Unitasker Wednesday: Rock, Paper, Scissors Card Game

All Unitasker Wednesday posts are jokes β€” we don’t want you to buy these items, we want you to laugh at their ridiculousness. Enjoy!

I’m still of the opinion that the game Rochambeau is unclutter-wonderful because it requires no equipment. If you have hands, you can play Rock, Paper, or Scissors whenever you want. You can even play it alone if you have two hands.

So, you can understand my confusion when I stumbled upon yet another unitasker related to this game. Thanks to reader Nise, we now know about the Rock, Paper, Scissors Card Game:

First, you need hands to be able to deal, hold, and play the cards. Hands that you could simply use to PLAY THE GAME. Second, you — wait, forget a second point. I think the first point about HANDS says it all.

23 Comments for “Unitasker Wednesday: Rock, Paper, Scissors Card Game”

  1. posted by Karyn on

    This is NOT a Unitasker, because… you could… hang the cards on a holiday tree… as ornaments. Yeah. So there.

    ~ *Happy Unitasker Wednesday* ~

  2. posted by Anita on

    One could argue that this isn’t, strictly speaking, a card version of Rock, Paper, Scissors, but a combination of two games – RPS and War. One could also argue that gameplay and strategy would be quite different, that ultimately the winner is decided in a way closer to War than to RPS, and that, unlike the previous Rochambeau unitasker you wrote about, the card game doesn’t seek to replace your hands for the purpose of playing the game, but to offer a new spin on it altogether.

    This isn’t any more of a unitasker than all the different versions and spinoffs of Monopoly. Would you also be incensed by anyone playing the UK verson of Monopoly, or something like Catopoly, Dinosauropoly, or the Monopoly card and online games? Why would anyone want to play something OTHER than the ORIGINAL version of this game, right?

    Nothing wrong with coming up with different ways to play a classic game, as long as it’s at least somewhat innovative…

  3. posted by Mike on

    And if a person DOESN’T have hands? What then?? Disabled people are just left out to dry as usual. πŸ˜‰

    j/k, this does seem quite worthless. It did serve as a chuckling reminder of the RSP game Hyde and Fez played on That ’70s Show: Foot, Cockroach, Nuclear Bomb. Nuclear Bomb destroys Foot. Foot squashes Cockroach. Cockroach survives Nuclear Bomb.

  4. posted by David Katz on

    No equipment needed? What about the pair of scissors, the sheet of paper, and the rock? πŸ˜‰

  5. posted by MissKittin on

    What about paper, rock, scissors, lizard, spock?
    I find this version hilarious http://www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html

  6. posted by knitwych on

    @MissKittin, you beat me to it! I was going to suggest rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock!

  7. posted by Lose That Girl on

    The card game is for people with no imagination.

  8. posted by Sandra on

    I will say that, as an avid strategy gamer, RPS is often said to be a game of chance. This is ENTIRELY UNTRUE. We used to use RPS for conflict resolution in gaming events, but had to switch to die rolls because one person in our group was too good at gaming the psychology of RPS, and thus winning all the time.

    These cards could be useful as a randomization tool. I will agree, however, that they are silly. πŸ™‚

  9. posted by Jessica on

    The problem with Rock Paper Scissors is that at a certain level, you start “outsmarting” the other person who then “outsmarts” you and you just tie, tie, tie, tie and do mental gymnastics πŸ˜‰

  10. posted by Pat on

    RPS at the pro level is really interesting. Anyone ever seen it or read about it?

    Tips: You want to approach pure randomness as much as possible, while taking advantage of non-randomness in your opponent’s sequence. One way of getting rid of your own patterns is to choose your next three moves in advance — you’re better off choosing from this set of 27 than from a set of 3.

    One fun thing to do is to do the above *while not looking at your opponent at all*. In an extended contest usually works for me, plus it has the value of downright perplexing some opponents, who can’t work out how you continue to beat them while paying no attention to them πŸ˜‰

  11. posted by Pat on

    Oh, and about this particular one: Like Anita said, it seems like it’s not just RPS, but a RPS-like card game with a 5-card hand. Does it change the game in a fundamental way? I dunno, I haven’t played it; probably not.

    To me that’s gilding the lily — what’s so beautiful about RPS is its minimalism. But that’s me. I can also picture someone arguing along similar lines, “Why invent new games when we have old games? Why write new novels when War & Peace has everything you could ever need?”

  12. posted by Jirka on

    While both players playing their five cards in a random order would probably be a Nash equilibrium, this game is still strategically different and more complicated. I definitely see more possibilities of outguessing your opponent. Do not forget that what seems too stupid to us adults could be way more fun for little kids (or game theorists).

  13. posted by Hatch on

    I’m a big fan of “We Didn’t Playtest This at All.” It’s a ridiculous card game. It’s the size of a normal deck of cards, and even the rules are uncluttered. The objective is to win, and you play by drawing a card and playing a card; that’s all you need to know. πŸ˜€

  14. posted by Debbie on

    I had the EXACT same thoughts about this game when I saw it in the store. Why PAY MONEY for a game you can play, anytime, anywhere with your hands. And by playing it the “original way” you don’t have to worry about cards blowing away or being lost! If we all teach some youngsters how to play it,they won’t need to waste their $$ either!

  15. posted by Lenin on

    Our rock will crush your paper.

  16. posted by Anita on

    @Lose That Girl: … are you saying that the hand version of RPS is terribly imaginative?

    @Jirka: I am SO glad I’m not the only one to think of game theory while reading this post!

    @Debbie’s “Why PAY MONEY for a game you can play… with your hands” — I’ll refrain from commenting, but am I the only one whose mind went waaay south after reading this?

    @Erin: When I was a kid, I first learned how to play Battleship using graph paper and a pen. You’d each draw your own board and place your ships by blacking out squares of the graph paper. It was fun, because you got to choose how many ships you each had, and their shapes, based on your whim that day. I didn’t see, let alone own, an actual Battleship game until a couple of years down the road. So. Knowing there’s a simpler, more uncluttered, more flexible way of playing Battleship, can I expect all plastic molded and electronic versions of Battleship to show up on Unitaster Wednesdays as well?

    My point is this: I’m not arguing for this particular game (not that big a fan of RPS to begin with, though War passes the time on trains…), but I am willing to bet that most of the toys and games we own and/or see in stores now evolved from simpler forms which were played using much less sophisticated means. Does this mean that we should shun all their spinoffs and redesigns as pointless?

  17. posted by Anita on

    Oops, that should say “Unitasker” not “Unitaster”…

  18. posted by tabatha on

    i think its really funny how people dissect every unitasker entry and go into all this detail about how it doesn’t qualify as a unitasker when the whole thing is supposed to be funny.

    plus those cards are stupid and a waste of space, unless you have no hands, but then how would you play with the cards? i guess you could always use your mouth or feet, but it might be hard to hide your cards doing that.

  19. posted by Marie on

    I’m thinking the concept of RPS at a professional level is worth a post of its own. *is intrigued*

  20. posted by Serge on

    Absolutely the worst idea for a card game ever. Absurd

  21. posted by Sophia on

    i think the funnest part of unitaskers is to see what defence these seemingly useless contraptions can possibly have & the dissection in the comments

    each time i’m not disappointed!

    unitaskers wednesday has taught me to evaluate things that i would have bought because i thought they were wonderful gadgets but ultimately clutter as i would not have used them more than once; the comments have also taught me that there is a good use for everything that you may have well thought useless (for you they may be, but there are some specific usages for)

  22. posted by Pat on

    School children use RPS as a way to make a decision between two people. They often have small conflicts such as “Who goes first?” With their hands, they use RPS to solve the problem independently. They are amazingly good about abiding by the outcome. It works as well on the playground as it does indoors, because it doesn’t require equipment or a third party.

    The card game seems like the opposite of an improvement on the classic game. If it’s played like War, however, then why not just use ordinary playing cards?

  23. posted by Meg on

    ha ha wow, this one is so true

Comments are closed.