Rock Paper Scissors Design Does Nothing

[Harshax]

If Cavalry is always better, full stop, then your design is going to be 'play cavalry, full stop'.

I pretty much wanted to say this, this morning, but hadn't had coffee. Because this statement from the OP ...

Fire wizards being weak to the color purple means nothing in a campaign where no purple wizards appear.

Is a misnomer, having nothing to do with the concept of RPS but also isn't particularly illuminating or worth discussing. RPS by design has all the inputs and all the outputs firmly defined. You perform an action, compare it to the opposing action and resolve that action. Playing, squid, in a game of RPS isn't even an option and defaults to failed throw. It's a perfectly balanced, zero-fat game and using that as a foundation for adding additional nuanced mechanics isn't inherently bad.

But if your game design offers 'fire weak v purple', but doesn't bother to stat purple, then that's just bad mechanic or a trap option or at best, fluff text for a game the designers didn't finish before it got to your table.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

You're still complaining about a specific implementation and not the concept.

And yet it happens again and again in every specific implementation. To the point that I have experienced it so ubiquitously that when you say "but I did play one obscure strategy video game where it DID work right" I just plain don't believe you, especially after some of the light walk back you did in the same post you brought it up.

And when I see multiple specific implementations failing in the same way time and again while attempting or claiming the same thing I don't just blame it on the implementation and imagine a fringe example that could get it right. And I also don't just assume it's impossible.

I go looking for a causal factor.

And it is very clearly a mixture of additional complexities, and design level symmetry not equaling at the table symmetry (or video game abstract rules design symmetry not equaling at the battle instance symmetry).

Even ignoring RPS mechanics Cavalry probably should lose to spear infantry when charging into them head on... and probably should win vs spear infantry when charging into their rear... and Cavalry probably should also be more mobile than spear infantry.

So even if the Spear>Cavalry thing fits nicely into pretend stories about your symmetrical rules balance doings, even before accounting for instanced variation in the availability of good/bad or more/less cavalry or spears your "doing a balance" is ruined the moment you start accounting for any interactions, advantages or counters that are NOT inside your perfect symmetrical RPS dynamic. And it doesn't matter if you look at Cavalry having flanking as a counter to their RPS counter unit type and decide to give something similar to spears that will only make the situation worse in terms of making the RPS dynamic actually matter.

Essentially once you do have counters and advantages that are not symmetrical or are even part of a separate dynamic, and in any remotely complex game you do, assigning some of them to a symmetrical circle or pattern is cosmetic window dressing that doesn't really matter at all.

And since many designers and gamers often highlight their symmetrical cosmetic window dressing as "doing a balance" or simply being some sort of impressive good thing about their game... people kinda need to realize it isn't really doing anything productive.

Symmetrical RPS dynamics pretty much end their real functionality for balance or meaningful influence on a game outcomes somewhere topping out around the level of a relatively simple board game.

It's not that you shouldn't put an RPS dynamic in your RPG or whatever. It's just that you shouldn't fool yourself that you have achieved anything much meaningful by doing so. Cosmetic window dressing is OK, you just need to know it when you see it/do it.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

...Playing, squid, in a game of RPS isn't even an option and defaults to failed throw...
But if your game design offers 'fire weak v purple', but doesn't bother to stat purple, then that's just bad mechanic or a trap option or at best, fluff text for a game the designers didn't finish before it got to your table.

Wow. Look I think you just entirely missed why I picked purple wizardry there.

It's because A) deciding which other type of wizard in your RPS dynamic is the one strong vs Fire is completely arbitrary so it might as well be Purple wizard as much as it might as well be water or ice wizard. So picking the more obviously arbitrary Purple highlights this.

And B) because picking Water or Ice seemed boring when I could make a tangential point and a very minor gag.

Why on earth, how on earth could you imagine it was an example of declaring Squid in a game where actual Rock, Paper and Scissors are the only rules defined elements? Why would I do that? Why would you think that?

If I just described a potential system that was Purple > Fire > Squid > Purple what the fuck makes you imagine that the hypothetical system doesn't have rules for Squid? Just... why?

[Harshax]

If I just described a potential system that was Purple > Fire > Squid > Purple what the fuck makes you imagine that the hypothetical system doesn't have rules for Squid? Just... why?

Because you literally offered a player choice in a RPS discussion and said this in the same goddamn sentence:

means nothing in a campaign where no purple wizards appear.

So I've been asking, what the fuck does a non-input like purple or squid have to do with the value of RPS? You rail against RPS, you rail against RPS taken to a degree even beyond Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock and then vomit into your own post as if it's somehow tangentially related to an argument you just walked back, here:

It's not that you shouldn't put an RPS dynamic in your RPG or whatever. It's just that you shouldn't fool yourself that you have achieved anything much meaningful by doing so. Cosmetic window dressing is OK, you just need to know it when you see it/do it.

Am I missing anything?

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Am I missing anything?

YES!

The fundamental key point of that statement.

Rules design does not equal game implementation.

Does every single thing in the rules system you use appear in every single campaign you play with those rules?

Purple wizards can in fact appear in your rules design, but not appear in any single given game at the table. They definitely do not appear in any single game at your table at a predictable and reliable rate that can be depended on for "doing a balance".

Unless you have a rule requiring a certain appearance rate of purple wizards in games then it is not just a thing that can happen but also a thing that probably should happen.

A weakness to 30% of all wizard types in the rules does NOT equal a weakness in 30% of wizard encounters at the table unless your rules also enforce correct wizard type appearance rates. A thing they probably do not do, and probably should not do.

How did you miss that?

[Foxwarrior]

Tangentially related: in 3.5e some enemy types are immune to sneak attack. If you're not an advanced player you may not know of any of the ways to bypass this immunity. But as a DM there are times when you want to use a lot of undead enemies, they're a potentially super diverse faction you could be inspired to make a campaign around. I guess you're supposed to throw in some random humans and animals for the rogues and druids to deal with, as well as whatever type the Ranger picked as a favored enemy...?
Or in Phonelobster land, maybe the DM wants to do an Invasion of the Squids adventure, then it's Squid all the time and no Purple or Fire enemies in sight.

[deaddmwalking]

Am I missing anything?

YES!

....

A weakness to 30% of all wizard types in the rules does NOT equal a weakness in 30% of wizard encounters at the table unless your rules also enforce correct wizard type appearance rates. A thing they probably do not do, and probably should not do.

How did you miss that?

In Naval Warfare, there's an established principle called 'fleet in being'. The basic idea is that if you HAVE a fleet, even if you don't use it, your enemy has to CONSIDER it when making strategic decisions.

If your fire wizard always fails to Purple Wizard, and you NEVER ENCOUNTER A PURPLE WIZARD, you appear to be contending that it had no impact on the game. I would argue that as long as you CONSIDER ENCOUNTERING A PURPLE WIZARD A POSSIBILITY, it does impact the game.

But despite all of your complaining about specific implementations, I don't think you've given an actual example of one that is 'bad'. RPGs are more complex than board games; I don't know of any that use actual RPS where there are three options, you're locked into always using the same one (purple wizard) and you either win 100% (because all opponents are fire mages) or lose 100% (because all opponents are squids). If you went with literal RPS as a resolution mechanism where every 'attack' is a cast of your hands, you would achieve 'balance' between all classes, but it may not seem sufficiently 'engaging'. Most RPGs are more complex; even if there are underlying elements of RPS (ie, spears > cavalry > archers > spears), there are usually tactics/abilities that complicate it. Cavalry + entangle might be able to curb-stomp cavalry. Archers + flight might be able to curb-stomp cavalry. The COMPLICATIONS on top of the underlying mechanical advantages is where the game is played.

[Harshax]

Phonelobster is the drunk uncle at RPG gatherings who mutters, "Thanks, Purple." Regardless the topic of discussion.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

If your fire wizard always fails to Purple Wizard, and you NEVER ENCOUNTER A PURPLE WIZARD, you appear to be contending that it had no impact on the game. I would argue that as long as you CONSIDER ENCOUNTERING A PURPLE WIZARD A POSSIBILITY, it does impact the game.

That has nothing to do with RPS dynamics. Only counters and advantages irregardless of their potentially symmetrical dynamics. It is also mostly wishful motherhood statement of no meaningful value.

You might as well be all "If a rule falls in the forest but no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?".

Especially since... what if players... don't even consider it? Like... they do the majority of the time with the majority of rules? And with a symmetrical RPS dynamic they are actually motivated to ignore it because "who cares everyone has the equivalent right?" Assuming they notice it at all. Which will be hard to do if it doesn't come up in game at all or even if it doesn't come up in game often.

If you are resorting to pretenses about "considering" symmetry being equivalent to having it, you have nothing positive to say about RPS dynamics.

Which again is the point. I'm not saying they are bad. I'm saying they are not good. They do nothing.

The COMPLICATIONS on top of the underlying mechanical advantages is where the game is played.

Or in other words. The exact thing you are pretending to disagree with that I said about the strategy game version of the RPS mess. The RPS dynamic is rendered irrelevant by the complexity of additional counters/complexities outside of it's supposed balanced symmetry.

The RPS dynamic at best might as well be just some additional non-symmetrical counters/advantages, if that. Once again, it does nothing, it contributes nothing. Designers and gamers impressed by it are looking at a steam engine and declaring the colour it is painted makes it go faster.

[deaddmwalking]

Okay, I think I've finally been able to translate what you're saying. It isn't easy because of things like:

I'm not saying they are bad. I'm saying they are not good.

In normal parlance, that's a fine line; if something isn't good, it's usually bad. But since we're broadening the very fine space to discuss it, clearly your argument is 'a system of hard counters in a symmetrical cycle without exceptions is bad, and shouldn't be posited as a game system'.

Which is a really awkward statement that we can all get behind. But it's also not something anyone anywhere has ever advocated for, so it's coming out of crazy land. Underlying most RPGs is the system of trade-offs. Being good at some things at the cost of being bad at other things ends up resembling an RPS system, and referring to the things you're bad at dealing with as 'rocks' and the things you're good at as 'paper' may be a helpful shorthand, but clearly not one that you find helpful.

[Harshax]

Even if you had a system of strict symmetry in actions and counters, wouldn’t it also be true that if you decided to use that system in a setting that did not feature one type counter you would also remove the corresponding action?

Conforming a system to a setting was already a thing in the early 90s, when TSR would publish a setting and state, “There are no purple wizards,” or “Squids work like melons in the rule book and bot squids RAW.”

The importance of Fire v Purple makes Fire a less meaningful player choice if the setting says there is no Purple. If your premise is that you are using a system with action/counter symmetry, then you’re beholden to maintain that symmetry if you decide that certain actions aren’t relevantly featured in a campaign.

Now, if the relationships between actions are so intertwined that removing one unravels the sweater, maybe the system is too brittle. But, to premise an argument with, “your design is stupid because it doesn’t handle my use case,” is a very problematic and confusing argument to make.

Using a hammer to tighten a bolt isn’t the designers problem, is it? Isn’t that your problem? Claiming all lever based tools are bad because you can’t use levers to turn bolts is half-way between observing a problem but making zero conclusions to solve it and then blaming physics because no one has designed a hammer to help you mount a shelving unit.

I can’t say it’s been illuminating to ponder brittle systems that aren’t maleable for particular play styles or campaigns. I sort of feel we all knew that.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

In normal parlance, that's a fine line; if something isn't good, it's usually bad. But since we're broadening the very fine space to discuss it, clearly your argument is 'a system of hard counters in a symmetrical cycle without exceptions is bad, and shouldn't be posited as a game system'.

No. In your desperation to turn "RPS, It does nothing" into something complex you can criticize you are over thinking it.

It's in the title. "RPS Design does nothing". Your typical "Foundational circle of the four elements" or whatever other symmetrical dynamic a designer introduces... basically just contributes nothing, not from it's symmetry anyway.

The narrowness of my claim is almost exclusively in it being criticism of the symmetry specifically.

Because it isn't a criticism of counters and advantages hard or otherwise, just the pretense of trying to put them into a symmetrical dynamic. At a stretch perhaps a criticism of any pretense that you can make highly accurate and conveniently symmetrical design level assumptions about how often counters and advantages will come up at the game play level.

To some extent it could even be used as a defense of asymmetrical counters and advantages, should someone want to remove those that don't fit some pointless arbitrary symmetry in rules design.

And while it is narrow in concept to call out bullshit symmetry gimmicks it seems like it could be applied to a very broad range of actual games. Are you telling me you have not seen designers and gamers time and again point at a system and say "look a symmetrical rules dynamic, it's symmetry is definitely doing cool and important things, maybe its even doing a balance!". I mean it basically happened here. You may have had to squirrel away to a strategy video game but you basically did it yourself.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Even if you had a system of strict symmetry in actions and counters, wouldn’t it also be true that if you decided to use that system in a setting that did not feature one type counter you would also remove the corresponding action?

Maybe it's not your decision.

That's the thing about design level decisions. You designed the rules. Other people use them.

And when I say other people, I don't just mean other people exclusive to you. I also mean you WITH other people contributing. Even if you GM your own game, even if you TRY to introduce symmetrical or strictly proportioned encounter types as the GM to meet some game balance goal you have.

You can't reliably succeed at that because the contributions of the other players to which encounters occur and how they occur are not just unpredictable but actually WILL predictably be in the form of players trying to turn any counter/advantage dynamic they manage to recognize in their favor and render their weaknesses irrelevant.

And in fact that is a good thing and beyond the minimal resistance to provide some engaging push back you almost definitely should not stop them from doing that, it IS their contribution to the game, it IS a large part of how the players have fun in the game.

I mean what? "Look I know 2 out of three of you are Fire themed, but the rules balance MANDATES that you HAVE to go and have an adventure in the temple of the water elementals now. You CANNOT just turn it down and do something else!". Cover that one in whatever layers of fluffy story excuses you want, it's still pretty shitty.

I can’t say it’s been illuminating to ponder brittle systems that aren’t maleable for particular play styles or campaigns. I sort of feel we all knew that.

Odd you should say that. Because I'd suggest it is very important. I'd suggest it is perhaps very important for among other reasons, one that you tripped over in your very same post.

A system that RELIES on specific encounter ratios IS brittle. A rules system that relies on every part of it being used in every game is brittle almost beyond the reasonable.

Maleable rules systems ARE ones that are designed with the full knowledge that some rules will not be used and encounter/challenge types are at the very least significantly unpredictable.

It's not clear to me that that isn't revelatory to you considering your statements, and it does seem to me at least to be an important point to consider for RPG design.

[deaddmwalking]

I mean what? "Look I know 2 out of three of you are Fire themed, but the rules balance MANDATES that you HAVE to go and have an adventure in the temple of the water elementals now. You CANNOT just turn it down and do something else!". Cover that one in whatever layers of fluffy story excuses you want, it's still pretty shitty.

No such system exists.

A system that RELIES on specific encounter ratios IS brittle. A rules system that relies on every part of it being used in every game is brittle almost beyond the reasonable.

No such system exists.

Maleable rules systems ARE ones that are designed with the full knowledge that some rules will not be used and encounter/challenge types are at the very least significantly unpredictable.

This is true of every game system.

In original D&D, a major part of the game was random encounters. This helped encourage parties to keep moving. While it was a CERTAINTY that you would NOT encounter every monster, there was a lot of UNCERTAINTY about which encounters you would have. Yes, preparing for encounters that were the most difficult is what players do - ideally if they're ready for the most difficult encounters they can handle the less challenging encounters.

The GM, whether through dice or simple choice determines what challenges the party will face. A well-rounded party will have solutions to deal with most challenges, and each character will have 'spotlight time' because their ability contributed to making what could have been a difficult encounter relatively easy.

Nobody claims a hard 'symmetry' in an RPG. Most rules try to achieve some type of 'realistic outcome' which ends up becoming a probability statement. Cavalry may usually have an advantage over archers, but Agincourt is a historical battle where 5000 Archers and 1000 dismounted men at arms fought a force 4x larger and killed 6000 French knights and captured another 2,000. Even if you 'expected' the archers to get massacred, RPGs use nested probability functions. Sometimes the coin flip comes up heads 5x in a row. In fact, about 1/32 of the time that's exactly what happens.

I re-read your original post; strict, unbreakable symmetry is bad. But it doesn't exist. As you point out, what happens in the game does not guarantee that symmetry will be maintained. Having an underlying symmetry that you design your metaphysics around is neither good nor bad. It's okay if every creature is resistant to one element and weak to another element; it's even okay if every creature is themed to a particular element and they all share that strength/weakness. That's not the end of game design or game balance - but you have to start somewhere.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

No such system exists.

Now that is just petty intellectual dishonesty.

Harshax just proposed enforcing encounter ratios. So it doesn't matter whether you think it exists. Harshax suggested it. Also, Harshax is not the first to suggest this as a "soft fix" for design level assumptions about encounter type rates.

And as for your second "does not exist" deflection. There are plenty of systems, the ones that hype cosmetic symmetrical dynamics, which include features that DO make assumptions about encounter type rates at a design level. They generally don't function as intended, but the point is the pretense of such mechanics is a real and wide spread thing, even you produced an example.

You keep trying to redefine this argument in your favor so you can try and dismiss it as somehow trivial. Why? What is your actual agenda behind this? Because it really feels like you are desperate to defend RPS mechanics but instead of doing that you keep trying on a "nothing to see here" deflection strategy.

[deaddmwalking]

My point continues to be that your original post, like most of your posts, is an illogical non-sequitur where you complain about a specific mechanic without properly defining it, allege that the use is widespread in the hobby, and that removing it would be a step-forward in game design.

Since this site primarily focuses on the 'how' of game design, bringing up a potentially problematic design principle and exploring it is a worthwhile endeavor.

Since you didn't define your qualifications for considering something 'RPS design', I've tried to look at both a 'rigid version' and a 'soft version'. A strict rigid version does not exist in RPGs. As you point out, if a character 'is rock' and always loses to 'is paper' that is neither interesting nor offers a player any chance to interact with the play space. A more charitable interpretation of your unhinged rant is that some character options are designed to be weaker against some subset of the design space. While this is generally true (for example, in 3.5 rogues are considered weak against undead because they can't use Sneak Attack, and Clerics are considered strong against undead because they have special attacks like Turn/Rebuke Undead) this can organically create an RPS style interaction (not one were it is 100% certain to win, like with actual RPS, but one where the probability of victory shifts noticeably from 'average'). For example, pointing out that Vampire>Rogue>Cleric>Vampire within a game system may accurately describe the reality as it exists within that system and refer to it as an RPS style mechanic - but it does not follow that the RPS mechanic is somehow bad as a result.

In order to generate examples of an RPS mechanic that is actually bad, you've had to strawman so hard that you're literally saying 'if people accept my premise for the purpose of the argument then it's a given that the premise actually exists!'. Well, it doesn't. There is no such system that is so rigidly defined in an RPS method to meet your standard where the RPS is itself a problem and not a form of balance. This has lead to a larger discussion on the nature of balance and this factors heavily into discussions of expectations.

While you contend that expectations vary from one table to another, and therefore you can't RELY on expectations being followed, that's not the gotcha you think it is. Everyone accepts that; the further your table strays from the game's expectations the less helpful following the RAW tends to be. Using the same argument structure I could say 'Magical Healing in D&D is broken because if you remove it from the game then nothing is balanced anymore'. While that is a true statement, the obvious corollary is 'if you make a change to a fundamental element of the game, you must make additional changes or accept that the game will no longer produce the results it was designed to do'.

The idea that there are trade-offs and some character options will be advantaged and some will be disadvantaged in certain situations is so fundamental to the game that pointing it out shouldn't be controversial. If you accept that there are situations where a character option will have advantages and a character option will have disadvantages, you have to decide how/when those will apply. For example, a flying character has advantage in overland encounters with plenty of room. That same character has no advantage is a narrow dungeon corridor. At this point you have two options - you can say I'm going to give an advantage without any disadvantages, so that character is just better than you (TM) and smart players will all play that character OR you can try to mix advantages and disadvantages so that organically some character options will be better some of the time and worse some of the time. Rogues being weak against undead can be a problem in an undead-focused campaign; if you're always confronting your weakness and you never get to play to your strengths that can be frustrating as a player. That doesn't necessarily imply that rogues don't need weaknesses; it may mean that specific weakness is a bigger problem and might need a spot fix. The larger issue - abandoning any attempt at balancing advantages/disadvantages is the fast-track to crazy town and/or Oberoni.

Ideally the designers WILL STRIVE FOR BALANCE. You can adjust the balance in any number of ways; having rules does not preclude you from doing so. A strict system where your player always loses to the color yellow but wins against blue and orange is not an RPG, and you are correct that using a system like that as an RPG would be a bad idea. You just fail on every step of extrapolating that to anything else.

[Whatever Jr.]

He's not saying you have to remove these kinds of patterns, just that they do nothing to help game balance. But if they're only there for (1) fake balance and (2) because you like patterns, then you should step back and rethink things.

As a rule of thumb, if you have an emergent pattern that arises naturally, that's awesome. If you declare green>blue>red>green and force the rules to fit the pattern, best case is you're wasting your own time.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

He's not saying you have to remove these kinds of patterns, just that they do nothing to help game balance. But if they're only there for (1) fake balance and (2) because you like patterns, then you should step back and rethink things.

A very succinct summary I am impressed.

I am not sure why DeadDM refuses to get it.

Well. After their last post I think maybe I know why. But it would be rude to say it.

[deaddmwalking]

He's not saying you have to remove these kinds of patterns, just that they do nothing to help game balance. But if they're only there for (1) fake balance and (2) because you like patterns, then you should step back and rethink things.

As a rule of thumb, if you have an emergent pattern that arises naturally, that's awesome. If you declare green>blue>red>green and force the rules to fit the pattern, best case is you're wasting your own time.

This is still wrong. The closest to an actual example we have is Pokemon (types with associated resistances/weaknesses). It provides the following benefits:

1) Rewards system mastery: players who learn about the associated types are more engaged with the gameplay
2) Encourages diversification: since some powers are better in some situations, it encourages players to have a broad bench
3) Supports story elements: when you're taking on the Fire Type trainer, you know he's going to be packing Fire Type Pokemon; as a result you'll build your strategy with that in mind.

If you're creating a pattern and sticking with it even though it makes no sense or creates problems, that's bad. But if it doesn't create problems it isn't necessarily at best useless.

Like, this is obvious - if Pokemon didn't have types, it would not be a better system. Ergo fitting creatures to a type isn't necessarily bad, even when you have to start putting some creatures into multiple types.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Lets just throw this out there.

Pokemon isn't a rich strategy game full of engaging choices within a balanced dynamic (let alone a symmetrical one). Though it certainly DOES have the meaningless pretense of some sort of elaborate pattern to its strength/weakness dynamic.

It's a single player video game for children. It's strength/weakness dynamic isn't remotely symmetrical. You can stomp basically the whole game by brute forcing with 1 Pidgey or almost anything else you like. The actual intended dynamic is for a small child to have a completely random, not diverse, just random, selection of Pokemon and be rewarded by remembering the correct match up choice in what is basically a simplistic memory quiz designed again, for small children. That is, again, just IF they didn't feel like stomping the whole game with a rattata.

No I don't care that there are older fanatics out there who have a "rich metagame". The game isn't designed for them or for that, and largely they are basically just deceiving themselves anyway.

And hell, if I'm calling out Pokemon for its shortcomings lets also take the time to say as of it's latest shark jumping main release it isn't even a remotely good game within it's own genre and limitations anymore.

We have also got at least one designer here on this board that could probably describe the details of it (I'm pretty sure it isn't you, good god I hope it isn't). But Pokemon and it's design as is pretty much explodes on contact with RPG tables.

In large part that happens because designers and gamers do not understand how these sorts of dynamics actually play out in TTRPGs. If you wanted to make Pokemon work at the RPG table, you would need to understand and accept the ideas I have presented in this thread. A pokemon TTRPG designed the apparent DeadDM way... would still explode on contact with RPG tables...

Mind you whats the point?

Your ENTIRE Pokemon post is you denying to it's face the entire point of this thread and yet again trying to gish gallop your way to changing to another diversionary subject AGAIN.

But because it was Pokemon the internet legally obligated me to talk about it.

[merxa]

I've refrained from posting in this thread because The first post seemed like the last post -- RPS design isn't very good for a ttrpg, end of story. And I don't even think anyone is really even arguing against the premise to start with, but of course PL could quote someone saying something to the contrary which doesn't mean much to me personally -- I can say anything contrary you'd like if you need a contrary quote.

But coming out and saying how much of a failure pokemon is absurd, pokemon is literally the most valuable IP in the world.

Let me repeat, the most valuable intellectual property right now in the world is Pokemon.

Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it is also the most amazing strategy game of all time, but the IP of pokemon is driven relatively by the many, many, many games it has pushed forward, you need to look down to Mario for a franchise that has a comparable value derived from games. Let's take a moment to acknowledge Mario is widely held to have been responsible for some of the greatest most innovative games of all time, and it ranks 8th. For Pokemon to have become the most valuable IP of all time, it cannot be complete and utter trash.



And in case you are not aware, there's a ruleset made by a community member for Pokemon

All of this is to say, what the fuck are you even trying to discuss? The sky is blue, is that what you want to argue about? Who fucking cares. If you think Pokemon is total garbage go help out a community member and tell him why their system is some secretly made RPS game and needs to be better in some other way.

You seem utterly incapable of writing anything that actually helps others make better games.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it is also the most amazing strategy game of all time, but the IP of pokemon is driven relatively by the many, many, many games it has pushed forward, you need to look down to Mario for a franchise that has a comparable value derived from games. Let's take a moment to acknowledge Mario is widely held to have been responsible for some of the greatest most innovative games of all time, and it ranks 8th. For Pokemon to have become the most valuable IP of all time, it cannot be complete and utter trash.

I dunno, they've been shitting the bed real hard lately. The quality of the series has little to do with its success as a franchise, because I know tons of people who haven't picked up a Pokemon game in decades who still, to this day, buy merchandise. Shit's cute, man.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

But coming out and saying how much of a failure pokemon is absurd, pokemon is literally the most valuable IP in the world.

Did I say pokemon was a failure?

I called the latest main game in the series bad, and described it as not a rich or balanced strategy game with decision making and rewards designed for small children.

You have a problem with that?

Apparently. Via the transparently stupidest argument possible. Next time perhaps, just say "In counter point, it is worth much moneyz!" and don't spam a giant thread shitting image made out of irrelevant data no one with a brain gives a shit about.

Edit: And don't try patronizingly reminding me of a board member working on a pokemon RPG... in response to a post in which I mentioned that you dumb fuck who doesn't even read. What are you even doing? Really.

[Foxwarrior]

Where's the Denner who's making a Hello Kitty RPG?

[merxa]

[Edit: And don't try patronizingly reminding me of a board member working on a pokemon RPG... in response to a post in which I mentioned that you dumb fuck who doesn't even read. What are you even doing? Really.

How about you use that BIG BRAIN of yours and provide some advice to that person? Since you couldn't even remember who that person was?

We have also got at least one designer here on this board that could probably describe the details of it (I'm pretty sure it isn't you, good god I hope it isn't).

Unless you are completely demented, you wrote the above text. Again, I'm sure you have some double think plus good method of telling everyone how you meant something completely different then what is actually written, but I actually don't give a fuck. You don't seem to know anything about what you are actually trying to talk about.

You have this stupid fucking tendency to redefine or niche define or equivocate words that it makes it rather fruitless to even engage with you. Anyway, it clearly pointless to engage with you, so I am clearly the fool.

Hey, how about you shit post in my threads, the ones with actual rules discussion, or is discussing actual rules systems somehow threatening to you?