Do you guys know of any system that uses Rock paper scissors systems for combat? Where either all or a large part of the combat is based upon picking a specific action which beats another action and is in turn overcome by a different one?
Wondering because Wu Xing feels like a fun combat system waiting to happen but I'm kind of unsure how to progress with it.
>Fire overcomes metal
>Metal generates water
I'm not sure this system understands the properties of metal
It's because water condenses on cold metal, if I'm remembering right. The elements of the Wu Xing aren't literal, anyway, they're just patterns of behavior that have had elemental names given to them. Like, most plants aren't part of the Wood element, but air is. It's all just weird metaphors.
The mousegaurd encounter system is very rock-paper scissors by design and I think it works very well.
I'm sorry, I need my system of symbols to be literal and rigorously related to entities in reality.
the rock paper scissors aspect breaks down quickly though. The attack option is objectively superior to the other options. Been awhile. If you like I can look up the specifics of why.
Mouseguard is still good of course, as long as you're fine playing as just mice
Fire melts metal
Metal catches or holds water.
The water to metal one is really where the system's literal interpretation breaks down. Everything else works alright.
but then why doesn't fire melt earth? that's how you produce metal to begin with.
no no no. this doesn't fit my literal mindset at all. clearly IT is wrong
I've always liked this overlap idea.
The idea isn't nearly as good as you're hoping it will be. Almost every game that does it sucks ass, or the RPS aspect is the worst part of the game.
The idea that one thing always beats another and is always defeated by a third makes for a very, very boring one trick piney system.
The way I was thinking was to make it so it doesn't ALWAYS win, just that it has an advantage or disadvantage. And that each "element" has its own advantage or something about it that is good. Also that switching between them is somewhat restricted, like being able to move one left or right on the cycle.
AD&D's Psionic Combat Modes system had a rock, paper, scissors style approach and it was fucking awful. If your target had the specific defense to counter your attack, the attack was basically rendered useless, and if you didn't have the right defense for their attack, you were dead. Period.
And you only get so many picks for attack and defense modes, so fucking pray you picked the right ones.
found one
>Dragon is only weak to Dragon
What fucking slant eyed idiot thought this shit up?
Dragon is weak to ice and fairy too retard.
Not according to that chart it ain't.
>>>trash/
nigga, you blind?
Are you blind or just retarded?
First one, I reversed the "Attack" and "Defense" sides of the graph and I otherwise know nothing about pokeman.
My mistake.
To be fair, dragon WAS stupidly overpowered previously, so they added in the Fairy type, which was immune to dragon attacks, and did double damage to dragons.
Really, I think there are 3 thingsthat Pokémon did best that I wished more systems did.
>asymmetric strengths/weaknesses
Ice attacks do extra damage to Dragons, but Dragon attacks AREN'T weak against ice, for example. It means you aren't always getting ballbustingly fucked by an opponent who is strong against you.
>attacks have their own types, instead of matching the user
This is MAJORLY important for any decent RPS system. It lets you have coverage to defend yourself from the things you are weak against.
>having two types with stacking weakness/resistance
This adds a TON of depth, giving you hundreds of unique stat lines, with minimal memorization needed by the player on how things interact.
These three together are what make it possibly the best Rock Paper Scissors style system around.
Not that it isn't without its flaws. Immunities were a mistake IMO (should be relegated to abilities only), Normal should be entirely neutral to everything, and types should have more balance in their offensiveness and defensiveness, so there are more viable combinations.
>Almost every game that does it sucks ass
Which games are those?
...