Difference Between History and Game State

There's been some talk in (a particular thread in) this newsgroup regarding the distinction or lack thereof between game state and history (not in so many words, of course). So I thought it would be a good idea to step back and take a shot at the topic starting from scratch, so that (hopefully) everyone can understand what the whole thing is about. "Game State" refers to the state of the game as descernable by looking only at the table - the cards in play (and their positions and orientations), the counters in play (and their positions), etc. "History" refers to things that cannot be determined by "Game State" (like who's played a Master: out-of-turn card against their upcoming master phase). The designers relied on game state as much as possible. For instance, they used "tapping" (a part of Game State) instead of a "this minion has done something since the start of his last turn" history. The benefits of using game state over history are twofold: 1) it's less to keep track of (inherently) and 2) as game state, it can be modified by other effects, even ones created in future expansions (Freak Drive, Precognizant Mobility, etc.) The concept of mixing the two (thus making "history" volatile) is something that I had argued against (back before becoming part of the machine :-) [sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu 04-NOV-1996]. That was a myopic post. Tapping (and being able to untap via special effects) is better than remembering who's "done something", for example. As another example, take Dreams of the Sphinx. It could have been written to rely on history: Dreams of the Sphinx - Master Unique Master. Use this card to draw two cards and increase your hand size by two cards until the end of the current turn. Use during your untap phase to gain an additional pool if you have the Edge. Use to move a blood from the blood bank to a vampire in your uncontrolled region. This card cannot be used if it has been used during or since your last untap phase. Burn this card after its third use. But it was instead written to rely on counters. As such, there is less to remember and the "history" that is instead being respresented by the counters in the game state can be modified by other effects, like Goth Band. In general, the amount of history that the players have to keep should be kept to a minimum (that is, game state should be used whenever logistically feasible). The designers have relied on game history for a few things, however. What follows is not necessarily a complete list (since i just scribbled it down this morning), although I believe it is complete: History required: 1) #VPs scored (to determine a winner). 2) Ownership of cards. 3) Level at which a card-requiring-a-discipline that remains in play was played. 4) How and whence a card entered the ash heap. 5) Certain titles and title removals and other similar lingering effects (Archon, Blood Bond, Incriminating Videotape, etc.) as described when the effect is played. 6) Transient lingering effects describe when an effect is played ("Do Not Replace Until...", "No more bleed modifiers...", etc.) Of those, 4) is unavoidable (since most game state stuff can't survive the trip to the ash heap). 1) and 2) and 6) are no trouble. 3) is troublesome, but is sometimes necessary. 5) is almost always avoidable (except when a card "links" two other cards, like Incriminating Videotape). Incidentally, the "type" of a counter ("vandal" counter, life counter, "corruption" counter etc.) is assumed to be part of the game state - it is usually a function of the color and/or shape of the counter used. History required for a round around the table (not also listed above): Who's played a Master: Out-of-turn card. Who's ousted someone (Lextalionis). Who's committed diablerie (6th Tradition). In these cases, history is preferable to making transient counters to mimic the effects, IMO. History required for a turn: Actions taken (NRA). On VTES-L, I had described the NRA as it might be if it were defined in terms of Game State [LSJ 21-FEB-1997]. But here again, the period of time is short enough that the history version is preferable, IMO. Other history is required for incredibly short amounts of time (additional strikes gained, transfers made, etc.) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> History required: > 1) #VPs scored (to determine a winner). As Derek pointed out, despite the occasional Life Boon confusion, basically anyone can point to "she ousted me," which settles it all out at the end. > 2) Ownership of cards. This actually can be quite troublesome; Reyda doesn't usually miss a chance to complain about his stolen Disarm. In practice, however, people usually sleeve cards that enter other player's ready regions (Temptations, Havens, stolen vamps, etc.), so this usually is resolved not by history, but by a kind of "game state," albeit one not recognized by the game. > 3) Level at which a card-requiring-a-discipline that remains in play was > played. Which in most cases is resolved by either a game state (life on a retainer), or the simple fact that the card can't be moved (Masochism). > 4) How and whence a card entered the ash heap. Luckily, this is a one-time thing (unlike the "History of the Sphinx"), and the timing is either a non-issue (it just has to BE in the ash heap) or the timing is "since your last turn," which is fairly simple to remember. There is the additional "bit" of info as to who controlled it, you or someone else, but those only apply to "since your last turn" cards, (so far, and the designers would be wise to keep it that way =) it is similarly easy to remember. > 5) Certain titles and title removals and other similar lingering effects > (Archon, Which is resolved in practice by the apparently illegal practice of just sticking the card onto the guy, turning it into a game state issue. > Blood Bond, Incriminating Videotape, etc.) as described when the effect is > played. David Tatu has a cute set of paired skulls with different colored eyes for each pair, used for Melange, Contracts, Videotapes, etc. It's another probably illegal marking system that gives players what they want: a game state solution to a history question. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

LSJ wrote: > History required for a turn: > Actions taken (NRA). Also card effects such as those in Enticement and Red Herring. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

Ben Peal wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > History required for a turn: > > Actions taken (NRA). > > Also card effects such as those in Enticement and Red Herring. Those fall under "Transient lingering effects described on the effect that generates them" - item #6 in the first list. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:24:31 -0500, LSJ wrote: >The designers have relied on game history for a few things, however. What >follows is not necessarily a complete list (since i just scribbled it down >this morning), although I believe it is complete: You make no mention of deals. Elsewhere you say that a player can take a game action which would be otherwise illegal under the tournament rules if he is honouring a deal. This concept requires a history of deals to be kept. Andrew

>>"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: >> >> You make no mention of deals. Elsewhere you say that a player can >> take a game action which would be otherwise illegal under the >> tournament rules if he is honoring a deal. This concept requires a >> history of deals to be kept. > LSJ Wrote: >OK. Hmmm... this exchange, and other recent comments discussing legal play raises some questions for me: I'm assuming the kind of otherwise-illegal-deal-inspired-behavior Andrew is mentioning are things like transferring yourself out of the game, or other behavior that is seemingly not in your own interest. But is this kind of thing really illegal in tournament play outside the context of a deal? How much latitude do players have to take actions out of simple "poor" play or just entirely in-game spite? I'll use an example that happened to me at the EC Qualifier: My prey was at 2 pool and contesting Emerson Bridges with my grandprey (his prey). During my prey's turn, the grandprey tried to talk him into giving up the contest, and offered to toss some pool his way via some votes if he gave up Emerson. My prey said "nah" (or the German equivalent). He would continue to contest, even if it got him ousted during my turn, not because he had any particular affection towards me, but mostly because he was pretty annoyed with my grandprey for contesting with him in the first place... and his position was pretty poor, in general. So, the grandprey calls the Judge over, and tries to get the judge to force the player to accept the deal, give up the contest, and get the promised pool he needs to survive. The Judge ruled (correctly, I assumed at the time), since he's losing anyhow, he can do whatever he want. Was that a correct ruling? As it turned out, the additional argument time was sufficient to get him to accept the deal. My prey gave up the contest, got some pool thrown his way, and I was not able to oust him. Though I believe he went on to get 0 vp in the round (As did I). At the time, I was annoyed the judge was dragged in at all but I agreed with the ruling and didn't have any serious complaints. But it raises the question: Are you only free to do what you want if you're position is truly "lost"? Who's to say when it is? Can players just play their own game so long as they aren't motivated by "outside" concerns like helping their friends win, or trying to keep someone out of the finals? Or does everyone have to strive for some pure maximizing-VP path, the deviation from which results in illegal play? As the game is played more competitively, there is a natural desire to cut down on poor, erratic, and spiteful play. Fewer kingmakers. Let the best player win. But I think a policy of strict enforcement of "you-must-maximize-VP" gets us into some very dangerous territory. If seemingly counter-productive (or even suicidal) play is illegal then that would seem to invite players to question, and get a judgment on, any play they don't like. It forces players to be able to justify how each action is serving the overall goal of gaining VP. It seems like an invitation for, and perhaps even require, judicial meddling in the game. Yeah, its a bit more messy. But, so long as players are acting out of in-game-frustration and/or not acting out of a conscious desire to manipulate the tournament standings, the Judges should let them play. They should not try to control their actions, or tell them how to play. Nor should other players feel they have a right (or obligation) to. The net effect of this policy would be that any behavior justified (and legal) under an in-game deal, would also be legal without the deal. Players can play their game. So, how different is this preferance from the actual rules? -Ben Swainbank

Ben Swainbank wrote: > I'm assuming the kind of otherwise-illegal-deal-inspired-behavior > Andrew is mentioning are things like transferring yourself out of the > game, or other behavior that is seemingly not in your own interest. > But is this kind of thing really illegal in tournament play outside > the context of a deal? If by "seemingly" you mean "actually", yes. > How much latitude do players have to take actions out of simple "poor" > play or just entirely in-game spite? Whatever the judge tolerates. > I'll use an example that happened to me at the EC Qualifier: > > My prey was at 2 pool and contesting Emerson Bridges with my grandprey > (his prey). During my prey's turn, the grandprey tried to talk him > into giving up the contest, and offered to toss some pool his way via > some votes if he gave up Emerson. My prey said "nah" (or the German > equivalent). He would continue to contest, even if it got him ousted > during my turn, not because he had any particular affection towards > me, but mostly because he was pretty annoyed with my grandprey for > contesting with him in the first place... and his position was pretty > poor, in general. > > So, the grandprey calls the Judge over, and tries to get the judge to > force the player to accept the deal, give up the contest, and get the > promised pool he needs to survive. The Judge ruled (correctly, I > assumed at the time), since he's losing anyhow, he can do whatever he > want. > > Was that a correct ruling? Yes. You indicate that the grandprey could not have won more VPs in any event, so how he goes about not getting them is up to him. > But it raises the question: Are you only free to do what you want if > you're position is truly "lost"? No. You're also free to maximize your VPs however you want. > Who's to say when it is? The judge. > Can players > just play their own game so long as they aren't motivated by "outside" > concerns like helping their friends win, or trying to keep someone out > of the finals? Or does everyone have to strive for some pure > maximizing-VP path, the deviation from which results in illegal play? The definition of "play the game" includes, in the case of V:TES as in most games, the goal of the game which players "play" toward when they are "playing" the game. > As the game is played more competitively, there is a natural desire to > cut down on poor, erratic, and spiteful play. Fewer kingmakers. Let > the best player win. But I think a policy of strict enforcement of > "you-must-maximize-VP" gets us into some very dangerous territory. Unstrict enforcement gets into territory that is even more dangerous. Collusion, cheating, et al. > If seemingly counter-productive (or even suicidal) play is illegal > then that would seem to invite players to question, and get a judgment > on, any play they don't like. It forces players to be able to justify > how each action is serving the overall goal of gaining VP. It seems > like an invitation for, and perhaps even require, judicial meddling in > the game. Possibly, but not in practice. > Yeah, its a bit more messy. But, so long as players are acting out of > in-game-frustration and/or not acting out of a conscious desire to > manipulate the tournament standings, the Judges should let them play. Not true. Players should be sportsmanlike at all times. > They should not try to control their actions, or tell them how to > play. Nor should other players feel they have a right (or obligation) > to. Not true. Pointing out a player's error (misplay, poor sportsmanship, whatever) is the duty of a sportsmanlike player. [ quoted text not captured ]