So I've been thinking, and there is a game I'd like to design (it would be my first if I ever get around to it). The players' characters are all cogs in the same, morally grey, corporate business. They would start as middle management, and would try to get higher in the entreprise's structure, without losing their souls in the process.

In source material, I'm mostly inspired by Dilbert, and the movie "The corporation", for the setting, and Dogs in the Vineyard, for it's focus on escalation of conflicts. Stats that could exist: Soul, or Conscience, measuring how true you are to your beliefs; Loyalty (double edge stat that helps you "just follow orders" but hinder backstabbing your superiors and standing up against the company); Conformism (too little of it and you don't fit in, too much of it and you don't get noticed)... Prestige, Money... A few relationships, definitely, motivations besides power. I'm just thinking out loud write now.

Would there be a GM? I'm fascinated by GMless play, so maybe not. But maybe in this case it would work better with one. I'm undecided.

I think this would make a very good setting for GM-less play, a sort of headless crawl towards ill defined goals working at cross purposes... sounds like corporate life :)

A good read on this subject is Gigantocorp by Momento-Mori theatricks at http://www.memento-mori.com/other/games/gigantocorp/index.html

Heh! Cool! I remember tumbling into this a little while ago, but it was late and I just thought: I'll get back to this later. Then I forgot. :)

My mind keeps coming back to this today (which is I suppose a good sign).

I am envisioning a sort of metasystem in play where cards are placed on the table representing projects which the players have interests in, maybe secret interests. Through play chips or dice or something can be placed, a not uncommon influence play while you are also playing out the scenes of the day... just brainspewing :)

Another good place to look for inspiration/guidance would be the Paranoia XP books which have replaced their old cold war paranoia with corporate life paranoia to some extent.

I like your ideas of the players bidding for each project. I'm not sure I would intergrate it, I'm not sure it's the same game I'm envisioning. I really see this as being "Story Now". My first instinct is to keep everything in view. No secrets between players. But, as I said, I like the concept, I'll give it some more thought. The characters are certainly going to compete against one another. Maybe the objective of the game is to become CEO? Only one player can be CEO, so they would have to play their cards right...

I did enjoy reading Paranoia, and it is probably amongst my inspirations, for the exact reason you gave. Backstabbing and paranoia rampant in the working place.

The characters should have very human reasons to want to succeed at work. Maybe the health insurance is the only way they can afford to little Timmy's treatments. Or maybe you want to impress somebody. Stuff like that.

But then your character also has ideals. Maybe he believes in rewarding employee loyaltee, or preserving the environment. Of course, his boss will tell him to fire the aging employee or to bend an environmental law. Your character must either fight for his beliefs, and risk disciplinary measures, loss of support, even unemployment... Or he goes through with it, and tries to justify it somehow ("it's only a job, "I don't have a choice", "if I didn't do it, someone else would", "when I become CEO I'll make things better, better to lay low for now"). He would roll dice (or play cards?) to see if he believes himself. Hum... Would you lose a part of your soul if you succeeded at that roll, or if you failed? If you fail, you're in for some depression, anyway, or something like that. Burn-out is peeking around the corner. I guess you could see a psychologist, but make sure no one finds out, or they'll use that against you. "Yeeeah... Benson not at the top of his game right now, he seems he's just about to crack... Maybe it's best if we would lighten his load... Sure, I could pick up the slack! No problem!"

I get that the characters are competing. But are the players competing? Your idea about the CEO makes it seem like they are.

That's not a bad thing! Don't get me wrong about that. My point is that the answer, either way, is key - truly key to designing the game.

Best, Ron

To me the competition between both players and characters would be key to this setting. The fake smiles while plotting petty revenge, the political maneuvering, the alliances of convenience and inevitable backstabbing... In short the Corporateness of it :)

It seems to me that it would be very difficult to get the right feel of isolation and paranoia if the players were all playing nice.

Hi Will,

Your post is what the idea of Creative Agenda is all about.

For some (in terms of playing/designing this particular game), competition among the players is not what they want at all. They get the "feel" you're talking about strictly as a feature of what the characters are experiencing, and the dynamic among the players is a different thing entirely. Sort of like the difference between the real Ricky Gervais as producer/creator of The Office (Brit version) and the experiences of his character, in the fiction.

Whereas for others, competition among the players is key, just as you are describing, and just as Jumanji seems to be gravitating toward with his talk of Paranoia and the possible player-based power-grab to be CEO. If this is what he's after, then everything you wrote would be dead on target.

My point is that it's useful to consider the difference between the two, because trying to satisfy both goals of play in a given play-experience (i.e. including both goals as possibilities, trying to satisfy both among different people) doesn't work well, typically.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that Bob (a player) can't enjoy one type of play on Monday and another on Tuesday. I am saying that Bob expecting type 1 and Mary expecting type 2 as they sit down to play together, doesn't turn out well. Nor am I saying that one type is good and the other bad - they're both fun, just not at once, much as playing with one's pet pig and eating pork chops doesn't go well together, and if it's the same pig, it's impossible.

My other point - an important one - is that it's not up to us. This is Jumanji's show, and let's see what he says.

Best, Ron

Quite true!

I try to design from a position of players expectation more than anything else and so my observations tend towards that vein. I certainly don't want to come across as saying there is only one way to do something, I am usually trying to point out how something could be done or how it might be perceived by the players with the intention of exposing possibilities rather than saying one way is right and the other wrong.

I am told i can come across as speaking from a position of absolutes when I really mean to speak from a position of alternatives so I apologize if I came across that way.

Sure as heck it's Jumanji's game and I'm looking forward to seeing how it develops whether it's how I would do it or not... actually especially or not, if all games were how I would make them life would be pretty monotonous and I would have missed most of my favorite games!