Episode 141 AP Table Talk: Rock-Paper-Scissors
AP Table Talk: Rock-Paper-Scissors
Episode Summary
In this episode of AP Table Talk, Brian and Dave dive deep into the timeless “rock-paper-scissors” (RPS) game mechanic. They explore its origins, its non-transitive nature, and how it shows up in everything from Magic: The Gathering to StarCraft and Skull King. From nostalgic toys like Battle Beasts to modern strategy in X-Wing Miniatures, the duo reflects on how RPS mechanics fuel tension, balance, and bluffing. Wrapping things up with a spirited pro/con debate, they explore whether RPS is genius design or just a flashy mini-game. Bonus round? Think predator-prey games and wasabi metaphors. Game on!
Brian Eng:
Hello and welcome to AP Table Talk, a podcast where we explore board games and what makes them interesting to us. I'm your host, Brian. And joining me as always, the guy who needs no introduction, but I'll give him one anyways, my co-host and cousin, Dave.
Dave Eng:
Hey, Brian. Welcome back.
Brian Eng:
Hey. How's it going, Dave?
Dave Eng:
All right. Prepared to talk about our latest board game mechanic.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. So this episode, we will be discussing the rock-paper-scissors mechanic, or as I used to call it, as roshambo.
Dave Eng:
Roshambo or rock-paper-scissors or... In my research for this, I also discovered, what is it, it's rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock.
Brian Eng:
Oh, that's like the extension to it, yeah.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I guess. Well, I don't know. I just looked that up and realized that's a thing, but I did not research it.
Brian Eng:
I remember that. And then it got more into the mainstream. Because I think they talked about it on Big Bang Theory.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. Didn't it originate at Big Bang Theory?
Brian Eng:
No. It was before the Big Bang Theory.
Dave Eng:
It was something else. Oh, I see. Okay. So rock-paper-scissors.
Brian Eng:
But that got it into the mainstream. Yeah. So definitely a classic mechanic in... Well, I mean a game on its own, but a mechanic that's been around for a long time. Okay, so we'll start with the definition here.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, do you want to do your definition in your words?
Brian Eng:
Okay. So rock-paper-scissors, okay, so I guess I would define it as... So classically, you would have three different elements of some type where there is some sort of circular hierarchy of power where everything can beat something and get beaten by something else.
Dave Eng:
Yes, that is a good-
Brian Eng:
As opposed to a linear hierarchy, which is like Euchre where there's a trump. Oh, Revolution! is a good example, right?
Dave Eng:
Yeah.
Brian Eng:
So in Revolution, it's an auctioning game, so you're bidding gold. So the most gold wins. But you can also bid blackmail, which beats no matter how much gold. And then you can also bid force, which beats blackmail as well.
Dave Eng:
Yep. And we played that.
Brian Eng:
But nothing beats force. Yeah.
Dave Eng:
I remember playing that at PAX.
Brian Eng:
That was the first PAX I think I went to, we played that.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. So that was over 10 years ago.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, that was a long time ago. Yeah, so that is my definition of rock-paper-scissors mechanics for board games.
Dave Eng:
So if you have not listened to AP Table Talk before, what we do is Brian does his layman's terms definition of the mechanic, then I come in and I provide the mechanic as it's listed on BoardGameGeek, which is what we use to reference all of these mechanics. So on the website, BGG, BoardGameGeek, it says, "There are three possible options and they are cyclically superior, meaning A, beats B, B beats C, C beats A. The name derives from the well-known children's game where a scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, rock crushes scissors. But it can really refer to any game with any non-transitive mechanisms." And this is a bonus, I looked it up because I didn't know what non-transitive meant. Apparently, it's a math term.
Brian Eng:
Yes, I was going to say very mathematical because that is perfectly how you would say it. Because if A is greater than... Normally in math, things are transitive. So if A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C. But that is not how it works.
Dave Eng:
Yes. However, I'm not a math person, so I have to ask ChatGPT, "ChatGPT, what is non-transitive?" And it produced a definition that I still did not understand. So I said, "ChatGPT, what is non-transitive? Explain it like a five-year-old." And it said an example of a non-transitive relationship is grandfather, father, and son. So a grandfather is the father of the father. The father is the father of the son. But the grandfather is not the father of the son.
Brian Eng:
Right.
Dave Eng:
That is an example of a non-transitive relationship. And then I said, "Listen, ChatGPT, how about this, linear relationship?" This is the one I like to use that all sports are games, but not all games are sports because they're treated like a hierarchy. Like sport is a type of game, right, but not all games are sports. So that's how I'm classifying it. And that's my ChatGPT moment for this episode.
Brian Eng:
That's more like a subset.
Dave Eng:
Subset, could you say that it's also transitive because it's a hierarchy? It's like a linear... I mean, I guess, right? You could call it like a hierarchy-
Brian Eng:
I suppose.
Dave Eng:
Like a linear pathway is a hierarchy with only one path, right?
Brian Eng:
Yes. Right. Anyways, I think we are-
Dave Eng:
I just wanted a win there. I just wanted a win. That's it.
Brian Eng:
Listen, you're not going to be able to beat the AI for long, so just-
Dave Eng:
Just accept it. Okay.
Brian Eng:
Okay. So we have our definition. We'll move on to our major examples.
Dave Eng:
All right. So if you have not listened to AP Table Talk before, what we like to do at this point with major examples is we are going to go through three categories. First, favorite, and most noteworthy for this mechanic. But Brian, are we going to lead with a die roll here for who opens?
Brian Eng:
Yeah, so we'll do our roll for initiative.
Dave Eng:
Again, if you've not listened to AP Table Talk, Brian and I both have D20s, we're going to roll them and whoever rolls the highest is going to lead off for that category. So I'm ready to roll, Brian, when you are.
Brian Eng:
Yep.
Dave Eng:
All right, go.
Brian Eng:
I got 14.
Dave Eng:
I got two.
Brian Eng:
All right.
Dave Eng:
You beat me. Go ahead.
Brian Eng:
Okay, so we will start with the first RPS game that we played. Okay. So I really had to dig here. And even with all my digging, I'm not sure I was able to find the information I wanted. But the first... I'm going to just call it a toy for now. The first toy that I remember with RPS, and tell me if you remember these, Dave, there were these toys called Battle Beasts. They were little two-inch plastic figures. Tons of different ones because it's like the collector-type thing. And they had this little heat-sensitive square sticker on the chest. And you put your thumb on it and warm it up and it would show an element, water, wood, or fire. And it got pretty popular. I think at one point, they partnered with Transformers because that's how I remember Transformers. Yeah. So Battle Beasts came first and then Transformers did it and you would put your finger over the thing and you would see whether it was an Autobot or a Decepticon.
But I do remember I had a bunch of those Battle Beasts and there were some... Now here's the part that I couldn't find. I remember some board game that you could play with them.
Dave Eng:
With Battle Beasts.
Brian Eng:
With the figures. So you buy the figures and then there was some game you could play. But because I was not able to actually find anything online, I'm wondering if I invented the game.
Dave Eng:
So you inadvertently created it.
Brian Eng:
If I just made the game up, and I think it's a real game that you could get at the time.
Dave Eng:
I feel like the Venn diagram of kids that would play with Battle Beasts are not the same kids that would sit down to it in a board game. Like I would just be pressing my thumb on this thing the entire time.
Brian Eng:
Right. Yeah. I don't know. It's possible I just made up the game.
Dave Eng:
Patent pending.
Brian Eng:
Yes, I took someone else's idea.
Dave Eng:
Because that would be pretty cool, I feel.
Brian Eng:
I would love to remember anything about the game so that I could remember what game I made up as I guess I would've been, I don't know, around eight years old. So yeah, that was the first rock-paper-scissors. Now I'm excluding rock-paper-scissors itself.
Dave Eng:
Oh, yeah. Okay. So can we just say that at the very top like we're going to exclude the actual game, rock-paper-scissors, because it's the mechanic and I feel like it'd be cheating.
Brian Eng:
Yes.
Dave Eng:
All right.
Brian Eng:
Battle Beasts is the first other game. I put it in here because I remember playing a board game Ask Game with it that may or may not have existed.
Dave Eng:
Okay. Well, we have to save that because that could be a great game design idea. So we'll just tuck it back there.
Brian Eng:
Yes, I'll have to... I'm sure that those Battle Beasts might still even be in my parents basement.
Dave Eng:
Okay. They're tucked away somewhere in storage right now.
Brian Eng:
Yes.
Dave Eng:
All right, so me, for my first-
Brian Eng:
All right. Yeah, go ahead.
Dave Eng:
Okay. So like you, I had to again dig deep here because I'm like, I don't know, other than the initial rock-paper-scissors game. But I did find it's a very small box card game. I don't know if you've played it before, Brian, it's called BraveRats. Have you heard of that?
Brian Eng:
No, it's not sounding familiar to me.
Dave Eng:
It's a two-player game. It's very much in the line of... I would say if you like... You have Schotten Totten, right, also known as Battle Line. I think you'd like this game, but it's just a short simultaneous action selection game. Each player has the same deck of cards. It's a two-player game. And then you simultaneously reveal your cards and it has a number on them, but each number has a special power. So it's not necessary that the larger number beats the smaller number because some of the smaller numbers have effects that affect only specific larger number cards. And it kind of has that cyclical, again, non-transitive relationship between all of them.
Brian Eng:
Okay.
Dave Eng:
So I bought this way back when. I think when you had just gotten me into board games and I had played it and I was having a tough time trying to explain it to other people. So I eventually trade it away. But apparently on BGG, BraveRats is a rock-paper-scissors game. So I would have to say that that would be my first "modern" RPS game that's not RPS.
Brian Eng:
Okay.
Dave Eng:
If you can get a copy, I would play it, but I have since traded mine away.
Brian Eng:
I might have to look on a tabletop simulator or something and see if someone's created it. I mean, it's just cards, right? So I feel like-
Dave Eng:
Okay.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. I mean, we can probably just find the rules maybe or something.
Dave Eng:
All right.
Brian Eng:
All right. Do you know when that game is from?
Dave Eng:
I am looking at it on BGG right now, and it says it was released in 2011, but it is also known as “R” or Street Fighter.
Brian Eng:
Street Fighter. Interesting.
Dave Eng:
Street Fighter, not the-
Brian Eng:
Yes.
Dave Eng:
Oh, wait.
Brian Eng:
The Capcom.
Dave Eng:
No, actually Street Fighter, it is... Okay.
Brian Eng:
Did they-
Dave Eng:
So it was rethemed?
Brian Eng:
Retheme it? Rethemed it as Street Fighter. Interesting.
Dave Eng:
It says BraveRats 2011, and when I click on the re-implementation by Street Fighter, it says Street Fighter 2015.
Brian Eng:
Okay. All right. Interesting.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I guess so. I guess it is...
Brian Eng:
I think we could find it then. If they got the Street Fighter IP on it, then I'm sure it's floating around.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, it has to be.
Brian Eng:
All right, so we will move on to your favorite game.
Dave Eng:
Favorite. And you're going to lead this one, right?
Brian Eng:
Favorite RPS games. Sure. Okay. So my favorite game with the rock-paper-scissors mechanic, I haven't played it for a while now, but I got real heavy into it. I have sunk a lot of money into it.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I think I know what this is.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, take the guess.
Dave Eng:
Is it Dice Throne?
Brian Eng:
No.
Dave Eng:
It's not?
Brian Eng:
It is not? No.
Dave Eng:
Didn't you put $1,000 in Dice Throne?
Brian Eng:
Let me think. I have spent more on this game than I am going to say than I did on Dice Throne.
Dave Eng:
Okay. Then I don't know what it is.
Brian Eng:
All it is Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures.
Dave Eng:
Oh, yeah. You did spend a lot of money.
Brian Eng:
I stopped before they moved everything onto the app. So X-Wing Miniatures is a... You build a squad and it's like a dog fighting game. You take your turns, you kind of pick your movements in secret on these dials. Different ships can move different ways. Then depending on initiative, all the ships move in a semi-simultaneous fashion. Now the rock-paper-scissors comes into effect is that... Or at least... It kind of got diluted as the game went on as they introduced more and more ships. But originally, especially in the early meta, there was a very big rock-paper-scissors meta of... They called it the Jousters, Turrets, and Arc-Dodgers, which were different classifications of the ships. So Jousters would be like TIE fighters, Turrets would be like Y-Wings, and then Arc-Dodgers would be something like TIE interceptors.
Dave Eng:
It's okay.
Brian Eng:
Sorry to any listeners that aren't big into Star Wars, but me and Dave are. So all this is just total normal things to talk about.
Dave Eng:
So Jousters are TIE fighters, right?
Brian Eng:
So Jousters, basically, they are generally strong firepower for the... So when you're making your squad, you get a certain point value. So usually, you get 100 points, and then everything that you want to put on your squad costs a certain number of points. Or if you want to upgrade ships, that cost points as well. And generally, Jousters are a good... You're getting good firepower for the points that you spend. So TIE fighters, yes, they're cheap, but you can get a lot of them. But they're not really very maneuverable. But if you can get someone lined up in your sights and get like a little squad, you'll be able to take out ships. And they will generally beat-
Dave Eng:
Brian Eng:
Yeah, sorry. They'll generally beat Turrets because Turrets will still be able to hit them or whatever, but they're not super maneuverable, so they'll beat them out on firepower.
Dave Eng:
Oh, okay.
Brian Eng:
Whereas the Turrets will be able to beat Arc-Dodgers because they're able to just shoot whichever way. And then the Arc-Dodgers can get out of the way of the Jousters.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I see.
Brian Eng:
So that they will miss their shots basically and will not be able to-
Dave Eng:
So this was the meta for X-Wing, or is it currently still?
Brian Eng:
I don't know anymore. It probably isn't. I think it still exists, but a lot of ships filled in the spectrums in between.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I see. Okay. So it's not specifically three types.
Brian Eng:
But there's still probably that base strategy in there of that type of battle. There might be other types of ships in there now.
Dave Eng:
I see.
Brian Eng:
So, yeah. So I would say that is probably still my favorite. I would love to get my kids into that, but they're not quite there yet. So it's all sitting... All my X-Wing stuff is sitting in a giant tackle box waiting to go.
Dave Eng:
Can't you just guilt them and say like, hey, your dad spent $3,000 on these miniatures?
Brian Eng:
They're not ready yet. They won't be a challenge for me yet.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I see. Okay.
Brian Eng:
They have to build up to the skill level to play it.
Dave Eng:
So you have that in your back pocket if you want to ruin a relationship. All right. So X-Wing was your favorite?
Brian Eng:
Yeah, that was like 2012, I think, that game came out.
Dave Eng:
Oh, wow. That's some time ago.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I was just thinking about that. But I played that for at least a good five years or so.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. Let's say you got your money out of it.
Brian Eng:
Oh, yeah. I spent a lot, but I played a lot of X-Wing for sure. All right.
Dave Eng:
My favorite?
Brian Eng:
How about your favorite? Yeah.
Dave Eng:
All right, so my favorite... And I told my group, the Banditos Gaming, that I would give them a shout-out on this particular episode because I made them play this game.
Brian Eng:
Okay.
Dave Eng:
It is Skull King. Have you heard of Skull King before, Brian?
Brian Eng:
So I guessed this was going to be on your list because I know that you were searching for that for a long time. You sent me a picture when you found the deal.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I found it. I was at...
Brian Eng:
I got it because you told me about it.
Dave Eng:
So you have it too?
Brian Eng:
I have it. I've only played it once.
Dave Eng:
Okay.
Brian Eng:
But I have it now. I enjoyed it, I want to play it again. But that wouldn't go to my gaming group, I'll play that in other groups.
Dave Eng:
Oh, yeah. But it's a good one because, one, it's a trick-taking game. I like trick-taking games. And we covered trick-taking before. Wait, did we have a trick-taking episode?
Brian Eng:
Yes, we did trick-taking. I'm pretty sure we did.
Dave Eng:
Okay, so we covered that already. So like other trick-taking games, there's going to be different suits and there's a specific trump suit in Skull King. But since this is the rock-paper-scissors episode, there's also the non-transitive property. But I guess unlike the other games we talked about so far, Brian, this one is not circular. It's like linear and then there's a circular element because it is-
Brian Eng:
it's almost like a web, if I remember correctly.
Dave Eng:
And the card, it's like-
Brian Eng:
There is some parts that are circular.
Dave Eng:
...it's a line and then a bump. A little circle on the line. Because this is how it goes-
Brian Eng:
Yeah, you can take a section out that's circular.
Dave Eng:
Okay. Yeah. All right. I can see that. There's a circle there. But it's like the four suits, or three suits and the trump. And then there are pirates.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. Like the Jolly Roger is the trump, right?
Dave Eng:
Yeah, the Jolly Roger is the trump.
Brian Eng:
The suits.
Dave Eng:
Jolly Roger has numbers. So it's the three suits, numbers one through 14. Then the Jolly Roger, one through 14. Jolly Rogers is the trump. And then there are five pirates. And then pirates beat all numbered cards.
Brian Eng:
Right.
Dave Eng:
And then there's the mermaid. Mermaid beats all pirates. And then there's the-
Brian Eng:
Wait, I thought mermaids beats the numbered cards and pirates beat the mermaids.
Dave Eng:
Did I get... Well, in my notes, I wrote it down as the pirates beat all the numbered cards. Mermaids beat pirates. The Skull King beats the... No.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, because I think because the Skull King beats the pirates, but the mermaid beats the Skull King.
Dave Eng:
Oh yeah, that's the little circle.
Brian Eng:
And that's the small circle.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. So not big circle, small circle for Skull King. But I did tell them, I said I was going to cover this for the podcast episode. And they said, "Are you going to bring us up?" And I said, "Yes." So here's my shoutout to the Banditos Gaming. Thank you for playing Skull King with me. You didn't have a choice because I forced you to play it anyway.
Brian Eng:
I mean, I think it's a well-regarded game though.
Dave Eng:
Oh, yeah, I think it's a good game. It's interesting though in that you play 10 rounds, in each round, you get the same number of cards as the round. So round one, you have to make a bet on like, oh, I have one...
Brian Eng:
Am I going to take the tricks or not?
Dave Eng:
How many tricks can I win as well?
Brian Eng:
But the penalty is small because the penalty is-
Dave Eng:
It scales.
Brian Eng:
It scales, right, on how far off you are, right?
Dave Eng:
Right. And if you're playing like me, you just mess up very badly at the very end and lose all your points.
Brian Eng:
My one complaint was... Or my one suggestion to anyone teaching that is have that flowchart,
Dave Eng:
Yeah. At least my copy of the game, it has it on cards, like player aids.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I think mine has it. But I was just explaining it and looking at the flowchart and I'm like, I think I just need to have a copy of this for everybody.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. I mean, it's useful. Oh, you know what, we didn't talk about escape cards...
Brian Eng:
Because it's the opposite. And the Tigress card.
Dave Eng:
A Tigress can be played as escape or pirate.
Brian Eng:
It's escape or a pirate. And then the escape... Yeah, you go ahead.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. But escape just means that you definitely cannot win the trick.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. You play it to lose on purpose, right?
Dave Eng:
Correct.
Brian Eng:
It loses to everything.
Dave Eng:
I remember it said in the rule book though, there is five escape cards and you were playing a five-player game, if everyone plays an escape, then I think the first player actually wins the trick.
Brian Eng:
The first player wins it. Right.
Dave Eng:
But that's a very, very edge case.
Brian Eng:
That would be a very rare case for that to happen.
Dave Eng:
But Skull King, that's my favorite.
Brian Eng:
Yes. So we're going into our most noteworthy section. And I had it in there until I thought of another game very late in my making notes for this. And I kept looking for another game because I thought that you would put Skull King in your picks somewhere. So I'm glad I was able to come up with another one. So Skull King, yeah, that one's from 2013, I think. So another older one. The original. I mean, there's been a bunch of reprints and stuff. Now, I think some of those cards are actually expansions that they've just integrated into the game fully.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. Because my copy had a bunch of cards I had never seen before. Like the Kraken and the White Whale, I never played with.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. All right. So yeah, so going on to most noteworthy, I'm surprised that I didn't think of this one earlier.
Dave Eng:
Okay.
Brian Eng:
It is another card game. I never got into it. I've never actually played it, I've watched it played. I have many friends that play it. A very large game from way back, 1993.
Dave Eng:
Okay.
Brian Eng:
Do you know which game I'm talking about?
Dave Eng:
I think so. Should I say it? Is it StarCraft?
Brian Eng:
It is not.
Dave Eng:
Oh, dang it.
Brian Eng:
It is one of the largest, most influential games in tabletop.
Dave Eng:
Most influential games in tabletop.
Brian Eng:
Yeah.
Dave Eng:
Modern tabletop or just tabletop in general?
Brian Eng:
It's tabletop card games for sure.
Dave Eng:
Oh, Magic.
Brian Eng:
Yes, Magic: The Gathering. And I probably didn't think of it because I didn't play it. So I will give my understanding of... I mean, I think I know kind of how it works. So Magic: The Gathering is a card collecting... Like a CCG deck builder. And there are five colored decks. And if you look on the back of a Magic card, you'll see the five colors, yellow, blue, black, red, green. What I didn't know until someone had explained it to me at some point is the order that they are in there kind of shows their allies...
Dave Eng:
Allies and enemies. Yeah.
Brian Eng:
So the two neighboring colors... Whichever color you choose, the two neighboring are their allies, the two that are opposing to it are the kind of enemies in philosophy or whatever, of their strategy. So they have that type of strength and weaknesses all the different colors. And basically, how you build your deck up and how you compose your deck is a way to combat the other colored decks.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I didn't even know this. I mean, I knew that there were colors in Magic: The Gathering.
Brian Eng:
So that's part of it. So there's actually two things. There's the colors which have... But I don't know if it's purely like white beats black. I think that white and black are both strong against each other. But there's also... There's types of cards. There's aggressive cards are strong against creature cards. Creature cards are strong against control cards. And control cards are strong against removals or something like that. So there's other circular hierarchies within it that all kind of make it so that you're... That's why you're constantly building these decks to balance them.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I see.
Brian Eng:
And that's why it can always be expanded on and stay balanced because of the rock-paper-scissors mechanics. Right. So again, unfortunately, I don't have in-depth knowledge of Magic: The Gathering.
Dave Eng:
I feel like that's not in our wheelhouse.
Brian Eng:
No.
Dave Eng:
If you could dedicate your whole career to just studying Magic: The Gathering.
Brian Eng:
And I think on the other side, there's definitely probably people that are hardcore into Magic: The Gathering and don't care about any other board game at all.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, that's true.
Brian Eng:
So, yeah. So it's definitely a big part of tabletop gaming. It's just not in our-
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I would consider that its a separate category. Like Warhammer, I feel like this is alongside that...
Brian Eng:
I mean, X-Wing is kind of its own thing too. You're moving into miniatures really at that point.
Dave Eng:
The important thing though I wanted to bring up, in case you're listening, Brian said CCG collectible card game. So correct me if I'm wrong here, so a collectible card game is a game that there will constantly be new cards that are produced in which you could purchase to construct your deck. Right?
Brian Eng:
Yeah, you buy packs. I mean, you can buy full sets, I guess just like anything else. Now I know there are... Because I mean, that leads to... When people think about that, or at least when I think about that, it's like, okay, well, so if you have more money, then you have a better deck and you can't be beat. But tournaments, they do drafts.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. Or there's a commander style of tournament, have you heard of that one?
Brian Eng:
I'm sure there's many different formats. I don't know the names. Well, I know cube drafts and stuff like that. I don't know what they entail. I just know there are ways so that you can't just come with... And they also only allow... They have seasons in Magic: The Gathering. So they'll only allow cards because I guess some of the older cards, and part of the reason they go for so much is they're super overpowered.
Dave Eng:
Oh, yeah.
Brian Eng:
So yeah, there's ways around that. I mean, if I was going to get into that, they also have LCGs, living card games.
Dave Eng:
Living card game, yeah.
Brian Eng:
Where you buy it and everything you need to play is included. They still have expansions. The big one that I remember that I kind of wanted to get at one point, but I decided not to was Netrunner.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, Netrunner is the big one.
Brian Eng:
And that one, yeah, it had a bunch of expansions, but if you got the main box, you had everything you needed to play.
Dave Eng:
All right. So that was favorite, right?
Brian Eng:
No, that was my most noteworthy.
Dave Eng:
Oh, most noteworthy. Okay. So mine, most noteworthy now.
Brian Eng:
Onto your most noteworthy. Yeah.
Dave Eng:
All right, so mine... And I guess it's kind of like yours, Brian, because I cheated a little bit here. I guess you could say technically it is a board game, but I'm not going to reference the board game. But for mine, my most noteworthy and biggest is StarCraft.
Brian Eng:
Dave Eng:
Typically, StarCraft II. That's why I said it before. I did try to do some research and ask like, is there rock-paper-scissors in StarCraft? And the overall consensus is that, no, it is not. But I always consider that because I feel like the three races in StarCraft... So they're Terrans, which are human, Zerg, which are kind of bug-like, and then Protoss, which are kind of like advanced alien. And they all gave very different play styles, but they also have counters for each other. So the reason I said StarCraft is because at least back when I was playing StarCraft II was that there was always... My favorite thing to do was play Terrans and just have a lot of Marines. And just swarm marines.
Brian Eng:
The funny thing is though, I think that that strategy is a Zerg strategy.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, because the Zerg strategy is...
Brian Eng:
Because the Zerg strategy is to swarm.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. But me, I'm just like, I just want to have a lot of marines. Let me be with my marines. But there's other units from the other races that'll counter those... Or other just Terran units that will counter marines.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I agree with you though. I think that at a beginner level and definitely at its face value, there appears to be a rock-paper-scissors. And I would say it's that the Terrans were made to combat the Zerg. The Zerg could beat the Protoss by basically Zerg rush because the Protoss take a little bit to build up. And the Protoss because of their high-tech would beat out the Terrans.
Dave Eng:
Yeah.
Brian Eng:
But they also made it such that they had counters to that as well.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. I bring this up because I remember I was watching a YouTuber way back when... I think over 10 years now. DayZ, I don't know if he's still playing StarCraft. But I think he was talking about in a stream before, how they... Blizzard, at the time, was doing a lot of balancing, so they could analyze all the matches. And I think at the very lowest level, I think the beginners, they had the most success with Terran. Terran won like 40% of the matches or something. But at the highest levels like platinum, diamond, or whatever it was the top, it was a really close balance. It was like 33.3% of matches were won by all of the other races. And I just thought that was one. I was like, wow, that's really cool to be able to balance like that finally. All of the races in StarCraft too. And you said it before, Brian, I still think about it as a rock-paper-scissors mechanic because you can't win with an army of just one unit. Something's got to counter it.
Brian Eng:
I do think that the rock-paper-scissors mechanic exists there, but not at that grand level that we're thinking of it, but within units. There's definitely units that counter other units.
Dave Eng:
You're right.
Brian Eng:
And then there is another counter for that unit as well.
Dave Eng:
Yeah.
Brian Eng:
I think my favorite thing... So yeah, I remember we would play and you were always Terran. Even though Protoss was my favorite, but because you were always Terran, I would play Zerg because I would spend the entire game just trying to get the infected Terran base.
Dave Eng:
Oh, to infect the Terrans.
Brian Eng:
That's all I wanted to do was just to infect your base and then fly it away.
Dave Eng:
Oh, that's right.
Brian Eng:
So that you would either have to destroy your own base or I would get to make infected Terrans. And then I think you discovered the siege tank walk and I didn't know how to beat it.
Dave Eng:
Siege tank walk is countered by basically any flying unit because siege tanks can't hit flying units.
Brian Eng:
Oh, because they can't attack there.
Dave Eng:
Yeah.
Brian Eng:
Again, we were pretty little. Was this even StarCraft II? This might have been StarCraft 1.
Dave Eng:
This was StarCraft... Yeah, I guess StarCraft and StarCraft: Brood War. That was the one we were playing still on dial up phones...
Brian Eng:
Yeah, this was when we were little. I think it was the first StarCraft. Similar idea though.
Dave Eng:
Right.
Brian Eng:
All right. I mean, I'm sure they made a StarCraft board game.
Dave Eng:
No, they did make a StarCraft board game. It's I think out of print, and it's highly sought after, but it's like... After playing the computer game, I'm like, I wouldn't want to make this not digital.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, exactly. It just seems...
Dave Eng:
I don't want to do all that bookkeeping.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. Okay, so that wraps up our examples, I suppose.
Dave Eng:
Yep. We're going to go into the next section, beyond the basics.
Brian Eng:
All right. So beyond the basics. So I think we're changing things up a little bit this episode.
Dave Eng:
Yeah.
Brian Eng:
Dave, do you want to get everyone up to speed here?
Dave Eng:
Yep. So if you've been listening to AP Table talk for a while and just experience points in general, thank you for listening. But in the past, what we did for beyond the basics is we would examine different characteristics of the mechanic of the episode. But what Brian and I decided to do with this episode is we're actually going to debate. And the way that the debate is going to work is we both have our D20s, we're going to roll them. Whoever is going to roll the higher number is going to argue the pro side of the debate. So they are going to argue that rock-paper-scissors is a great, even best, mechanic there is. And then the low number is going to argue the con side so that it is not a great mechanic and it is possibly the worst mechanic that there is. And then hopefully, it'll be hilarious. So we will see how this turns out because we're doing this for the first time.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I'm curious to see how this turns out myself.
Dave Eng:
Okay.
Brian Eng:
All right, I'm ready.
Dave Eng:
So we're going to roll right now. Yep.
Brian Eng:
All right. I got 19.
Dave Eng:
I got 8. I'm arguing for con and then pro will lead.
Brian Eng:
All right, let me get to my pro notes here. All right. So I'm pro, I guess I'm leading then.
Dave Eng:
Yep.
Brian Eng:
Okay. So I know we discussed this a little bit beforehand and I know that I was the one saying I didn't really want to break it up into categories, but I didn't know how to write my notes any other way.
Dave Eng:
So you want to put the categories.
Brian Eng:
I still have categories, I'm going to just see where it goes.
Dave Eng:
Okay.
Brian Eng:
Anyways. Okay, so rock-paper-scissors. Okay, so the best mechanic. So rock-paper-scissors, I mean, it's not even just a mechanic. It's basically the universal language of strategy. It has seamless theme integration, it has psychological depth, it's adaptable. It's like the Swiss Army knife of game design.
Dave Eng:
Okay.
Brian Eng:
It balances how simple it is with emergent complexity by growing on it. There's endless engagement. And it proves that the best mechanic isn't the most intricate. And that would be my opening statement for why it is the best.
Dave Eng:
So my con then is... I organize all my notes based around the points and counterpoints.
Brian Eng:
Okay.
Dave Eng:
So mine is that, honestly, low innovation here because it's the mechanic that's named after the game, right, rock-paper-scissors. And I feel that it is... I will give you the point that it is very intuitive, right? It's just - intransitive dominant. So there's no dominant strategy. But overall, when you're playing it just kind of feels like a mini-game. I would say that if you do use a theme for rock-paper-scissors, it would feel very pasted on. And I would say the only game I play that actually integrates that theme well into its lore and everything would be StarCraft, which we talked about before. And I also feel that with those three options, it can feel pretty repetitive. Like if your game is basically based around just rock-paper-scissors, which is one of the games, Brian, we were playing on Board Game Arena, I feel like those options can get very repetitive very quickly.
Brian Eng:
All right. So let me counter some of your points. So the first thing you talked about was that there's no dominant strategy. I would say I agree, no option is universally dominant. But that is why RPS is inherently balanced. Every choice has a counter. And this makes it so that no player is ever permanently disadvantaged in that game. So when you integrate it into a bigger system like Magic: The Gathering, for example, it's just a self-correcting game, a self-correcting design. So any overpowered strategies will naturally be checked by counters.
Dave Eng:
Okay. So I can see that point. I feel like, yes, there's no counters because, again, it's non-transitive.
Brian Eng:
Well, there's counters for everything.
Dave Eng:
There's counters for everything.
Brian Eng:
Correct.
Dave Eng:
You can't ever be locked out, right, because whatever your opponent chooses, you've just got to choose the one that counters it. But I think that this is where rock-paper-scissors actually is limited is that I don't think it's a very scalable mechanic. And the reason I say this is because I think with just two players, that's totally fine, you could do two players. However, I think trying to scale rock-paper-scissors and trying to resolve it with multiple opponents... And this is what we learned playing, what is it, Ninjan online, that rock-paper-scissors game.
Brian Eng:
Right.
Dave Eng:
I think that when we played it with two players because it was designed to try to scale the rock-paper-scissors mechanic combining rock-paper-scissors with numbers, it made it difficult. So my counterpoint here is that I think for a two player-game, fine, I can see that. But I think whenever you try to scale it for more than two players, you're going to have a tough time trying to balance out all these decisions.
Brian Eng:
I would say that it is... So I agree that it... Yeah, I mean, I guess there's always like a house rule how to do rock-paper-scissors multiple players, but rock-paper-scissors, generally, is meant to be a duo. So the mechanic itself works best as a duo. I'm trying to think of a game... And because I'm not familiar with, I don't know if Magic: The Gathering is played with more... You can play with... I know some CCGs, you can play with more than two players.
Dave Eng:
I think it's only two players for Magic: The Gathering.
Brian Eng:
You can play StarCraft with more than two players.
Dave Eng:
That's true. But again, like you said before, rock-paper-scissors doesn't come down necessarily to race, but to the units that you use.
Brian Eng:
Right. But it's still in the design. And actually, your favorite game, Skull, I would say is not best of two players.
Dave Eng:
That's correct, it's not best for two players.
Brian Eng:
So I'll use your own example as a counter to your argument. I'm sorry, I'm trying to go back to your first statement so that I can-
Dave Eng:
Scalability?
Brian Eng:
No. Your first statement when we started so that I can go through your points and see if I have counters to any of your points there.
Dave Eng:
Low innovation.
Brian Eng:
Low innovation. So I would say that rock-paper-scissors is kind of a timeless framework. The innovation is... I mean, it's dependent on the designer. I think it inspires creativity if you look at the games that have been made with it. Did you ever play Unmatched?
Dave Eng:
No, but I know you have a bunch of...
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I don't have a lot of it. One of the guys in my group has a lot of that. And that kind of has the rock-paper-scissors thing of movement and range attacks and close attacks. And they've definitely been able to, I mean, again, if we go back to a game as big as Magic: The Gathering, which took a rock-paper-scissors type theme and... Rock-paper-scissors mechanic themed it, and expanded on it almost infinitely. I think the innovation comes at the designer's ability.
Dave Eng:
Right.
Brian Eng:
I think the obvious one we see is a lot of games where there's battles, like war games, right?
Dave Eng:
Right. Because it's good for resolution.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. For simplifying like... What's another classic one? Like archers, cavalry, spearman, right? There's usually one in a lot of games.
Dave Eng:
Is that like War Chest?
Brian Eng:
Yeah, things like that. So I would say that... That can go either way. Again, that, to me, is not the rock-paper-scissors that does not have the originality, it's the whether or not the game designer can be inspired from it.
Dave Eng:
Right. My counterpoint is that I feel like rock-paper-scissors alone cannot stand on its own unless really the only game you're playing is rock-paper-scissors. And I really wanted to bring this up in this episode. Do you remember the Simpsons episode where Bart and Lisa are playing rock-paper-scissors, and then Lisa says-
Brian Eng:
Dave Eng:
Bart always throws rock. And then Bart says, "Good, old rock. Nothing beats rock." So I'm going to say that if you're only playing rock-paper-scissors, there's no long-term strategy. You can't be Bart. You can't be like, good old, rock. Because again, it's non-transitive. I'd say that just using pure isolation, if you have equal opportunity to use rock-paper-scissors, it becomes kind of a coin flip at a time. Again, I'm saying this, if just the bare mechanic, rock-paper-scissors alone. If you don't pair it with anything else, that's what it boils down to.
Brian Eng:
I could see that argument. My counter to that would be... Have you ever watched competitive rock-paper-scissors?
Dave Eng:
I have. It gives me a lot of agita.
Brian Eng:
So what I've noticed, the way they've built onto it, is the psychological aspect. So if you look at something like poker, right, where everyone... People talk about that being down to the look of the cards, but we know that's not true. I mean, that's not true because the top players win more than anyone else, which if it was down to luck, there would be an even distribution. Right,.
Dave Eng:
Right.
Brian Eng:
So I think that because there is competitive rock-paper-scissors, and because there are reigning champions, that disproves that it comes down to luck.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I could see that. I think that on the high level. So I would say that my con is that I think that there's a disparity. I think if you have highly skilled players playing other highly skilled players, awesome. Just like watching... Not high stakes.
Brian Eng:
High level any game, right?
Dave Eng:
Yeah, high-level any game. Like top StarCraft players, top RTS players. But if you have a disparity, if you have a beginner and an expert, I feel like both players are going to have a bad time.
Brian Eng:
Hey, get good.
Dave Eng:
You answered everything.
Brian Eng:
All right. What was your next... Okay, so we had the innovation and that was the-
Dave Eng:
Innovation. I said it feels like a mini-game, which kind of leans into some of my other points I made about its limited...
Brian Eng:
I mean, it is kind of a mini-game.
Dave Eng:
Right. Yeah.
Brian Eng:
Depth. Okay. Depth. Yeah. I mean, again, it appears simple, but I think the true depth lays in the metagaming of it. Like the psychological side. Being able to predict your opponent's moves and patterns and that... Which is always something I've enjoyed. Like we talked about with Coup, I like the heads-up, the feeling of heads-up poker in that. It gives me that same feeling where you're playing the person. Right.
Dave Eng:
Right.
Brian Eng:
That's where I think that the depth is.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. I mean, I can see that point. Because I had written an article about this a while back called Yomi. So I was trying to exploit this concept of the fact that Yomi is the fact of you trying to make a decision based on what you think your opponent is going to make. But then your opponent could make that decision based on what they think you're thinking. So it just has different levels of point, counterpoint. And you were describing that before, Brian, with competitive rock-paper-scissors, where it is a lot of that psychological aspect of, well... Do they show you what other people have thrown in the past? Do they have a record like this player plays-
Brian Eng:
I don't know. But I know that people call out things while they're... And you've got to go in knowing what you're going to throw beforehand so you don't get messed up. Because if you misthrow, you automatically lose. Because this is best of three, right?
Dave Eng:
Right. I feel like I would totally misthrow if I was yelling rock all the time.
Brian Eng:
So we were watching it... I guess this is a bit of a tangent. I was visiting Jenny's... My sister-in-law's beach house. And ESPN was covering competitive rock-paper-scissors. And we all got into it because we were laughing that they were televising it. And I think it was a bit tongue in cheek because they were like... They had people talking like, yeah, you got to know what you're going in. And they had names for the combos. So rock, rock, rock would be like avalanche. But then they'd also be like, oh, yeah, I like to go in and I'll call out rock. And then I know that it makes them think rock. And then they're going to throw rock.
Dave Eng:
Wait, were they interviewing the contestants like afterwards?
Brian Eng:
Yeah.
Dave Eng:
Oh, man, I feel like I missed out on whatever gathering were you guys about to watch all this together.
Brian Eng:
I totally lost my train of thought here thinking about that. What were we talking about? So you know what, I'm going to just move on to... The mechanic, because of the tension and the way that it's thrown like that, it just is inherently fun. There's a reason that it's still played on playgrounds.
Dave Eng:
Right.
Brian Eng:
And again, that to me, is just a pro why it's a great mechanic because it's eternal. It's lived, it will live on. They will be playing rock-paper-scissors until the end of time.
Dave Eng:
Oh yeah, I have no doubt.
Brian Eng:
It'll be like... I always ask kids now if they understand the save icon on computers. What it is?
Dave Eng:
Oh, the disk?
Brian Eng:
Yeah. They're going to be playing rock-paper-scissors when their scissors and paper don't exist anymore.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. It's like, yeah, rock-paper-scissors. My counterpoint though is that, yes, I agree that people are going to be playing rock-paper-scissors for a very long time. Again, the whole non-transitive properties about it. But my challenge is that if you were to ask two kids in the playground, how long could they keep playing games of rock-paper-scissors for? My guess is they could probably play maybe 10 before they got bored. So my counterpoint is that I think it quickly becomes repetitive. Again, if you don't pair it with something else, it's going to become very repetitive.
Brian Eng:
But see, I think you're arguing the game of rock-paper-scissors. I'm arguing the mechanic. I agree with you. If you're just playing rock-paper-scissors, yeah, I'm not going to just play rock-paper-scissors for hours on end.
Dave Eng:
I don't want it to be the only decision point in the game.
Brian Eng:
But when you have a game that's... Again, I keep going back to Magic: The Gathering because it's fresh in my head, and it's such a huge game. Hugely successful game. So if you have a game which has a lot of rock-paper-scissors mechanics built into it, and clearly that game has many, many hours, people sink their lives into that game. I mean, part of that too is because it has that... The rock-paper-scissors mechanic has that modular foundation, you mentioned the addition of lizard Spock, right, so you can endlessly add onto it. So you can make it as layered or as complex as you want that circular hierarchy to go. I would think... I was going to use it as an example, but I wasn't sure how to kind of explain it to... You've played Cosmic Encounter.
Dave Eng:
No, I have not. I know you went all in on it, but I have not played it.
Brian Eng:
So Cosmic Encounter is a game where everyone gets wildly asymmetrical powers and your goal... Everyone has the same goal, which is to conquer... Or to colonize the other player's planet. You each have five planets. You want to get five foreign colonies, which is basically any of your ships on five different other planets as long as they're not your own. And the fun of that game comes in these wildly variable alien powers. And what makes it fun is there's like 100 different races in the game. And the powers are things like when you win, you lose. Or when you lose, you win. Things like that. So they're just crazy. And what makes it... Because everyone knows what the powers are and because there's some negotiation in the game, it can self-balance. But again, because somebody's going to have some way to counter that again through this rock-paper-scissors, and that allows it... So you can have these wildly fun, crazy powers, and it never makes the game unwinnable for... Sorry, I shouldn't say unwinnable. It never makes the game such that you have such a good power that you can't lose.
Dave Eng:
Right. I would say this, you can... Again, I haven't played Cosmic Encounter, but based on what you explained so far, it makes it so that you still have a shot at winning. It may not be a great shot, but you still have a shot of winning.
Brian Eng:
More importantly than that is that if you think your power is very, very strong, you can still lose. No power is so powerful that you can't lose. Because something always counters it.
Dave Eng:
How do you feel like Cosmic Encounter is from a perspective? Because I know that there are so many different aliens.
Brian Eng:
Okay, I'll admit that the balance is not because of the rock-paper-scissors mechanic. The balance is because negotiation in that game is involved. So you can't play that game with two players.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, you need at least three.
Brian Eng:
You need multiple because you need to be able to gang up and stop the person whose power is way more powerful than everyone else's.
Dave Eng:
Right.
Brian Eng:
But you'll recognize that. And then, okay, how do we counter it, figure it out, and then... Okay, I'm just seeing if I have any other points here. I mean, I think I've talked about most of my points. Do you have anything else that hasn't come up yet?
Dave Eng:
We talked about theme already.
Brian Eng:
Talked about theme.
Dave Eng:
One of the points I had for the Pro actually was Yomi. So I talked about that.
Brian Eng:
Yeah.
Dave Eng:
I brought up... In my notes here it says, make sure you include Simpson's reference. Check that. You talked about bluffing, right? You talked about that.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. I have that under depth and strategy.
Dave Eng:
We didn't talk about it specifically, but you brought it up with the rock-paper-scissors' ESPN challenge is that I think that... This is what I have. Simultaneous action resolution adds suspense and immediacy. So it's good for resolving actions. And I think knowing that, again, there's only three options you can throw, it makes for really suspenseful moments. And that's one of the pros that I wrote down.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. I mean, I put that in my... Or I would group that in with my player engagement and fun. It's not even the suspense, to me, it's the... When you're able... Because if we're looking at traditional rock-paper-scissors, that dopamine hit when you're able to predict what the person threw to counter them, that's the fun. It's that, oh, yeah, I got it right.
Dave Eng:
That's it. I hit all my points there.
Brian Eng:
Okay. All right. So we didn't come up with a way to determine who "won" this argument, but any listeners that would like to weigh in, feel free to put it in the comments if you're watching this or if you're listening to this through YouTube. I don't know what other commenting system we have. You can email us.
Dave Eng:
Email us comments. I don't know. Something.
Brian Eng:
I guess, I watched it with YouTube because it's just like, put it in the comments.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. I feel like if you have a strong enough emotion to need to contact us, you will find a way to contact us.
Brian Eng:
We're not hard to find.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. If you are so filled with rage, comment rage, you will find a way to contact us.
Brian Eng:
Let me see if I came up with any worst mechanic points that you didn't say.
Dave Eng:
Okay.
Brian Eng:
I mean, again, I have a lot of your similar points because a lot of it is subjective.
Dave Eng:
Right.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I think I had very similar points.
Dave Eng:
Okay. Should we move on to bonus round then?
Brian Eng:
All right, bonus round. Yeah. So did you have anything you wanted to talk about in bonus round specifically?
Dave Eng:
Yeah, well one of them... Do you have anything, Brian, or should I just-
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I've got a couple of things. Yeah.
Dave Eng:
Okay, so I'll trade off. I'll start off with this one. So I brought this up originally in my corn argument, but I would say that there's an experience disparity, I think, when you use rock-paper-scissors. So my example was that the pro rock-paper-scissors event that you were watching on ESPN, I think that... If it's against inexperienced players, I think you can do a lot of bluffing, especially if you can psychologically psych-out other players. But I think against experienced players, it becomes like a metagame loop of second-guessing that could potentially alienate casual gamers. I think there could be some casual gamers that are masochistic enough to want to be psychologically dominated. But I think there's an experience disparity.
Brian Eng:
I think if we're talking about rock-paper-scissors itself, because the skill cap is so low, even if you are a pro-level player, I think that... I mean, you could just dumb-luck loose in straight-up rock-paper-scissors.
Dave Eng:
Oh, yeah.
Brian Eng:
If some pro-level player played me and I just threw whatever, there's not really a strategy against that. I think the strategy-
Dave Eng:
Good, old rock.
Brian Eng:
...works because they're playing within this tournament structure.
Dave Eng:
Yeah.
Brian Eng:
Like they say, the meta only works against the other meta. That happened in X-Wing a lot. One of my friends that would come and play would look up all his lists on the internet and stuff, and he'd find all these says. Oh, okay, this is the squad that's winning all the tournaments. And he would come and he would get wrecked when he played us because none of us were playing the meta. And the squad he was building was good against the meta. But all of us were just playing ships that we liked. So a lot of his-
Dave Eng:
I just want to play Boba Fett.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, exactly. And he's like, what's that? You put all your points into one ship. I'm like, yeah, it's awesome now.
Dave Eng:
Look at the ship. There's one shift.
Brian Eng:
But in a tournament, people don't really do that because it's all your eggs in one basket kind of thing, right? But yeah, I was like, no, I want to play Boba. I want to play IG-88.
Dave Eng:
If it was me, I would just get 100 TIE fighters. Well, how many points is a TIE fighter?
Brian Eng:
That is a high meta one, it's just-
Dave Eng:
Just all TIE fighters?
Brian Eng:
...plain TIE fighters with nothing, and as many as you could fit into whatever the point cap is.
Dave Eng:
It would probably lose to a bunch of Y-Wings, the rock-paper-scissors.
Brian Eng:
It's considered one of the best throughout any of the meta because it is the most point-efficient. But it comes at the cost of you... So generally, I think you could have about six or seven. To be able to fly them in formation and be effective is very difficult. From a skill cap side, it's very difficult. I mean, yes, obviously, somebody with Arc-Dodgers will have a very big advantage because they'll mess up your formation. And once they're out of formation, you're not flying against a swarm anymore, you're just picking off TIE fighters now.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I see.
Brian Eng:
Right. So you have to get that initial attack. And if you can't do a lot of damage in that initial attack with the... It is basically called the TIE swarm. Then you'd have a hard time catching up in the late game. Sorry, I interrupted whatever point you were going to make.
Dave Eng:
No, that was just experience disparity. You had a point to add to.
Brian Eng:
No, not about that. One thing I just wanted to mention too... And maybe, Dave, I'll have you put this in the show notes. Do you remember... I don't remember when it was, I was just going to look it up. I think it was maybe four years ago. There was someone had put rock-paper-scissors deluxe edition on Kickstarter.
Dave Eng:
Oh, yeah.
Brian Eng:
And then Rodney did-
Dave Eng:
Rodney Smith. Yeah.
Brian Eng:
I don't know if he put it on, but they got him to do like a Watch It Played and stuff. So I can send you the Linx and put it... Because it's pretty funny. And Rodney Smith-
Dave Eng:
I'll put the links in the show notes.
Brian Eng:
Yeah.
Dave Eng:
I remember watching it and I was like, wait a second, is this a real Kickstarter because I kind of want it.
Brian Eng:
I know. I almost was like, I want to buy this.
Dave Eng:
I want those fancy scissors and that. Wasn't the rock like a meteorite too? It was it's not of this Earth?
Brian Eng:
Yeah, it was a fancy rock. I don't remember what the paper was, but-
Dave Eng:
Paper was like... It was like handmade, like pulp paper or something.
Brian Eng:
So to the listeners, I think it was a commentary on the deluxified versions of games going on to Kickstarter and things like that. But also coming from Dave, you and myself, who are prone to getting sucked into the Kickstarters, as you can tell it works. Because I was like, I kind of want kick-start this.
Dave Eng:
That's why I was like, wait a second, is this a joke? Because if it's a joke, then I want to buy this joke.
Brian Eng:
Okay, back to our actual topic here. We played a game Kiri-ai: The Duel, and we were discussing about the rock-paper-scissors in it. And I thought about it some. Because I think you were arguing that you didn't see how it was rock-paper-scissors.
Dave Eng:
Yes, I did not see it.
Brian Eng:
And I think after looking at it... Because at face value, I agreed with you. It's like, okay, I'm not sure, I think... But I picked it because it was listed in the mechanics on BoardGameGeek. But I think the rock-paper-scissors comes in... It's not such... So in that game, it's a duel, you're on a linear five spaces and you play... You have the same cards except for a special power. But essentially, you can pick a movement or a strike or change stance and various combos. And you pick your two cards at once and you reveal simultaneously. Right. And I think that we were trying to figure out... And you said you basically thought it was down to luck or whatever. I think that the rock-paper-scissors concept in that game is not down to the individual card, it's the combo that you play, which I think... I don't remember how many cards you have. I think you have five cards or something like that.
Dave Eng:
Isn't it like two movements, two strikes, and a special?
Brian Eng:
Something. But then each card can be played two ways. So you know that if you're playing one side of it, you can't play the other side of it. But I think it is not thinking about how each card is a rock-paper-scissors element, it's that each combination. So let's say it's five cards that could be played two ways each, what does that give you? I don't know, like 30 different combos or something like that. So that's 30 different things that could be countered or counter something. And I think that is where the idea of the rock-paper-scissors feeling comes in is that in most conditions, there is a combo that you can play that can counter the combo that the other person is playing. And that is where that idea of something can counter that... Whatever combo you play can beat something, but can also be beaten by some other combo that the other person can play.
Dave Eng:
I see. Okay. Yeah, I guess I could see that. I feel that in most of those situations for that game... Which I still didn't get. I had a very tough time playing it online. Is that I think you'd be very lucky to be able... I would consider myself very lucky to be able to anticipate what attack you would make, dodge it, or otherwise not be affected by it. And then launch my own successful attack. I feel like the options are-
Brian Eng:
I think part of the-
Dave Eng:
The options are you could either have a successful attack or I could successfully block you. So it's either win or draw for a lot of the actions.
Brian Eng:
I think part of the difficulty you were having specifically though was that... Or at least it seemed, is that you didn't understand the stances.
Dave Eng:
Yeah.
Brian Eng:
Because I noticed that-
Dave Eng:
I can't strike.
Brian Eng:
...many times you would use a strike that would never be successful because you were in the wrong stance. So I think we should try and play it live because I think the game is good. But I think without understanding that core concept of the game, I think you're missing a big portion of the game because that allows you to eliminate many possibilities that the other person... Because I think that's what it comes down to is let's say... I don't know what the number is, but let's say there's, 30 different combos you can play and you're eliminating what you think are the least likely based on positioning what stance they're in, and that type of thing. And then you kind of have an idea of what they have left and then you play a combo that you think is best in that situation.
Dave Eng:
Okay.
Brian Eng:
But yeah, I think a big part of it is understanding that stance changes.
Dave Eng:
Yeah.
Brian Eng:
But other than that, yeah, I think that's all I've got for the bonus round. Do you have anything else?
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I had a few more points here. So like we said before, I think that a lot of these mechanics don't really stand well on their own. I'd say RPS is not an exception to that. Some other mechanics that I would like to see paired with this one based on the ones that we had experienced so far is that I think resource management, action selection, or area control could be good. I don't know if there are some out there. I think that actually the one we were playing right now, Brian, on BGA Jinx... Or not Jinx, Linx, is that's... area control?
Brian Eng:
Where you're trying to get the three in a row, either face up or face down.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. I guess that's not area control as the mechanic is defined. It's just pattern-building.
Brian Eng:
I mean, yeah, I'm not sure. But of the ones we've been playing that are lower on that list, it's been one of the better ones.
Dave Eng:
Right.
Brian Eng:
I think I'm not very good at it yet.
Dave Eng:
I'm also not failing as bad as with the Kiri-ai game, so I was like, okay, yeah, I could play this one.
Brian Eng:
I liked that one and I liked the... I should have had the names of the ones... The one where you have some cards you can see and some that your opponent can see and you're doing duels?
Dave Eng:
Oh, that is Alakablast.
Brian Eng:
Alakablast, I think.
Dave Eng:
Brian Eng:
That one was okay. I think it would be better with more players.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I agree. I didn't think two was an optimum player number.
Brian Eng:
But it seemed like it would be good though. I would have to try it. But that one seemed pretty good too.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. I had a couple more points. Brian, did you have other stuff?
Brian Eng:
No, I think I'm done for bonus round.
Dave Eng:
Okay. One, I think for theme... Because the con I had was that I don't think that RPS really conveys the theme really well. But I think a theme that I have at least not seen in any rock-paper-scissors games that I would like to see... And tell me, Brian, if you've seen it. It's like with animals, like the predator-prey relationship, I think that could make a great theme for rock-paper-scissors. Do you know of any like that with animals and rock-paper-scissors?
Brian Eng:
Not off the top of my head, no.
Dave Eng:
Okay. Well, if you have an idea for that, you should totally make it a game because I think that would be a bomb theme. The other one... And you brought it up before, Brian. We played Revolution! at the PAX East way back when. I thought that was a really great implementation of that since the resources in the Revolution! game are non-transitive. One could beat the other. And then the last item here is... Oh, no, I have two more items left. One of them is that I would like to see an asymmetrical RPS. I don't know how this would look, but each player has a different set of either rock-paper-scissors, and they all have their own unique strengths and weaknesses. It doesn't mean that we both couldn't have the same resource, but my set of three are not exactly the same as your set of three. That might already be present in some games and I just haven't recognized it. But that was something I was thinking about.
Brian Eng:
Like your rock acts a little different than my rock. Is that what you mean?
Dave Eng:
Yeah, maybe. Or maybe it's like-
Brian Eng:
Are you thinking like units in StarCraft?
Dave Eng:
No, because then it would be StarCraft. I'm thinking about like rock-
Brian Eng:
I was going to say, are you just thinking about StarCraft?
Dave Eng:
It would be like rock-paper-scissors, I don't know, lizard. But I have like lizard, rock.
Brian Eng:
Okay. And then someone else has dynamite and whatever.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, something like that.
Brian Eng:
Okay.
Dave Eng:
I don't know how it would resolve, but I would like to see something like that.
Brian Eng:
I wonder if that falls into the deck builder type thing, where it's like you don't know which elements of the rock-paper-scissors the other person has in their deck because it depends on how they built their deck.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, something like that. That would be cool.
Brian Eng:
Right.
Dave Eng:
So that already is combined with deck building or maybe deck construction. But we did talk about Magic: The Gathering, which is deck construction. So I guess it's already present there. Yeah. And then I know I made my ChatGPT comment before, but it did spit this out and I thought it was pretty clever, so I did include it. It said, quote... And I can't take credit for this because ChatGPT, it said rock-paper-scissors-
Brian Eng:
All the kids are taking credit these days. You could do it too.
Dave Eng:
No, I'm not going to take it. I did not come up with this. I thought this was really insightful. Thank you AI overlords. But ChaTGPT said, "Rock-paper-scissors is the wasabi of game mechanics, spicy, sharp, and great in small doses, but don't build the whole meal around it."
Brian Eng:
Okay. All right, that's good. You know what, I think that's a good conclusion towards debate.
Dave Eng:
Yep. Is that it's spicy but it's not... You wouldn't want to eat a whole meal of wasabi or at least I wouldn't. I don't know about you, Brian.
Brian Eng:
It's a very good mechanic, but it doesn't stand alone.
Dave Eng:
Correct. You need to pair it with something. Cool. And that's all I have for bonus round.
Brian Eng:
I like that. All right. Well, I think that's it then. That wraps up our rock-paper-scissors episode of AP Table Talk. If you'd like to hear more content like this, please be sure to subscribe. You can also check out more of our content, projects, and other information about us at www.universityxp.com.
Dave Eng:
Thanks for joining us. We'd also love it if you took some time to rate the show. We live to lift others with learning. So if you found this episode useful, consider sharing it with someone who could also benefit. Until next time, game on.
References
6jizo. (2023). Ninjan. Ninja Star Games. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/425254/ninjan
Area Majority / Influence | Board Game Mechanic | BoardGameGeek. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2080/area-majority-influence
Benjamin, T., & Thompson, D. (2018). War Chest. Alderac Entertainment Group. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/249259/war-chest
Burgos, D. (2022). Alakablast. Fractal Juegos. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/344958/alakablast
Chatellier, N., & Trembley, M. (2018). Dice Throne. Roxley Games. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/268201/dice-throne
Cohen, N., Daviau, R., Jacobson, J. D., Leder, C., & Neff, B. (2019). Unmatched Game System. Restoration Games. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/295564/unmatched-game-system
Deck Construction | Board Game Mechanic | BoardGameGeek. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/3004/deck-construction
DuBarry, P. (2009). Revolution!. Steve Jackson Games. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/34887/revolution
Eberle, B., Kittredge, J., & Olotka, P. (1977). Cosmic Encounter. Eon Products. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/39463/cosmic-encounter
Eng, D. (2019, September 26). Game Theme. University XP. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/26/game-theme
Eng, D. (2020, December 3). Game Mechanics for Learning. University XP. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/12/3/game-mechanics-for-learning
Eng, D. (2022, August 30). What is Yomi? University XP. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/8/30/what-is-yomi
Eng, D. (2022, September 27). What is Strategy in Gameplay? University XP. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/9/27/what-is-strategy-in-gameplay
Eng, D. (2023, October 17). What is Player Engagement? University XP. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/10/17/what-is-player-engagement
Fantasy Flight Games. (2018, August 21). Flight Academy: Know Your Ships. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/8/21/flight-academy-know-your-ships/
Garfield, R. (1993). Magic: The Gathering. Wizards of the Coast. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/463/magic-the-gathering
Garfield, R. (1996). Android: Netrunner. Wizards of the Coast. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/124742/android-netrunner
GoodTherapy. (n.d.). Psyched Out. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/psyched-out
IG-88B | Wookieepedia | Fandom. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/IG-88B
Kamibayashi. (2023). Kiri-ai: The Duel. Lucky Duck Games. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/387769/kiri-ai-the-duel
Kanai, S. (2011). BraveRats. Blue Orange Games. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/112373/braverats
Knizia, R. (1999). Schotten Totten. IELLO. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/372/schotten-totten
Knizia, R. (2000). Battle Line. GMT Games. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/760/battle-line
Little, J. (2012). Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game. Fantasy Flight Games. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/103885/star-wars-x-wing-miniatures-game
Marine | StarCraft Wiki | Fandom. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://starcraft.fandom.com/wiki/Marine
McEvoy, B. (2013). Skull King. Grandpa Beck's Games. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/150145/skull-king
Protoss | StarCraft Wiki | Fandom. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://starcraft.fandom.com/wiki/Protoss
Puleo, F. (2023). Linx. Matagot. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/399757/linx
Rock Paper Scissors (Deluxe Edition) by The Dragon's Tomb — Kickstarter. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thedragonstomb/rock-paper-scissors-deluxe-edition
Rock, Paper, Scissors - Deluxe Edition - How To Play. (n.d.). [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://youtu.be/eRpjclrvLd4
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock | The Big Bang Theory Wiki | Fandom. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://bigbangtheory.fandom.com/wiki/Rock,_Paper,_Scissors,_Lizard,_Spock
Rock-Paper-Scissors | Board Game Mechanic | BoardGameGeek. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2003/rock-paper-scissors
S04E19 - Rock, Paper, Scissors. (n.d.). [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://youtu.be/b0SoKWLkmLU
Simultaneous Action Selection | Board Game Mechanic | BoardGameGeek. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2020/simultaneous-action-selection
Tahta, R. (2012). Coup. Indie Boards & Cards. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/131357/coup
Terran | StarCraft Wiki | Fandom. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://starcraft.fandom.com/wiki/Terran
Trick-taking | Board Game Mechanic | BoardGameGeek. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2009/trick-taking
Wilson, K. (2007). StarCraft: The Board Game. Fantasy Flight Games. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/22827/starcraft-the-board-game
Cite this Episode:
Eng, D. & Eng, B. (Hosts). (2025, June 29). AP Table Talk: Rock-Paper-Scissors. (No. 141) [Audio podcast episode]. Experience Points. University XP. https://www.universityxp.com/podcast/141
Internal Ref: UXPRFHZE9PNM