(09-15-2012, 12:44 AM)Shad Wrote: (09-15-2012, 12:10 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: I'm always interested in designer notes and discussion. They provide useful insight into what was intended in games & scenarios. Designers ranking their own scenarios is getting on the iffy side. As a mechanism for evaluating intention vs. actual outcome, i think is good. Apart from that, or evaluating the session, it sounds a lot like grading your own homework. As such, doing so should be avoided, at least without serious qualifier notes.
You must keep in mind that often what the designer turned in and what actually was published are not the same. Take Cassino '44 as an example. With Dave Murray's original special rules its an entirely different experience. That's a situation where I think a negative rating from the designer (with comments) would be 100% reasonable.
It may be reasonable but it will have a big negative impact on the game. If there is the perception of the designer and publisher are at odds over a game that will be a big turn off to buyers. In the case of Cassino, it is small enough of an issue, but negative ratings from the designer could make this worse.
