[Business Solutions] Playtest at Nerdly

[Anna Kreider]

[Jason Morningstar]

Thanks, Anna.  I hope to hear from other players, too.  The areas you astutely pointed out are the ones that I'm most concerned about! 

Can procedure drive entertaining play if it isn't tied to cause and effect that players can actively influence?

Can arbitrary resolution be satisfying and fun?  (I know the answer to this one, actually). 

On one hand, I think we're conditioned to look for conflict we can approach tactically and win.  On the other hand, there's a pretty solid track record of this being fun and interesting.  So I've got Business Solutions pared down to something pretty far removed from whatever passes for tradition around here, straying from that formula, and it scares me a little. 

I watched you guys engage with the game and have fun (the two groups of three players each approached the game differently - Anna's table moved faster, for example).  But there seemed to be a lot of uncertainty about conflict that may have been unsatisfying.  Tell me more, guys!  And thanks so much for playing.

[Nathan Herrold]

It was great playing with you Anna!
You bring up some good points.
I told Jason there should be a mechanic to shift Blame around either during the endgame or through out play. 
and that Praise should maybe be a resource...that decreases over time.  Like Praise you got Monday, isn't as good as Praise you got Friday.  Maybe there's a way to work Praise and Blame in during the mixer? 
To me the root of the game is Praise and Blame, so to add some kind of roleplaying thing to that would be great.  I'm just not sure how to do it. 
not enough subtle oneupsmanship. 
I'm not sure the arguing over how to split Blame is a compelling game mechanic, it's seems to lead nowhere.
I loved the quick and easy character creation!  really loved. 
I'm in a hurry, I'll write more. 
This is a great idea for a game Jason!
What are you exactly after? 
I can see how you don't want it to be a difficult strategy game, or full of mechanics tied specifically to play acting.
Let me think some more about this.
~ Mistress Narcissa

[jhosmer1]

OK, so I played Zeb, the Unlucky Expert who needs Pain (and apparently had a dominatrix ex-girlfriend.

I had some trouble understanding the whole "Goat/Troublemaker" concept at first, but that may have been because Jason just gave us the quick & dirty rundown of the rules.  Once we got into play, the concept sorted itself out.

I really liked the fact that each player got to create a technician, a client, and one to two troublemakers through the course of play.  The Attitude/Role/Need method of character creation was simple yet created remarkably nuanced characters.  I had a lot of fun with my client, Zen Solutions, where I spoke in confusing riddles.  ("To make copies, one must have originals."

Regarding the cards, I first thought that our credit/blame was decided by how many cards we had of each type... the fact that only the red cards counted threw my strategy out the window.  I did manage to win the game, however, as I drew a joker when we blew up Crazy Joe's Fireworks photocopier, which made me immune to blame.  Therefore the other technician on the job got all the blame.

I think some more work needs to be donw on deciding how blame and praise are split between players.  The game has the players decide how to split them within a 30-second time limit.  This seems like it could lead to arguments among the players and stop the game cold.  Perhaps the client could distribute blame, based on the roleplaying of the repair?  (Seems like it could be an optional rule.)

I had fun, and it's nice to see a game for a small number of people (3) that can be played in a short amount of time.

[Solamasa]

[Jason Morningstar]

I was watching you guys parse the character sheet and realized there were some problems - hopefully easy to correct.  It's just an information design challenge. 

My hope was that if the client was colorful and important, the troublemaker would emerge as its representative.  I think the assignation of role, attitude, and need to the troublemaker in play is already a little cumbersome, so I'm reluctant to add that step for the client.  One possibility would be to remove the troublemaker entirely, give qualities to the client, and specifically state that somebody at the business was going to cause trouble for the goat.  I think that might be a little too restrictive though - I'd miss Madame Narcissa.

So I'm hearing two primary complaints:

1.  The binary and deterministic nature of the conflict, particularly related to the goat/troublemaker interaction, is a little flat.

2.  Praise and Blame don't map well to the fiction. 

Is that accurate? 

[Travis Farber]

Luckily between everyone else that has responded you've all described my issues much better than I could have.  Those two summations seem to cover my primary concerns...

[Jason Morningstar]

So, in an earlier draft, you got six cards at the start of the game and again at the halfway mark, to allocate however you wanted.  So you could game it a little bit, decide which ones you really wanted to win and which ones you were ready to throw.  Six cards = 3 work days worth. 

I didn't think this added enough to be worth the increased complexity.  Also, losing as the Client isn't a very big deal in this arrangement - I'd also need to tweak it so that you kept the Praise cards personally if you lost as the Client, I think. 

Anyway, I'm still thinking about it.

[Valamir]

Not having played the game, this might be of limited value.

But in thinking of the following:  The player's goal is to escape notice (good or bad), the theme all but demands attention to "no matter what I do, I'm going to be screwed", and you're currently using cards...

I recall the sinking "oh crap" feeling one often gets when playing the card game Hearts.  You know, where you pass to the person on your left all of your clubs so your void in the suit and sitting pretty to take no tricks...when the person on your right passes you 3 high clubs.  Or you have a great hand to shoot the moon with, but you get based a bunch of losers that you just know are going to screw you.

Some sort of mechanic like that might work well.
It would give the players something "to do" within the resolution system so it isn't completely arbitrary.
If the cards were tied to Praise and Blame, passing cards could provide that "shifting blame around" affect discussed above.
And ultimately, what you get passed is probably going to screw you anyway.

I don't know how some Hearts-esque card passing mechanic would feed into your current system, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

[Jason Morningstar]

Thanks Ralph, that's a good idea.  I need to play some Hearts.

[Nathan Herrold]

Umm..what if the Goat got ALL the Blame?
Since everyone has the chance at being the Goat, that seems like it could balance itself out. 
Perhaps it wouldn't?
Maybe, winning Complications somehow gives you more wiggle room?
There didn't seem to be alot a stake when you lost a Complication.
Like, what would've happened if Mistress Narcissa WON against her former pain-needy slave, Zeb?
Which by the way, should've happened.
I like the Hearts thing, you'd need a bunch more cards though.
If you have no Blame or Praise, you have no cards, right?
I like Praise during the beginning of the week functioning like wiggle room, to shift the Blame to other players.
It'd be neat if Praise at the end of the week, say Thursday or Friday is deadlier, and doesn't bleed out like in the beginning of the week.
It'd kinda reward the "car built on Friday afternoon" adage. 
Maybe you can only shift Blame at the end of each work day? 
What if Praise isn't just one card, but a  # of cards depending on how well you succeed?
A realy good success, 2 cards, a normal success 1 card, something like that?
Throwing Complications at other players could be cool too! 
Good luck with this Jason, it's a really unique idea!
 

[Jason Morningstar]

Thanks for the thoughts, Nathan!  I'm dismayed that there's still so much work to do on this game but glad to be getting useful ideas and feedback.

[Anna Kreider]

I do hope that you'll keep working on it, even though there might be a lot of work. There was a lot of fun even in the playtest version, and I think if you can fix some of these balance issues you'll have solid gold.

[Nathan Herrold]

Thanks for the thoughts, Nathan!  I'm dismayed that there's still so much work to do on this game but glad to be getting useful ideas and feedback.

I'm curious Jason, what sorta feedback did you get previously? 
If ya touch character creation I'll be really pissed, it's really quite good!  It's simple and very direct.  It's purposeful..
I'm sorry that you're a bit upset...believe me I wish BITT would be answering itself MUCH faster than it is. 
You've got a really good thing here, Jason!

[Jason Morningstar]

I appreciate the encouraging words!  It'll move forward.  It's been on my plate for what seems like a long time to me, and I feel strongly that it needs to be really tight before I let it go.  Feedback so far has been pretty positive, but I don't think the mechanics engage with the theme in a way that supports play strongly - it's such a fun idea that smart players would have a blast with nothing but the initial set-up.  I either need to figure out how to make the interactions matter or remove them and let it be a freeform thing, all predicated on the initial situation and character creation.  The latter isn't an option I've considered much, but it is gaining ground in my mind.