Rock-Paper-Scissors: an Analysis

It's the simplest game in the world, or at least the simplest competition. It goes by many names across the world. I will analyze it according to the concepts that I have presented earlier.

Number of players: two, competitively.

Symmetry: perfectly symmetrical, balanced.

Timescale: simultaneous.

Information: imperfect, inductive.

Mechanics: two players choose from one of three throws, and simultaneously reveal them with an unambiguous gesture. Each gesture draws against itself, defeats one, and is defeated by the other. Each throw results either in a draw, or in a win for one player and a loss for the other.

Metaphor: varies by culture, local flavor, or player eccentricity, but is commonly explained: rock blunts scissors; scissors cut paper; paper covers rock.

Theme: a full thematic interpretation of this game is beyond the scope of this article. It may be summarized as "Nothing is appropriate for every situation" or "All things have strengths and weaknesses," though more philosophical players may examine it in far greater depth.

Rock-paper-scissors is a very pure example of a certain game archetype, which is why "cyclical" balance of the type that it displays is often called "rock-paper-scissors balance" when employed in other games.

Now, consider this: a game as simple and basic as rock-paper-scissors has all these concepts associated with it. Since RPS represents the bare minimum necessary to be a competitive game, an analysis of this sort (though I wouldn't dare claim that my criteria are definitive, complete, or even any good) represents the bare minimum that a designer needs to understand about his game. Understanding your game's relation to rock-paper-scissors is like an engineer understanding a bicycle's relation to the lever.