Restricted RPS! Rules 2.0, Now taking entrants [3]

[lexprod]

Hey nonny nonny! So I saw this game in an anime about a guy in debt who is invited to crazy gambling situations by his debtors cause they like exploiting them for their entertainment. One was forcing them to race across I beams, forcing the players who started late to either give up on winning, or push the competition off to a 3 story fall.

This game, however, was more psychologically mean than brutally violent. It's Restricted Rock Papers Scissors. The basic idea is Rock Paper Scissors, but you start with a pack of cards with multiple of each item, and each game you use one, so knowing your hand balance and your opponents will hypothetically improve your odds. Also you have stars you start with and earn and lose in a wager/rank like system.

Here's my idea for a tournament/royal rumble of sorts.

1. Each player will start with 13 cards, 4 each of Rock, Paper, and Scissors, and one Blank. During the game your hand's contents will be private. The total number of each card type left in play will be made publicly available.
2. Each player will start with 5 "stars." The amount of stars you possess will be public knowledge throughout the game.
3. Each round players will be matched into pairs (details later) that will play a one-card match of RPS.
4. Once matched with an opponent, each player will be shown their opponents current hand in full.
5. The two players of each match will bid on how many stars they'd like to wager on a match. The bid must be from 1 star to the amount of stars the player with less stars has.
6. The average, rounded down of both bids will be the actual stars wagered by each side. For example if one player bids 2 and the other 5, both will put up 3 stars.
7. Each player will submit one card to play for the match to me.
8. I will adjudicate the results of the matches as follows: Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and yes, Paper beats Rock. The winner of each match is announced, but not what cards were used. Only players in a match will know what cards were played in that match.
9. The cards played in any match are "used" and removed from the game.
10. In the event that both players play matching cards, both cards are removed and no stars are given to either side.
11. The winning player of the match gets the stars wagered.
12. If a player runs out of stars, they are removed from the game and their cards also removed from play.
13. Once all cards have been used, or all but one player is removed, the player with the most Stars wins! Ties broken by W:L ratio, followed by standard RPS tiebreaker match.
14. Matches in the first round will be made at random. Afterwards the players with the lowest star count get first dibs on who they wish to challenge, sorted randomly per star count (if 3 people have 1 star left, I will randomly choose which will go 1st 2nd and 3rd, followed by whoever has 2 stars, etc.) Players are free to choose someone of their own star rating, though selecting someone of a lower star rating would be technically impossible
15. You may talk as much as you like publicly and privately about who played what cards when and so forth. Deals may be struck, but cannot and will not be enforced by the mod, so buyer beware. Since there won't be a public record of who played what until the entire game is through, players can and may lie to your face about their cards, someone else's cards, etc.
16. About the blank cards! At any point a player may use their blank card as any of the three options: Rock, Paper, or Scissors. This can be used as a "last chance" if you find yourself in a situation where you need another rock but are out, or to help obscure the card count since blanks will be listed as blanks, and therefore slightly reduce the predictability of what someone will play.
17. If in any round there are an odd number of players, one will be given a BYE. During the normal partner selection, any player may elect to pass and sit the round out, at no penalty. They must also "burn" one card of their choice to make their hand amount the same as the others. If all players pair off with one player left, they must use the BYE.

Rules adjusted and edited on the 19th

That should cover all the rules. I'll probably re-structure it for user friendliness later, but I think I have all cases covered. The idea would be for 2 days max for partner selection, 2 days max on wager, and then 1 day for the card played means an average of one round a work-week. So anywhere up to 13 work weeks, though I imagine the winner will become clear sooner, pending speed and number of removals.

Players
MatthewV
Scurra
sAbLLimINal
Zag?
_________________
I'll have a P please...

[Zag]

Sounds interesting. I'm in.

There should be some penalty to refusing to match a bet, though. If Fred and Charley are competing, and Fred wants to bet 4 (which is Charley's entire stack), but Charley only wants to bet 1, then Charley automatically gets what he wants just by refusing to compromise.

I would suggest:

Fred can force Charley to bet his entire stack by betting one greater. That is, Fred bets 5 to Charley's 4. As compensation for giving odds, the mod picks one card from Charley's hand at random and tells Fred what it is. There's no guarantee that Charley will play that card, of course, and if Fred was so eager to overbet Charley, he probably already knows some of Charley's hand, so this isn't as much of a benefit as it sounds. Note that this only happens after Fred has requested betting 4 and Charley has refused. Charley can accept the bet at 4 and not show a card.

Also, a question: Do you know how many cards your opponent has?

[lexprod]

I see your point about 1's being a default being of advantage to conservative players, but I prefer it than having to turn bidding into a whole nother game. Honestly depending on number of players there may not be much opportunity for high wagers if say you keep getting low-star partners.

Number of cards a player has remaining will be private just like the contents of said hand. You're free to lie/gossip/boast/suspect/declare how many cards you/he/she/it has left.
_________________
I'll have a P please...

[lexprod]

Also, theory is as you run lower on cards you have to start wagering more in order to gain footing, and as you are able to infer others' hands.
_________________
I'll have a P please...

[MatthewV]

How about everyone starts with bunches of stars (say 100) and that bets can be from 1 to 5. The actual number of stars that trade hands will be the sum of the two.
So if I bet 1 and you bet 4, the winner would take 5 from the loser.

This way we wouldn't have to negotiate and the advantaged player can strong arm a little bit more.

[Scurra]

I understand the intent behind rule #8 (and, by extension, rule #11.) However, as it stands, two players could be out of the game and forced to "retire" in the first round which wouldn't be much fun for either of them or the other players. (Yes, I know it's statistically improbable, but million-to-one shots happen nine times out of ten.) Wouldn't it simply be better just to have tied players "spend" those tied cards, and any subsequent ones played were just to resolve the tie and not counted as "spent"? Having just written that, I realise that it might just lead to "agreements to tie" but I'm not sure that they would actually work in the long run.

The game does sound fun in principle though - I'd be /in for this.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[lexprod]

Hmmm, upping the amount of stars could make the game a bit more fun at the start, more forgiving of mistakes. Let's say 10 then.

I'd much rather not have anyone be forced to put in more stars than they want, especially if a strong leader can just bully someone into going "all in." I don't feel as bad if a person with more stars can't gain an greater advantage above already having more stars.

As for ties, I like the idea of players with varying amounts of cards remaining, so that some people will have an advantage merely due to "flexibility." I think in either my or your system for tie breaks there's the same chance for infinite ties, but I think the goal of being the sole winner will curb any early tie-out attempts (on purpose anyways).

I realize I'm shutting down a lot of ideas, but mostly it's to try to make the game simple and relatively fast. That and I'm a miserable bastard.
_________________
I'll have a P please...

[MatthewV]

Well, using my betting system, you could limit the bet amount to 3. That way the amount of stars traded would be between 2 and 6. You could also use Total-1 to make the amount 1-5.
This would allow someone to strong arm someone out of only 2 extra stars. That isn't very many. The maximum number would only be traded if both players bet a large number.

Also, such betting structures would allow for a faster game; without having to compromise, turns could be done in a single submission.

[lexprod]

What about taking the average, rounded down, of the two wagers? it's essentially the same system but cut in half, and it provides "fair" force. You'd be able to wager up to the lesser player's maximum.

If a 2-star person sticks with 1, you can't force them to two. If a 4 star person is trying to stick to 1, you could bump it up to 2 by wagering 4, knowing that you risk it going up to 4 if they themselves bet 4.

This has the same advantages of your system in that its single submission and has wiggle room, plus i wouldn't have to set a specific cap on wagers which makes me happy. Basically you have to be prepared to put up at least half and up to the full number you wager in stars. Plus you can't make anyone go all-in who isn't fully willing.
_________________
I'll have a P please...

[lexprod]

Mk updated the rules listing. Current idea is using the average wager rule, and also the infinite tie situation was removed, and BYEs adjusted, so now no player can run out of cards before the others. You can still drop out due to losing your last star. Also stars upped to 5 as a nice round number. I'm feeling pretty good about this set.
_________________
I'll have a P please...

[MatthewV]

I'll play.

[Scurra]

Yes, I'll play.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[sAbLLimINal]

I'll play if signups are still going on.

[lexprod]

I'd like to run this, but would want a minimum of 5 entrants to make it interesting. Otherwise I'll let it die peacefully and think up something else to do ^_^
_________________
I'll have a P please...

[itisally]

I will In this as a lover of Rock Paper Scissors.
_________________
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

[Sentran]

[itisally]

but I don't like people
_________________
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

[Zag]

ally, you missed the word "you" in that sentence (right before 'people').