Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 730405" data-attributes="member: 1">Nicole is right in her assumption that the ENnies themselves are still a work in development.  This is why each year we have these conversations out in the open - I try to make the whole process (bar the actual nominations, of course) as transparent as possible.That's also why it's important that people weigh in, as they are doing here, and why support in these early years is important in building up the credibility and legitimacy of the awards.  Part of that process, of course, is the move to Gen Con etc. One thing that I feel is important is that this process is never set in stone, and that there is always oportunity for change or improvement.  As the market changes, so should the ENnies.Now, here are my thoughts on the issues we're discussing (and bear in mind that my view is no more relevant than any else's here):1) PDFs - I can easily see the arguments both for an against a PDF category.  I myself an swayed toward no having a separate category, because any problems inherent in this issue stem from the market share issue (otherwise known as the "WotC Issue"), not from the format intinscally.  Thus the issue should be addressed there - at the cause - not by fiddling the awards to avoid the symptoms.2) WotC - the market share issue.  It came up last year, and it has come up again, and it is apparent that this is a problem.  The problem has been explained ad nauseum, so I don't need to go over the details again here.Now, I am *very much* in favour of a process which nullifies this problem, but which simultaneously does not place restraints against any given publisher.  I don't like the idea of excluding WotC; I don't like the idea of them winning all the awards unless their products genuinely are the best (which they may well be - but that's ntot the point).Now, we have two suggested approaches to this (broadly speaking):a) Control over the voting process to reduce or nullify market share.  Suggestions have included ways of determing the "qualifications" of the voters (i.e. - what book have they read?); restricting voting memebership; including a "don't know" option in the vote.b) Expanding the awards themselves to include second or third place awards; judges choice awards; peer choice awards.  All of these address the issue, but clearly none of these solutions are attractive to everyone.Someone also last year suggested a pre-voting poll to determine the market share of various publishers amongst the voters themselves (market share worldwide is irrelevevant to this process - only market share within the subset of gamers who will be voting).  That way final votes can be adjusted proportionally. I'm not sure how I feel about that solution.3) OGL - this, to me, is a little trickier than it appears at first.  What's to stop someone releasing a recipe book or a tome on shoe-making under the OGL?  I think that the best way to handle this is to just leave it to the judges:a) OGL products need a separate category.  They do have a distinct advantage over D20 products in that they can be "complete" whereas a D20 product is essentially limited to being a supplement to WotC's product.b) Any OGL product is eligible.  However, one of the judges' criteria when nominating products will be "how useful is this to a D20 gamer?".  In this way, the recipe book will never be nominated, despite being eligible.</blockquote>

Verification