Branstorming for ENnies 2003 -- improvements, changes, etc
- Thread starter EricNoah
- Start date
EricNoah
Adventurer
My initial thoughts on Ryan's proposal:
I see some problems and some benefits.
Problems:
Let's say Green Ronin submits Freeport: City of Adventure to the master ballot, and it gets voted into a category. Then what if they don't come through with copies of the product for the judges? Potential solution: forget about having the publishers submit copies of product, use some sort of community funds to do purchases of products as necessary.
This master ballot method also means, then, that companies who might not even be aware of EN World or don't care about the ENnies could be on the master ballot as well. Is this a problem given the community-based nature of the awards?
I'm also concerned about the fallout or aftermath of judging for the people elected as judges. We're already getting the odd person accusing us of being WotC sycophants. If the judges vote some odd way (or the "popular" way) I'd hate to think there would be anyone (fan or publisher) who would turn around and blame the judges for things not going their way. Judging would be a far riskier task to undertake.
The "final decision" is taken out of the hands of the fans that made the site what it is. As many are pointing out, they resent the implication that the only reason they picked a WotC product is ignorance.
Benefits:
The final decision is made by people who have definitely read all the products.
Should cut down on the amount of reading judges have to do. Five adventures will get a lot more attention than 30.
Thoughts:
There's no reason 5 has to be the magic number of judges, especially if there now is a much more reasonable amount of reading and coordinating to do. In fact, more judges would make for a more representative vote, and could cut down on bad feelings/situations after the judging. I could see a panel of 8-10 judges being feasible.
I see some problems and some benefits.
Problems:
Let's say Green Ronin submits Freeport: City of Adventure to the master ballot, and it gets voted into a category. Then what if they don't come through with copies of the product for the judges? Potential solution: forget about having the publishers submit copies of product, use some sort of community funds to do purchases of products as necessary.
This master ballot method also means, then, that companies who might not even be aware of EN World or don't care about the ENnies could be on the master ballot as well. Is this a problem given the community-based nature of the awards?
I'm also concerned about the fallout or aftermath of judging for the people elected as judges. We're already getting the odd person accusing us of being WotC sycophants. If the judges vote some odd way (or the "popular" way) I'd hate to think there would be anyone (fan or publisher) who would turn around and blame the judges for things not going their way. Judging would be a far riskier task to undertake.
The "final decision" is taken out of the hands of the fans that made the site what it is. As many are pointing out, they resent the implication that the only reason they picked a WotC product is ignorance.
Benefits:
The final decision is made by people who have definitely read all the products.
Should cut down on the amount of reading judges have to do. Five adventures will get a lot more attention than 30.
Thoughts:
There's no reason 5 has to be the magic number of judges, especially if there now is a much more reasonable amount of reading and coordinating to do. In fact, more judges would make for a more representative vote, and could cut down on bad feelings/situations after the judging. I could see a panel of 8-10 judges being feasible.
I still haven't heard a good reason not to have 2 or even 3 levels of the competition. Suppose that WotC, Sovereign Press, AEG, and Sword and Sorcery compete in the larger publisher category. The reason they would be in this category would be because they all publish D&D or officially licensed D&D products. Said products are D&D, Kalamar D&D, Dragonlance, and Oriental adventures/ Rokugan. The smaller publishers that actually want to go head to head with the official "name brand stuff" like Green Ronin, Malhavoc Press, or whoever, can enter into this higher category if they choose. So if I decided to enter in a DPG product into the highest category, I would essentially be saying that I believe my product can topple one of WotC's in a popularity contest.
The second tier would be smaller, less corporate, publishers like Bastion Press, Green Ronin (if they choose not to participate in the higher category), Mystic Eye Games, Necromancer Games, Fiery Dragon, etc. (No offense if I missed anyone important).
The third tier would be PDFs.
One rule would be that a company could only enter at one level. In other words, the balance couldn't be tipped in Cheesewonk Games' favor because they put products in all three categories.
If you think that this is an unrealistic way to structure the awards, then why do the academy awards always have categories for independant films?
The list of who belongs in which category could be voted on by the judges panel, voted by the public, or be determined by specific standard like company head count or product distribution. Maybe not all levels would have the same awards. I mean, would there really be a lot of pdf campaign settings out there? Maybe categories can be taylored to suit the specifics of the market from year to year. The Company's bracket could move up or down from year to year too, depending on the guidelines set up by the judges. I could see some cases where some companies could be in two categories if they are doing official D&D licensed stuff as well as D20 material. Sword and Sorcery Studios are doing Ravenloft, which is officially licensed from WotC, and they have the Scarred Lands, which is published under the OGL. The status of special cases like EQ would be determined by the judges.
If there aren't enough products from different companies, WotC or whatever publisher best fits the category can have more than one entry. Again, this is similar to the academy awards where co-stars can compete against each other for the same award.
The reason that I feel that this would be the most fair for everyone is because this way companies with a great deal of talent, money, and a lot of products like WotC can compete and if they sweep the awards in their category, we can all feel good about the win. Smaller publishers that want to compete in that category can feel good about getting nominated in that category. Others, from smaller publishers, will be happy to be considered the best of their league.
The second tier would be smaller, less corporate, publishers like Bastion Press, Green Ronin (if they choose not to participate in the higher category), Mystic Eye Games, Necromancer Games, Fiery Dragon, etc. (No offense if I missed anyone important).
The third tier would be PDFs.
One rule would be that a company could only enter at one level. In other words, the balance couldn't be tipped in Cheesewonk Games' favor because they put products in all three categories.
If you think that this is an unrealistic way to structure the awards, then why do the academy awards always have categories for independant films?
The list of who belongs in which category could be voted on by the judges panel, voted by the public, or be determined by specific standard like company head count or product distribution. Maybe not all levels would have the same awards. I mean, would there really be a lot of pdf campaign settings out there? Maybe categories can be taylored to suit the specifics of the market from year to year. The Company's bracket could move up or down from year to year too, depending on the guidelines set up by the judges. I could see some cases where some companies could be in two categories if they are doing official D&D licensed stuff as well as D20 material. Sword and Sorcery Studios are doing Ravenloft, which is officially licensed from WotC, and they have the Scarred Lands, which is published under the OGL. The status of special cases like EQ would be determined by the judges.
If there aren't enough products from different companies, WotC or whatever publisher best fits the category can have more than one entry. Again, this is similar to the academy awards where co-stars can compete against each other for the same award.
The reason that I feel that this would be the most fair for everyone is because this way companies with a great deal of talent, money, and a lot of products like WotC can compete and if they sweep the awards in their category, we can all feel good about the win. Smaller publishers that want to compete in that category can feel good about getting nominated in that category. Others, from smaller publishers, will be happy to be considered the best of their league.
Last edited:
Sorry, I just read Ryan's post. Essentially Ryan is proposing a bottom up organization where the masses of people select the products to be voted on and then their represented leaders pick the winners. That's not a bad way to go really, except that Eric's point of view is completely valid, especially if the elected judges allow another sweep like this one's to occure.
My approach is a top down, layered approach. The same people pick the products, and then we all participate in the final vote.
My approach is a top down, layered approach. The same people pick the products, and then we all participate in the final vote.
Glyfair
Explorer
I do think Ryan's proposal is certain different and has some strong points. I agree with most of Eric's comments. However, I feel that Ryan is overestimating the ability of a quality "niche" product getting nominated.
What I really fear is that publishers, trying to get their "niche" product into the top 5, flood the boards with various topics pushing their product. Even if that turns out to be not too many, you'll still have the "fanatics" for the product who want it to win posting.
Regarding the "bribing the judges" comment of Eric, I admit I don't know the judges personally. However, of the ones I've had interactions with, I do feel there is a strong sense of integrity. I think a publisher trying this might be suprised how often he got turned down and even threatened with exposure (I know I would). Still, shielding the judges from this annoyance is probably a good idea.
Glyfair of Glamis
What I really fear is that publishers, trying to get their "niche" product into the top 5, flood the boards with various topics pushing their product. Even if that turns out to be not too many, you'll still have the "fanatics" for the product who want it to win posting.
Regarding the "bribing the judges" comment of Eric, I admit I don't know the judges personally. However, of the ones I've had interactions with, I do feel there is a strong sense of integrity. I think a publisher trying this might be suprised how often he got turned down and even threatened with exposure (I know I would). Still, shielding the judges from this annoyance is probably a good idea.
Glyfair of Glamis
Last edited:
Glyfair said:
While I agree that this is a valid concern, I just don't see it happening. The truth is that the boards are already somewhat flooded with publishers pushing their own products. This normally focuses on new products that are about to be released so that they can get the word out and build some excitement about them. Who can fault us for that? A ploy to try to generate popular votes for nominated products by flooding the boards with comments about their product, I feel, would most likely cause a backlash, and cause them to lose. I think I speak for most people when I say that I'm more likely to vote for a product that I really truly like than I am to vote for a product where my vote has essentially been puppy dogged.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
EricNoah said:
You got that right. However, I guess no matter what system you use, and no matter what wins, there will always be the odd person or people who will insist that the fix was in.
Blacksad
Explorer
EOL said:
At its logical extreme, their is at least 6 persons who are familiar with the product, the judges.
and I think that given the ENworld community, their is quite a few people familiar with each product.
and by the way RW, isn't what you propose what some already proposed a bit earlier
I think a Critic's Choice for each category is too much, but an overall Critic's Choice might be useful. Also, having a second-place prize seems to be overly-patronizing. With 5 products per category, having only one winner is a good thing (there can be only one!)
I think having WotC voluntarily backing out and supporting the awards is just as bad as excluding them using some "fake rule". They aren't 'technically' a d20 publisher, but as far as mindshare goes, they may as well be. Also, Eric Noah keeps repeating that some of the WotC products won by narrow margins, so it seems that smaller publishers *are* doing a good job of competing with the behometh that is Wizards of the Coast. They may dominate now, but if the d20 movement really possesses the legs we all hope it does, I don't think they can continue to dominate in the long term.
I also don't want to see the awards tiered by company size. That destroys the point of seeing the little guys compete and sometimes *win* against WotC. That said, a Best Small Publisher and A Best New Publisher award wouldn't be amiss.
I would like to see a few PDF-only categories. I don't know how to make it bearable for the judges, bless 'em, but it would be nice.
I'm not sure I like Ryan's proposal. The representative idea is cool, but I want to be able to influence my selected Judge, just like I can (theoretically) influence my congress-critter.
dr jekyll
I think having WotC voluntarily backing out and supporting the awards is just as bad as excluding them using some "fake rule". They aren't 'technically' a d20 publisher, but as far as mindshare goes, they may as well be. Also, Eric Noah keeps repeating that some of the WotC products won by narrow margins, so it seems that smaller publishers *are* doing a good job of competing with the behometh that is Wizards of the Coast. They may dominate now, but if the d20 movement really possesses the legs we all hope it does, I don't think they can continue to dominate in the long term.
I also don't want to see the awards tiered by company size. That destroys the point of seeing the little guys compete and sometimes *win* against WotC. That said, a Best Small Publisher and A Best New Publisher award wouldn't be amiss.
I would like to see a few PDF-only categories. I don't know how to make it bearable for the judges, bless 'em, but it would be nice.
I'm not sure I like Ryan's proposal. The representative idea is cool, but I want to be able to influence my selected Judge, just like I can (theoretically) influence my congress-critter.
dr jekyll
Adlon
Mortality.net
My 2 coppers...
I remember when the nominees were announced, and the voting began.
I went to the page to vote. I saw the 5 entries in each category.
To be frank, I did NOT have exposure to every product in every category. In a few cases, I was forced to make a decision, where my ignorance to some products possibly affected the outcome of the voting.
One person?
Yes.
But, I feel that I am not alone in this. In fact, I KNOW that I'm not alone, having talked to a great many people at GenCon.
Lets assume (not big on that word, but, lets run with it
that the ENnies stay EXACTLY the same next year, including the way the products were nominated, voted on, etc.
IF this would be the case, then, IMO, the voting system is flawed.
I refer you all to a common topic on this and other forums: Homebrew vs. Core Rules. The Core Rules die hards will usually adhere and vote for the Core Rule provider, by and large.
In my opinion, the voting process should be grealy expanded, which means a more complicated system, unfortunately.
But, when I voted, I merely clicked on Radio buttons, and hit submit. It was over in about 20 seconds.
No OPT OUT feature was available. Also, there was NO verification that I have at least read some of the products listed.
In my case, I owned about 80% of the products that were nominated, and at least two in each category, more in others, and all in some.
That meant I could make a reasonable determination on at least 2 of the products in each category. And being ignorant about the other three. Thus, possibly slighting the three other products I did not have access to, one of which MAY have truly been the superior product. BUT, I voted for what I WAS exposed to.
Now, with the large amount of people who are core rules die hards (nothing wrong with that, IMO), wouldn't it be the Core Rule Provider that they would vote for on a majority basis?
Also, what of the large number of people who only have say 10-20% of the nominated products? Would voting for WotC product be the 'safe bet'? I think yes, to varying degrees.
I talked to several publishers about WotC being in the main stream of the nominations and voting. Most said that they welcome butting heads with WotC. To most, being nominated was a big event when going up against the D&D giant.
So, to take them out altogether would do the ENnies ill, IMO.
I'd need some time to think about alternate categories, before I just wing it, and post here. But I think some additional criteria and categories is the way to go.
And the voting system, the KEY to who wins, needs to be expanded.
Essentially, those who tally the votes would have nightmares.
An OPT Out option, and possibly a type of 'I have not been exposed to all products in this category' would be viable items.
There I go, winging it. Possibly, an short product exposure verification...???
Back at my main point. New categories, and criteria aside, the voting system this year was shorthanded, IMO.
Again, just my 2 copper (copper's not worth much, is it ..?
Bottom line, most of the winners did in fact deserve to win. SO many excellent products. I can see where there were some tight races.
We can all say that there were some that won that shouldn't have. I have my picks for that subject, but to go into them is pointless.
On another note, what INDEED does being nominated, and/or winning an ENnie do for the publisher? I saw some good points on this in this thread.
When I go to the game store, and interact with the 'local' gamers, who are or will be buying product, at least in MY area, I see no interest in WHO was nominated, and or won an ENnie. I find that people buy Core, and their favored publishers most of the time. And lastly, taking a chance on what 'looks good', or a referral from another gamer.
Education on what the ENnies are, to the local level, would be paramount to getting nominees, and winners the recognition they truly deserve. The gaming community here, on these forums, is tiny compared to the massive amount of gamers who are not even online.
This popularization would be a monumental effort, but not unobtainable.
I have several 'this just in ideas' on getting the word out to the mom & pop gameshops and book stores, but, I'll reserve those for when I can actually put time into thought.
But, IF the ENnies and what they're about were mainstream knowledge to the masses, rather than the 6000 or so members here, and the plethora but still minority groups elsewhere, then the being nominated and/or winning would carry all that much more weight. Till then, the gold ENnie graphic on the cover of a product will carry alot less weight. Most have NO clue what they are, and what goes into the selection process, and wht it all means.
WE do, but, thats us, the online community.
WotC should, IMO, get more involved in the ENnies. They have a humongous website, with forums that mostly work (Eric earned the ire of the WotC web team at the ceremony, btw
Anyways, by having more of THEIR community supporters involved, would expand the knowledge of wha the ENnies are, and what they stand for.
As well, the d20 publishers can for the most part, easily help to educate what the ENnies are. Again, several 'this just in' ideas, needing time to gel in my brain.
But, once more of the masses KNOW about the ENnies, and what they mean, that would make the being nominated and/or winning all the more important, and satisfying.
Heck, even at GenCon, I talked to many 3E players, and when I asked them if they'd attend the ENnies, well, I got alot of 'the what?' 'What are the ENnies?' And 'Oh, I'm dont go online.' and similar statements.
Popularizing the ENnies, and the voting system, and possibly some re-categorizing.
And yes, more chairs
I remember when the nominees were announced, and the voting began.
I went to the page to vote. I saw the 5 entries in each category.
To be frank, I did NOT have exposure to every product in every category. In a few cases, I was forced to make a decision, where my ignorance to some products possibly affected the outcome of the voting.
One person?
Yes.
But, I feel that I am not alone in this. In fact, I KNOW that I'm not alone, having talked to a great many people at GenCon.
Lets assume (not big on that word, but, lets run with it
that the ENnies stay EXACTLY the same next year, including the way the products were nominated, voted on, etc.IF this would be the case, then, IMO, the voting system is flawed.
I refer you all to a common topic on this and other forums: Homebrew vs. Core Rules. The Core Rules die hards will usually adhere and vote for the Core Rule provider, by and large.
In my opinion, the voting process should be grealy expanded, which means a more complicated system, unfortunately.
But, when I voted, I merely clicked on Radio buttons, and hit submit. It was over in about 20 seconds.
No OPT OUT feature was available. Also, there was NO verification that I have at least read some of the products listed.
In my case, I owned about 80% of the products that were nominated, and at least two in each category, more in others, and all in some.
That meant I could make a reasonable determination on at least 2 of the products in each category. And being ignorant about the other three. Thus, possibly slighting the three other products I did not have access to, one of which MAY have truly been the superior product. BUT, I voted for what I WAS exposed to.
Now, with the large amount of people who are core rules die hards (nothing wrong with that, IMO), wouldn't it be the Core Rule Provider that they would vote for on a majority basis?
Also, what of the large number of people who only have say 10-20% of the nominated products? Would voting for WotC product be the 'safe bet'? I think yes, to varying degrees.
I talked to several publishers about WotC being in the main stream of the nominations and voting. Most said that they welcome butting heads with WotC. To most, being nominated was a big event when going up against the D&D giant.
So, to take them out altogether would do the ENnies ill, IMO.
I'd need some time to think about alternate categories, before I just wing it, and post here. But I think some additional criteria and categories is the way to go.
And the voting system, the KEY to who wins, needs to be expanded.
Essentially, those who tally the votes would have nightmares.
An OPT Out option, and possibly a type of 'I have not been exposed to all products in this category' would be viable items.
There I go, winging it. Possibly, an short product exposure verification...???
Back at my main point. New categories, and criteria aside, the voting system this year was shorthanded, IMO.
Again, just my 2 copper (copper's not worth much, is it ..?
Bottom line, most of the winners did in fact deserve to win. SO many excellent products. I can see where there were some tight races.
We can all say that there were some that won that shouldn't have. I have my picks for that subject, but to go into them is pointless.
On another note, what INDEED does being nominated, and/or winning an ENnie do for the publisher? I saw some good points on this in this thread.
When I go to the game store, and interact with the 'local' gamers, who are or will be buying product, at least in MY area, I see no interest in WHO was nominated, and or won an ENnie. I find that people buy Core, and their favored publishers most of the time. And lastly, taking a chance on what 'looks good', or a referral from another gamer.
Education on what the ENnies are, to the local level, would be paramount to getting nominees, and winners the recognition they truly deserve. The gaming community here, on these forums, is tiny compared to the massive amount of gamers who are not even online.
This popularization would be a monumental effort, but not unobtainable.
I have several 'this just in ideas' on getting the word out to the mom & pop gameshops and book stores, but, I'll reserve those for when I can actually put time into thought.
But, IF the ENnies and what they're about were mainstream knowledge to the masses, rather than the 6000 or so members here, and the plethora but still minority groups elsewhere, then the being nominated and/or winning would carry all that much more weight. Till then, the gold ENnie graphic on the cover of a product will carry alot less weight. Most have NO clue what they are, and what goes into the selection process, and wht it all means.
WE do, but, thats us, the online community.
WotC should, IMO, get more involved in the ENnies. They have a humongous website, with forums that mostly work
(Eric earned the ire of the WotC web team at the ceremony, btw Anyways, by having more of THEIR community supporters involved, would expand the knowledge of wha the ENnies are, and what they stand for.
As well, the d20 publishers can for the most part, easily help to educate what the ENnies are. Again, several 'this just in' ideas, needing time to gel in my brain.
But, once more of the masses KNOW about the ENnies, and what they mean, that would make the being nominated and/or winning all the more important, and satisfying.
Heck, even at GenCon, I talked to many 3E players, and when I asked them if they'd attend the ENnies, well, I got alot of 'the what?' 'What are the ENnies?' And 'Oh, I'm dont go online.' and similar statements.
Popularizing the ENnies, and the voting system, and possibly some re-categorizing.
And yes, more chairs
Similar Threads
