Word RPS

[martinburley]

The Strategic Forces Department is pleased to present our latest development - a new variation on RPS, which RPS players with a liking for scrabble or other word games may enjoy.

The rules for Word RPS are: 

Each throw consists of the two players choosing any letter (from A to Z, or space), and then revealing their choice.

Points are won in RPS style, with letters from A to I beating letters from J to R, letters from J to R beating letters from S to Z and space, and letters from S to Z and space beating letters from A to I.

So far, just like normal RPS, where {A to I} = rock, {J to R} = scissors and {S to Z, space} = paper.

The twist is that players must also spell out words with their throws.

If a player makes a throw that does not spell out a word (or complete a word with space), and his opponent challenges, he loses the match. However, a player who challenges incorrectly also loses the match.

Example match - first to two points wins:

Throw 1:

Player 1 - B
Player 2 - C

- tie

Throw 2:

Player 1 - BU
Player 2 - CA

- player 1 wins a point

Throw 3:

Player 1 - BUN
Player 2 - CAC

- player 2 wins a point

Here, for example, player 2 may expect player 1 to either play S (for BUNS) or space (to complete BUN_) next, so figures that a J-R letter will win. However,

Throw 4:

Player 1 - BUND (towards 'bundle')
Player 2 - CACK (towards 'cackle')

and player 1 wins by two points to one.


Example match 2:

Throw 1:

Player 1: P
Player 2: D

- player 2 wins a point

Throw 2:

Player 1: PR
Player 2: DJ

- player 1 challenges, thinking there are no words beginning DJ-.
- player 2 says he was thinking of the word 'djinni', an alternative spelling of 'genie'. Since this is an acceptable word, player 2 wins.


As you can see, this combines the RPS cycle with a splash of logic (figuring out what letters your opponent is most likely to choose next) and vocabulary (being able to surprise your opponent with unusual choices of letters, or lure them into an incorrect challenge).

Word RPS is best played hustler style (first to ten points) or half-hustle (first to five points), giving players the chance to make longer words, or several words (with spaces separating them).

[Stu Vessant]

Yeah, great, Martin, except that your RPS "variant" does not take into account letter frequency.

To wit:  you've split the 26 letters into three groups based on alphabetical order.  All well and good, but the letters of the alphabet are not evenly distributed with regards to usage.  The letter "E," for instance, is the most frequently used letter, appearing 12.7% of the time.  The least common letter is "Z" (that's "zed" to you,) which is used only .07% of the time.

The way you've got the groups split, the frequency of usage comes out like this:

Rock (A-I):  46.7%
Paper (J-R):  29.64%
Scissors (S-Z, space): 23.68%

Parity and balance are core tenets of RPS based variants, Martin.  Basically, what you've got is a variant where Paper has a slight edge over Scissors, but Rock is thrown almost half the time, because it contains three of the five main vowels and powerhouse consonants like "D" and "H." 

Don't claim that this just "increases the strategic possibilities of the variant"; I'm not buying it.  The very least you could do is bump the "space" option into the first grouping; the last group is already a paltry lot, containing the three least common letters in the alphabet (X, Q and Z.)  What in the name of Etaoin Shrdlu is Strategic Forces smoking down there, and how can I get some?

[martinburley]

Stu, Stu, Stu. You're using statistics misleadingly.

Sure, I don't dispute those percentages are accurate, as far as words in everyday contexts go. But, the same percentages don't apply within the restricted context of this game.

Your argument is like saying RPS is unbalanced, because people have their hands in fist shape or paper shape much more than they have them in scissors shape. Real-life, we probably see Paper 50% of the time, Rock 40% of the time and Scissors 10% of the time, if that. But those statistics don't apply to what we see in the restricted context of RPS matches. Just as people aren't making an RPS throw when they angrily clench their fist, so too, they aren't making Word RPS throws when they write an essay.

So, the frequency of usage argument is a no-goer. The parity will come through in the play.

It's also worth noting that this game will play like a 'restricted RPS' game at times. After your first few letters, your choices for the next few letters become limited, and a good opponent can respond to that. (E.g. if your first five throws are BOXER, you have little choice but to follow with S or space). So part of the skill will be in how you choose your letters to avoid backing yourself into a corner.

[Franklint]

I had a short exchange with martinburley, online, about how I was planning not to reply to this thread, as all I usually say in similar circumstances is "Great idea. I'll incorporate this into my training regimen and play it with my friends.". However, for once I actually have some important things to say about this, which gives me a great excuse to say this:

Great idea. I'll incorporate this into my training regimen and play it with my friends.

Now, to elaborate. I think this ingenious new version of RPS brings into play a whole new level of strategy which, once practiced in excess, will most certainly bring more to your regular RPS play, and encourage a whole new line of thinking (which I am a fan of).

This new level of strategy has already been mentioned, but I feel it needs more said on it. While I'm not the person for this job, I will at least stress the topic, and encourage some wise old RPS-er to elaborate on their take of the hidden properties behind what I'm talking about, namely the cornering and trapping of opponents, using the fact that letters are substituted for throws. If your opponent believes you are particularly clever, think of a word whose start appears complex, but instead choose a letter that seems completely off. Your opponent may well think that you're bluffing because you've worked out that they're onto your word, when in fact you've just chosen to finish off some other, simpler word that begins in the same way. If they're hasty enough, they may call bluff before realising their mistake. Martin already mentioned this. My bad.

This version of the game will also help no end with one's player profiling skills, requiring one to think ever deeper about the intracacies of one's opponent's mind and determine what kinds of words such a person would be inclined to use.

To establish an element of superiority to put your opponent off their game, consider spelling out some kind of taunting message with your throws. Perhaps "You suck at RPS" if you're playing a long format game, or "I rule" for a shorter one.

I do have one question regarding this however. If one (I'm exchanging "one" for "you" willy-nilly in this thread. Don't worry 'bout it.) chooses to make a long phrase during a longer game, does this phrase have to make sense, or is it just the individual words that make it up that have to be coherent English? Is "dog your smiley bag" allowed?

While Stu does have a very good point, martinburley's counter nicely dilutes it. In any case, even if Stu's point was completely true, as an RPS variant, some kind of imbalance in the throws can bring a whole new element to the game, with the whole "He'd be more inclined to throw that, because the rewards are higher" coming into it. For me, bringing whole new elements into the game is really what variants are about. Otherwise, why not just play regular RPS?

Cheers,
Franklint

[martinburley]

I do have one question regarding this however. If one (I'm exchanging "one" for "you" willy-nilly in this thread. Don't worry 'bout it.) chooses to make a long phrase during a longer game, does this phrase have to make sense, or is it just the individual words that make it up that have to be coherent English? Is "dog your smiley bag" allowed?

Good question. Either version works, so feel free to choose amongst yourselves which version to play, pure Word RPS or Sentence RPS.

With Sentence RPS, requiring players to make valid phrases would definitely add to the strategy in the game, since your opponent can make a guess at what word you'll choose next, at least after the first couple of words. For example, after "chuk_is_a_ba_," custardchuk might expect me to continue with 's' for the obvious insult, but I might play 'r' for 'barfly'. On the other hand, with Sentence RPS there may be some quibbling over what is or is not an allowable phrase or sentence, whereas the validity of single words is usually clear-cut.

[srn347]

A quite interesting variation of rps. How about number rps also? Standard digits(0-9, each one beat the last 4, loses to the next 4, and ties with itself or the one with a difference of 5). But the players have to make perfect squares(cubes might also be acceptable, perhaps even fifths or possibly any perfect nth power where n is an integer) with their throws. Perhaps playing it in other bases is also acceptable(as long as it is not to overcomplicate things like rps 101). In binary, for example, one player would win if they both choose the same, the other player would win if they choose differently. The sequence still has to make a perfect square or other perfect nth power(when converted back to base 10). Great idea martin, just don't complain about copyright, all I did was use it as a springboard.

Welcome, seekers

srn347

[Franklint]

Great idea martin, just don't complain about copyright, all I did was use it as a springboard.

Except, usually, if someone uses an idea as a springboard, the general field is improved (or at the very least kept at the same level), rather than being a hastily-thought-up excuse to post in a thread. All you said about martinburley's variant was

A quite interesting variation of rps

.

Cheers,
Franklint

[martinburley]

Back on the word theme, another way to play is as a one-word-only game. This would be played as a short game (first to three points wins, say), but with the rule that if you haven't won by the time you complete your word, you lose. In this version, you're allowed to extend words, so MIRROR isn't a completed word, but MIRRORED is.

Tactically, you'd probably start out with a few long words in mind, but prepared to change course depending on your opponent's choices, or even to risk making a shorter word if you think it'll bring you victory in time.

For example, after the first three throws, with three points needed to win, we might have:

Player 1 - BOU
Player 2 - REG

Here, player 2, who is 2-1 down, is surely expecting player 1 to continue with an N (towards BOUNDARY, BOUNCERS, BOUNTIFUL, etc.) and is probably very tempted to play an I to win the next throw, with a fairly safe S (towards REGISTER) to follow.

Player 1, therefore, might risk playing T to win immediately with BOUT. However, if player 2 plays a cautious R (towards REGROUPS), player 1 will lose, since after BOUTS v REGRO player 1 has completed his word without winning the game, and therefore loses.

[srn347]

I wonder if these variations will eventually become official games independant of rps except for the intransitivity of what beats what. Or what if there was a leet(1337) version of it that uses letters and numbers(e.g. 1o could then become the number 100 on the next move, or possibly the word low or lot).

[custardchuk]

Wow, Martin,

That is one hell of a Friday afternoon post. As intrigued as I am about the whole idea, I don't do "contemplation" on Fridays. Same goes for you, Franklint, on your possibly interesting "skullcrusher" theorem.

You guys have way too much (WRPSS funded) time on your hands.

regards
custardchuk

[srn347]

Time is relative(to space). Yes, I do have lots of time on my hands, of coarse not a second is wasted(except when I am forced to waste my hours by going to school). If I didn't have much time, I probably wouldn't know rps is strategic(I would just be a n00b who thinks it's all luck). And when was the last time you made a relevant post instead of attepting to insult someone, custardchuk?

Welcome, seekers

srn347

[C. Urbanus]

Wow, Martin,

That is one hell of a Friday afternoon post. As intrigued as I am about the whole idea, I don't do "contemplation" on Fridays. Same goes for you, Franklint, on your possibly interesting "skullcrusher" theorem.

You guys have way too much (WRPSS funded) time on your hands.

Now wait a second...don't get testy with Custardchuk, son.

Read the quote above.  It mentions Martin and it mentions Franklint.  Doesn't mention you at all.  For someone as perceptive as you seem to think you are, I'm surprised that you didn't get that.  So I don't know why you've taken offense except for the fact that you could possibly think that every post is about you since your name fills the majority of the first page of every part of the board one can pull up.

For someone who knows relatively very little about RPS on the whole (Rosh isn't world champ, there are leagues?, there's a headquarters?, etc - I could find more if I chose to take the time to read most of your posts) I haven't taken kindly to you getting testy with an individual who has:

1) been the face and voice of Australian RPS for years
2) been in this forum discussing RPS (not just posting mostly strings of random words) since nearly the beginning of its' creation
3) travels the world to compete more than anyone in the history of competitive RPS
4) been a dear friend to all he has met during his time with the World RPS Society

I kept mostly quiet during the discussion that took place earlier that led to your one week not quite self-imposed "suspension" from this board.  Keep it up with the people who actually have a history of promoting the game and the WRPSS itself, and I'll get my friend Leatherstep on the line.  He's in the office right down the hall from me.

[srn347]

First of all, when he said "You guys have way too much time on your hands", he was refering to everyone on this page. Second, if are saying that I know little about rps, I have [reciprocating] words to say that can only be expressed in the form of a youtube video. Next, the many posts thing has been discussed many times over, and everyone else seems to have dropped it, why not you?

Welcome, seekers(and c. urbanus and custardchuk, lol)

srn347

[Franklint]

Hear, hear, Urbanus. Thankyou. I agree whole-heartedly with your post.

srn, I was going to reply to this thread and tell you not to start arguing with Urbanus, and to instead heed what he says and modify your ways accordingly. But you were far too hasty in doing such a thing, and so I'll have to change this post.

First of all, when custardchuk said

You guys have way too much (WRPSS funded) time on your hands.

, he was not referring to everyone on this page, and if you took it to mean such, you're an idiot. Learn how to read and interpret English. On that note, don't pass off your own opinion as fact when it's made clear that not everyone thinks that way, unless it's in jest or you are better-established and more liked than you are currently. The main factors that will decide whether one can or cannot pass off their own opinion as fact are intent and (to quote one of the Walkers) effect. If you're not happy with this potentially ambiguous rule, leave.

You certainly know nowhere near as much as you think you do, and neither are you as awesome as you claim.

While usually I'd stop pointing out your errors here considering you're 14, internet-dwellers have no age and my feelings on this issue are strong. So I'll continue.

Get your goddamn links right. This is the second time you've screwed one up, and it makes you look even more amateurish than usual. Preview, before posting, any message that contains a link from now on.

The reason everyone seems to have "dropped it" in regards to your posting is because, no matter what is said to you, you will not modify what you do or how you behave on the forum to create a better experience for all, and instead continue your annoying ways. I can tell you right now that it would be unwise to consider your position as a member of the Bullboard safe, and you are still discussed quite actively by several regulars. Keep that in mind.

Do not get testy with Urbanus, either. Making enemies with either him or custardchuk would be incredibly silly, as both have a fair bit of power in the RPS world. What's more, both have years and years of experience over you and know what they're talking about. Neither are n00bs, and trying to get everyone on your side by posting "amusing" YouTube videos won't work.

Finally, do not not attempt to argue with/insult me, or try to claim that I'm wrong in anything that I've said. Instead, try a bit of variation and actually listen to what I'm telling you, take it to heart and fix your actions from now and into the future.

Cheers,
Franklint

[srn347]

Franklint, I am beginning to read your posts less and less. Your pm's are another story.

Welcome, seekers

srn347