Can o' worms- opinions sought

I'm starting up this thread to get input from publishers (not fans- they can pipe in in the parallel fans' forum discussion already begun) on how you want to see the categories handled and defined. This is an opinion-finding mission only, not a vote.

1. Judge Selection: Should judges be able to self-nominate, or should they receive a nomination and second before being put on the ballot?
2. d20: I would like to keep the best d20 category as a nod to the origins of the Awards as well as reflect the unique advantages and disadvantages of using the d20 STL, but redefine it so that a product cannot compete in the Best Game as well as Best d20 Product. Please, no conjecture about 4th ed and how it'll affect future Awards, let's focus only on the 2007 Awards.
3. Mega Books: With the increasing number of mega-books with content spanning multiple genres, should we limit the number of categories an individual product in which a product can compete in the "Genre" domain (best adventure, best campaign/campaign setting supplement, best monster/adversary, best supplement)? Ie. publisher picks one? Or do we reward the products for their content, so in theory a Ptolusesque product could receive nominations in all?
4. Additional Categories: I am contemplating adding the "Best Paraphernalia" category to the list to include items such as T-shirts, RPG fiction (and comics), dice bags, RPG movies, etc. In other words, the Aid/Accessory category would be open to products that enhance game play, paraphernalia to products that enhance gamer lives.
5. Category Definitions: how are we doing with the definitions as is?
6. Category Evaluation Criteria: by what criteria do you think each category should be evaluated?

I think everything else is fine (not from personal experience, since we haven't been nominated for anything...yet), but self-nominations are bad publicity. That's just asking for trouble and questions all those others who are nominated. One bad judge, or even the rumours of one, are enough to take the legitimacy of what you're trying to accomplish and toss it out the window.

I think, in all seriousness, that there should be two consecutive years without changing categories, etc......otherwise you run the risk of falling into the same trap as the Origins Awards.

The Ennies have managed to come on strong and seize the "relevance" trophy....now you need to concentrate on stability and tradition. Don't fix what clearly is not broken.

Dextra said:

I'm starting up this thread to get input from publishers (not fans- they can pipe in in the parallel fans' forum discussion already begun) on how you want to see the categories handled and defined. This is an opinion-finding mission only, not a vote.

1. Judge Selection: Should judges be able to self-nominate, or should they receive a nomination and second before being put on the ballot?

Click to expand...

1. 
   
   Yes, I think they should be able to, if their nomination receives a second.
   
   

   [*]d20: I would like to keep the best d20 category as a nod to the origins of the Awards as well as reflect the unique advantages and disadvantages of using the d20 STL, but redefine it so that a product cannot compete in the Best Game as well as Best d20 Product. Please, no conjecture about 4th ed and how it'll affect future Awards, let's focus only on the 2007 Awards.

   Click to expand...

   
   I think it should be possible to sweep both categories. If it's really that good, why limit the product's winning potential?
   
   

   [*]Mega Books: With the increasing number of mega-books with content spanning multiple genres, should we limit the number of categories an individual product in which a product can compete in the "Genre" domain (best adventure, best campaign/campaign setting supplement, best monster/adversary, best supplement)? Ie. publisher picks one? Or do we reward the products for their content, so in theory a Ptolusesque product could receive nominations in all?

   Click to expand...

   
   Products should be rewarded for their content.
   
   

   [*]Additional Categories: I am contemplating adding the "Best Paraphernalia" category to the list to include items such as T-shirts, RPG fiction (and comics), dice bags, RPG movies, etc. In other words, the Aid/Accessory category would be open to products that enhance game play, paraphernalia to products that enhance gamer lives.

   Click to expand...

   
   I like this idea.
   
   

   [*]Category Definitions: how are we doing with the definitions as is?

   Click to expand...

   
   Categories are fine, in my opinion. That isn't the source of my concern about the awards, but I'll get into that below.
   
   

   [*]Category Evaluation Criteria: by what criteria do you think each category should be evaluated?

   Click to expand...

I'm not sure I have any specific criteria for categories. If they seem logical, they should be fine.

Now, my feedback regarding the stuff you didn't ask about.

My concern about the ENnies is the way in which the awards progress. After judge selection, the first phase is the publisher nomination. This is followed by the judges narrowing it down to a few products. Then the winners are finally determined by a popular vote. I feel that steps two and three should be reversed if you want an outcome based on the product's merit as opposed to overall popularity.

Consider this. The publishers nominate products, and then they go to a popular vote to determine overall popularity. At this point, each category is narrowed down to, say, five products in every category.

Now, at this point, the products are submitted by the publishers to the judges. Each of the judges is qualified to render a final verdict on these products because they (1) were elected by a popular vote by the community that hosts these awards, and (2) they actually have, and are forced to read, the products submitted to them. I feel that this would make the ENnies better because the winners wouldn't be determined by the mob, but by the people who are a cut above in terms of their ability to rate products.

As things stand, and I give mad props to every company that has ever won one of these things, but it seems that the winners can have just as much to do with that company's marketing budget than definable quality.

My only pont would be to say I looked at the categories this year and could not fit Squirrel Attack! or Supers Inc. into any of them. That could very well be my problem in terms of interpretation of the categories.

However, I will agree with other posters that you need to work with what you have. Origin suffered horribly at the hands of "Design by Committee". I found the result less than stellar and not particularly inviting. A lesson to be learned there.

Bill

Dextra said:

d20: I would like to keep the best d20 category as a nod to the origins of the Awards as well as reflect the unique advantages and disadvantages of using the d20 STL, but redefine it so that a product cannot compete in the Best Game as well as Best d20 Product. Please, no conjecture about 4th ed and how it'll affect future Awards, let's focus only on the 2007 Awards.

Click to expand...

If d20 products can't compete in the best product category, then it isn't really the best product. If you decide to keep the d20 category (which I suggest you do), you could always have a best non-d20 category as well (while keeping the best overall product category).

Whisperfoot said:

Consider this. The publishers nominate products, and then they go to a popular vote to determine overall popularity. At this point, each category is narrowed down to, say, five products in every category.

Now, at this point, the products are submitted by the publishers to the judges. Each of the judges is qualified to render a final verdict on these products because they (1) were elected by a popular vote by the community that hosts these awards, and (2) they actually have, and are forced to read, the products submitted to them.

Click to expand...

My apologies to Whisperfoot, but I don't care for this change. I am afraid that the result would be very different than Whisperfoot imagines. In particular, a popular vote at the beginning of the process would pretty much eliminate all smaller publishers. The Judges would then only be able to select from products with strong marketing.

As the system is now, smaller companies can and do get nominations. While they may not have as much a chance in the popular vote that follows, at least they get a nod from the Judges (which is a big deal) and there is a chance that the populace might take a look at the product before voting.

Brad Hindman said:

If d20 products can't compete in the best product category, then it isn't really the best product. If you decide to keep the d20 category (which I suggest you do), you could always have a best non-d20 category as well (while keeping the best overall product category).

Click to expand...

I never suggested not letting d20 products compete for Best Product.

Perhaps I didn't clarify sufficiently. As it stands, there are currently three sweeping categories: Best Game, Best d20 Product, and Best Product.

There are inherent advantages and disadvantages to working within the d20 system with regards to design and marketing, so I like the idea of keeping the Best d20 Product category.

However, I think that we need to distinguish d20 from Game.

If a d20 product has all of the rules required to run as a complete game including character generation, levelling, etc., then it's no longer pure d20, and should be considered a game. Thus A Game of Thrones, Mutants and Masterminds, and Spycraft would be considered for Best Game ONLY, not both game and d20.

I think you're fine actually.

The scenario that was going through my mind was this: if someone released a phenominal 8-page PDF that was knock-the-socks-off great, could it fairly compete against Ptolus in the judging?

Given the current categories, I think the answer is yes. So I have to say I'm perfectly satisfied.

Thanks, Gareth!

At the moment I'm not considering sweeping changes, just tweaking or fine tuning.

We're still going to have five fan judges elected by fandom to jury the submissions. The process by which the judges are selected and from whence they are drawn mayl change slightly, but the basic criteria are the same: these are fan awards, not industry awards, so judges cannot be industry professionals, nor have affiliations with publishers.

We will continue to insist that publishers submit 6 copies of their works, although the central shipping option has been eliminated, and the submission period opened up far earlier (I collected a tonne of submissions from Gen Con Indy which are already to ship as soon as the judges are selected).

We're going to keep to 20 +/- categories, most of which will remain as is.

We will continue to encourage the publishers to put up free samples of their products once the nominations are announced, and allow at least a one-week familiarization phaze between the nomination announcement and voting booths opening.

The nominees will be voted upon by fandom who do not need to be members of EN World, and we will continue to solicit votes from ALL gamers. I may consider setting up a voting booth at Origins so people can vote for their favourite publisher there.

The winners will be announced at Gen Con Indy on the Friday night.

GMSkarka said:

I think, in all seriousness, that there should be two consecutive years without changing categories, etc......otherwise you run the risk of falling into the same trap as the Origins Awards.

The Ennies have managed to come on strong and seize the "relevance" trophy....now you need to concentrate on stability and tradition. Don't fix what clearly is not broken.

Click to expand...