Hi

I've searched the site until I get "server is taking the dog for a walk" message that I get alot here.

are there such a thing as rock paper sissor rpg systems?

I need to keep it simple.

thanks

The closest that it gets (as far as I remember) is Infinite Armies, which wrings a lot of mileage out of the RPS set-up, but isn't a roleplaying game. I seem to also remember some simple system that used RPS with ablative pools, but I can't remember where I saw it. It had something to do with characters losing points for lost rounds of RPS or something, wasn't that interesting perhaps.

Anyway, let us know if you make something of it.

Are you looking to make a rock paper scissors game? there are plenty of game out there on the net that are only one page long. what is too complicated? the core of most rule systems are about 1 page long. Do you actually want to have a game using rock paper scissors? I have never heard of one. if you want something like that then, here you go.

Talky rock-paper-scissors: argument-avoid argument-filibuster. Fighty rock-paper-scissors: hit-defend-feign. Actionish rock-paper-scissors: tackle-dodge-stop. Chasey rock-paper-scissors: run-hide-flank. Spooky rock-paper-scissors: scream-freeze-swoon.

If they lose, then allow them to try for another shot with a different type. Certain fights to have multiple throws of the hands, serious conflicts; best two out of three, best five out of seven for serious or add handicaps, i.e. "...the hundred ninja win in three, you, Elaine McClaine, win in five."

This will be forever known as Quijote's Run.  Written by Eric Walker.

I am sure this is less than 100 words and it took me 10 minutes to make. If you use it let me know how it goes.

ejw

Hi-

Just for the sake of answering the question; I'm pretty sure that Stuperpowers uses Rock, Paper, Sissors as its resolution mechanic.

Ken

Mind's Eye Theater.

Ah, my good old WW larping days...

You proposed an action based on a verbal trait you bid, and they countered with one of their own.

Rock, Paper, Scissors.

In the case of a win, you get what you wanted. If there is a tie, the person with the most of that kind of trait (which was bid) wins.
Example: I bid Clever, you bid Thoughtful. We both throw rock. It's a Mental Challenge, and I have 9 traits in Mental. You have 10 traits, so you win the tie.

Then there was a re-challenge/re-bid thing, based on Skills. But the bulk of the system is above.

I didn't really like it, to be honest, but I'm kinda a crunchy player. Simulationist, and all that.

-adam

Oooh this is wierd it's like we're creating a game! Okay I'll play along...

Let us say you've got a tag, you can stick it out there to keep the tests rolling, but if you still lose it gets "Cut Off."

If you are in a chase, and you lose, say some one pulled a flank to your hide two times in a row in a best two out of three contest, you can extend the test by sticking out your "foot-pad" tag. This makes the contest best three out of five but you still lose?

It get's cut off. Now you're "not-so-stealthy" being caught and all your tricks have worn themselves out.

Now some tags are obviously better than other, like the difference between stealthy and daredevil-like 'radar-sense'. If your in a situation like that, then you can't use that tag

And If you want another rule, if your into that sort of thing: situations determine the amount of tests in a series. Characters determine the comparative amount of those you must win. Situations meaning Senario being played and characters meaning available tags on a specific character(s) in that particular situation that determines how many sucess they need in the applicable (series of tests) situation.

Note: This may replace or supercede, the rule I just talked about in the previous paragraph. Please edit and evaluate mentioned design concepts and feel free to critize them.

Missing Pieces so far.

• How to graft new traits on your guy.
• How to keep game compelling when character have bad traits.
• How to "regrow" tags.

ejw
I love RPG's :))

my crux is this

the game is large scale, players build units and gather them together to hit a target

I have a stable basic system, two types of attack, two types of defence, additional attack skill, additional defence skill

I have thought about adding lots of rpg stuff, but it would undermine the hard fought for additional skill I have already, or kill off players bother lvling up at all

for example a stealth fleet if I added a "supprise" bonus would undermine both additional atk/def skills

I could add angle of attack, strafing etc, yet I would wind up with a counter arguement that would nullify it

and I am back to square one.

....

thats why I was asking for rock-paper-sissors as thats what it seems to boild down to

The core behind rock-paper-scissors is that one article of play beats another article of play. rock beats scissors, which beats paper, which beats rock. Make a string of actions, like the recycle sign you see? stealth beats fortification, beats this, beats that and et cetera. Skills are slowing you down. Just concentrate on the individual unit types make the break between character and leader sort of a meta-thing. make a cycle of play, and the guessing game. No skills, no one-up-man-ship no splat books, keep it core, this is a big word core to they rock-paper-scissors. Those limits are the ones that you set before the game begins, if this does not satisfy the player, then you have to upgrade the complexity. I suggest that you have perhaps disposable conditionals in play, like reward for successful turns, one player wins one contest, and then they get the high ground or some odd piece of temporary  tactical bonus, maybe for every loss received they can spend those too or the player can take advantage of the temporary penalty which are spent. this won't unbalance play, too much, and make the complexity modular, you can also make conditions for victory,  a certain sequence of  advantage and disadvantages that lead to completed objective in the battle. But keep the basic units of play troop types in a closed cycle. 

... and to follow from that last explanation, one real-world RPS-like reality was the way the weapon systems interacted in the Napoleonic wars...

I did a silly little game that uses RPS for action resolution a couple years ago, Mascot-tan.

There are also some variants with more than three signs, my favorite being Rock Paper Scissors Spock Lizard (paper disproves Spock!), though I suspect it might be moving away from the game's original appeal, albeit not as much as Ultimate RPS. In RPSSL it's not a chain, but rather each sign has two it can beat and two that beat it.

Also, there's a psychological element of RPS. Can you anticipate what the opponent is going to do? When playtesting Mascot-tan I found I had a knack for winning just by spacing out and throwing the first sign that came to mind, so that the players couldn't anticipate it at all.

I was considering putting some kind of RPS-like interaction of different kinds of moves (power, accuracy, energy perhaps) into the new version of Thrash (my fighting game martial arts RPG), but I just couldn't figure out a good way to determine how different kinds of moves are declared, and how characters can figure out what an opponent is going to be using.