Ennies judges seek publisher inputs on categories

[Psion]

Alright, as you all may know, the ennie judge selections have been made. We are already busily underway considering what categories we want this year. We already knew last year some things needed to change, but we still don't have too clear an idea of what the final shape will take.

For elucidation, last year's categories were:
Best d20 Game
Best Adventure
Best Campaign Setting
Best Art (Interior)
Best Cartography
Best Setting Supplement
Best Rules Supplement
Best Monster Supplement
Best Aid or Accessory
Best Non-Open Gaming Product
Best Graphic Design & Layout
Best Electronic Product
Best Free Product or Web Enhancement
Best Art (Cover)
Best Official Website
Best Resource Fan Site
Best Campaign Fan Site
Best Publisher (Overall)
ENnies Peer Award

We have already started to discuss issues like opening up more of the categories to non-open and/or non-d20, what to do about PDFs and re-released/revised products, software, and so forth, but before we make our final choices, it might be helpful to tell us what you think.

 

[The Sigil]

Comments by category:

Best d20 Game
I would suggest opening this up to "Best OGL Game" - this would allow for inclusion of such things as Mutants & Masterminds, and other products that have gone OGL-only of late.

Best Adventure
This can probably stay "as is" even if adventures aren't as thick on the ground as they once were. It is a distinctive genre in the industry.

Best Campaign Setting
Not sure this can't be combined with a the "Best Setting Supplement" below into a "Best Setting Product" or somesuch.

Best Art (Interior)
Best Cartography
Can stay, possibly combine them, but I think they're different enough to merit separation.

Best Setting Supplement
See "Best Campaign Setting" above.

Best Rules Supplement
Best Monster Supplement
Best Aid or Accessory
These three seem so intermarried... perhaps combine them a bit into "Best Player-Focused Supplement" and "Best GM-focused Supplement?"

Best Non-Open Gaming Product
Should go. The ENnies were originally conceived as a tightly-focused set of awards for the Open-Gaming Industry. I see no reason to change that.

Best Graphic Design & Layout
Should stay.

Best Electronic Product
I would prefer to see this forked into three categories: "Best OGL Electronic Game," "Best Non-OGL Electronic Game," and "Best Electronic Supplement" (this last might even be split into Player-Focused and GM-Focused categories). Basically, have it hit the "major" categories that print stuff hits.

Best Free Product or Web Enhancement
Best Art (Cover)
Best Official Website
Best Resource Fan Site
Best Campaign Fan Site
Best Publisher (Overall)
ENnies Peer Award
These all can stay, I think.

Looking at the Oscars as a template, I would suggest "grouping" awards together in some of the broader categories (e.g., we talk about "Visual Effects" and "Sound editing" etc. Oscars as "technical" oscars). Could the ENnies be reorganized as well? Not sure... here's just a stab at it (using last year's categories)...

GAME DESIGN ("CRUNCH")
Best d20 Game
Best Publisher (Overall)
Best Rules Supplement
Best Non-Open Gaming Product
Best Electronic Product

CREATIVE WRITING ("FLUFF")
Best Adventure
Best Campaign Setting
Best Setting Supplement
Best Monster Supplement (came close to putting this into Game Design category, but decided a truly "good monster" is not in the stats, but in the "fluff")

ART/TECHNICAL
Best Art (Interior)
Best Art (Cover)
Best Cartography
Best Graphic Design & Layout

INTERNET/COMMUNITY
Best Official Website
Best Resource Fan Site
Best Campaign Fan Site
Best Free Product or Web Enhancement

OTHER
Best Aid or Accessory
ENnies Peer Award

We have already started to discuss issues like opening up more of the categories to non-open and/or non-d20

This I don't like. The ENnies were not conceived as another "Origins" awards. The ENnies were conceived with regard to the Open Gaming movement. To that end, I think it's a good idea that they stay that way - keep the ENnies focused on Open Gaming... to use business-speak, "stay focused on core competencies" LOL. If the focus stays on Open-Gaming Products, the scope of the ENnies is well-defined and fixed; as it opens up to more and more products, the scope is less well-defined and may become overwhelmingly broad.

what to do about PDFs

On second thought, with the "Major Categories" system I suggested above, I think it might not be a bad idea to do the following with PDFs:

Best Electronic Product Game Design
Best Electronic Product Creative Writing
Best Electronic Product Art/Technical

and re-released/revised products,

To me, this is a no-brainer. "Simple" re-released products (i.e., "updated for 3.5e and that's about it") are not eligible. They already had a term of eligibility when originally released. Revised products are not eligible for the same reason.

It gets a bit tougher when you talk about stuff that is a mix of new and old (e.g., Green Ronin's Book of Fiends). There is new material that is viable and fresh in that book and that should be eligible... but much more material is reprinted. And I expect we'll see more of this type of thing as time goes on, so it's best to tackle the problem now. Some sort of "line in the sand" needs to be drawn; even though it may be hard to adjudicate, that's why we have judges. For myself, I would suggest that the line be drawn somewhere in the "75/25%" neighborhood... if you have previously published more than 25% of the material contained in a re-release/revision, the work is not eligible. While this (regrettably) excludes the Book of Fiends from consideration, I don't think it's necessarily unfair. About 2/3 of the book is re-release (and as I recall, Legions of Hell and Armies of the Abyss did pretty well garnering ENnies nominations); it's not fair to other publishers to award the same material twice in different years.

Again, I'm not mandating 75/25, I'm just saying that there needs to be some sort of line drawn, and that the judges will have to be assigned as the "arbiters" of what does/doesn't cross that line if it's a close call.

Alternatively, the judges/voters could consider only the "new stuff" but in practicality, that's not a good idea; it requires them to be too familiar with the old stuff also, which is why I propose barring re-prints/revisions entirely if they don't contain a significant majority of "new material."

software, and so forth, but before we make our final choices, it might be helpful to tell us what you think.

Software products could of course easily compete in the Other: Aid or Accessory category.

Alternatively, you could split the Aid or Accessory category into Software and Print versions. I think the utility of Software is so vastly different from the utility of Print accessories that this is a valid fork.

There are my thoughts, disorganized, messy, and ripe for flaming.

--The Sigil

 

[Vigilance]

I have two comments on this, although I am just a freelancer, and not technically a publisher.

I would like to see free, electronic products not be entered in the best electronic product category. Free products get much more exposure during the voting process. Last year people were encouraged to not vote for products they didnt know. If you can download a free PDF and then vote for it, you never have a reason not to vote for THAT.

Secondly, I would like to see the peer award tweaked. Last year's edition, "Mearls' Secret Cabal of Designers we mere mortals are not allowed to know" did not do a whole lot for me.

Chuck

 

[Morrus]

This I don't like. The ENnies were not conceived as another "Origins" awards. The ENnies were conceived with regard to the Open Gaming movement. To that end, I think it's a good idea that they stay that way - keep the ENnies focused on Open Gaming... to use business-speak, "stay focused on core competencies" LOL. If the focus stays on Open-Gaming Products, the scope of the ENnies is well-defined and fixed; as it opens up to more and more products, the scope is less well-defined and may become overwhelmingly broad.

That's not entirely true: the ENnies were conceived as being for D20-specific products; there was no "OGL" consideration at first. This has undeniably changed over the years since then, though, especially after teaming up with Gen Con.

 

[Krug]

Not a publisher (ok hopefully one in the near future), but I agree with Sigil; I'd like to see Best Non-Open Gaming product dropped. Quite pointless and it's not ENnies job. Besides, open gaming products already take up enough time for judging.

 

[Monte At Home]

That's not entirely true: the ENnies were conceived as being for D20-specific products

So does that mean that you'd like to keep away from non-d20 material? I think Mutants and Masterminds did well last year despite not actually having the d20 logo.

As of right now, I'm not sure what category I'd submit Arcana Unearthed, for example.

 

[Psion]

Best d20 Game
I would suggest opening this up to "Best OGL Game" - this would allow for inclusion of such things as Mutants & Masterminds, and other products that have gone OGL-only of late.

So does that mean that you'd like to keep away from non-d20 material? I think Mutants and Masterminds did well last year despite not actually having the d20 logo.

To clarify, last year it essentially was Best OGL game. Our criteria was based on the OGL statement, not the trademark logo.

 

[The Sigil]

So does that mean that you'd like to keep away from non-d20 material? I think Mutants and Masterminds did well last year despite not actually having the d20 logo.

As of right now, I'm not sure what category I'd submit Arcana Unearthed, for example.

I think Morrus was just trying to correct me; when the ENnies were conceived, the OGL/d20 was relatively new, and everyone was going d20. It wasn't until some of the "problems" inherent in using the d20 license arose (e.g., Chargen) that more people started going OGL-only. Clearly, M&M is still built on the same engine as D&D, though it is considerably different in flavor and tone.

My point, I guess... is that the ENnies need to stay focused on Open-Gaming et al... ENWorld is not a GURPS site, not a Magic:the Gathering site, etc... if GURPS or MtG had been released this year, would we throw them into the "non-d20/Open Game" category? How many people on these boards would know about them to intelligently cast a vote?

Basically, the ENnies should restrict themselves to covering what ENWorld covers - which is, by and large, Open Gaming products. That's not trying to be "discriminatory" or anything, but I know I wouldn't be comfortable trying to judge the relative merits of the latest non-OGL/d20 White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, Palladium, and other such releases. Does that help my original point - "Open Gaming stuff Only" - make sense?

--The Sigil

 

[Morrus]

So does that mean that you'd like to keep away from non-d20 material?

Not in the slightest. I was simply pointing out an error in The Sigil's post. As a matter of fact, my *personal* preference is to expand the scope yet further; an inclusive rather than exclusive setup.

The only things I would be pretty set against are things like TCGs, wargames, miniatures games, that sort of thing. I see the boundaries of any possible direction the ENnies to take as stopping firmly at the edges of the "RPG" sphere of influence; Origins deals with such things, and I'd rather leave it to them. And that last sentence was far too verbose.

 

[Morrus]

ENWorld is not a GURPS site, not a Magic:the Gathering site, etc... if GURPS or MtG had been released this year, would we throw them into the "non-d20/Open Game" category?

Ah, but remember that the other partner to the ENnies is GenCon, whose "user base" is far more varied. EN World is only half of the equation.