Can o' worms- opinions sought

[JoeGKushner]

In terms of miniatures:

1. Flash/flack.

2. Mold Lines.

3. Ease of assembly.

4. Cost. Reaper is a huge winner here. Many other companies seem to do some obscure pricing even when they're not supporting a game line.

5. Attention to Detail: Are there bucklets on the belt? are there pouches? Do the spellbooks have individual pages and writings on the opened pages?

6. Overall utility (is the figure some obscure thing that will never get used? Is it an iconic figure? etc...)

 

[kingpaul]

But to have a viable category, it must have at least 10-12 entries from at least 6 different publishers. Are there seriously a dozen software programs out there that come out in a given year who would enter?

Well, on the CharGen front, I know of Red Blade, DMGenie, PCGen, eTools, RPGXplorer and CMP's forthcoming RPGFoundry. Mappers I know of are Dundjinnie and Campaign Cartographer. Throw in the numerous software aids (WotC's site, Jamis Buck, Vascant and Andargor to name a few) and I think you have the 10-12 from 6 different.

 

[HinterWelt]

But to have a viable category, it must have at least 10-12 entries from at least 6 different publishers. Are there seriously a dozen software programs out there that come out in a given year who would enter?

We have our CHARGen Character Generator, Store and Update.

Bill

 

[Eego]

In terms of miniatures:

1. Flash/flack.

2. Mold Lines.

3. Ease of assembly.

4. Cost. Reaper is a huge winner here. Many other companies seem to do some obscure pricing even when they're not supporting a game line.

5. Attention to Detail: Are there bucklets on the belt? are there pouches? Do the spellbooks have individual pages and writings on the opened pages?

6. Overall utility (is the figure some obscure thing that will never get used? Is it an iconic figure? etc...)

1, 2 and 5 are pretty much the same thing in my book. Either a miniature is quality or it isn't. You could separate them out, but only if you want to get in to judging casting quality vs. sculpting quality and since none of the judges run a casting company or are proffesional or even amature sculptors (that I know of), stick to the overall appearance of the mini.

3 is way too subjective. If you have a single 35mm piece of a knight and he takes you an hour to assemble and requires power tools and plumbers epoxy, then there is definitly an engineering problem. However, a spider by its very nature is hard to assemble, but could be the greatest figure ever. Again, if you are going to judge based on this, make sure the judges are experienced modelers and know the difference between complex pieces and poor engineering.

6 is an interesting idea and could be a good standard if all DMs and players played the same adventures and used the same characters. Since we play a game that allows for such varied options and this is a group that prides itself on supporting these options, how can you judge overall utility? Now there are some obvious things that would get more use than others: fighters in plate armor with swords, kobolds with spears, wizards with pointy hats. However, I don't see many occasions where figures based on such "high utility" ideas are worthy of much fanfare.

4. is right out ridiculous. First, how does pricing affect whether something is worthy of recognition or not. Second and more importantly, how does one determine whether pricing is fair or arbitrary; correct or indulgent? I'm not going to get in to the economics of it because that would take far too much space here. The bottom line is companies charge what they charge. If they are scuccessful, then it means that the consumers like their product enough to pay the asking price. Subjectivly deciding if you would pay for something (that you received for free) is not a good basis for judging.

Finaly Joe, calling out a company by name in this particular thread shows a bias on your part. It's nothing personal. I just highly disagree with your approach to judging in this case.

 

[Eego]

Just realized I didn't make any constructive suggestions.

1. Judge miniatures separate from other products if you are going to get into detailed critera for judging. It's hard to compare one of my figures to a FD plastic chit.

2. Make sure the judges are vetted in each category and have no pre-exsiting, publicised bias. I knew who was going to win in our category this year just by reading previous posts on this forum. There's nothing wrong with fandom or loyalty to a company, but favoritism is painfuly obvious in this community.

3. As an extension of the above suggestion, consider different judges for different categories. Most major award programs have their nominees in specific categores paired down by experts in particular, technical fields before they are voted on by the general body. This works with the two ideas above by a) making sure the screening process is fair and free of bias for or against a particular type of product and b) Makes sure the final voting doesn't piut too disparate products against each other in a way that allows the general bias of the community towards certyain products affect the voting for specific categories. In the case of miniatures, this means that if you have 5,000 people who prefer plastic, cardboard or pre-painted stuff to metal miniatures voting alongside 1000 poeple who prefer old-fashioned lead, you are not automaticaly biasing the vote where one has to chooe between the two.