At Camp Nerdly, I was lucky to participate in a playtest of Jason Morningstar’s Business Solutions – a game in which you play hapless photocopier repairpersons.

Character creation is a fairly simple process – you choose an Attitude, a Role, and a Need. But that small amount of detail was all people really needed to sink their teeth into their characters. So, for example, Nathan’s character was a Miserable Creep who needed to Slack – and he was able to take that and totally run with it. (And I’m not sure what Kit’s character had besides the Role of Expert, but man was his character a douche. He obviously was having fun with that.)

The structure of the game is fairly simple. Three players take turns playing the technician, the goat (the person whom all the trouble is going to be aimed at for that day), and the client. You play through six days, and at the end of the week one person will get promoted and one person will be fired. You win by being mediocre, and not being either of those people.

Ultimately, though, the conflict mechanic is a bit of a bait and switch, since it’s a card-flipping mechanic that is pretty much totally arbitrary. Even fixing copiers is nothing more than a guessing game to find what the problem is. The end result is that your technicians acquire Praise and Blame – the two resources that determine endgame states – randomly and have no real control over their eventual fates. And using the retests built into the system often just screws you worse since you just get that much more Blame/Praise.

While themeatically appropriate to the subject matter, I wasn’t sure that having a system that devoid of meaning won’t pose problems for a lot of players. But I’ll come back to that in just a second after I talk about the things that happen to the Goat.

So people take turns being the Goat, who basically gets screwed over for that day by an NPC (played by the Client) called the Troublemaker. The Troublemaker is someone the Goat knows personally that wants something from the Goat that will necessarily cause problems for the Goat. (My character, for instance, had her brother try and convince her to let him start a grow op in her basement.)

Amusingly, the cards that get turned over in the conflicts with the Troublemaker also go to Praise/Blame – but in every single instance people still went for retests against their Troublemakers to get the outcome they wanted. Because really, who wants to go on a date with their dominatrix ex-girlfriend? Or the creepy stalker? Or have a grow op in their basement?

(Incidentally, there was a bit of a temptation to play the Troublemaker conflict as a simple card flip and move on, but I found that it was MUCH more entertaining when we took time to play it out.)

I think the Troublemaker might present some solutions to the overall problem of a meaningless system. Since the win condition is mediocrity, it is a hard condition to be invested in – though very thematically appropriate. But people genuinely cared about the outcome of their conflicts with their Troublemaker. So maybe is there a way to make that a more prominent part of the game?

Personally, I’m not convinced that having a conflict system that is random and arbitrary is a problem. Nor am I convinced that having an end condition that doesn’t mean anything is problematic. But I think having those two things in combination might be. It’s hard to say, given a mostly complete playtest, though.

Some other miscellaneous points:
Our group initially struggled with where to fit in the roleplaying. As it’s something the other group obviously didn’t struggle with (slowpokes), I think it might have just been the lack of a text to consult.

The character sheets were very well done in terms of defining what roles are played when.

Overall the game was very entertaining, but it definitely feels like it needs tightening.

Thanks to Jason for running the game for us. It was lots of fun!

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.

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

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.

This game took top honours for me at Camp Nerdly for Most Entertaining. 

I was in the slow group, playing Cadmus the Patronizing Expert.  And oh did I revel in patronizing-ness. 

I think my trouble with the Goat and the Troublemaker is that the resolution was so simplistically binary.  This isn't necessarily a problem with the arbitrary nature of the resolution, but rather the fact that this particular form of the arbitrary resolution adds no surprising or uncertain element to the interaction of the two characters.  The Troublemaker wants something from the Goat.  You draw cards when the Goat is finally about to say “no”.  If the Goat wins, he goes ahead and says “no.”  And if the Goat loses, he says “yes”.  Full stop.  The card flip isn't going to send the interaction somewhere unexpected.  So those interactions lacked bite.  I suspect you can still be arbitrary and allow for unexpected outcomes. 

This was fine with the diagnosis and repair mechanics; I think those card flips gave pacing and direction to the roleplay between the techs and the client.  It was still binary, but those resolutions weren't directly about the interactions of the characters.  You weren't going to hit the end of the road with them.  Rather, they added information to the scene for all three players to draw on. 

I hope I'm making at least a modicum of sense here!  I also hope the other players know what I'm talking about and can perhaps refine my explanation.

The Clients need Roles, Attitudes and Needs like all the rest!  For the “thematic” clients, like European Holdings Limited, the dummy corporation that was a front for the CIA, the elements kind of suggested themselves, but as the interaction with the clients was the meat of our play, having those things be explicit would be valuable.  And as a given client shows up twice, perhaps their Attitude could be different both days.

The character sheets are problematic.  I love the icons, but I frequently confused myself about what went with what day.  Most confusing for me was the fact that (on the A sheet at least) the client description box only connects to the first instance of the client during the week.  I suggest it be either connected to both instances or neither.  And perhaps the days could be arranged in columns instead of rows, with clear dividing lines between the days?  Anyway, it's a layout problem that I'm sure is solvable.

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? 

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...

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.

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.

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

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!

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 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.

Jason wrote:
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 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.