The convention season is again upon us and Origins is a touchstone that many game manufacturers will be visiting. They will take to it new games and many gamers will discover new problems to solve. But not all these problems will be ones that the designer and manufacturer wanted to have as problems.

There will be problems in the game or the rules that should have been absent. The designer, in turn, will see his game for the first time in a final form and often will see marked changes or even deformities to his or her design concept.

John Prados, a brilliant designer, designed Pearl Harbor, which was wide- ranging and comprehensive. Yet as a game it flopped, as it was poorly developed. Craig Taylor's excellent Flat Top had over 200 errors and typographical mistakes in the rules rushed to completion for Origins III. Pearl Harbor may yet see a second edition (let's hope), and Flat Top was quickly "fixed", but in the interim the gaming public suffered and great art was destroyed by poor execution.

I feel that the designer has a responsibility for a game designed for the public. The designer should play (and not just write rules) their designs to the point where everything makes sense. I recall one design submitted to Avalon Hill by someone who should have known better; he had never actually played it, and the game suffered accordingly. This is the sign of a poor artist.

In turn, it is important for the manufacturer, especially if the manufacturer is producing an "out of house" design, to work closely with that free-lance designer. Most contracts do not carry a clause whereby the designer may approve or disapprove design changes by the manufacturer. If designers are not willing to see changes made to their design then they should produce the game themselves. So why work closely with the designer? Because that will have to be a positive move in improving a game design. The designer should know his or her design intimately and might catch errors. Anyway, it is always important for the most possible number of people to look at "he final game before publication to catch errors.

In my design of Bismark I had a clause in the contract whereby I retained control over the graphic presentation of the game. Avalon Hill had to make a reasonable effort to keep within my guidelines, which they did, although some noses were put out of joint in the process. Here was a reasonable guideline that both parties could live with.

Hopefully between Origins V and Origins VI we will see two changes in our hobby and game design. First, a stronger sense of integrity upon the part of designers to design better games with more thought and care. Secondly, more communication between the publisher and the designer. These two goals can only help in improving games for the public.