[tbontob]

Originally posted by PvK:
Well, I have great contempt for the game "rock/paper/scissors", for people who waste their time for it, and I am dumbfounded by people who see it as a principle of game design. The principle I see as worthwhile is that no one approach should dominate all others, and every technique should have weak points and counter-tactics. I would never call that "rock/paper/scissors" though, because what "rock/paper/scissors" stands for to me, is thoroughly pointless game design, where the elements are superficially labelled as something interesting, but in fact are all exactly the same. I guess it's just a semantic pet peeve of mine, rather than a real disagreement with the actual concepts involved.

I agree with you that RPS is not a principle. If we think about it, it is only an example of how the principle operates.

You describe the operative principle well when you say "The principle I see as worthwhile is that no one approach should dominate all others, and every technique should have weak points and counter-tactics."

However, we humans are such lazy creatures. It is so much easier to say "RPS" to identify the principle rather than have to describe the operative principle over and over again in the way you have done above.

Tomorrow, "RPS" may lose favour and we may use something else to identify the principle. Maybe it will be something like FWS (fire, water, sponge).