Designer ranking his own scenarios?

[JayTownsend]

After a tough discussion one whether a designer should rank his own games on BGG but on another folder in CSW, most people thogut the designer could comment on the game and showed he owned it but not rank it.

But how do you guys feel about a Designer ranking and doing AAR's on his own scenarios?

I did it with Nihon Silk, as I thought it would help promote it and not to mention to play it after the developer made changes including some different maps on some of the scenarios.

[campsawyer]

Jay, as long as you are honest with the rating and who you are and that its your design that is fine. Just don't try to do what the book authors did on Amazon, post 200 reviews by fake people. They got caught and I believe Amazon bounced them.

[Hugmenot]

That you show enthusiasm for your design does not bother me at all Jay, quite the contrary. The AARs are well appreciated and one rating is not going to influence my decision whether to play or not a scenario.

The BGG decision is amusing to me as frankly, you can easily verify there are thousands upon thousands of ratings awarded by users that have never played or even owned specific games. I learned after 2 or 3 Euro purchases to read a number of reviews before purchasing the next "popular" well-rated game.

I even got a warning for calling out someone after he awarded a "1" rating to fifteen games he claimed to own in a series. I asked him whether he was lying or was just too stupid to recognize he did not like the series and should simply stop purchasing the new games. Yes it's mean but I am tired of those bogus ratings.

[zovs]

I see no problem with a designer rating and AARing his scenarios/game, as long as he is subjective, honest and can both give his opinion and take criticism on his designs.

[Shad]

I think the absence of designer feedback when the designer is a known member is a real shame. BGG members who object to designers rating games are deluded morons pursuing an impossible goal of ratings purity which is instantly and completely demolished every time someone rates a game simply after looking at the components.

Case in point: Eric Lee Smith should proudly rate The Civil War a 10 because it is a stunning, masterful accomplishment that has stood the test of time. That people would ever object just shows how profoundly stupid humans can be.

Yes mother, I feel passionately about this, can you tell?

Lastly, somewhere Jay's English teachers are turning in their graves because both answers to this poll are questions, as if we respondents didn't entender the Inglés.

[plloyd1010]

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.

[Shad]

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.

[plloyd1010]

All I am saying is: rating your own work, however honestly you do it, has a suspect appearance. Imaging a user, who read the credits, then looks up the scenario on PG-HQ. The site is for promoting the game, the scenario designer says..., you get the idea.

[campsawyer]

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.

[vince hughes]

Has anybody considered the fact that if say a designer rated here a scenario as a '3' then it would beg the question:

"Why are you rating this a 3 when you had the chance to make it a 4 or 5 yourself" ?

I know for a fact that certain designers here at PG do not wish to play and rate their own scenarios as it is a lose-lose position. Rate a 5 then ....... well .... Billy Big Balls ! There's a surprise !

But on the other hand, rate a 4 or less and then its "WTF are you turning in scenarios of less than brilliant when you KNEW them not be brilliant. Why submit such dross" ?

I see Peter's point.

However, it is still interesting to see the McNair's, Murray's, Perryman's and Knipples play their own games and see what they think of them now via ratings ?