[Business Solutions] Playtest Observations/Feedback

edited November 2007 in Audience
This is a companion thread to the Business Solutions playtest. Please use it to comment on any aspect of the playtest, provide feedback, ask questions, challenge assumptions, or to trash talk particularly heinous technicians. Whisper me if you want to participate and would like to read a draft.

Comments

  • OK first question - I need a better name for "Funny". All three are funny. Maybe "Ridiculous"?
  • How about Keystone?

    Slap-happy?

    Farcical?
  • Farce might work, thanks.
  • Screwball?

    Per
  • Ooh! I like that.
  • edited November 2007
    Second question - I'm open to suggestions for stronger roles, attitudes, and needs. Even pointing out weak ones is helpful, or ones that step on each other, like "Lonely" and "Troubled". Also ways to make them gender neutral ("Family Guy" is tough)

    Since these are the fuel that makes the game go, they need to be perfect.
  • Absolutely. Nerd and Genius used to be Nerd and Dork, which was ... not that great. You had to be either a Nerd or a Dork to understand the difference.

    Totally agreeing on Mysterious. Hmm. Paranoid is also reactive. Would it help if I violated my own grammatical rule and swapped "mysterious" for "...with a terrible secret"? I gave up looking for a single word prefix that communicates that.

    The goal is to get six terms that all inter-operate seamlessly and intuitively to completely define a character. Right now on all the lists there are combinations that don't ring true, or would be really hard to play. Patronizing noob is an odd one, for example, but maybe that's a fun challenge.

    Thanks, Darcy.
  • Posted By: Jason MorningstarPatronizing noob
    I've worked with this person - the boss's daughter. SO ANNOYING.
  • Hey, if you hadn't noticed, there's a little "subscribe" option at the bottom of the left-hand navigation menu. Very handy.
  • edited November 2007
  • I'll have to think about it some. Originally that was the only playstyle option, so that's what I've played, and it tends more toward black corporate humor appealingly leavened with genuine pathos.
  • edited November 2007
    I was wondering whether that needs to be formalized. Somebody always gets shafted if you just go in strict order.

    For the playtest let's just stumble through, since it's all asynchronous anyway.
  • In earlier drafts troublemakers were created like this:

    Monday-Wednesday, client proposes attitude or role. Tech in trouble then proposes the other half of the troublemaker and declares who it is. Thursday-Saturday the troublemaker is the same, but the relationship changes, obviously.

    CLIENT: I think I want Authority Figure.
    TECH IN TROUBLE: Yeah ... how about a Needy one? It's Nelson's college room-mate, who is now a cop, who considers nelson free tech support for life.

    This tended to de-couple troublemaker from client in many cases, and allowed for some fun during creation. Thoughts?
  • Sure, I can do that tomorrow AM.
  • edited November 2007
    game text

    username and password are ... the name of the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.