives at risk, or to sacrifice them, but you have to lean pretty heavily into the world of role playing. If you are playing the pick-up style of game where we plop our toy soldiers on the table, and everything is just a literal pawn, of course there is nothing emotional there. But I feel things like narrative campaigns, or even being in similar situations in actual RPGs it’s easier to replicate the humanity of the fictional pawn. In that way I think it’s possible to simulate, but it has to be consciously constructed over time.
@@MrLigonater I think its possible to ask players to invest and suspend their disbelief to some degree, but to my mind the nature of simulation is that you shouldn't have to suspend your disbelief for it to be effective, the wheels should turn and the effect should be created.
I have been looking for the pair to oppose a simulation game. Flight Simulator is a game that attempts to simulate flying an actual plane. But a flight emulator lets me just fly around and focus on the loops and shooting I want to do and play. Is that about right?
To a degree, yes. The flight emulator asks "What do we want the player to experience?" and if the answer is "The excitement of making a plane do a loop" then it gives you a plane and makes doing a loop exciting, and who cares what Yaw is. The flight simulator wants to make you feel like you're flying a plane, and if that's exciting, you're excited, and if its not, you're not, but you will, at least, feel like you're flying a plane.
Cinemation instead of Emulation
I prefer to play games instead of play simulations…
I'm not certain the two are mutually exclusive.