Dancey resigns as GAMA Treasurer

[Rasyr]

I'm not convinced that solves the appearance of self-serving, incestuous, self-appointed impropriety.

There was also discussion of including those who do product reviews on a regular basis as part of the judging panels.

So far there has been lots of various ideas thrown about (including one by Nisarg's hero of having ONLY retailers judge the awards).

However, the one of the more welcomed suggestions was to create a judges panel from all portions of the gaming industry (retailers, creatives, distributors, editors, reviewers, etc..). Another suggestion was to require each judge to provide a short bit of reasoning for voting why he did, and making his voting record public. Yet another suggestion was to make the voting totals public but not who voted for what.

In short there has been many various suggestions on how to handle the future Origins Awards. One thing that everybody could agree on was that the rules and guidelines need to be codified in a solid manner, so that no matter who is Chair, impropiety cannot be claimed.

In the past, there was too much that was arbitrary to the will of the Chair, that is one thing that will definitely be changing. What the final form of the awards for next year will be, I don't know yet, nobody does.

The Origins Awards Task Force (all one of him), has called for full-fledged proposals on how the awards will be administered and overseen and how they will work in the future. The task force list (with lots of non-task force members) will then debate the positives and negatives of each proposal before the task force selects the required 3 proposals to submit to the GAMA Board. The Board is then supposed give feedback, before they select the one to put to a vote before the GAMA members.

Still a long ways to go....

 

[billd91]

<snip>

I think the quibble here comes in defining "most accomplishes." Some people say that means that is does an excellent job on the "micro-scale" - i.e., it is an excellent product because it helps my group enjoy itself due to (a) good writing, (b) good rules, (c) good flavor text, (d) good art, (e) good other, (f) all of the above. This is what I think a lot of people want to mean when they say something is "quality" - it does a "good job" describing a game (or a setting, or whatever) that the person saying it is "quality" would like to play in - whether that is for setting, rules, elegance, simplicity, and so on. This is a valid definition of "most accomplishes" but is horribly subjective because it is almost impossible to get any two people to agree upon exactly what set of rules is best. (Hence, the great abundance of house rules, not to mention different RPG systems). Other people say that "most accomplishes" should be looked at on a "macro-scale" - i.e., it is an excellent product because lots of people are using it (even if my particular group isn't) and thus the total enjoyment it is responsible for is high. The problem, of course, is that role-playing is a "personal" endeavor, and most people like to think of their own way of gaming as The One True Way, and anyone using any other rules isn't having "as much" enjoyment as they might have if they gamed using the One True Way. Of course, he's over there looking at you thinking you'd have much more fun if you'd subscribe to his One True Way.

At the end of the day, even sales aren't the best indicator of what is actually being played - I've bought a lot of things I've never played. But it seems to be true that in order for a product to be played, and thus aid in providing enjoyment to gamers, on either a micro- or macro-scale, and thus serve its purpose for existence, and thus be a "good" product, it has to be bought first. And that's the bottom line.

"Micro-scale" judging of quality is in many ways useless because, as I mentioned, no two people think exactly alike. What I think is "the bomb" might be the exact opposite of what you like. Thus, we're left looking at "macro-scale" judging - i.e., not "what do I play" but "what are most people playing?" Sales do not perfectly reflect play, but a low-selling product can't have a high number of people playing it.

<snip>

--The Sigil

The trouble with relying on your macroscale style of judging quality is that there are many products out there that never have an opportunity to get on the macroscale because of issues completely tangential to the microscale quality of the product. And that's the main reason I object to using it as critiera for industry-wide awards. It biases the awards toward companies capable of getting more product out into more hands whether that product is particularly high quality or not on a microscale.

I think another problem we're running into in all of this is the point behind the awards at all. Awards can play a variety of roles, not all relevant to the buying public and that's fine. They can be peer recognition, they can try to play the role of buying guide, and they can be people's choice.
Should the industry have peer-oriented awards? Awards decided solely by game designers for other game designers? Heck yes. Game designers should be able to take pride when they are nominated and win an award from other people who walk the same walk they do. If that's all the Origins Awards really aspire to be, then so be it. Good for them. That's a perfectly legitimate way to run awards.
If they want to play the role of buying guide, then I don't think I'd necessarily change them too much from peer recognition. These would be awards that specifically seek out things worth buying, whether the public has adopted them yet or not. They can report stuff that a lot of people seem to be having success with AND things that people might have missed but would probably see a lot of success with. These would probably have to rely more on reviews rather than actual sales figures though because sale of a product doesn't necessarily mean that the buyer had any success with it. Think of a set of awards like this as the Games 100 in Games Magazine for an example of this style.
People's Choice awards would probably be the type of awards best served by looking at sales figures. But like the People's Choice awards in the entertainment industry, these awards would probably not be as prestigious in comparision to the others as just being a numbers game, not really reflecting care in the craft as much as just resonating well with consumers, and smaller publishers would find it hard to crack into these awards.

Now, which direction should the Origins Awards take? One of these, or should it try to incorporate elements of all three? If all three, the one thing I would really want is for the categories to be utterly and completely separated. I don't want people's choice style selection going into peer or buying guide style award categories.

 

[Umbran]

Hm. Seems like I've got a lot to answer for...

Thank you for playing, and thank you for giving the perfect example of how "quality" is a totally subjective concept.

Yes, it is, as I've stated a number of times already.

As a complete aside, there's a strong argument (made to me by a numberfo college professors) that college professiors of literature fit our bill exactly - they tell you about the influence a work has, but not it's quality.

Heck, I'd argue it. Survivor was masterfully conceived. As a form of entertainment, based on its ability to draw viewers (no matter how contrived the drama), its quality cannot be denied. It performs admirably. It outperforms.

Okay, so as to not fall down on my own dare, I must laugh - ha!

By that logic, McDonalds is the finest quality food that the United States has to offer, hands down. It certainly performs. Performance is a laudable thing when you're interested in how many dollars the thing rakes in. Good for an award from a collection of businessmen to other businessmen for doing good business. But as a consumer, how well it performs in the marketplace is far second to how it performs in my grubby paws.

You seem to be suggesting that mere entertainment-- even in an industry that is 100% entertainment based such as television or RPGs-- is not a measure of quality.

You could argue that Hemingway's quality is predicated on the fact that literature aims beyond mere entertainment-- but that is only frequently, and obviously not universally, true of publishing.

Actually, what I argue is that a true quality product must be entertaining and accessible, while still having artistic merit. Survivor and McDonalds have the entertainment value, but lack artistry. Hemingway has artistry, but is boring to read unless you are a college professor into critiquing artistry. James Joyce's influential book Finnegan's Wake is so artful that it is completely inaccessible to the normal reader - one requires a college professor to tell you what the bloody book means! Thus, none of these are works of truly high overall quality.

They do no such thing. Hugo and Nebula awards mean very little except as a pat on the back from your peers.

That argument might be made for the Nebulas, which are an award given by the Science Fiction Writers of America to one of their number. However, it clearly doesn't hold for the Hugos, which are a fan award. The contention that the awards are "meaningless" is not supported by sales of winners after they are announced.

The proof, however, is in the pudding. You can go to the websites I linked, and look at past winners. If you want to claim that they're completely off the mark, then you only support my contention that "quality" is a subjective term, such that we shouldn't worry about objective measures in the first place

The purpose of existence for a role-playing publication is to aid role-players in enjoying themselves.

I'm sorry, Sigil, but you're starting yoru argument with a false premise. If the above were the case, they'd offer the products to us free or at cost. You mistake the means for the end.

The primary purpose for professional role-playing publication is to make money. The method these guys use to go about fulfilling that purpose is soemtimes aiding role-players in enjoying themselves.

Again, my theory is simply: High product sales indicate a high quality product.

If we lived in a world in which brand-name recognition, economy of scale, and marketing overhead and other factors had no influence, then your theory might be true. But, we don't live in the land of Theory. In practice, sales are too strongly impacted by other factors for one to be able to extract the quality information within.

You say that micro-scale judging is flawed due to variations in personal taste. That's true. But you go awry when you say that macro-scale is the only thing left available to us. This isn't a digital case, with only two extremes. Think about finding somethign in the broad middle ground.

 

[Arnwyn]

If we lived in a world in which brand-name recognition, economy of scale, and marketing overhead and other factors had no influence, then your theory might be true. But, we don't live in the land of Theory. In practice, sales are too strongly impacted by other factors for one to be able to extract the quality information within.

Exactly. And that's what people have to realize when they try to tout the idea that sales is a good indicator of quality. It's not. One might say that it's the only "empirical" (and thus, objective) method of determining quality, but that it's not a very good method. Indeed. If it's not a poor method, then being "objective" is irrelevant, since you get the same (poor) results.

In the end, judging RPG products (and any other form of entertainment) will be subjective. But I think everyone knew that deep down anyways. (Since most other such awards makes no bone about it.)

As for the whole Dancey fiasco, I can only speak as a normal average joe consumer: "Who cares?".

 

[eyebeams]

Not a good comparison. The Open Game License allows companies - or fans - to create the material that occupies those cheap seats. If White Wolf opened up its "Storyteller" system under a similar license, do you think there wouldn't be a flood of cheap "Storyteller" PDFs, too? We both know there would be, and then there would be a large number of "Storyteller" PDFs in the cheap seats.

It's a comparison made all the more apt by your attempted refutation, since it shows that the sales of a product can be divorced from its quality along another axis: niche versus broad distribution.

Compare WW to WotC, the "owner" of d20, and you yourself mentioned sales are comparable.

I said nothing of the sort. WW has about 50% of WotC's marketshare in the RPG industry.

But you'd rather compare one company (WW) to a multitude of companies, and pick the smallest examples to denigrate d20 as a whole. Let's stick to comparing apples to apples.

Wow, you mean it's unfair to note that one company sells more stuff than another company in a discussion about sales?

White Wolf's Storyteller lines outsell their D20 lines. Their D20 lines outsell almost everybody else's D20 lines. Vampire seels more than Darwin's World *and* Spycraft. Exalted sells more than Deeds Not Words *and* Midnight.

Since highly acclaimed *and* big-selling White Wolf books are passed over for Origins Awards quite a bit, a sales-based award would ensure that you wouldn't really see many of the more innovative D20 games around. You'd see D&D and then some games that Nisarg despises. The people have spoken -- and a lot of really cool D20 content wouldn't even be considered.

/rant

Finally, I really don't have any opinions one way or the other about Dancey except one... I am incredibly glad he managed to get the OGL to pass muster among the suits, as it puts D&D into a place where it can never be fully killed.

If there wasn't a D20 RPG game called Dungeons and Dragons around, it is highly unlikely there'd even be the shabby number of gamers there are now.

If (worst case scenario) someone with a whole lot of cash were to buy up WW, decide they hated the products, and just shut down the company and litigate anyone who came up with anything compatible with the Storyteller system, that would be the end of WW's stuff.

Can't happen. White Wolf is privately held.

The OGL ensures that there can always be SOMEONE out there supporting D&D. That, to me, is worth of admiration. Not the person, but the act.

It's a fine idea, but a PHB twice as goood as D&D's called Warriors and Warrens wouldn't sell very well.

 

[M.L. Martin]

It uprooted DragonLance from its home game system.

Actually, it was that very quote--about DL being a "successful" line that was moved to an untried system--that has kept me from taking Dancey entirely seriously for several years. (Irrational, perhaps, but there it is.)

AD&D DL _died_. The last new product was released at the end of 1993; there was a game product in 1994, but it was just a reprint of the last four modules in the original series. After that, there was no game support until the Fifth Age game and SAGA System launched in September of 1996.

Now, I've heard rumors about licensing concerns being part of why TSR Management demanded the setting be relaunched as a non-D&D game, but still, if the line had been 'successful', why the heck did it lie dormant for two years?

Matthew L. Martin

 

[The Sigil]

Since highly acclaimed *and* big-selling White Wolf books are passed over for Origins Awards quite a bit, a sales-based award would ensure that you wouldn't really see many of the more innovative D20 games around. You'd see D&D and then some games that Nisarg despises. The people have spoken -- and a lot of really cool D20 content wouldn't even be considered.

In my original post, I didn't think I suggested that sales be the only factor put into consideration. But if the top sellers in every category never even come up for awards, then "Joe Gamer" wonders why the awards even exist. Myself, I would be for something to the effect of the "top x sellers" (probably with x=3) get "automatic bids" and then a selection committee of industry pros selects y other products (y probably equal to 5). Or even has one "vote" by fans, one "vote" by retailers, one "vote" by game designers, and one "vote" by sales, or whatever "weight" you prefer to use (Fans 1, Retailers 2, Designers 5, sales 1 for instance).

If there wasn't a D20 RPG game called Dungeons and Dragons around, it is highly unlikely there'd even be the shabby number of gamers there are now.

We seem to agree on more than we disagree on.

Can't happen. White Wolf is privately held.

It could happen... everyone has a price. I'm sure if I had $10 billion and walked up to the owners of White Wolf, I could swap my $10 billion for ownership of the company. I don't, but it makes for an interesting hypothetical example.

It's a fine idea, but a PHB twice as goood as D&D's called Warriors and Warrens wouldn't sell very well.

Maybe not in the current environment, but imagine for a moment what might happen if WotC, for whatever reason, got imploded and folded and the d20STL was withdrawn, and someone wanted to lock WotC's IP away forever. It is possible that Warriors and Warrens could eventually be recognized as the "successor" to D&D despite every attempt by new ownership of WotC to lock down WotC's IP.

*shrugs*

None of my scenarios are LIKELY, I suppose, but all are possible. I think I've said my peace on this thread, there's really not much new to respond to.

I think sales can't be relied upon to unfailingly show the "best in gaming" but at the same time, I don't think they can be casually discarded, either. If everyone is buying product line X, something must be "right" about the product line.

--The Sigil

 

[Umbran]

AD&D DL _died_. The last new product was released at the end of 1993; there was a game product in 1994, but it was just a reprint of the last four modules in the original series. After that, there was no game support until the Fifth Age game and SAGA System launched in September of 1996.

The thing is, the fact that it died does not exclude it from having been successful.

The first Dragonlance novel and module came out in 1984. The last game product in 1993. I've no data on how the game products sold, but the novel and short story anthologies seemed to do pretty darned well. That's nine solid years. That's far, far longer than most TV series last. It's about one third of the time that RPGs have existed! Sounds successful to me.

 

[mearls]

It's a fine idea, but a PHB twice as goood as D&D's called Warriors and Warrens wouldn't sell very well.

What about one just as good? Because Arcana Unearthed sold pretty damn well. It was probably the top selling non-WotC d20 book from last year.

 

[The Sigil]

I'm sorry, Sigil, but you're starting yoru argument with a false premise. If the above were the case, they'd offer the products to us free or at cost. You mistake the means for the end.

I didn't say that was the reason that GAME COMPANIES exist. I said the purpose of a RPG publication - i.e., the tangible book (or e-title) itself is to aid roleplayers in entertaining themselves.

The primary purpose for professional role-playing publication is to make money. The method these guys use to go about fulfilling that purpose is soemtimes aiding role-players in enjoying themselves.

This is correct. Which means the gaming product - the book itself - is supposed to aid role-players in enjoying themselves. If it accomplishes that purpose, it will (hopefully) make money for the company that produced it. If it does NOT accomplish that purpose, the company will die because no one will want the book.

In other words: (a) game companies want money, (b) role-players want to be entertained. The game company creates a product with a purpose of entertaining the role-players. The role-players give the game company money.

The product, in this case, serves two goals - (a) it makes money for the game company and (b) it entertains the role-player.

Kind of a chicken-and-egg thing, no?

Well, it's not. I will posit that you can have successful role-players without any gaming companies (example 1: Arneson & Gygax circa 1973). But - and this is an important point - you can't have successful gaming companies without any role-players. Thus, the "highest purpose" of a publication (the thing itself, not the company that created it) must be to enhance the enjoyment of the role-players, else the entire thing falls apart because the gamers stop spending money and the publisher collapses.

You may not agree with that, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Because you can have a gamer without companies but you can't have a company without a gamer, the "highest purpose" has to serve the GAMER, not the COMPANY. Now, I'll grant that most of this is lost on modern corporations, which think of people as "consumers" but they fail to realize that with few exceptions, people are not forced to consume, and if you don't deliver ENOUGH quality, eventually, they'll stop buying and your company will slowly asphyxiate (it may take a long time, but it will happen). Not to wax political here, but I think this is a problem endemic to MOST industries today - they've forgotten that "the customer is always right" because you can't continue to run a company if you run off all your customers.

Isn't philosophy fun?

--The Sigil

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way, but my proudest moments as a RPG Writer have been when I've read e-mails that said, "I used X and it was just great! We did Y and Z with it and it was so much fun! Thanks for putting out your product, I appreciated it." While the money is nice, I just sink it back into RPG products anyway... but the praise... that's what makes me all mushy inside. And if I ever start worrying about the money, that's the day I close my "virtual shop" because this is a labor of love for me.