h a l f b a k e r y"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
in the traditional game, there are just the three options to choose. paper defeats stone because it can wrap it. scissors are made blunt by stone and so stone wins. scissors defeats paper because it can be cut. there are three hand gestures to signify each.
the game works because every option
has a chance to win but the addition of a new option could spoil the simplistic beauty. by adding fillet steak, the new winning combinations would be: steak versus paper – steak wins (as it bloodies and greases the paper). steak versus scissors – scissors win (as the scissors can cut the steak into smaller portions and that is a bad thing). steak versus stone is a draw (no-one wins as the stone is unharmed and the steak is tenderised and so is more yummy).
as to the hand gesture, I have been toying with the idea of a closed hand with the fore finger and the small, fourth pinky extended upwards looking something akin to the head of a cow / steer.
(vegetarians may prefer nutroast.)
Rock Paper Scissors Spock Lizard
http://www.samkass....theories/RPSSL.html
The traditional 5-way game. Can you guess the hand gesture for Spock? [hippo, Oct 05 2004]
The "Rock Paper Scissors" Google Directory
http://directory.go...k,_Paper,_Scissors/
Includes online games, 5-way games, grudge matches, etc. [hippo, Oct 05 2004]
Rock Paper Scissors Bomb Bird Water Chopper
http://www.gogomag....sp/rsp_matchups.htm
The 7-way game ("Chopper" as in bike - Paper blinds driver, Scissors puncture tyres, etc.) [hippo, Oct 05 2004]
Nut Roast for [world] sounds yummy!
http://www.recipene...eggie/nut_roast.htm
for ideas (for hand gestures) that we are about to receive, we are truly grateful... [po, Oct 05 2004]
Uri Geller
http://www.uri-geller.com/#
For those of us who don't know him ... yet. [k_sra, Oct 05 2004]
Grudge Match
http://www.grudge-m...aper-scissors.shtml
[thumbwax, Oct 05 2004]
rock paper Saddam
http://www.rockpapersaddam.com/
you probably don't even know pen missile! [Madai, Nov 23 2004]
RPS 15
http://www.umop.com/rps15.htm
"As usual, I had to sacrifice logic a few times when faced with certain odd relationships during the design phase, such as TREE-(???)-DEVIL. How the heck can a TREE beat a DEVIL? And how would *anything* beat a DRAGON, for that matter? Read on..." [Detly, Sep 26 2005]
I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue
http://www.bbc.co.u...4/comedy/clue.shtml
[hippo, Dec 10 2006]
Monkey-Pirate-Robot-Ninja-Zombie
http://markarayner.com/blog/archives/1613
A page on how to Play Monkey-Pirate-Robot-Ninja-Zombie [hippo, Jun 27 2010]
Robot AI playing
http://www.wired.co...6/rock-paper-robot/
check out this video of an unbeatable (due to gesture "tells") AI [theircompetitor, Jun 27 2012]
[link]
|
| |
As a vegetarian, I would like to know the symbol for a nutroast. BTW: What's a nutroast? Doesn't sound pleasant. Also, would a vegetarian always lose to the fillet steak? If so, I don't want to play. |
|
| |
Or freestyle roshambo. On the count of three everyone creates a hand gesture that symbolizes something, and then they debate how their object could destroy the other objects. |
|
| |
I'm a vegetarian, and I LOVE this.. Hand gesture can be accompanied by a bellowing MOOOOOOO !! |
|
| |
My wife and I settle most of our decisions with rock, paper, scissors. It has avoided fights over who's gonna wash dishes, turn the light off, etc. Cheaper than therapy or divorce I guess. |
|
| |
[hippo] I love "Paper disproves Spock". |
|
| |
There is a fundamental flaw with
[po]'s version of the game - she
has chosen only four players. This
implies that each player will have
three links, one to each of the
other players. For each player
these three links will either be two
losing links and one winning link
or one losing link and two winning
links. Thus there will be some
players which are more likly to win
than others.
For this reason,
the traditional game, and the
enhanced games (see links) have
odd numbers of players so that
each player can have an even
number of win/lose links to other
players.
Thus, I propose
addding gravy:
Rock
blunts scissors, tenderises
steak.
Paper wraps rock,
mops up gravy.
Scissors cut
paper, cut steak.
Steak needs
gravy, makes paper
greasy.
Gravy rusts scissors,
drowns (pet) rock. |
|
| |
//Thus there will be some players which are more likly to win than others. // |
|
| |
Why that would be the case? |
|
| |
I was only thinking two players. is there a multi-player game? |
|
| |
[hippo] and its not logical to have steak makes paper greasy - bad thing and paper mops up gravy - good thing. |
|
| |
Wonderful idea, but I think the rules for Rock Paper Scissors Spock Lizard work better (no draws unless players use the same symbol). Though I'm still trying to figure out that Lizard hand symbol. A single finger would work better, I think. |
|
| |
And why would Spock smash scissors? Wouldn't this hurt his hand? |
|
| |
Ack! I knew this was gonna turn into math. See ya. |
|
| |
Worldgineer: I guess he brought his phaser along. But that ought to take care of everything else too. Except maybe water (are those things waterproof?). |
|
| |
[po] - sorry, by 'players' I meant
'objects' - it's still a 2-player
game. And you're right, that is an
inconsistency...
[waugsqeuke]
- again, 'objects', not 'players'. I
was illustrating that if an object
has an odd number of links with
other objects - as it would with a
game where there are an even
number of objects to choose from
- then the number of 'win' links
won't equal the number of 'lose'
links. Some objects will have more
'win' links than 'lose' links and
thus be more likely to win games
when chosen.
Rock
blunts scissors, tenderises
steak.
Paper wraps rock,
exposes Uri Geller as a
fraud.
Scissors cut
paper, cut steak.
Big Steak
makes
Uri Geller drowsy, makes paper
greasy.
Uri Geller bends
scissors,
throws rock at critics. |
|
| |
now that is funny, [hippo]. |
|
| |
// Some objects will have more 'win' links than 'lose' links and thus be more likely to win games when chosen. // |
|
| |
hoppi, sorry to belabour the point, but you've simply restated what you've already said without explanation. I do not see why an even number of objects to choose from results in some objects having more wins than others. I'm not getting the connection you appear to be making from the number of objects to the advantage of wins. |
|
| |
What's the hand symbol for Uri Geller? |
|
| |
//Steak *always* wins..//
[Mr Burns]
"Rock paper scissors match."
…"Alright! Rock beats paper!"
"I thought paper covered rock."
…"Nah, rock flies right through paper."
"Well, what beats rock?"
…"Nothing beats rock."
-- Kramer and Mickey, Seinfeld episode |
|
| |
waugs, the hand signal for Uri Geller consists of pointing your forefinger against your temple and rotating your hand in an unscrewing motion. |
|
| |
[wagsqueke] Consider the
four-object game where every
object is
linked to every other object (as
*must* be the case for the game to
work when two players are free to
choose any
object):
Rock
blunts scissors, tenderises
steak.
Paper wraps
rock
Scissors cut
paper, cut steak.
Steak
makes paper
greasy.
There is no way
to construct a set of rules which is
symmetrical - in the above set of
rules Paper and Steak are, in the
long run, likely to be choices
which lose more games than they
win. |
|
| |
you're right of course. the addition of Uri Geller is a masterstroke. |
|
| |
[po] ...and we can now play it
online.
One
Two
Three
...
Scissors! |
|
| |
The fact that there is an edge-imbalance does not necessarily make some choices superior to others. Suppose, for example, that one adds dynamite [beats rock (blows it up), loses to scissors (fuse is cut), and ties with paper]. Then scissors wins to either paper or dynamite, but this doesn't really mean scissors is better, since the new "dynamite" is simply isomorphic with paper. |
|
| |
Adding additional isomorphic choices does not change the essence of the game, but could help to discourage people from doing 'reflex switches' [i.e. changing their own symbol based upon what it looks like the other person is doing]. |
|
| |
Freestyle roshambo would remove all such strategies and reflex switches. |
|
| |
BTW, hippo: imagine a game with ten choices 1-10 such that any number except 1 or 2 beats any higher number, 1 beats any number except 10, and 2 beats any number except 1 or 10. Horribly asymetric, and "1" beats more numbers than any other (8), but nonetheless someone who was known to always pick 1 could easily be defeated. |
|
| |
While much of the elegance of RSP comes from its symmetry, such symmetry is not required for a playable game. |
|
| |
You should have played stone there. sorry. |
|
| |
Not much, as silence is golden... |
|
| |
I cannot believe there are so many variations. |
|
| |
[supercat] Understood - it would
be playable but, I think, not as
interesting as the traditional game. |
|
| |
//[supercat] Understood - it would be playable but, I think, not as interesting as the traditional game.// |
|
| |
Actually, I realized after I posted that the rules as I gave them are, for a rational player, precisely isomorphic to traditional RSP. Do you see the isomorphism? |
|
| |
BTW, RPS reminds me of a nice little 'dice' game using three dice. One is labeled 1/6/8/1/6/8, one 2/4/9/2/4/9, and third one 3/5/7/3/5/7. |
|
| |
One player (the 'mark') takes a die of his choosing. Then the other player (the 'huckster') picks one and both players roll their die. Whoever has the larger number wins $1 from the other player. |
|
| |
No matter which die the mark picks, the huckster has a 55.6% chance of winning. |
|
| |
can you explain to me how that would work? |
|
| |
Simple form: the first die will beat the third 55% of the time, the second will beat the first 55% of the time, and the third will beat the second 55% of the time. The huckster just chooses whichever die will beat the mark's die 55% of the time. |
|
| |
More detailed form: Each die has three different numbers. Call them S, M, and L (Small, Medium, and Large). |
|
| |
L of any die will beat S or M of any other. M of any die will beat S of any other. So unless the dice come up SS, MM, or LL it doesn't matter which dice are used. |
|
| |
Of the three combinations SS, MM, and LL, any particular pairing of dice will result in one die winning two and the other die winning one. The huckster wants the die that will win 2 of those three combinations. |
|
| |
reread what you said before. |
|
| |
whats the combo that you get the winning number from? |
|
| |
I thought it was a straight throw. one person, one die, one throw. |
|
| |
My brothers used to include Dynamite (symbolised by sticking your thumb up) in an another wise simple game of paper scissors rock, in which dynamite would always win. It was usually used when one of us got bored of the usual hum-drum of paper scissors rock, and used dynamite as a surprise attack. |
|
| |
We eventually added hundreds of different competitors, such as Superman (symbolised by thrusting both arms forward in fists), who would save the day, in effect defeating dynamite. This was counter-acted one day when one of us used Kryptonite (which was symbolised by joining your thumbs together and your index fingers together, to create a diamond shape). |
|
| |
After many months, the game deteriorated into philosophical debate regarding the victor of two seemingly invincible opponents: "Captain Everything" and "Jehovah". Captain Everything, as his name suggest, could do everything (including kill Jehovah), yet Jehovah created Captain Everything and by his holy laws could remove Captain Everything's life (unless he bestowed upon him the gift of immortality, which of course would never happen because they are arch rivals). |
|
| |
The three of us soon realised that the original game of Paper Scissors Rock was the best, and so the moral of the story is, if it aint broke don't fix it. |
|
| |
so what beats morality then? |
|
| |
Immorality [po]. Much more exciting in my book. |
|
| |
Common Sense outweighs Morality. Morality converts Immorality. Immorality outlasts Stamina. Stamina limits Vice. Vice defeats Common Sense. |
|
| |
I saw Uri Geller on TV a couple of days ago. He was starting stopped watches and clocks and bending spoons (who'd have guessed it!). He had members of the audience and viewers at home trying to bend spoons by following his instructions. As the camera panned over the audience, all with their eyes closed, rubbing their spoons, I got a glimpse of a woman with a look of grim determination on her face who was forcably bending her spoon with both hands. Later she was shown triumphantly holding up her now severely deformed spoon. |
|
| |
I always think "Urine Yella" when I hear his name. |
|
| |
It's gonna take me a while to read this, but screw it! |
|
| |
I'd like to see a version of this using real props. |
|
| |
//what beats earplugs?// [po] |
|
| |
The truck that runs you down because you couldn't hear it honking at you? |
|
| |
//the small, fourth pinky//
oposed to the large 4th pinky? |
|
| |
//What's the hand symbol for Uri Geller?// |
|
| |
I would have thought that was obvious. |
|
| |
[10th Dec 2006] If you listen to the
latest "I'm sorry I haven't a clue" (link),
you'll hear the team play
Cat-Glass-Pudding (Cat breaks glass,
glass ruins
pudding, pudding drowns cat), all
chaired by the incomparable Humphrey
Lyttleton, and with sound effects. |
|
| |
Gun beats man because he picks it up and uses it? |
|
| |
I think this is very inventive - a little gem
drifting in a sea of mediocrity + |
|
| |
But how does that work? If such a game has an even number of objects, each object will have an odd number of links with the other objects. Therefore there will either be more 'win' than 'lose' links or vice versa, and some objects will be more likely to win than others. |
|
| |
[hippo], such games can work, in the sense of being playable ([supercat] also makes this point in an earlier anno). For example, let's say: |
|
| |
A beats B and C, loses to D
B beats C, loses to D and A
C beats D, loses to A and B
D beats A and B, loses to C |
|
| |
On the face of it, A and D have the best chance of winning. And since D beats A, you might expect players to go with D most often. However, the game is still playable, because people can learn. If you notice your opponent is throwing D, say, 80% of the time, then you'll throw C more often. Equally, if your opponent notices that, he may switch to throwing A or B more. |
|
| |
The 'D beats everything!' variants, on the other hand, are truly unplayable, since both players will do best to throw D each time and always tie. |
|
| |
That said, as a competitive RPS player and strategist, I would strongly argue that the elegant symmetry of the three-throw standard version of RPS makes it far superior to any extra-throw(s) variants, playable or otherwise. |
|
| |
Normal RPS already contains all the depth you could want. (As the great Wojek Smallsoa once wrote: "To the beginner, the choices are few; to the expert, the choices are many.") |
|
| |
[imaginality]: Why would anyone pick 'b' in your scenario, since it loses to A but does not win in any case that A does not? |
|
| |
Actually, I think even-choice variations of the game may be constructed that are playable if one introduces the right sort of asymmetry. For example, a two-choice version will be playable if the first person is deemed to win when the symbols match and the second person when they don't. If one accepts this form of asymmetry, a four-choice (or even two-choice) version of the game might be better than the three-choice version since it would eliminate ties. |
|
| |
You're right; I think 'B beats D, loses to A and C' makes more sense above. |
|
| |
The two-choice variation you suggest would be playable ('odds and evens' is another game along similar lines), but while eliminating ties may be useful if immediate decision-making is the goal, it makes for a less skilful and less exciting game. |
|
| |
When RPS players win through skill, it is because they become aware (consciously or subconsciously) of their opponents' patterns. Part of this edge comes from seeing how their opponents respond to a tie, or a series of ties, can give a significant advantage. Also, ties heighten the tension, making the winning throw after a series of ties that much more satisfying. |
|
| |
For example, in our weekly RPS tournament at work today (where matches follow a best of three, best of three format), the score in the first semi-final was 1 set to 0, and 1 - 0 in the second set. Match point for one player, the other player battling to stay in the game. The players threw... and the second player clung on to her hopes with a tie. They threw again... tied again. After four ties, they paused for a moment, eyeing each other up. Then they threw again... two more ties. When the second player finally won that crucial point on the seventh throw, her opponent was shaken, and the momentum was now strongly with her. She went on to win that set, and win the final set to take the match. There was no doubt that that sequence of ties was the turning point in the game. |
|
| |
rock paper scissors salt? |
|
| |
//Part of this edge comes from seeing how their opponents respond to a tie, or a series of ties, can give a significant advantage.// |
|
| |
Nothing says that each number must only be allowed to tie with itself. |
|
| |
Both people pick a number 0-9. If [10+A-B] mod 10 is 5 through 9, player A wins; if it's 1 through 4, player B wins. If it's zero or five, it's a tie. |
|
| |
Actually, having two sorts of ties (the "direct" and the "opposite") might enhance the game provided there were enough choices that ties didn't occur too often. |
|
| |
////Part of this edge comes from seeing how their opponents respond to a tie, or a series of ties, can give a significant advantage.//// |
|
| |
//Nothing says that each number must only be allowed to tie with itself.// |
|
| |
Sorry, I maybe wasn't clear there - I was referring to the variation you suggested which you said "might be better than the three-choice version since it would eliminate ties." |
|
| |
With multi-throw variants, the problem isn't a lack of ties; as you say, that can be kept at a reasonable proportion. The main flaws, from the point of view of it being a game that combines fun and skill, are: |
|
| |
1. It takes longer to detect patterns. With more throws, you throw each throw a smaller proportion of the time, and only the biggest deviations from average are easily detectable. The patterns are lost in the statistical noise for longer. |
|
| |
2. It's subjectively harder to spot patterns. In RPS-5, there are 25 possible outcomes compared to 9 in normal RPS. In RPS-15, there are over 200 outcomes. It's just too much to think about - and if both players are bamboozled equally by it, it effectively becomes reduced to a game of pure chance. I remember learning that most people can only keep a maximum of nine separate pieces of information in their head simultaneously, and there are nine outcomes to track in normal RPS - coincidence? (Well, probably. :) ) |
|
| |
3. Practical difficulties: If you're playing face to face, with more throws to choose from, it's harder to remember all the throws in the first place (and then remember which beats which), and also potentially easier to cheat (e.g. in RPS-Spock-Lizard, players who throw paper and see their opponent also throw paper sometimes get away with quickly dropping their thumb lower to shift into Lizard, which beats paper). In normal RPS, the throws are easy to remember and clearly distinguishable from each other. |
|
| |
I'm willing to concede that a five-throw version (e.g. RPS-Spock-Lizard) could still have some skill to it, but higher multi-throw variants like RPS-15 are strictly just for fun (if that's not a contradiction in terms!). |
|
| |
I had a friend who would always use paper... and if I used paper or scisors, would start to wiggle it slowly, and say it was lava. |
|
| |
Then if I tried to do lava, he'd say it was water, and his was a surfer. |
|
| |
When I was at school we had the fingertips touching and thumbs touching to make a lozenge shape, we called it Black Magic. It would beat absolutely everything, guaranteeing a total win, but using it was dangerous because everyone would hate you, and shun you from playing for a while. |
|
| |
You might be able to design a game which includes "Black Magic" which is playable. For example, imagine a game in which a running score of points is kept. Then you could have rules such that:
Paper beats rock (winner gets +1, loser gets 0)
Rock beats scissors (winner gets +1, loser gets 0)
Scissors beats paper (winner gets +1, loser gets 0)
Black Magic beats anything except Black Magic(winner gets +1, loser gets 0)
Black Magic draws with Black Magic (both players get -1)
With these rules, which penalise both players playing 'Black Magic' you might be careful about playing it, although I think these rules still make it advantageous, overall, to keep playing 'Black Magic'. |
|
| |
I think before we can get into strategy and suchlike, we need to settle on a hand symbol for Black Magic. A jazz hands variant might work. |
|
| |
I think you need a hand of glory sign. Or a real one. |
|
| |
For preference, do it for real, the scissors are very sharp, the rock in heavy and suitable for skull-crushing, the paper is corrugated into an effective shield, and the chainsaw wins every time, but each time it's played, the player loses an eye. |
|
| |
[calum] - I don't think we've even decided the "Uri Geller" hand signal yet. |
|
| |
I think we have, and it's unflattering.. |
|
| |
Ah yes - that sounds right |
|
| |
My money's still on the chainsaw, you can make something that looks like fillet steak in a moment...from readily available sources.... |
|
| |
Just had to look this up to remind myself of the rules of Rock - Paper - Scissors - Steak - Uri Geller … |
|
| |
Where is that po creature? Come out! |
|
| |
Facebook group. She is there daily. We've been friends for decades. If she ever left I better get a goodbye... |
|
| |