MSG: A Game for Professionals

Tabletop Tuesday: We're All About The Brand

Type:
Tabletop
Developer:
Wood Ingham
Suggested By:
AllenVarney

MSG™ is a one-session tabletop RPG with an actual winner, and a truly evil background.

In MSG™, you a Rep, working for the Company. You have the corporate Brand tattooed on your forehead. This is life in the 22nd century.

The Company does not, of course, care about your personal life or passions; it cares about your resume. So the main task in character creation is to determine your corporate competencies: HR, IT, M&A, and the like. (MSG™ is less obnoxious than it could be here; though the writers seem concerned that you may be deterred by jargon, the jargon in the game, if any, is quite transparent. I mean, I could specialize in integrating competencies and empowering work flow experiences leveraged across multiple platforms and international contexts, to support sustainable growth in stakeholder value. And perhaps I will.)

Players can either be marketing-oriented Freelancers or IT-oriented Assets; Assets have more job security, but they are jacked into the Company, and their brains are owned.

Only then do we get to the personal bits: Every character starts with someone they love, two people they hate, and an old tragedy.

Then, the players define the Company, and its Brand. The Brand is (sort of) independent of the Company; the Company, as all such, exists for one purpose: maximizing profit. But the Brand is what it presents to consumers as its raison d'etre. Thus, for a current example, BP's business is sucking petroleum out of the ground and selling it to people so they can drive cars and help us all cook in our own emissions, but its brand is all about greenery and a sustainable future. Which seems to work; people hate ExxonMobil, but less so BP.

Once characters and brand are established, the players take turns being The Company; when it's your turn to be the Company, your character is off having a vacation or a pint at the local or something of the kind (MSG™ is a British game).

Every player has some number of action points; the Company has as many as all of them put together. At the end of the game, the player with the most action points remaining wins. Yes, very unusual for an RPG; there are winners and losers here. Thus, when it's your turn to be the Company, you want to fuck at least one other player, and preferably as many of them as possible.

During each "round," the Company player presents an issue the players must resolve, bringing in one NPC (possibly one of the players loves or hates) as company spokesperson. Here's an example from the rules book, although players are encouraged to wing it, too:

    Kill Fluffy
    Rationale: The Company owns the rights to fifteen separate breeds of dogs. Recently a kid out in the suburbs registered a mongrel of at least two of these breeds. It’s brand dilution. Fluffy has to die.
    More stuff: Little Jimmy loves his dog. And Fluffy loves him. The kid’s dad is an executive in one of the more belligerent of the Parallel Market contractors.
    Supporting cast: Little Jimmy, Fluffy the dog, the kid’s mum, the kid’s manager to whom the Reps must report, copyright lawyer with a gun.
    Extras: Animal rights protestors,
    What the Company wants: Duh. Kill Fluffy. And maybe sue the kid.

In short, issues are designed to create moral dilemmas for the players -- and the Company player does his best, through the Company's instructions and by manipulating player loves and hates and other NPCs, to ensure that at least one player is stuck with a repulsive task, and will work to resist it.

In the course of exploring the issue, players may earn "Soap" -- additional action points usable only in these round. Soap can be earned by bringing hates and loves into the scene, by hinging outcomes on "brand values," by using your particular work competencies, and by (once per scene) inventing a new three-letter acronym for a particular bit of business-related jargon.

At some point, a player is required to take a Risk. The player assigns some number of action points (and Soap); the Company player counters with some number from the Company's pool; other players may intervene on either side. Allocations are revealed secretly, and the larger total wins; Soap is discarded, and the winner loses other points wagered while gaining the wager of the loser. (If you used Soap, you might actually wind up ahead on this deal.) The winner gets to narrate the outcome of the dilemma.

Additional rounds occur until each player has been the Company once, at which point victory is determined.

In a traditional RPG, players are expected to cooperate with each other with the GM as a neutral arbiter; Paranoia turns that on its head by encouraging players to betray and backstab each other. MSG does something similar, but subtly different; it pits the "gamemaster" at the players' throats, balancing things by having each of the players act as GM in turn. That's an interesting and novel approach, as are several other elements of the game -- the fact that it comes to a definitive ending in a single session, and that there are winners and losers. In short, it defies many of the characteristics we normally ascribe to a tabletop RPG -- in the context of a very cynical, and very cool, cyberpunky future where even the minimal constraints on corporate action that currently apply are removed, and any residual ethical norms for businessmen are considered the domain of chumps.

Excellent, in a word.

Via the Paranoia blog.

Also, the following may be helpful in translating from the Limey:
trainers = sneakers
CV = "curriculum vitae" = resume


1
2
3
4
5

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I...

I was one of the lucky ones to get the Beta PDF.

You see, there was a notice that the Beta Download was available until the 9th of december, the day you posted this article.

I managed to save a copy, but others may not be so lucky.

I'll be willing to share it, IF it is okay with the authors or whoever was offering the Beta in the first place.

Get back to me on this, please.


Broken Link

Too bad I missed the PDF - it'd be nice to have - but the link above for buying seems broken as well.


Fixed

Okay, so I updated the link to point to the current page, and changed it from "free" to "not free."


imagine my pride

Hey,

Thanks for the lovely heart-warming review of MSG. I am really rather flattered that you like my work (I've been known to like yours).

@Cerbereus: Well, I can't and won't stop you spreading about the Beta. But in a week or so, I'll be posting up the Executive Edition, and a new free cut-down version, which I expect I'll market as Diet MSG. Which sounds all nasty, but what can I say? I'm a one-man show, and while 2,000+ people downloaded the free version, the number who actually bought it... wasn't so many.


Well...

Well, like I said, I wouldn't spread it around unless I had explicit permission from the proper authorities.

Reading your reply, I don't see explicit permission. Just a "can't do anything about it attitude", which for me isn't enough. I would need your blessing.

Of course, since now you're offering a new edition, I don't need to spread around the Beta. Even so, I still won't spread it unless I have that explicit permission in the form of your blessing.

The Beta is closer to the original game in terms of the amount of content than the new Diet version right? If so, then that is more reason NOT to share it without regard to the author.

I do have a sympathetic understanding of what you said in the last sentence. Maybe there is some way you can change that.

I did notice a few typos in the Beta (and I still haven't finished reading it yet), but they are quite minor. And it is a Beta I was reading.

A suggestion: Instead of calling the new download a Diet version, why not stick with the Brand theme? For instance, making reference to the test groups to try out a new product to see how well it would be accepted. The name eludes me right now, but you might turn it up.

One last thing: I am tempted to make an Interactive Fiction based on the idea of a boardroom meeting with questionable actions. I would try to make it as different from the inspiration (MSG) as possible, but I just wanted to see if it was okay with you.

I may not make the game, but I just wanted to see if it was okay if I did so that I don't have to worry about copyright infringement ;)

There is a difference between inspiration and copying; I have the former in mind, and want to avoid the latter.

So, what's your response to all I've said?


@Cerebreus

Well.

1. Yeah, the Beta version is the basis of the Executive Edition and the Diet version is probably going to be cut down. And yes, I probably wouldn't be so happy with people randomly e-mailing it about, but, like I said, I don't believe in trying to stop people doing so.

2. The Beta is chock full of typos, sentence fragments and goofs. I wrote it up and put it out after tinkering with it for over two years without the aid of an editor. This time round, we're getting people to proofread it. It even has a proper hand-made index with sarcastic entries and everything. Also, more SpamNames, some things that didn't work taken out, more illustrations, more motivational slogans and some fiction.

3. Your boardroom game: go for it.