Ambiguous Name: Elemental Rock Paper Scissors

Tactical Rock–Paper–Scissors does not need any changes aside from better sorting of examples.

It’s a form of simplistic balance that games use without getting too complex that you need a chart just to know it. But also not too simple that it’s simply Heads Or Tails Combat.

It’s simple that the whole thing can be explained in a small circular symbol with arrows pointing at pictures of weapons commonly seen in said works.

That’s my issue on why I think Elemental RPS should be split into its 3 types instead of soft splitting it like what has been suggested.

Edited by Memers on Sep 29th 2019 at 5:47:13 AM

I'm inclined to strongly disagree with Memers on this: I see "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors" the same way that I see "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors": Tropes are flexible, and a mechanic that's fundamentally the same but that includes four tactical options, or five, or that doesn't have a cycle, still fits the trope, to my mind.

Thus I'm inclined to argue that "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors" fits well as a sub-trope of "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors", and that no changes are called for on the "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors" side.

(I do think that a thread might be called for to make that flexibility more apparent in the "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors" page—but again, that's a matter for another thread.)

Regarding the "Rock-Paper-Scissors" page, I don't see a problem with that reference at all. It's brief and describes the trope in broad strokes—but that seems to me to be all that's called for there.

As to the "Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors" page, aside from any tidying up that we might decide to do, the only change that I'm inclined to suggest is a line or two clarifying that it doesn't strictly involve only three elements forming a single cycle.

I agree with that Tactical Rock–Paper–Scissors doesn't need to be a strict triangle either. Most examples are because they're the easiest to balance, and unlike elements there's not too many strategic types that can be included without it going either too complicated or not making sense. That doesn't stop the trope from more complicated examples. See Warcraft III's quite complex damage and armor types.

I agree as well.

I agree that neither should be restricted to purely triangular strength/weakness setups. Restricting them in that way counteracts Tropes Are Flexible.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Sep 29th 2019 at 12:33:42 PM

Its a simplistic gameplay balance trope. They use a circle or triangle to display the [1]◊

There is no expanding it because that LITERALLY is what the trope is.

Hell Dynasty Warriors 8 went out of its way to add the 'three point system' they called it into the game with every weapon having an affinity 'Heaven' 'Earth' or 'Man' after 20+ games. [2] To the game's detriment.

Suikoden The Army combat entirely was JUST Charge > Bow > Magic > charge, Further entries in the game make this more complex and not the trope. And the Dueling combat was Attack > Defend > Desperate Attack > Attack, this never changed in sequels. Dokapon Kingdom used the same Dueling system for the entirety its combat as well.

It is not flexible to add more or less. Less would be something like Coin Flip Combat which would be an entirely different trope and isnt really done much if at all. And more and the game stops being simplistic and starts getting complex which can both be good or bad depending on the game and player. Complex ones often become arbitrary and opinion based.

Edited by Memers on Sep 29th 2019 at 3:49:29 AM

I think you're being too narrow. A longer/shorter cycle, intersecting cycles, etc. is still ERPS, the same way Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock is still fundamentally RPS.

I disagree on that, myself. However, even if it is true, I would argue that this is a distinction in the implementation of the trope, not an indication of a different trope being at play. The gameplay is deeper, but not fundamentally different, I would say.

I mean, consider a game with a cycle of three tactical options, and another with a cycle of four. Is there a fundamental difference between the mechanics of the two? To my mind, there isn't. It's the same basic idea.

Or by analogy:

Imagine a tile-based tactics game in which both sides have only two units available. (For the sake of clarity, presume that the choice of which to go with isn't similar to the "Rock-Paper-Scissors" approach. Maybe it's a matter of the attacker always winning, along with tile-element effects.) This makes for fairly simple decisions—we can only ever choose unit A or unit B.

If we then introduce a third unit to each side, the decisions involved become more complex—but does that mean that the fundamental gameplay has changed? To my mind, it hasn't.

In the same way, to my mind "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors, but with four tactical options" isn't fundamentally different to "Tactical Rock-Paper-Scissors, with only three options".

[edit] ...Or, you know, one could put it succinctly, as did. ^^;

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Sep 29th 2019 at 1:42:19 PM

I've read the trope page one of the example you brought up yourself, Dokapon Kingdom, and it doesn't have a strict triangle relationship. There are three attack actions and three defense actions, for a total of six. One attack action can be defeated by one defensive action, but can defeat the other two. Attack actions and defense actions don't interact within their own group. This is already beyond a simple RPS triangle.

I disagree, when you start getting into Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock as a full circle then the Paper doesn't interact with Lizard or Spock which put that in a different dynamic and not the trope, I would be hard pressed to even label non-interactions like that in a trope aside from 'non-interactions'.

Now when you get into overlapping triangles of the actual 'Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock' [1] that is still this trope.

Not really, they are all still part of the cycle. Same vs same is usually neutral The only real outlier is the the magic which would basically be Non-Elemental as it exists outside the cycle.

Edited by Memers on Sep 29th 2019 at 8:14:17 AM

And this is why I had to ask if we'd resolved the definition discussion. Apparently not.

I still find the literal RPS-system idea seriously and pointlessly limited. The idea that all the elements would have fixed strengths and weaknesses against each other, often with multiple overlapping cycles, is absolutely tropeworthy. The idea of a literal "Element X beats Element Y which beats Element Z which beats Element X" cycle feels the same but more- a pointlessly narrow concept that has no reason to be so narrow.

I agree that neither ERPS nor TRPS should have to be a cycle.

What the frick? Your argument is "simplistic game balance", but you consider a simple circle not part of it while a bordered-pentagram is? On the basis that some elements don't interact? I'm having difficulty following this reasoning. What difference as a trope does it even make whether Paper interact with Lizard or not?

In all fairness, it seems to me like most of the thread agrees, with just one person arguing for another position.

I don't see that as a different dynamic at all. I see it as a different form of the same dynamic.

Yeah, it's only Memers who disagree at this point. We've been sidetracked by TRPS again. Regardless of what TRPS is, splitting ERPS trope just to keep its relationship with TRPS is rather silly IMO. We can always change it from a Sub-Trope to a Sister Trope if needed.

So, soft-splitting Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors with the "True RPS style", "Cyclical Style", "Opposite Pairs Style"?

I don't see much purpose to doing so, myself. They might call for a mention in the description as common forms, but that's about it.

(Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a "soft split", come to think of it—as I said, I don't take part in these things very often.)

A soft split is when the example section is split into multiple sections depending on trope variation. An example would be Declaration of Protection.

Aah, I see—thank you for the explanation! Not what I was imagining. ^^;

Okay, that's something that I could see being useful. True Shadow 1's set looks good for me, if I'm reading it correctly, although I'd also add a fourth section for "other forms".

Oh, looks like I'm misunderstanding soft-splitting either. My suggestion was just include "here are the common forms" in the descriptions, without splitting the examples. But I can do with soft-split as well.

I'd actually prefer it without a real soft-split, as they tend to be unnecessary and can lead to type labels, which cause problems.

Yet they are different things and ARE treated differently. Soft Splitting is really needed, it will prevent more issues down the line.

I may have been out voted I am still not convinced that the Mutual Disadvantage type works here as THAT trope already covers that and is soft split accordingly /shrug.

EDIT:

Also soft splitting will prevent shoehorns of Non Linear Balancing of like StarCraft II and MOBAs and such where its combos of units, builds and metas kinda look like that but are not laid out by the game. They must be absolutely laid out in the game.

Edited by Memers on Sep 30th 2019 at 10:34:19 AM

If soft-splitting will lead to issues down the line, then I don't think we should soft-split.

Fair; the arguments above convince me that soft-splitting seems superfluous, and possibly even a source of trouble. Put me down as being against soft-splitting, then.

I'm unclear on what your concern is, since the potential shoehorn you mentioned has nothing to do with elements, AFAIK at least...

Tropes are flexible. There's no need to be quite so strict about this.

Well Mutual Disadvantage already covers both of the weak to same and weak to each other types.

And this discussion includes Tactical Rock–Paper–Scissors and opinions and rapidly changing metas and such do not have a place in a trope like this, the work needs to lay it out itself as a world building element and stick to it.

A soft split between the two types would make that quite clear. Actually splitting the page would make it even clearer but still.

What would be included here that arn't the two types? Simplistic balance of a triangle or an extended unnecessarily complex octagonish shaped cycle?

Edited by Memers on Oct 1st 2019 at 6:26:50 AM