Branstorming for ENnies 2003 -- improvements, changes, etc

[EricNoah]

I personally don't like the idea of limiting the number of entries at all. Yes it was annoying when company X would send us one of every single product they'd produced instead of sending the ones that would be good contenders. But think about it this way...

You've got a company like Necromancer Games that, to date at least, has produced only Adventures. It seems to me there's a good chance they could get as many as two or three nominations in one category because of that.

As a different example, you've got companies like WotC or S&S or AEG or Fiery Dragon or others that are establishing themselves as having a breadth of product types and being very successful at doing rules, settings, accessories, adventures, and games. I actually WANT to see companies like this competing in all of the categories they have products for (if they're strong). Not doing so would be like not allowing me to compete on all six events at the gymnastics meet just because I might then end up winning the all-around award.

 

[DPGDarrin]

*Make the awards open only to products released under the Open Gaming License (OGL). That would knock WotC out of every category, especially now that they no longer own Dragon or Dungeon. Of course this might convince them to make their products Open Gaming Content, though it won't. But hey, I don't like this idea. I want someone to beat WotC, fair and square! Hell yeah.

Just a point of clarification. WotC still owns Dungeon and Dragon magazines (not so sure about Star Wars Insider). Paizo Publishing now owns the rights to produce these magazines. This may seem like a minor issue, but it is an important difference.

 

[EricNoah]

Just to throw out an opinion (and it's my opinion only, not Russ's necessarily, has no more weight here than anyone else's): I am very, very strongly opposed to creating a "rule" for who can enter if the sole reason for having that "rule" is to exclude one particular company. If we as a community agree (mostly) that WotC's out in future years, then we just need to find a way to do that without a fake rule.

(Also the proposed rule about proper use of the OGL etc. would knock out Kenzer as they haven't to date released any open content that I'm aware of. Maybe this would be an incentive? )

 

[Glyfair]

These both still sound like popular vote "wins" though -- I also potentially am interested in exploring the notion of a Popular Vote Winner and a Critic's Choice Winner selected by a panel who actually get to read the products (maybe the original judges, maybe a separate panel perhaps a bit larger in size). I think there would have been a lot of surprises if the five of us judges had been asked to come up with a Critic's Choice winner for each category.

Since there aren't nearly as many products to read, it should be much easier to arrange for a slightly larger panel to help with a "Critic's Choice Award." Personally, I would include the original judges.

I personally don't like excluding companies based on their OGL content. I'm sure they paid a good sum to be a licensed D&D product, should we cripple them for that? That will exclude Kenzer since they aren't held to the OGL. It will probably also exclude any of the licensed WotC products like Dragonlance from Sovereign Press. Of course, that will cripple WotC since they have a long road in releasing things as Open Content. I haven't checked lately, but last I looked they still hadn't approved all of the SRD as "official" yet.

Glyfair of Glamis

 

[XCorvis]

I definately don't want to see WotC excluded - if they're making good products, more power to them.

On the other hand, the do have a lot of pull because of who they are. So some "Best OGL"-type categories would be a welcome addition.

Also, I'm not sure how the nomination/judging procedures go, but if might help to narrow the nomination field down to 4 items (like many other media awards), so that being "nominated for an Ennie" is a big thing. It shows you have potential, even if you didn't win.

 

[Ghostwind]

I am very, very strongly opposed to creating a "rule" for who can enter if the sole reason for having that "rule" is to exclude one particular company. Also the proposed rule about proper use of the OGL etc. would knock out Kenzer as they haven't to date released any open content that I'm aware of.

I strongly believe that any attempt to censure or limit a single company's participation in the ENnie' would completely undermine any credibility that awards have now achieved. You cannot say "company X can now no longer enter the awards because we don't like the fact that they won nearly every category." To do so would kill any prestige that the awards brings. You have to open it to everyone or else it is meaningless. It is the responsibility of the selection committee to make sure the product is placed in the proper category, beyond that it is up to the fans who vote. The fans chose Wotc products in this case. End of story.

The creation of additional categories will help diversify the awards and open them up for other companies to get nominated where otherwise they may not. If one of the changes made is the exclusion of products that are not OGC, then once again you are tampering with the prestige of the awards. A possible solution would be the creation of two or three d20 non-ogc categories that would serve for products that have no ogc such as Kenzer or Wotc's stuff.

I am completely against the concept of more than one award in a category. To me, this cheapens the whole awards. As it stands right now, it is a huge deal to be nominated and an even bigger deal to win. If you now give awards to two or three of the nominees, suddenly being nominated means nothing. Furthermore, the second and third place awards will not carry the same weight or meaning. As a writer, if my product was the sole winner it would really mean something to me. But if my product was one of three awards given in that category, it would not be nearly as important to me, especially if there were only five nominees in that category.

Leave the awards as they are and work on refining how selection, judging and the number of categories works. Changes at that end will help refine and smooth the process and not affect the status of the awards themselves.

 

[JVisgaitis]

On "fake" rules

Eric, I'm not trying to introduce "fake" rules like you said, I just think that it might be better to limit the amount of categories that you could enter. I think this would:

1. Make judging easier for you guys.
2. Ensure that the products entered are of that companies highest standard.

I think there are enough companies out there to limit their works to their best stuff. I know if I were a judge and I was sent everything from company "X", I'd probably be a bit annoyed. You have a point in saying that it isn't fair to limit the amount of entries, but this would ensure that everything that is entered is of the highest standard or maybe you can just limit one entry per catergory, but I'm not sure how I feel about that either

I don't think giving a first place and runner up award is a big deal. I'm sure there are dozens of entries into each category. What you might consider, is making the fact that you are nominated for an Ennie isn't as much of a big deal as in the past, and allow around 10 entries to be nominated per category. That way you'd have say Best Adventure with a Runner Up. As it stands now, having a runner up in any category is basically useless as there are few that have been nominated.

Believe me, I have no problem with the way things are now. I'm just a bit ticked that I'm home working and not at Gencon. This thread is giving me a much needed excuse. . . er, break from work.

 

[EricNoah]

Re: On "fake" rules

Eric, I'm not trying to introduce "fake" rules like you said, I just think that it might be better to limit the amount of categories that you could enter.

Actually the "fake rule" I'm concerned about is the proposal that only products with open content be allowed. The idea being then that this would keep WotC out because their products have no open content (to date).

 

[Lady Dragon]

The only way to vote for the Ennies is on this website as far as I know and I like to think that the people who hang out here are a bit more educated about the game than the average gamer. We are people that are aware of D20 and that excellent third party companies exist and most of us buy at least an occasional product from them. So I don't really think there is as much prejudice as paople think as far a WoTC goes. Maybe people really thought that WoTC's products were the best and voted that way after all WoTC does put out some excellent material and they deserved to be recognized as much as anyone else does. Its just incentive for the others to try harder in the future.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I can't speak for the other judges, but I think that it would've been cool to set up the ENnies as a sort of "dual-award" - "Critic's Choice" (for lack of a better term) and "People's Choice" (again, for lack of a better term). The nominations of the judges could have been boiled down to what we felt were the best, and then the nominees would go to the popular vote, pretty much as it was done this time. Then both awards could have been announced simultaneously. That sounds like some of what others have proposed. So, does anyone like that idea? Would you guys like to know what the judges felt were the best items, or does it not matter?