arXiv++ Combinatorics

Classic Rock-Paper-Scissors, RPS, has seen many variants and generalizations in the past several years. In the previous paper, we defined playability and balance for games. We used these definitions to show that different forms of imbalance agree on the most balanced and least balanced form of playable two-player n-object RPS games, referred to as (2,n)-RPS. We reintroduce these definitions here and show that, given a conjecture, the generalization of this game for m<50 players is a strongly playable RPS game. We also show that this game maximizes these forms of imbalance in the limit as the number of players goes to infinity.

We construct several definitions of imbalance and playability, both of which are related to the existence of dominated strategies. Specifically, a maximally balanced game and a playable game cannot have dominated strategies for any player. In this context, imbalance acts as a measure of inequality in strategy, similar to measures of inequality in wealth or population dynamics. Conversely, playability is a slight strengthening of the condition that a game has no dominated strategies. It is more accurately aligned with the intuition that all strategies should see play. We show that these balance definitions are natural by exhibiting a (2n+1)-RPS that maximizes all proposed imbalance definitions among playable RPS games. We demonstrate here that this form of imbalance aligns with the prevailing notion that different definitions of inequality for economic and game-theoretic distributions must agree on both the maximal and minimal cases. In the sequel paper, we utilize these definitions for multiplayer games to demonstrate that a generalization of this imbalanced RPS is at least nearly maximally imbalanced while remaining playable for under 50 players.