This is long-winded, so be warned ahead of time...
With each new post, a clearer picture is beginning to form about what happened behind the scenes and also what folks feel about the ENnies. There is definitely a fairly strong consensus that all nominees should be on the same level playing field. No publisher should be excluded or placed in a category that keeps them separate from the rest of the group. Every publisher that has voiced their opinion has stated they consider it an honor to go head to head with the "top dog". Clearly, they want that ability to remain as it is.
There have been numerous suggestions about changing the voting structure also. But as the judges have begun talking about how the results were achieved and some of the actual margins, I am not convinced that major changes are needed for next year's awards. In many categories it was a tight race and the winner could have gone in a couple of directions with a few votes difference. To me, this is indicating that things aren't broken as we previously thought. With the exception of the controversial OA placement and subsequent win, all of the other wins are most likely because the general public felt they were the best selection among the choices.
So what needs to be changed? In my belief, very little. The addition of more categories would be a good move as long as they are good general categories and not a series of micro ones (such as best prestige class or rule). I would suggest the awards next year be altered to these categories (again, my opinion only) :
*Best Licensed Setting (this would cover any licensed setting such as Everquest, Farscape, Kalamar, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, etc.)
*Best d20 Campaign Setting (this covers any setting that utilizes the d20 rules- licensed d20 settings would be eligible)
*Best Mega-Adventure (adventures in excess of 96 pages)
*Best Adventure (adventures less than 96 pages)
*Best Campaign Setting Supplement (this would include books tailored for a specific campaign world such as Silver Marches, Hollowfaust, Magic of Rokugan, etc.)
*Best Setting Supplement (this would include generic settings such as Freeport, Bluffside, Stormhaven, Seven Strongholds, etc.)
*Best Rules Supplement (includes books consisting of new rules or variant rules - essentially the same as this year's criteria)
*Best Accessory or Aid (again, same criteria as this year)
*d20 Game of the Year (same criteria as this year)
*Publisher of the Year (same criteria)
*Pdf of the Year (publishers would be limited to one entry only for this category)
*Best Use of the Open Gaming License (this award would go to the publisher who exemplifies the spirit of the OGL by providing consistent open game content in a quality fashion)
*Critic's Choice Award (this award would be for the product that judges feel stands above all others in quality and game use)
*All other awards would remain also (art and web based awards)
The talk of restricting the voting to EN community members only is a bad idea in my opinion. The awards needs to be about the role playing community and not a specific subset of it. To promote the awards and get publishers to be excited about them, you have to open it to everyone regardless whether they are registered with the community or not. It has to be an all or nothing deal. It must include the entire general public and not force them to go through a registration process they want no part of.
Based on the judges responses I don't think the issue of "popularity and name recognition" is as big of an issue as previously believed. When you look at what is on the horizon as far as product releases go from all of the companies, the diversity is incredible. Many of these releases will raise the standard of quality to new levels and force other publishers to make changes or be left in the dust. Many publishers are right on the bubble of crossing over to a "top dog" status. Malhavoc and Green Ronin can arguably be said to have earned that status this year. I suspect next year will see Bastion Press, Mystic Eye Games and possibly one or two more hit the mark.
The voting issue should resolve itself because of this. To change it to a ranking system or some other means will most likely either skew the results greater or cause confusion or disinterest among the voters. As a rule, I believe voters tend to prefer clear cut choices. Pick the winner and move on to the next category. I agree that the option of "None of the above" could be added to let a voter not pick in a category if they so desire. But in the end, clear and concise directions at the beginning along with making the voting process simple will do more for getting consistent votes than anything that makes it all complicated.
There is a common saying of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I strongly think that is the case here. There was nothing broke about the awards this time, rather it was just how the ballots fell. Make a couple of minor tweaks and sit back until next year. If the same issues arise on a consistent basis then take a stronger look at major changes. But there is no need for radicalism at this point.
)
