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="The Sigil" data-source="post: 731563" data-attributes="member: 2013">I agree here.  This (different rules in development, not different rules in market penetration), IMO, is the only valid argument against including WotC.  Market share will come to other publishers with time (and I think SSS and FFG are already making inroads), so the problem with market share will be cured as others inevitably rise to WotC's level (and, to be honest, I think WotC has helped by dropping off several pegs).The thing that, in my mind, makes the playing field "un-level" is not market share, but rather that WotC, as has been so eloquently stated, gets to play by different (read: less/no) rules in developing their products and contributing useful material (read: OGC).  To a lesser degree, this applies to Kenzer & Co as well.To be honest, I'm not sure on this.  My argument above stands - PDFs should not be given special consideration IMO based solely on "market share" or "underexposure."  But on the other hand, PDF is a different medium from print - even if it "looks like" print in many ways.  There are things you can do with a PDF that you simply can't do with a print product (not that I've seen many PDFs that do, but you could, for example, in theory create a PDF character sheet that "does all the math" for your character computing BAB and such - how do you put this in competition with a printed character sheet that simply can't do the same things?).  PDFs are in their infancy, and they can do all sorts of things that a print product can't manage.  I think with time they may begin to realize their full potential and there may indeed be a day when a PDF product is vastly superior to the print version due to the ability to customize it and make it flexible.  That day is clearly not here yet.While I'm not 100% sure, I think I have to lean toward being in favor a separate PDF category though - simply on grounds of being a vastly different medium.Other notes:1.) I think the "vote for 3 of 5" system proposed is a good one as well... it may help mitigate some of the market share problems discussed - and if Aaron is to be believed, it is a system that was already tried and proven to work for this purpose.  In the spirit of OGC, let's "re-use" that! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />2.) I think the idea of a publisher's choice award is a good one as well.  Publishers have no real forum to pat each other on the back and it would be nice to have one.3.) If this is to truly be a popular award, there is no need to exclude anyone from voting... that runs against the mentality of "popular" awards - but possibly at the expense of rewarding the "best" material.Given #2 and #3 above, perhaps one solution might be to make the ENnies three-tiered.Have one "popular" award open to voting by anyone.  This includes ENWorld members and publishers, since they are subsets of "anyone."Have one "active ENWorld/experts" (perhaps a misnomer) award open to voting on by anyone who meets certain critieria (possible criteria include such things as: post count, length of time since registering on ENWorld, anyone who has written 5 or more reviews on ENWorld or on other sites, etc. - whether you must meet one or many criteria is a matter for discussion).  This includes publishers as well, since presumably many of them are a subset of "active ENworlders."Have one "publishers" award where voting is restricted to publishers.Thus, each category might have three awards..."People's Choice" (sports analogy: NBA All-Star Team Starters, voted on by fans)"Experts' Choice" (sports analogy: NBA All-Star Reserves and All-League Teams, voted on by coaches and sportswriters, respectively)"Publishers' Choice" (sports analogy: NFL All-Pro Team, voted on by players)Obviously, it would become a true mark of excellence to sweep these choices, but I think such a system might serve the purposes of multiple awards shows by incorporating the opinions of all three groups to whom attention is usually paid by awards shows.  Each group's "seal of approval" carries a different sort of weight, but I think all three are valid things to strive for... I don't want to just be popular with fans, but want publishers to think highly of my stuff as well - and vice versa.  As a buyer, for example, I might be more interested in Experts' Choice than People's Choice for instance - and I have no way of measuring that.4.) Oh yeah, if RPGNow should work up a PDF awards system similar to the Ennies (and I think they should - here's me volunteering you guys to do even more work LOL), I would still be in favor of having one PDF award in the ENnies - unless RPGNow's awards become a subset of the ENnies. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />EDIT: 5.)  BTW, I don't count the OGC published in the MM2 - WotC was simply reprinting stuff from the Creature Catalog, not contributing anything new.  2 creatures.  A big deal is made out of this, and unnecessarily.EDIT: 6.) I would also like to see an award for "best OGC" or somesuch.  Show us who is doing the most to "grow the pie."Just my multiple cents.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification