Designer ranking his own scenarios?

[JayTownsend]

I decided I will not post anymore AARs of future games of mine that get published like Korean War Volumes 1-4 and Tinian & Guam. I’ll let gamers decide without my influence whether this or that scenario is good or not, unlike Nihon Silk and Saipan where I did AARs.

[thomaso827]

New to the discussion, but I for one would like to see something of an AAR or replay by the author showing how the scenario works out compared to how he/she thought it would when they wrote or playtested it. Perhaps not in the rating system, but maybe a posting at BGG if not here, to let potential players get a look at it.

[vince hughes]

New to the discussion, but I for one would like to see something of an AAR or replay by the author showing how the scenario works out compared to how he/she thought it would when they wrote or playtested it. Perhaps not in the rating system, but maybe a posting at BGG if not here, to let potential players get a look at it.

I agree. Post here in the forums but not in the AAR and ratings pages.

Jay has already said he reckons his scenarios are all worth a '4' or '5' rating and he will rate them that if he has to. Given that information, I think it is fair to say that no other designer of PG games would rate their own work '1' or '2'' either and would also go '4' or '5'.

Therefore, a designer should avoid rating his own product on AAR's and instead perhaps comment on these forums as an alternative. If you want an honest view, I personally see anybody rating all their own work as '5' or '4' as a bit crass. Due to that I have my ratings page on the "Statistics" page toggled on the "omit designers own ratings" button. Doing that means i generally get an honest scenario rating notwithstanding any 'fanboys' of particular designers distorting the numbers. I dont think PGHQ has any of those at present

[Shad]

I decided I will not post anymore AARs of future games of mine that get published like Korean War Volumes 1-4 and Tinian & Guam. I’ll let gamers decide without my influence whether this or that scenario is good or not, unlike Nihon Silk and Saipan where I did AARs.

What the hell prompted this sudden decision? I busted my ass to build a designer rating toggle so that everyone could decide for themselves. By not sharing information that you clearly want to share you're unilaterally hurting the people that value your input while doing nothing to "help" those that don't because they already have the ability to ignore you!

[vince hughes]

Shad,

Why don't you make it possible for a designer to log a play without being forced to rate it ?

Jay could then write about his plays, advertise his plays and what fun they are/were, he could get all the PG 'loyalty' points for the play and not be in the embarrassing position of having to assign a rating. WHY would any designer EVER design a '1' rated scenario. Forget about the chat here. Designers OWN ratings have been discussed on BGG and CSW numerous times and in general, the main opinion to the masses appears to be that its a cheap shot rating their own. Its a lose-lose situation. Rate high, and get "Of course you will rate your own scenarios high" ...... Rate low and you'll get "Then why did you design such crap".

Maybe Jay wants to avoid that. That can be easily done by removing the imposition of a designer rating his own. The fact you have allowed it could now be the very reason he's avoiding doing it. Added to that, after Jay had rated all his last package 4s & 5s, then that kind of backs up what I wrote above anyway. I know I wouldn't want to be in the position of rating a scenario I designed, but I'd sure as heck want to list it as a play and give it a worthy detailed AAR.

Release them from Rating their own will you man and free them to write freely and gaily of their wonderful products !

[Shad]

Vince your proposal has perfect logic in a world where the PG designer has the final say in his scenario content and what he turns in to Avalanche is exactly what is published, but that is not the world we live in. I dare say the honorable David Murray would not be bestowing 4s and 5s upon the Cassino scenarios that came in the box.

I also strongly doubt that Jay (or anyone, I'm not singling you out buddy) is play-testing every single scenario that gets turned in. If you're capable of consistently designing 4 or 5 star scenarios without even trying them, well, you should start your own wargame company!

So, in summation, I think designers should be playing their own published scenarios and should be rating them and most certainly should be including AARs.

Now, does anyone outside of the three of us care?

[campsawyer]

What did you say Shad

[rerathbun]

you should start your own wargame company!

Shad, for shame! Why do you wish ill upon our gallant PG designers?

[JayTownsend]

Still thinking about is Shad!

[JayTownsend]

I decided I will not post anymore AARs of future games of mine that get published like Korean War Volumes 1-4 and Tinian & Guam. I’ll let gamers decide without my influence whether this or that scenario is good or not, unlike Nihon Silk and Saipan where I did AARs.

What the hell prompted this sudden decision? I busted my ass to build a designer rating toggle so that everyone could decide for themselves. By not sharing information that you clearly want to share you're unilaterally hurting the people that value your input while doing nothing to "help" those that don't because they already have the ability to ignore you!

To tell you the truth Andrew, I am having a hard time rating anyone's scenarios anymore, as I know how much hard work go into each one of them.

I realize they get changed a bit in some cases with development, changes in the maps configurations and so on. With each scenario I create, I try to make it so its something I would actually like to play more than once, than I know its a good scenario.