In Rock, Paper, Scissors, players simultaneously
throw out one of three hand symbols. Rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock
etc. If the thrown symbols match then the result is a draw and players
typically throw again.
In Odds & Evens each player is assigned as either
Odd or Even. They simultaneously throw out either 1 or 2 fingers and check the
total number of fingers shown. If the total is even the even player wins, if it
is odd the odd player wins.
By having fewer hand-types to choose from and removing the
draw it could be argued that Odds & Evens is a more elegantly
designed game than Rock, Paper, Scissors. Certainly if you're using the
game to quickly find a winner, such as "who gets first turn in the real game
we're about to play" then Odds & Evens is going to get you
there quicker.
I grew up with RPS and I remember having
thoughts similar to the above when I learned about O&E as an adult. RPS
is obsolete, spread the word!
But something is missing from O&E and all its
elegance, and when the game is this small you really notice when something is
lost.
There's power in that moment when you draw a round of RPS.
Let's say you both throw down scissors. You pause, look at each other, and
throw again, but now there's context. Do you stick to your guns and
throw scissors again? Maybe they'll do that, in which case you should throw
rock?
The idea of "gambits" for RPS is probably
meant as a joke, but it ruffles my feathers that it fails to account for draws
and how to respond to them. It's a real gap in competitive book play.
Of course it mostly comes down to chance, barely different to flipping a coin, but the experience of playing RPS is entirely different to flipping a coin, and O&E with its ruthless efficiency fails to capture that.
While I might seem evangelical for elegance and minimalist
design, there's sometimes power in those moments of inelegance.
Something to consider for RPGs and wargames, but how about
we introduce even more inelegance to RPS?
(much like Chess there's
a long history of messing with the rules of RPS, so I'm not claiming
origin of any of these)
All the below assume a game of playing to 3 points.
Symbol Values
If you win then you earn points based on the symbol you
threw.
Rock (3pts), Scissors (2pts), Paper (1pt)
I've seen this variant with Paper as 2pts and Scissors as 1pt but I prefer it
if the weakest symbol beats the strongest.
Tie Breaks
If you tie then an Event occurs depending on the symbol
thrown.
Rock: Bump rocks. Both players lose 1 point to a minimum of 0 points.
Paper: Stack papers. If a player wins the next throw they earn an extra point.
Scissors: Sharpen scissors. If the next throw is won by scissors then that
player immediately wins the game.
Power Creep
A new symbol is added: Dynamite, represented by a
"thumbs up" gesture. It beats any other symbol, and ties with itself.
Dynamite can only be thrown by each player once per game.
If playing with Symbol Values then Dynamite is worth 1pt.
If playing with Tie Breaks then tied Dynamite returns both
players to 0pts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post was originally sent as a reward to all Patreon supporters, and is released freely on this site the week after its original publication.
If you want to support my blog, podcasts, and video content then head over to my Patreon.
Some games have taken advantage of dice ties; meaning that when a die roll equals a target number without exceeding it, something different happens.
ReplyDeleteBut as far as introducing inelegance... TSR D&D attribute bonuses have always seemed a bit inelegant to me. To take advantage of such inelegance, one might assign special abilities to a PC, rather than simple numerical bonuses. For example:
Strength
13: Can avoid encumbrance penalty for 1 turn, 6 / 1d6
16: Can kick open locked/stuck wooden doors, 6 / 1d6
18: Can bend metal bars, 6 / 1d6