[ENnies] Categories

[Darrin Drader]

Personally, I would say let 5 judges choose the nominees, and then get different judges to vote on the items.

I think this is the best idea yet. I would only add that the second set of judges should vote not for a "winner" of a category, but rather rank it with a numeric scale in several subcategories (to be decided upon). In that way, the entirety of every book entered must be evaluated fairly and a winner can be decided upon, and supported, by certain measurable criteria.

 

[Magestrike]

My 2 cents

I thought I would chime in and give my two cents.

I think, if I remember correctly that I either posed or agreed with the person that posed the suggestion of ranking things last year during the whole "fallout form the ENnies" thing. It just seems like a better way to rank products in my opinion. Take it even further, like one person posted I believe and have different sections of grading to be used by the judges to rank the products, then use them to get a composite overall score.

Rank a product 1-5 or 1-10 or whatever in the following categories for example: Art, Layout, Overall Use Level, Editing, and Other. Then add the scores and the one with the lowest score would win, with second being next lowest, etc. (One being highest ranking and 5 being lowest obviously)

I think this way, we get a more complete picture of the product then just saying, "This one is best". You could have the judges do this and just eliminate the fan vote, or use this for the fan vote, allowing for a more rounded picture.

Here are my opinions on other topics, for what they are worth:

-I like the gold, silver, bronze awards. If you do this though, there needs to be more products up in each category...I'd say 8 to make it fair. If it is good enough for the Olympics and other competitions, its good enough for me.

-I think there should be a separate PDF award; at least one. It just seems like the fair thing to do.

-As far as WotC being allowed in, I believe I was in the Orcus camp last year when it came up, saying they should not. They dont have to follow the same rules as the d20 publishers, because well, they make the rules. They should get some sort of award, like "Company that make it all possible" or something, but it just doenst seem right lumping them with everyone when they dont have to follow the same guidelines. Bragging rights about beating them notwithstanding. Maybe have separate D&D categories they do compete in, like someone said I believe.

-I think the question needs to be asked by someone whether this award is going to be for "Best" products or"Most Popular" products. Fans in all aspects of voting dont necessarily vote for the best products when given the chance, they vote for the products they know the best. That all I'll say about that.

My two cents, take them for what they are worth.



Mage

 

[CRGreathouse]

*chuckles* Market share.

Well, that's as may be -- but it would have that problem even if it wasn't a PDF.

I think that a good electronic product should be able to compete with print products. Look, for example, at the twice-nominated Mansions and Manors last year. Granted, it didn't take cartography (GR's Freeport pull-out map beat it), but it was a real contender there as well as accessories (though Dungeon/Poly was the hands-down winner there).

 

[CRGreathouse]

The thing is, a truly advanced PDF blurs the line between "book" and "software." Suppose you had a PDF that could randomly generate treasures for you. Does that compete with the DM's Guide and its treasure generation tables? Or a PDF that includes embedded objects... perhaps with the description of "Fireball" you can click on it and it brings up a printable page with a "fireball tile" in living color at the 1 inch = 5 ft scale? Or vice versa - you have a "fireball tile" that you can click on to get the spell effect? How do you compare that to a printed product?

Sure, they blur the line, but they're still comparable -- given $20 of spending money, what would you prefer? Sure, PDFs aren't the same as rules hardbacks, but they aren't the same as adventures, setting supplements, magazines, or counters. They are all in competition with each other for the ENnies, though!

Then, how do you compare the two? It's a lot more difficult because the media will be so wildly different. Perhaps it is not time to make a change yet because PDFs still look like books (mostly) - but it soon will be. I think once we get a publisher who is both java-savvy and a good RPG writer (or a team that accomplishes this), the standards for "what goes into a PDF" will be raised again.

While I agree that PDFs and electronic products in general have a lot of room for exapansion, I still think that they can be compared. Is it good enough to convince people who wouldn't normally use a computer at the gaming table to fire up their laptop with the program? Will it cut down prep time more than the Big Book of PreGen NPCs and Backgrounds? Is it more confusing to use than the terrible graphic design of Book X? Etc.

 

[tensen]

Re: My 2 cents

-I think there should be a separate PDF award; at least one. It just seems like the fair thing to do.

Only one PDF category?

So does it get votes for layout?
editing?
artwork?
best use of PDF features (bookmark's, page scaling, the ability to turn off graphics... etc)?
best sourcebook, classbook, non-fantasy, setting?

Case in point... (I would vote for Joe's book of enchantment for text that was really useful, but it wouldn't stand up in direct competition with something like Darwin's World, which is a new setting that has reasonable artwork. But on text alone, Joe's book would cream Darwin's World. Although to a pure fantasy fan, they'd vote the fantasy product, over the sci-fi apolocalyptic setting of Darwin's World any day.)

 

[RangerWickett]

I don't know if this has been proposed yet, but as far as weighting votes goes, why not give people with a more informed opinion a larger share of the vote?

For example:

"In the category of Best Product with a Flumph, the choices are:

The Septissential Flumph
Pancakes of High Favor: Flumphs
Manual of the Flumphs
Wild Flumphcraft
Librum Flumphissimus

How many of these products do you feel familiar enough with to judge their quality: (enter a number 1-5 here)

Which book do you think is the best: (click on your choice)"

If you're familiar with all 5, your vote counts as 1 vote. If you're only familiar with 4, your vote counts as .75 votes. It counts .5 if you know 3 books, and .25 if you know 2 books. If you only know one book, your vote doesn't count, because how can you really say it's the best if you don't know any of the competition?

I know this goes against the default "one man, one vote" idea, and it depends on voters being honest about which products they've read, but I feel it's more fair this way.

 

[Magestrike]

ok

OK...let me rephrase. I think that PDFs should compete in separate categories up against other PDFs. If the author wishes to submit them to the regular awards, they could compete in both.

Mage

 

[Jim Butler]

Re: D20 Logo on WotC Products

I think you need to look again. I cannot find a single WotC D&D book that doesn't have a D20 logo.

Hint: Look on the back.

Yes, each WotC book has a d20 logo on it. But none of the WotC books follow the d20 license. There's no declaration of Open Gaming Content, and those products sell based on the strength of the Dungeons & Dragons logo.

That's not to say they're not good products, but they're not sold on the basis of the OGL/d20 STL. WotC products sell 20-50 times more than any other competing product, and having all the d20 companies compete against that juggernaut doesn't make for a level playing field.

 

[Morrus]

I'm thinking that PDFs can be easily handled - they are eligible for any award that a print product is, in addition to being eligible for a "Best PDF" category of their own.

WotC -- still the sticking point. There's no way that everyone will be happy with any decision made there. However, I feel that utilising several of the options presented in this thread can go a long way towards mitigating their advantage *without* restricting them any more than any other publisher. Namely:

1) Ensuring there is an "I don't know" option when voting
2) Reducing the voting pool to EN World members who - theoretically - are more informed generally.
3) Including one runners-up award with each category (with the caveat that a publisher can only win once in a category - they can't take both the winner and runner-up awards).
4) Including one peer-based award overall.

None of these represent drastic changes, but I feel that they will level out the field somewhat.