Ideafest: What do you think of RPS?

In this thread we talk about our opinions of RPS mechanics. http://www.bgdf.com/node/13523

Rock, Paper, Scissors is a tool used to simplify a system. You might simplify a system because either A, you don't want your players to use much brain power/time in your game, or B, you don't want players to use much brain power/time on that particular system.

Sometimes simplifying one mechanic to put more focus on other mechanics is the best route.

I have been working on dual interlocking RPS combat system that goes: A>B>C>D>E>F>A with A=D B=E C=F

Essentially 3 offense stats that relate to 3 defense stats. Each offense is strong a defense, equal a defense, and weak a defense.

The stats are color coded and I am hoping to fit a small color/symbol wheel on the cards that makes comparisons quick and easy without taking too long to learn. My biggest (graphic) design challenge with that is getting a rainbow color wheel to fit on every card in the game in a way that doesn't overpower the graphic feel of the card it is on while also being big enough to read and colorful enough to quickly convey what stats a card has.

I don't think there is any valid reason to consider RPS in game design, but I ranted enough about that in that other thread already linked to above.

No, I talk about any mechanic based on designing from the perspective of "I need A to be good at beating B, B to be good at beating C, C to be good at beating A" no matter if that means automatic wins or some +X % artificial bonus for that unit, or any other mechanic derived from that idea.

If you are talking about an entire unit class that always beats another unit class, simply because it was destined by RPS to win, then yes I agree.

But you don't have to go all or nothing.

Why do you think RPS is so common in real life situations? You can make a random, unbiased decision in 2 seconds. Who gets the last slice of pizza? Roshambo!

Speed and simplicity.

Why does Magic the Gathering have only Power and Toughness, which is arguably simpler than RPS? Because the rest of the game is so complex that if you had to perform actions/calculations more complicated than a quick number comparison, the game complexity would quickly get out of hand. Or at least more than it already does.

Just because you use RPS, or a derivative thereof, doesn't mean it has to overpower or define your game. Supporting subsystems are the perfect place for a well known mechanic that simplifies and speeds up aspects of your design.

If you are into abstracts, sure consider RPS. I don't play abstracts anyway. If your game has a theme, make units that fit the theme, and make sure all units are useful for something or otherwise improve the game (eg it could be included just to add chrome, or because it is a game about history and that unit happened to be there historically). At no point in a non-abstract game do I see a reason to consider RPS unless I want the game to feel more abstract. RPS is fundamentally abstract and not tied to almost any theme.

As I said above though, you are likely to end up with a RPS-like situation anyway, because otherwise the game has many units that are not very useful, and probably not very much fit the theme anyway. Because in history (and presumably in fantasy/scifi worlds as well) units are created to be useful for something, including often countering some specific type of enemy unit, so if you just stay true to the theme all will be alright, and the game will not have a funny abstract after-taste from a designer forcing RPS-rules on players.

RPS tends to make decisions less interesting too. In reality it is never as simple as unit X beating Y beating Z beating X, because there are so many other things involved than just the types of units, so a single-minded focus on making a unit beat some other does not help.

Example 1: In reality, and in a well-designed thematic wargame, infantry are sometimes useful to destroy tanks, sometimes not, depending on many different variables (eg terrain, range, perhaps the facing of the tank, visibility). In a RPS-designed game the designer will have already made the decisions about this for the player, that either tanks are superior to infantry or the other way around, and the game is less interesting (and more abstract). You can take any other two unit types really and this applies as well.

Example 2: I don't include cavalry because I have to have a unit to counter the enemy artillery. I include cavalry for other reasons, like it being there in the historic army, or because they are useful for scouting/screening, or because (in some themes) they have their uses at a battlefield in some specific situations. The fact that they in some terrain and some situations will also be useful to a player for destroying enemy artillery is just a derived characteristic from the capabilities given to cavalry because it is cavalry. The cavalry in the game is not designed with the main goal of being useful against artillery (and definitely will not have an explicit +50% against artillery bonus...) because that is just one of many possible uses. This makes cavalry more interesting and multi-dimensional.

EDIT: Actually, giving this some thought, in the name of sensible abstractions I don't mind rules that sometimes give some types of units a bonus against some other types, as long as it doesn't scream of designer trying to force artificial cycles into the game system for the sake of there being cycles. You can't have RPS in mind and add modifiers to complete a cycle.

Focusing on making each unit good at beating some other specific unit is the wrong way around. That one unit ends up better than some other unit, in some situations, is something that comes from other rules, not the other way around.

Notice that while my examples are historic, I want my fantasy/scifi games to make sense as well, and RPS doesn't make that likely.

Sure, if there is a valid reason for spearmen to be effective against cavalry, that can be a solution, but that is different from going looking for some unit bonus to complete an artificial RPS-cycle.

What if there is no unit that has a bonus against spearmen? So what? You can balance the game anyway. There doesn't have to be a specific unit better at that specific task. A player can always counter spearmen by throwing enough cavalry at them or whatever. Having units without obvious counter-units makes the game more, not less, interesting to play. A game is about so much more than unit-relatiohships, and players should be encouraged, not discouraged, from using combinations or formations, terrain, timing, feints etc to get tactical advantages, not just think about phony what-unit-counters-what-other-unit connections.

Please do keep in mind that real life situations have natural RPS systems as well.

Some games try to copy these RPS systems. But since games are limited, they simply use modifiers to copy the real life. Yet they want to keep it a game. I love how WW2 has influenced the C&C games. But you are discussing ancient war.

So my example here is that in those times: spear man had the "range" (50 cm more) to deal with knights (on horses) more efficiently. For every spear man, 2 knights might fall. The exact numbers should be found in history books. While normal footmen could deal with these spear men. Again a 2 against 1 situation. And the knights where extra effective against the footmen. All 3 had these effects by short difference in distance and angle of attack. Since they all 3 are mostly melee units in the (board)games. Well, that extra range or angle wont help. You want to copy the real life example, by adding modifiers. Each could get a 50% bonus. And the game copies the real life "natural" situation by an "unnatural" bonus.
That is why most games had these RPS systems in the first place. Not for the game, but for copying reality.

However, and Pelle might agree. Adding something different, like the 'first strike' rule that is also used in MtG. But than situation specific. Spear men not only against Knights have first strike, but against any cavalry in general. Can get the RPS job done as well.

And while we are on it. In my field of work. There is a RPS system which involves putting out different kind of fires. Think about that for a minute. :) If you are interested in details for a firemen game. Please ask.

This runs into problems though when there are times when footmen stood up to the Knights and actually beat them, or when cavalry were able to rout spear armed infantry. The problem isn't with bonuses vs other troops per say. It is in the design that makes things set in concrete. If I had a game where every time an equal strength spearmen vs an equal strength mounted unit, the spearmen triumphed, this isn't good. There should always be a way for someone to beat their counter as was done in real life many times. So Anti-Tank guns were a menace to tanks during WWII, but many tankers were able to beat them anyways. The point is to allow flexibility. When you slap into a war game especially, a mechanic of win/lose no matter what you do, it just sits wrong with me.

For example, in Heroscape, there are certain squads & heroes that are very good. They can do many different things a commander might need them to do, then there are figures that can perform a couple of functions well, and then there are those that can really only do one thing really well. In the end, the versatile squads/heroes are the dominant ones even though there are specialist heroes/squads that can do that one job better. What if I built a lot of knights and we march out only to find he built tons of spearmen...woops, I'm screwed. It shouldn't be that way...sure it may be a bit harder, but you don't have the doom of a guaranteed loss hovering over your head. The Total War games do a good job of this. Sure spearmen might have a bonus against cavalry, but my Knights are still gonna pwn them in a charge if they aren't ready, and heck sometimes they still do when the are ready.

I doubt that the Kill ratio was 2:1 in the favor of spearmen during the medieval period. If that were so, then those darn pesky French K-nig-its wouldn't have a strange urge to charge down anything without a horse.