ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
I thought that if you didn't want to vote for any items in a category, you could simply not check a selection and hit submit. That would be effectively an OPT OUT selection.
Branstorming for ENnies 2003 -- improvements, changes, etc
- Thread starter EricNoah
- Start date
Psion
Adventurer
Orcus said:
Oh, absolutely. I would even go so far to say that critically speaking, it should not have won. But...
...there's the rub. It was a popularity contest, at least the fan vote was. And we knew that. WotC won by name recognition. (Of course I am repeating myself).
The fundamental question is: do we want this to be a popularity contest (or at least strictly a popularity contest)?
Psion
Adventurer
EricNoah said:
FWIW, I fought against its inclusion. It's a good book, no doubt. Just didn't deserve to rub elbows in the setting department as it is more of a rulebook IMHO.
I would imagine that there was enough competition between Rokugan and SLCS that knocked their collective scores down enough to give OA room to win on name recognition, despite not being the most full-on setting supplement.
FDP Mike
First Post
Focus on the fans!
I really like the current nomination and voting system, particularly because the entire process remains in the hands of the fans, with the publishers kept far away from having any influence other than campaigning for any nominated products.
Any suggestion that the slate of nominees was somehow "rigged" in favour of WotC questions the integrity of the judges, which simply is unfair and unfounded. The five judges did an incredible amount of work on their free time in service of the EN World community, and they should be applauded (again) for their efforts -- especially because their nominations presented a truly superb portrait of the quality products available in d20/D&D land, from WotC and others. Let's remember that fans voted for WotC products to win, not the judges.
I think that because the awards are the ENnies, the judges should be picked from the EN World community. A polling/voting process just like this year's is simple and democratic. Nothing needs changing there. If those "outside" of the EN World community feel that all of this is too "insular," then it's really their prerogative to get involved (i.e., put up or shut up). Ryan Dancey's suggestions for changing the voting/nominating process open up more problems than they solve, IMHO.
I've seen a few good suggestions for potential added categories -- yet let's not try to make judging even more burdensome.
I like the idea of a "Best Product Overall" category: beyond all the separate types of products (i.e., rules supplement, campaign supplement, adventure, aid/accessory), what was The Best product published for d20/D&D? If that's a WotC product, then the will of the fans must be accepted. What if one year, though, it's a Fiery Dragon product? WHOO HOO!! 
There's no need that I can see to start having multiple awards such as 2nd place or a Critic's Choice. The "KISS" rule is best, perhaps: just keep it simple. Truly, getting nominated is an honour unto itself; winning is the gravy. Maybe when Morrus returns, he might post a list of the top 3 in each category, but without voting results -- merely for curiosity's sake.
Originally, I was under the impression that the ENnies were for d20 publishers, such publishers defined generally as being "not WotC"; at least, this is how they were run last year. I do feel strongly that WotC is not technically a d20 publisher in the sense that even Sword & Sorcery is (and must be). If, however, we consider exactly what the ENnies are for, then including WotC can make a lot of sense: i.e., for those of us who remember "Eric Noah's Unofficial 3E News" (I hope that I got the title right!), this whole on-line community began as a fan site dedicated to tracking the development of the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons -- not "d20" as we've come to define it, but D&D specifically. That Eric -- and Morrus after him -- also provided an invaluable venue for d20 publishers is a fortunate happenstance for which many of us are very grateful. So, if we recall EN World's roots, having WotC in the nominations is pretty much a no-brainer. Moreover, the attraction of a "d20" company such as, say, Fiery Dragon potentially beating WotC head-to-head carries its own sort of drama and intrigue. (FDP did this, in a way, by getting a Best Adventure nomination while WotC did not.) Thus, if everyone is clear as to what the ENnies represent, WotC's inclusion (or exclusion) will be more understandable.
GenCon utterly fascinated me: all of these people in one place for the sole purpose of playing games over the course of four days. (Can you tell it was my first GenCon?
) If we hold on to the fact that d20/D&D is about playing games and having fun, we can maybe hold on to the larger "purpose" of the ENnies: honouring those products and publishers that contribute to our fun . . . or, at least, to the fun of those people who contribute to and enjoy the EN World community.
Hmm, I suppose that's enough for now. I really should get back to editing . . . .
I really like the current nomination and voting system, particularly because the entire process remains in the hands of the fans, with the publishers kept far away from having any influence other than campaigning for any nominated products.
Any suggestion that the slate of nominees was somehow "rigged" in favour of WotC questions the integrity of the judges, which simply is unfair and unfounded. The five judges did an incredible amount of work on their free time in service of the EN World community, and they should be applauded (again) for their efforts -- especially because their nominations presented a truly superb portrait of the quality products available in d20/D&D land, from WotC and others. Let's remember that fans voted for WotC products to win, not the judges.
I think that because the awards are the ENnies, the judges should be picked from the EN World community. A polling/voting process just like this year's is simple and democratic. Nothing needs changing there. If those "outside" of the EN World community feel that all of this is too "insular," then it's really their prerogative to get involved (i.e., put up or shut up). Ryan Dancey's suggestions for changing the voting/nominating process open up more problems than they solve, IMHO.
I've seen a few good suggestions for potential added categories -- yet let's not try to make judging even more burdensome.
I like the idea of a "Best Product Overall" category: beyond all the separate types of products (i.e., rules supplement, campaign supplement, adventure, aid/accessory), what was The Best product published for d20/D&D? If that's a WotC product, then the will of the fans must be accepted. What if one year, though, it's a Fiery Dragon product? WHOO HOO!! There's no need that I can see to start having multiple awards such as 2nd place or a Critic's Choice. The "KISS" rule is best, perhaps: just keep it simple. Truly, getting nominated is an honour unto itself; winning is the gravy. Maybe when Morrus returns, he might post a list of the top 3 in each category, but without voting results -- merely for curiosity's sake.
Originally, I was under the impression that the ENnies were for d20 publishers, such publishers defined generally as being "not WotC"; at least, this is how they were run last year. I do feel strongly that WotC is not technically a d20 publisher in the sense that even Sword & Sorcery is (and must be). If, however, we consider exactly what the ENnies are for, then including WotC can make a lot of sense: i.e., for those of us who remember "Eric Noah's Unofficial 3E News" (I hope that I got the title right!), this whole on-line community began as a fan site dedicated to tracking the development of the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons -- not "d20" as we've come to define it, but D&D specifically. That Eric -- and Morrus after him -- also provided an invaluable venue for d20 publishers is a fortunate happenstance for which many of us are very grateful. So, if we recall EN World's roots, having WotC in the nominations is pretty much a no-brainer. Moreover, the attraction of a "d20" company such as, say, Fiery Dragon potentially beating WotC head-to-head carries its own sort of drama and intrigue. (FDP did this, in a way, by getting a Best Adventure nomination while WotC did not.) Thus, if everyone is clear as to what the ENnies represent, WotC's inclusion (or exclusion) will be more understandable.
GenCon utterly fascinated me: all of these people in one place for the sole purpose of playing games over the course of four days. (Can you tell it was my first GenCon?
) If we hold on to the fact that d20/D&D is about playing games and having fun, we can maybe hold on to the larger "purpose" of the ENnies: honouring those products and publishers that contribute to our fun . . . or, at least, to the fun of those people who contribute to and enjoy the EN World community.Hmm, I suppose that's enough for now. I really should get back to editing . . . .
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Psion said:
This is such a good point. The only way to not have the award be a popularity contest is to eliminate the fan vote, and no one wants to do that. I'm sure a lot of people who voted for WotC did so for good, sound reasons. However, a substantial portion of the WotC vote was almost assuredly due to name recognition/market penetration. This is to be expected of any such award or contest based on fan voting. Any system that tries to eliminate this risks alienating the fans, and thus could hurt the integrity of the awards. On the other hand, not figuring out a way to reduce this phenomenon risks alienating the publishers, and, again, could hurt the integrity of the awards. Quite the Gordian knot.
Psion
Adventurer
I wonder if that would have shifted the results significantly. I think in some cases it would have. I mean in most categories, it was pretty obvious where companies were "shotgunning" it in the hopes that the one product that matched the judges sensibilities was in the batch.
But really, I think that played a big role in the adventures nomination. Monkey God sent us at least five adventures IIRC, and Song of Storms was seen as something of a dark horse by those who saw it show up. Also, if Necromancer had only submitted 3 adventures, I don't think Rainbow Mage would have been one of them (I betcha they would have sent RA3, What Evil Lurks, and Tomb of Abysthor.)
Reviewing that many adventures was a pain, and really the most difficult part of the judging process. But I think that it helped us identify some of the gems in the bevy of adventures out there.
Re: Weighting votes
I posted this several pages back but it seems to have been overlooked. While I don't think this is the 'perfect' solution, it might be worth considering. (I don't think there is a 'perfect' solution; every idea posted thus far has both merits and flaws.)
This idea is similar to RangerWickett's in that it weights votes, but different in that it ties the weight to the voter instead of the product.
I think Eric did refer to this post when he said he didn't like any system which relied on the 'honor' system. This does to the extent that it relies on the voter to accurately and honestly put down how many products they feel qualified to judge between in a category. The fewer you put down, the less your vote counts.
This has two immediate problems:
1) Some people will be irritated that their vote doesn't count as much as someone else's, even though they've only read two of the products and the other person five. So you'll get some complaints; then again, you'll get complaints anyways. And if they don't like this, they can always put down knowledge for all 5 products in each category.
2) Some people will try to skew the voting by saying they are always qualified to judge between all five products, even when this is not true. This is where the 'honor' system comes in. While true, even if only 80% of the voters elect to accurately weight their votes, it would be a great improvement in accuracy over the current system where no one has the option to do so.
tmaaas said:
I posted this several pages back but it seems to have been overlooked. While I don't think this is the 'perfect' solution, it might be worth considering. (I don't think there is a 'perfect' solution; every idea posted thus far has both merits and flaws.)
This idea is similar to RangerWickett's in that it weights votes, but different in that it ties the weight to the voter instead of the product.
I think Eric did refer to this post when he said he didn't like any system which relied on the 'honor' system. This does to the extent that it relies on the voter to accurately and honestly put down how many products they feel qualified to judge between in a category. The fewer you put down, the less your vote counts.
This has two immediate problems:
1) Some people will be irritated that their vote doesn't count as much as someone else's, even though they've only read two of the products and the other person five. So you'll get some complaints; then again, you'll get complaints anyways. And if they don't like this, they can always put down knowledge for all 5 products in each category.
2) Some people will try to skew the voting by saying they are always qualified to judge between all five products, even when this is not true. This is where the 'honor' system comes in. While true, even if only 80% of the voters elect to accurately weight their votes, it would be a great improvement in accuracy over the current system where no one has the option to do so.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Psion said:
I agree with this. The problem is, though, that many of the submissions had as much campaign setting info in them as OA, proportionately. That was a tough category.
Last edited:
Lady Dragon
First Post
What about a ranking system by the voter.Asking him/her to rank the 5 nominees from 1 through 5 with 1 being the best and 5 the worst and the product with the lowest score overall then wins.If he's not familiar enough with all of the product to do this he could opt out. Anyway just a suggestion that might make close races more interesting by taking into account close second or third choices and overall averages, especially since it sounds like in the case of OA for example you either loved it or hated it.If it had got enough 5 scores it could have pulled it down a bit and a book with a lot of 1's and 2's could have won instead.
Similar Threads
