2007 Judge Selection

[vermicious knid]

By you, maybe.

To the (prospective) judges:

13. How long have you been gaming? Does that affect the perspective you will be bringing to the judging table?

14. How much game design experience do you have? I don't mean published, I mean in general- 10 years of homebrewing? Have you created your own systems? Do you think this affects your level of qualification as a judge?

13. 26 years. Yes, absolutely. I've seen MANY games over the years and I like to think a have a solid understanding of what does and doesn't work.

14. Worked on development of Cyberstorm 2 and Starsiege. MTG deck designer of some small infamy in the late 90's (check credits of Jay Schneider articles). Have been homebrewing since I played my 2nd or 3rd D&D game. I think the perpective of having actually tried your hand at design absolutely makes you more qualified as a judge of design work.

 

[vermicious knid]

I would like to know if any of the candidates have done paid games industry work, ever.

RPG design work? No. I was paid to work on computer strategy games for a while, and I spent some time running the gaming side of a couple of retail shops in Eugene, OR. I also made a little bit of money playing Magic and buying/selling cards.

 

[Crothian]

Questions

Do you plan on playtesting any of the material?

What prompted you to consider being a judge for the ENnies?

Would statements by those "in the industry" affect your opinions on a product?

I kind of playtest things, it depends what it is. I usually at least make up a character or two for every game system we get so I can see how the rules work.

I don't even remember. It probably sounded like fun and I wanted to see what it was like. It turned out to be a lot of freaking hard work, but it was oddly fun.

I don't read a lot of Industry pages to know what they think about a product.

 

[vermicious knid]

Questions

Do you plan on playtesting any of the material?

What prompted you to consider being a judge for the ENnies?

Would statements by those "in the industry" affect your opinions on a product?

Yup, as much as it is practical to do so. I can't promise that I'll play a 1st-20th level campaign all the way through.

I love games.

No, not at all. Industry people are just geeks that got published.

 

[mcrow]

Questions

Do you plan on playtesting any of the material?

As much as possible. Since there will be a couple hundred or more books, there is just no way to playtest all of them while reading them as well. Even if you had 8 hours every day, I doubt you could playtest them all. Some of the enteries i may have played already, so that might help.

What prompted you to consider being a judge for the ENnies?

Well, it sounded like something I would like to do. I like to read PRGs a lot, and review them. I had heard that some people feel that the awards are too d20 centric. Since d20 in not my primary system I thought it might help to have someone non-d20 players can be sure has no bias towards d20. Not that I think the past judges were biased ( I think they hav been very fair), but there is that perception since the judges have mostly been from EN World.

Would statements by those "in the industry" affect your opinions on a product?

Nope.

 

[Xath]

Do you plan on playtesting any of the material?

Of course.

What prompted you to consider being a judge for the ENnies?

I've been working as a staff member for the ENnies for the past year, and I'd like to become more involved; as a judge.

Would statements by those "in the industry" affect your opinions on a product?

No. Statements by people effect my opinions of people, not products.

 

[Rasyr]

Yes I do. I think we could argue what is a main category and there are RPGs these days that try to put everything in one book. I don't think we should punish books that try to do that.

But what about the converse? If you don't want to publish books that try to do more than one thing, doesn't that have the possibility of punishing those that don't?

For example, look at Shackled City, it wasn't even trying to be a setting book, the publisher didn't include it in Best Setting as a submission, the judges decided to do that, and in in the judges decision to expend the scope of that book, it knocked another book out of the running, one that did not try to be more than it was. Was that fair to the book that was knocked out?

Now I had been under the impression that the judges ability to move products around was meant to correct errors in submissions, not to put up a book for more awards than the published had submitted them for. In short, it got nominated through a loophole, through an unclear rule that only became clear after the fact.

Question:
If a publisher does not submit a product for a given award, why should judges be allowed to add that product to the list of possible nominations?

In short, by moving products into categories for which they were not submitted, that basically gives the judges a large amount of power to control what may or may not get the awards in the end because they could possibly put in a product that is marginally associated with a categroy to knock out one that is fully suited to it?

Is it FAIR to the publishers for the judges to have such power?

Would it be better if there was some sort of submission committee that determined category suitability prior to hand off to the judges?

Shouldn't the publishers be trusted to know what categories they want their products in?

Well first off, what do you define as a main category? I'm going to assume that you're once again bringing up Shackled City. Yes, I feel that on a vote, a product should be allowed in more than one category. But it cannot be arbitrarily put there. The reason there are 5 judges is so that there can be no ties on issues like this. If the judges, as a unit, feel that a product should be allowed in more than one category, they should be able to enter it. But maybe for this year, they should require that decision to be unanimous instead of a 3-2 majority.

I define a "main category" as a category that judges/evaluates the product as a whole, as opposed to judging/evaluating only a portion (i.e. rules, art, writing, etc.. only looks at a specific aspect, not the WHOLE product). And any descriptions for such "main categories" should, IMO, include the word "majority" since it is meant to describe the ENTIRE product.

Question:
Why should judges be allowed add products to categories other than those that the publisher submitted the product for?

The question does NOT refer to the judges REMOVING a product from a category to which it was not suited in order to place it in its correct category. That is fixing an error, the question is in regard to judges putting products up for awards that the publishers did not ask for.....

 

[Piratecat]

This is not the venue to discuss policy, Rasyr, as I'm sure you know. There are other threads far better suited for this. Please stop trying to do so under the guise of posing judge questions.

 

[Crothian]

For example, look at Shackled City, it wasn't even trying to be a setting book, the publisher didn't include it in Best Setting as a submission, the judges decided to do that, and in in the judges decision to expend the scope of that book, it knocked another book out of the running, one that did not try to be more than it was. Was that fair to the book that was knocked out?

If everything in One book is better then one specific thing book in the one specific thing book's area, then it is fair. We want the best in each category. Now it can be argued to death which is better, but that's the judge's call.

Now I had been under the impression that the judges ability to move products around was meant to correct errors in submissions, not to put up a book for more awards than the published had submitted them for. In short, it got nominated through a loophole, through an unclear rule that only became clear after the fact.

As I understood the rule for the past 4 years the Judges can freely move things around as they sit fit. There is no loop hole they have the ability to do it as they see fit. I have no idea how a Judge would know what an error in submissions would be. We aren't doing the submitting and we have no idea the intent of the publishers. But we did ask publishers if there was any category they did not want the book to be considered for. I think you are placing motives on the Judges that are not there. We didn't do it so it would win more awards. We did because we felt it fit in the category.

If a publisher does not submit a product for a given award, why should judges be allowed to add that product to the list of possible nominations?

They are not. The judges can only judge products that are submitted. It should be noted others besides the publishers can submit product though it has never happened to my knowledge.

Now if you mean submit to a category then ya the Judges have that ability. So far I've only heard from one publisher who's product was moved and they felt that was a negative until they won.

In short, by moving products into categories for which they were not submitted, that basically gives the judges a large amount of power to control what may or may not get the awards in the end because they could possibly put in a product that is marginally associated with a categroy to knock out one that is fully suited to it?

Publishers can pick what categories they don't want it entered in. But if you really don't trust the judges to behave accordingly I think you need to say so. Becasue this is not what happens.

Why should judges be allowed add products to categories other than those that the publisher submitted the product for?

Yes. Because the read through everything and can determine if certain books fit in certain areas. It happens very rarely, last year I can only think of two books that it happened to.

 

[Umbran]

Crothian, I thought P-cat made it perfectly clear that this is not the proper venue for discusson of the policies. You do not help matters by continuing the discussion. So, please, don't respond to Rasyr any more in this thread. Thank you.