2004 Ennie Award Categories and Rules of Entry

[Mark]

Mark, we are discussing the moving/adding submitted material to another category at the moment.

Thanks for the update. The deadline for submissions is quite a way off, so I wasn't pressuring for an immediate answer. Sorry, if the medium casts my questions in that light. I kinda figured that some of what I was asking would need the benefit of some discussion before all the kinks were worked out.

 

[Crothian]

Thanks for the update. The deadline for submissions is quite a way off, so I wasn't pressuring for an immediate answer. Sorry, if the medium casts my questions in that light. I kinda figured that some of what I was asking would need the benefit of some discussion before all the kinks were worked out.

Not a problem, I just didn't want it to seem like the question was being ignored.

 

[mearls]

I would like to point out something about the peer award.

I have had several people complain about it in public, including one laughable attempt at an anonymous slander that died a horrible, screaming death at the hands of my "I was a programmer before I was a game designer" fu. My count of complaints has reached.... three. That includes the anonymous one.

I have received emails from Charles Ryan (of WotC) and Darrin Drader (also of WotC, and I know he once ran a d20 company) that basically said "Hey, I've worked on d20 stuff. Could I be on the list?" Oddly enough, if we were to construct a Venn diagram of people who emailed me with concerns about the award and people who went to a public forum about it, there would be a big, empty gap between those two circles. In other words, they don't overlap.

I've also received thanks from many people who were happy that the peer award produced a list of unquestionably excellent nominees. I challenge anyone to explain to me why, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any of the nominated works did not deserve to be on the list. All of them enjoyed stellar reviews and were looked upon as quality releases.

As for my inclusion on the list, I'd love to write terrible books that nobody likes to avoid that problem. It would make my job dramatically easier, but I'm afraid my boss wouldn't like that. Seriously, I'm a game designer. Have a little faith in my ability to account for these things.

The peer award is kept as a closed process because there are so many meta-factors at work in the gaming industry that any award process spawned by it is doomed to controversy and chaos. Look at the Origins Awards. I don't envy Nicole Lindroos's position. People like to feel important. The poor pay in the gaming biz means that for most people, that feeling of being special or important is their primary reward for squeezing out RPG products. Thus, anything that has the promise of happy, shiny Prestige and Importance is invaribly overwhelmed, trampled, and destroyed in a mad dash to divvy it up or, more often, hoard it for a small grooup. Now, I am definitely not accusing Ed or anyone else (ie, the 2 other people who complained in public forums) of bringing up complaints for trivial reasons. But the potential is there (as shown by the yearly melee that is the Origins Awards) and I'm nipping it in the bud. I'd rather deal with the inherent problems of an elitist award than one that drowns in a committee.

(I mean, seriously, who here with a job likes meetings? For all practical purposes, I built the peer award to make it proof against meetings. Imagine your job without meetings. Isn't that a pretty thought?)

Until Morrus tells me that the peer award is gone, I'm going to keep doing it. I think it's great that he and others put so much work into the Ennies, and I wouldn't want to be the cause for any headaches for him.

But I want to emphasize three things:

1. You can always email me if you have any questions about the award.

2. Only three people so far have made any complaints about it.

3. When the rubber hit the road last year, the peer award produced a damn fine list of finalists, the winner was a product that turned a lot of heads, and I had many people tell me directly or indirectly that the award was a great idea that went over well.

And I'm going to doubleplus emphasize one major point:

The positive comments I have seen dwarf the negative ones. I knew going in that one of the hazards of keeping the process low key was that the positive feelings it created wouldn't bubble to the top. In all honesty, I expected a lot more negative comments in public fora. That hasn't happened. Like I said - I've seen three people raise concerns about the award.

So really, if you have problems with the award, you should just email me. Because I do listen, and based on how many times I, in public forums, have listened to feedback on my books and taken intelligent, insightful criticisms and worked them into my subsequent products, I feel safe describing myself as someone who listens to feedback. I think it's quite telling that no one I personally know or have interacted with has had any complaints about the process.

 

[Mark]

I have received emails ... that basically said "Hey, I've worked on d20 stuff. Could I be on the list?"

Don't forget, the "No Homers" sign is plural. You can have one...

 

[EricNoah]

In my experience, the only time the judges "move" a product from one category to another is if it is seriously in the running for the new category, or if it clearly does not match the description of the old category.

 

[Mark]

In my experience, the only time the judges "move" a product from one category to another is if it is seriously in the running for the new category, or if it clearly does not match the description of the old category.

No doubt they do their best, but likely the final word is in the province of the submitter.

 

[Morrus]

I've been thinking about this, Mark, but no matter how I swing it I can't agree with you here. I feel that the judges should (and, as things stand, are) permitted to nominate anyone for any category they choose.

In the long run, if the publisher is really unhappy, he can always refuse the award. But the judges define the categories, not the publishers.

 

[Mark]

But the judges define the categories, not the publishers.

Absolutely, and as it should be, prior to submissions. But, if a category is eliminated or if the nomination committee feels a submitted product should be moved due to a nebulous or misunderstood category definition, they should contact the publisher and see if they still want the product submitted.

It's up to the publisher if a product is going to be submitted and if the guidelines change (post-submission) the publisher should have the right to withdraw a submission.

As you say, the publishers do not define the categories but they do, however, determine if they want something submitted.

 

[Morrus]

As I said, Mark, I'm afraid I disagree. The publisher can refuse an award if that award is not desired.

 

[kingpaul]

I've been thinking about this, Mark, but no matter how I swing it I can't agree with you here. I feel that the judges should (and, as things stand, are) permitted to nominate anyone for any category they choose.

In the long run, if the publisher is really unhappy, he can always refuse the award. But the judges define the categories, not the publishers.

Morrus,

I'm a bit confused here. I thought the publishers were the ones doing the nominations (self-nominations in this case), not the judges. Last year, did the judges put forward candidates for categories that the publisher did not?