Fire & Sword Mud-Mire rule

[Tambu]

Gosh, maybe it's time to ease up on the throttle regarding this topic?

I know individuals that have submitted articles, text revisions, rule corrections and possible scenarios to APL, and very little of their work actually gets into print the way it was intended by the authors.  The game publisher is the final arbiter - especially in a 3-person firm - even though we may not like the final, published product, e.g., poorly edited text and rule sets, nonplaytested scenarios, numerous typos, etc.

How about we remember how much we like playing this fiddly game system with each other, and move on?

[Sonora]

Let me second Tambu's motion on this topic.

[leonard]

How about we remember how much we like playing this fiddly game system with each other, and move on?

Agreed! How fun it is to play and design these games!
And I must say that I'm very pleased with Fire & Sword as it is published.

Paid ? No, I never was. Even when designing KGP I & II (ASL) for Avalon Hill or others too. But I really enjoy these games.

[JayTownsend]

Jim, I have never received a penny in pay from AP. It was strictly for the love of the hobby. Again, Mike usually rewrites a big chuck of it in Development. One day when AP retires, I'll share the original materials if I am still alive.

Most of my materials did go through playtesting with a group I use to have and years ago, as most of it is 10-20 years old.

[Hugmenot]

BigJim.

When Matt Ward and I developed games:

* We rarely changed the OOB of a scenario except for the number of leaders.
* We (or more often than not I) would clarify the special rules (for the game) and the scenario special rules (for individual scenarios)  It would often take an hour and a few drafts to clarify a special rule if it's unusual. Unusual special rules sometimes required a back and forth with the designer to understand the intent of the rule.
* We often changed specific scenario parameters (victory conditions, number of turns and how many units it takes to reduce morale). For victory conditions, we tried to keep the spirit of the designer's original intent but we did have to change them substantially on occasions. Number of turns we used a formula that put time pressure on the attacker; for most designers the difference was minimal. For morale reduction, we wanted the number to about the same for each nation and scenario in each game.

I would never have wasted my time developing scenarios for which I cannot change the game length and victory conditions, period. You do not need a developer if that's the case.

[Blackcloud6]

It does not matter if you are in private business, ex-military or an author, scientist, teacher, engineer, actor, sports celebrity, architect, musician, producer, business owner, chef, or a wargame designer. 
 
If your name is tied to the product, if your name is plastered on the front cover, on Front Street, then you are responsible for its content, whether you like it or not, to say otherwise is BS. 
 
AP puts your names on the cover, touts that you are the game designers, there is a perception of excellence, a perception of quality with your name in big bold letters, your names carry weight and are highlighted to Sell the Games.  Or is it false advertising.
 
“Panzer Grenadier game by Jay Townsend, A Panzer Grenadier Game by Philippe Leonard.”
 
Now you are saying that you have no say in what goes inside the games, which is a little disheartening, that you do not even have a chance to proof read your work or worse, the game publishers work! 
 
Why would you want to work for a company that did that? AP cannot be that bad to work with, you keep getting your names on new game titles so the pay cannot be that bad. Especially since there are more reputable game companies that might be easier to work with out there.  

This is pretty much how the entire wargame industry works.  In a general sense, it is best that there is an independent developer of the game than just having the publisher print the final designer's product.  designers can have blinders and tunnel vision; a developer can see thing the designer missed or didn't consider.   A good designer/developer relationship where there is back and forth discussion is optimal but not always possible.