ENnies To Ban Generative AI From 2025

history-1030x232.jpg

The ENnie Awards has announced that from 2025, products including content made by generative AI will not be eligible for the awards.

Established in 2001, the ENnies are the premier tabletop roleplaying game awards ceremony, and are held every year in a ceremony at Gen Con. They were created right here on EN World, and remained affiliated with EN World until 2018.

The decision on generative AI follows a wave of public reaction criticising the policy announced in 2023 that while products containing generative AI were eligible, the generative AI content itself was not--so an artist whose art was on the cover of a book could still win an award for their work even if there was AI art inside the book (or vice versa). The new policy makes the entire product ineligible if it contains any generative AI content.

Generative AI as a whole has received widespread criticism in the tabletop industry over the last couple of years, with many companies--including D&D's owner Wizards of the Coast--publicly announcing their opposition to its use on ethical grounds.

The new policy takes effect from 2025.

The ENNIE Awards have long been dedicated to serving the fans, publishers, and broader community of the tabletop role-playing game (TTRPG) industry. The ENNIES are a volunteer-driven organization who generously dedicate their time and talents to celebrate and reward excellence within the TTRPG industry. Reflecting changes in the industry and technological advancements, the ENNIE Awards continuously review their policies to ensure alignment with community values.

In 2023, the ENNIE Awards introduced their initial policy on generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs). The policy recognized the growing presence of these technologies in modern society and their nuanced applications, from generating visual and written content to supporting background tasks such as PDF creation and word processing. The intent was to encourage honesty and transparency from creators while maintaining a commitment to human-driven creativity. Under this policy, creators self-reported AI involvement, and submissions with AI contributions were deemed ineligible for certain categories. For example, products featuring AI-generated art were excluded from art categories but remained eligible for writing categories if the text was entirely human-generated, and vice versa. The organizers faced challenges in crafting a policy that balanced inclusivity with the need to uphold the values of creativity and originality. Recognizing that smaller publishers and self-published creators often lack the resources of larger companies, the ENNIE Awards sought to avoid policies that might disproportionately impact those with limited budgets.

However, feedback from the TTRPG community has made it clear that this policy does not go far enough. Generative AI remains a divisive issue, with many in the community viewing it as a threat to the creativity and originality that define the TTRPG industry. The prevailing sentiment is that AI-generated content, in any form, detracts from a product rather than enhancing it.

In response to this feedback, the ENNIE Awards are amending their policy regarding generative AI. Beginning with the 2025-2026 submission cycle, the ENNIE Awards will no longer accept any products containing generative AI or created with the assistance of Large Language Models or similar technologies for visual, written, or edited content. Creators wishing to submit products must ensure that no AI-generated elements are included in their works. While it is not feasible to retroactively alter the rules for the 2024-2025 season, this revised policy reflects the ENNIE Awards commitment to celebrating the human creativity at the heart of the TTRPG community. The ENNIES remain a small, volunteer-run organization that values the ability to adapt quickly, when necessary, despite the challenges inherent in their mission.

The ENNIE Awards thank the TTRPG community for their feedback, passion, and understanding. As an organization dedicated to celebrating the creators, publishers, and fans who shape this vibrant industry, the ENNIES hope that this policy change aligns with the values of the community and fosters continued growth and innovation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As far as these rules and the absolutist demands of the robophobes go, yes.


Perfect example of being blinded by hate.

...


...and so it begins.
Mod note:

Hey there.
You seem to be all ready to get in there with the name calling and ascribing hatred to others.

That leaves you in a remarkably bad place to get dramatic with "...and so it begins...".

Yeah, it begins. Because you are starting it.

Refrain from making it personal or inflammatory going forward, please and thanks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is already being faked.
Is it? Seems to me that if you're going to all the effort of faking an entire artist's process you might as well just do the art. Sounds like that Mitchell and Webb sketch about faking the moon landing... on the moon!
And if the evidentiary requirements become too burdensome smaller creators will be gatekept.

Oh I agree. The number of artists being forced to 'prove' on social media that they did, in fact, make their art is getting onerous. The prevalence of randos accusing artists of being AI with little to no decent evidence other than a gut feeling or noticing an imperfection in the art or because some shoddy tool told them it was "87% likely" that it was AI is growing.

I don't know what the answer is to that.
 

These things aren't AI. The term is used too often to describe things which are just basic computer functions. Spellchecks have been around for decades--they weren't AI then, and they aren't now.
Yeah, going by the reddit thread on this thread, a lot of people don't seem understand the difference between digital painting and using an AI image generator.

It doesn't help that art apps these days have a lot of useful digital tools that do tons of stuff it would be hard for a traditional artist to replicate. But a lot of people don't realize how much skill and knowledge is needed to use an art app well.

Going by the reddit thread, though, a lot of people are absolutely pro-AI.
 

No generative content and no AI use at all are two very different things.

I am mentioning it because it matters. "No AI use at all" means no spell check or grammar check. it means no filters for the images. it means no SEO algorithms for actually selling the thing.

Spell check and grammar check are not AI
 

Yes. Do better indeed.

If you are creating a product that you are submitting for an award that has a policy against generative AI, put the processes in place to make sure your product meets that policy.
WotC missed when this happened, the best funded RPG publisher out there. So you are holding everyone to an impossible standard.

Sorry, try again.
 

WotC missed when this happened, the best funded RPG publisher out there. So you are holding everyone to an impossible standard.

Sorry, try again.

Yes, and had that book been released next year, it wouldn't have been eligible for an ENnie. Having a standard doesn't mean that people will 100% always meet that standard. But it does mean that when it was discovered that WotC had missed it, they (hopefully) had to go back and review their editorial review processes, and to my knowledge, I don't think they're working with that artist anymore.

As you said, they take the lump and then go and do better.
 

Let's avoid the debate over what constitutes 'art' and simply address context instead.
No, let's not. I refuse your arbitrary limitation that avoid discussing the point.

The post that I was replying to was someone else making claims that prompt generation was not art. I can make the same sort of claims against photography and such which are clearly accepted as art.

A good photographer has loads that they take into consideration from composition to lighting to filters and effects. Ansel Adams takes many photographs, looks for the ones that embody what he is looking for, and it's art. (I might snap six photos of the same thing to get one with people's heads and not blurry, it's not.) Same thing with a prompt engineer who knows how to craft a prompt to get what they want, picks the right models, iterates over words, strengths, negatives, and goes through a bunch of images looking for just the right mix. (Someone else might put "space elf" into Bing and generate a Santa's Elf in a spacesuit, and just like by poor photos, isn't.)

Which leads to someone responding snarkily that it's not art either through ignorance or emotion. If it's ignorance, I want to educate. If it's emotion, I want to show clearly to others that their point has no internal merit.

Others brought up what does/doesn't constitute art first, and if you had replied to them to cut off the whole discussion that would be one thing. But to try to invalidate my reply to them while their statement still stands is not something I'll accept.
 

Yes, and had that book been released next year, it wouldn't have been eligible for an ENnie. Having a standard doesn't mean that people will 100% always meet that standard. But it does mean that when it was discovered that WotC had missed it, they (hopefully) had to go back and review their editorial review processes, and to my knowledge, I don't think they're working with that artist anymore.

As you said, they take the lump and then go and do better.
I think you missed the "...best funded..." part, I hope accidentally. Your absolutionist stance just isn't one that we can expect RPG publishers smaller than WotC to uphold that they 100% catch everything against their policy.
 

I think you missed the "...best funded..." part, I hope accidentally. Your absolutionist stance just isn't one that we can expect RPG publishers smaller than WotC to uphold that they 100% catch everything against their policy.
I didn’t miss anything but I’ll also point out that WotC makes books according to their schedule which may also cause a lot of time crunches with the workload. It’s actually possible that their corporate deadlines make it harder to catch these kinds of things.
 

This is already being faked. And if the evidentiary requirements become too burdensome smaller creators will be gatekept.
I'm a small creator. 90% of the artists I hire give me WIP along the way that's pretty obvious it's not being faked. It's part of being a professional artist. Those that don't, don't because I've been working with them for years and we have an established rapport.

I don't see how I'm being gatekeeped (kept?).
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top