Ennies judges seek publisher inputs on categories

[Psion]

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?"

I think you really need to look at what the category means and/or past winners. Best aid or accessory is a WHOLLY different category than supplement.

Monster supplement is largely a d20 specific phenom, but we will see how it goes. Several of your suggestions are along the lines of combining categories. I see no reason to do that so long as the competition is viable in each category. However, we are considering putting a disclaimer about the possibility that categories will be combined if we don't get enough entrants, letting us ensure that all categories are viable.

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.
(...)
This I don't like. The ENnies were not conceived as another "Origins" awards.

I think you should rest easy in that this will never be the origins awards. There are many things Origins cover that we can't or don't want to cover. But GenCon is about more than D&D. However, I think that no matter what we add, we will retain a focus on open gaming

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.

Now you are onto the type of discussions we are having in the judges forum.

At any rate, let me ask you this. Book of fiends is an excellent test case. It does, as you state, have a lot of reprinted material. However, if Hordes of Gehenna were published alone, would it not be worthy of being considered? While I do think we have to draw the line somewhere, I think requiring a majority new material may be a bit much when there's enough for a whole separate product in there.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

For purely selfish reasons, I'd rather it be limited to official and non-official D&D and d20 products, rather than limiting it to OGL products.

 

[Psion]

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

If you are in a position to be recognized by an award, I think that your input is worth considering. So forgive me with going with merely stating "publisher" in the title. Read it as "people involved in creating RPGs."

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.

That is a good point, I hadn't considered before.

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.

Hmmm... the judges don't have a whole lot of influence over that, but is probably worth discussing with Morrus, Mearls, and your fellow designers here.

 

[Psion]

For purely selfish reasons, I'd rather it be limited to official and non-official D&D and d20 products, rather than limiting it to OGL products.

Well, we'd like to recognize as many people as possible. One of the things in retrospect I regret was that your company didn't too many slots too compete in last year. I'd like to expand your room to participate, but I'm not about to recommend to the other judges that we NARROW anyone else's chance to participate. Non trademarked OGL products are a steadily expanding field and it includes some innovative products I think we would be remiss to consider.

 

[Morrus]

For purely selfish reasons, I'd rather it be limited to official and non-official D&D and d20 products, rather than limiting it to OGL products.

We're definately aware of the difficulties that arise for Kenzer when the OGL is used as a criteria, and I think I speak for us all when I say that the framework should encompass licensed properties such as yours just as much as it does with OGL products. The difficulty is defining criteria for admission which covers the entirety of that.

• Using the D20 logo as a criteria is unfair to OGL publishers; Mutants & Masterminds, Arcana Unearthed - these are excellent examples of products which we have no intention of creating a barrier for.
• Using the OGL is unfair to licensed properties (including Kenzer); again, we have no wish to exclude these.
• There is resistance to the idea of allowing publishers operating under different rules competing in the same category. WotC and licensed properties have options available to them which D20 properties do not (which is why we used the OGL as the entry criteria last year, although I don not believe this to be a good long term solution).

So we need a good, defining criteria; and this year it needs to be one which sticks. The criteria has changed twice since the ENnies began. After this year, I do not want it to do so again: it is important for the ENnies themselves that it is clear what they're about.

Any suggestions are welcome. We have a few weeks to sort this one out, and we want to be fair to everyone.

 

[Vigilance]

I think OGL and d20 products are on fairly equal terms and should compete with one another.

For licensed properties, why not a special award for best licensed product, which could also include Conan, B5, Buffy, and so forth, with the award partially based on best use of the material licensed.

In Kenzer's case this would be D&D itself for Kalamar, and AD&D for Hackmaster.

Chuck

 

[The Sigil]

At any rate, let me ask you this. Book of fiends is an excellent test case. It does, as you state, have a lot of reprinted material. However, if Hordes of Gehenna were published alone, would it not be worthy of being considered? While I do think we have to draw the line somewhere, I think requiring a majority new material may be a bit much when there's enough for a whole separate product in there.

The reason I brought it up was because I KNOW it's an excellent test case.

If Hordes of Gehenna were published alone, would it be worthy of consideration? Yes. The problem is (at least to my mind), Hordes of Gehenna was NOT published alone... and that opens too many cans of worms...

Should people judge the book as a $34.95 charge for Hordes of Gehenna? Or should they make it about 1/3 the cost, since it's about 1/3 of the book... and pretend it's an $11.95 product? Perhaps you could instruct people to judge the book based solely on the Gehenna chapters. If you do that, can people "disentangle" the Gehenna chapters in their minds from the rest of the book? Are we now judging book "fragments" instead of the whole? Should Monte submit, say, Chapter X: Spells from AU in one category and Chapter Y: Races in another? How do you judge "part" of a book against "part" of - or the entirety of - another book?

Because this forces so many questions upon the judges - and the voters - it makes the voting/judging criteria much fuzzier, and varied from individual to individual. That means people may not agree exactly on "what exactly it is they're voting on." Because of this, I think the best solution is to sidestep the problem by implementing some sort of cutoff on reprinted material. I regret doing it, but I think it's the only way to avoid these sorts of problems.

I think we're in agreement that based on the nature of the ENnies, it's not desirable for the "Legions of Hell" and "Armies of the Abyss" portions to come back for a second year.

Just my thoughts... I think it opens too many cans of worms and makes it difficult to discern exactly what is supposed to be judged... and that means the easiest solution is to impose a ceiling on "material that was already eligible for ENnie consideration" (i.e., reprints).

I think the Book of Fiends is probably THE best "test case" to kick this problem around with, because IMO it's certainly got ENnie-caliber material in it; the problem is, quite a large chunk is already "ENnie-winning" material IIRC. That means we're looking at something that is very relevant to discussion. Not trying to bash the book, it just represents the quintessential "problem child." Hope Chris Pramas understands.

More later, but I would suggest everyone weigh in, and FWIW, if the Book of Fiends *does* make the cut and is nominated, I probably WILL vote for it... it's very good! I'm just not sure it should be in the running in the first place based on the amount of reprinted stuff (it's GOOD reprinted stuff, but as I mentioned, it's already been through an ENnie process).

--The Sigil

 

[jgbrowning]

My suggestions

Some of my suggestions/ideas:

The Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe (and soon to be Magical Medieval Society: Ecology and Culture) problem. We release books both as a PDF, a printed book, and we also release a goodly portion (that stands alone) of the same book as a free PDF. We do this for both fiscal and community reasons. We also, defacto, submit to the best setting suplement, best electronic product, and best free product what is, essentially, a single product. This does cause difficulties for judging. As much as I appreciate and respect people's opinions about our MMS:WE ENnies last year, I think the judges should make a final determination if what we are doing is fair in the ENnies process.

Good arguments can be made either for or against our practice. I myself don't think a free product should be allowed in the best electronic product category (which we won last year with a free product). I just want to be the first to bring it to the attention of the judges and perhaps others can weigh in their opinion in the matter.

Enough about us-on to other subjects...

Revision products: We also need to consider "compilation" products such as some of the mongoose "complete" books. Books that compile OGC material. Are they revisions or new books? Also, some products contain more "old" material than "new" material. IMHO, an update to the mechanics shouldn't be considered as "new" (it's just a issue of system portability), and compilation products shouldn't be considered as new either.

But on the other hand there is truly new material in some of these products. Using the Book of Fiends as an example (this isn't indicative of the BoF, just using it as an example) we know that if the Gehenna portion of the book was released as an independent product, it would be new and available for ENnie consideration just like any other product. But should BoF be viewed as a new product or an old product?

One reason for not viewing it as a new product is that you may eventually have the same product winning awards in different years. Also, it is easier to update and add new product to an existing one than it is to create a completely new product. But here again, what about OGC... how much OGC can be in a book and be considered "new" and should that matter at all, considering the ENnies are supposed to promote the idea of the D20 system and the OGL?. It's a slippery slope and I'm not going to pretend I know the answers. I'm just bringing things up for consideration.

But, on the other hand, is it right to not allow the BoF to compete for an ENnie related to it's writing? I just picked it up today and it's a fine looking book, and if the new material is as good as the old material, it's definitely, IMHO, ENnie quality material. Also, there's the viewpoint that suggests a product should only be judged on its quality and if a product (new or old) is of enough quality to make the top 5 judges choice, so be it.

Liscensed products: These products have an advantage over products that are not liscensed. Some of the best material in D&D is the liscensed stuff: beholders, mind-flayers etc... the most interesting and unique ideas. This allows liscensed products to discuss the more interesting subjects to the D&D audience, thus the advantage.

However, many liscensed products do nothing of the sort. The Orcs of Tellene is a good example. IMHO, its a good, useful and ENnie quality book that just happens to have the official D&D logo on it's cover. Sure it has an advantage of greater production resources (Kenzer) but I don't think that should be a deciding factor in what product is good or not. IMHO, there's no way to level that field: money's a factor and it always will be.

But again, liscensed companies have the option of releasing OGC material, as WoTC's Unearthed Arcana proves. Of the options of allowing liscensed products into any category, allowing liscensed products into any category as long as they're OGL, and allowing liscensed products into a special "liscensed product" category, I favor the latter two. I'm sure other's opinions will differ.

Thanks for listening and thanks for making the process open to discussion.

joe b.

 

[JoeGKushner]

"Liscensed products: These products have an advantage over products that are not liscensed. Some of the best material in D&D is the liscensed stuff: beholders, mind-flayers etc... the most interesting and unique ideas. This allows liscensed products to discuss the more interesting subjects to the D&D audience, thus the advantage."

I would disagree here just for one reason.

WotC are not monsters about allowing others to use their toys when proper notice is given.

Goodman Games: Complete Guide to Beholders.

Paradigm: Mind Flayers

Mongoose: Yuan-Ti.

I know that these were 'limited' books, but I've seen mind flayers, yuan ti, and other creatures that fall into those PI categories in several books with WoTC approval so I don't think this particular issue is 100% valid.

 

[jgbrowning]

I would disagree here just for one reason.

WotC are not monsters about allowing others to use their toys when proper notice is given.

I didn't mean to imply they were. From my experience they've always been quite reasonable.

Goodman Games: Complete Guide to Beholders.

Paradigm: Mind Flayers

Mongoose: Yuan-Ti.

I know that these were 'limited' books, but I've seen mind flayers, yuan ti, and other creatures that fall into those PI categories in several books with WoTC approval so I don't think this particular issue is 100% valid.

My bad then. I wasn't aware of these being in other books after the "window period" where they were removed from the SRD.

joe b.