Mmmmmm, vanilla . . . Actually, I just had to say that the above comment by Patrick made me laugh, since, ya know, us chicks all want to be The Boss, right?

Also, I love the name of the game!

http://www.nationstates.net/

The player is put into the role of a leader of a country.
Each day (real day), they need look at 3 proposals to improve the country. The effect of these bills however, takes time to go into action (a week or so). While the mechanics are surprisingly “realistic” - there is no best decision, changes take time, there’s always something you overlook, etc., everything has a nice humorous touch to it.

Just an example: A proposal is made, to protect the nation’s most recognizable animal (a lion, if you will). But since you cannot fund conservation fund without cutting down on education, you decide not to. Once things settle down, you realize the animal became nation’s favourite dish, and people started raising them for just that purpose.

I believe that concept is a very entertaining realization of such “big boss” concept. Every choice you make, has just too many side-implications to foresee, yet still provides progress as a whole.

The greatest fun factor there personally was making decisions just to see, how they go wrong, or what side effects they will produce.

The interface and time scope is almost identical to the idea presented here, even the satiric aspect is captured nicely.

And that leads me to Mason’s idea. I had thought of this game initially as being some kind of pyramid scheme, where each player recruits other players to be his work-force, and so on. That could be funny, as an endless sea of recursive middle-management. But I didn’t see a way to keep that fun long term, so it didn’t make it into the intial write-up. BUT… that doesn’t mean that if I were to actually create this game I wouldn’t further explore the idea.

I do like the idea that everyone works for the same large mega-corp, as it would accentuate the idea that often the left-hand doesn’t know what the right-hand is doing. And I do think the game would need some forms of player-interaction. Some of it could come from players customizing the name of their department or project. Or it could come in the form of an inter-office memo. But maybe the players could cause crises for other middle managers that have to be immediately addressed. (IE I use one or two of my turns to make you have to do the same.)

Why this is important? Most games try to be smart by complicated (or sometimes obvious) game mechanics. The game rules dictate what form of game play results in winning. While game mechanics arent eliminated, it seems like game play could be made a lot more diverse and intelligent if it is really based on player moves.

one problem i can see is that players would have to get “fired”, but they would likely get hired again by another player. but then “trying to get a job” is another phase of the game.

my point is that rather than making productivity, or money, or smoozing the most beneficial thing a player can do. Make that up to the boss, another player, whose performance is judged by a boss. And if you work for a boss who values things that you dont, you can quit. A boss wont do well for very long if their good workers keep quiting.

I dont think I am suggesting this just because it seems symetrical. I really do think this might result in interesting game play.