Ennies judges seek publisher inputs on categories

[Warden]

...what to do about PDFs...

Agreed on expanding the Best Electronic Product to three categories -- Best Electronic Supplement, Best Electronic Setting, and Best Electronic Adventure. I've left out the entire OGL/non-OGL for the moment as this issue is currently being discussed for every other category as well but I don't see the harm in mixing the two together for nominations in the same category. If OGL and non-OGL can be mixed together for nominations, then perhaps there should be a seperate category for Best Material in each system with its own Open Content guidelines.

But back to the PDF categories, will electronic products that are picked up as print products later on become unavailable in one category or another? For example, would Magical Medieval Soceity: Western Europe be available for nominations as Best Electronic Supplement and an equal print copy award as well (if they were released in the same year, that is).

 

[Pramas]

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?

...

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.

...

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.

I think people are under two misconceptions regarding the Book of Fiends.

First, people are assuming that two-thirds of the book is just reprinted material. This is not true. Both Armies of the Abyss and Legions of Hell were revised and expanded. A substantial amount of material was added, especially to Armies of the Abyss. Also, it's not like the material was straight up reprinted either. Doing 3.5 stats for all those critters required redoing every stat block from scratch. That is not an insubstantial amount of work.

Second, neither Legions nor Armies ever won an ENnie. They were both nominated, but didn't win.

Honestly, it never even occurred to me that Book of Fiends would not be eligible for an ENnie. It required a huge amount of work and at least 50% of its content is brand new. It is much more than a simple reprint.

 

[Pramas]

What I Like About the ENnies

One of the things I like and value about the ENnies is that they are different than the Origins Awards. The OAs serve the whole industry, so roleplaying games only have three categories (and one of those is Best New RPG, so if you don't publish a brand new game, there's only two categories you can compete in). I like the fact that the ENnies really breaks roleplaying books down into smaller subsets. I like that monster books compete against monster books and campaign settings against campaign settings. I do not want to see a bunch of the categores collapsed together. For that, we've already got the Origins Awards.

 

[Ed Cha]

I think this is more of a comment than a suggestion, but with all the excellent work that artists do for different products for different companies, I think it is a shame there aren't any Best Writer, Artist, or Cartographer categories. There is a Best Publisher category, but not one for these folks.

The reason why I bring this up is because I think Clayton Bunce has done a fantastic job this past year with not only the maps (on two different products) that he's completed for my company, Open World Press, but for other companies like Goodman Games and Troll Lord Games, too.

So the artists should also be recognized in some way, too. It seems the current categories only give recognition to the product or the company that produces the product. I don't know if it's feasible, but it's something to think about.

 

[BryonD]

Could you simply define D20 for purposes of the awards as any OGL product referencing the D20 SRD in Section 15?

AU and M&M are both D20 games, they just are not "D20 System" games.

 

[kingpaul]

Could you simply define D20 for purposes of the awards as any OGL product referencing the D20 SRD in Section 15?

AU and M&M are both D20 games, they just are not "D20 System" games.

But I could create an OGC game, referencing the SRD because I utilized some ideas therein, and have mechanics that are radically different than those found in the PHB.

So d20 != OGC.

 

[Morrus]

Honestly, it never even occurred to me that Book of Fiends would not be eligible for an ENnie. It required a huge amount of work and at least 50% of its content is brand new. It is much more than a simple reprint.

To be honest, I'd see that as a judging issue rather than an eligibility issue. The judges should decide whether the book merits a nomination, and one of the factors they'd consider is whether it was a significantly different product or not; and even if it isn't (say it was a compilation book such as your Pocket Grimoire thingumajiggers), then whether despite that it still has utility.

 

[BryonD]

But I could create an OGC game, referencing the SRD because I utilized some ideas therein, and have mechanics that are radically different than those found in the PHB.

So d20 != OGC.

Obviously.

But I still believe my definition would work. It allows virtually any D20 mechanic based game in without limiting it to D20 system games.

If you made a highly different game that happed to use a small piece of the SRD, and you therefore referenced it, then, yes, you would technically qualify. But it would be a no-brainer that you would not be nominated, much less win.

 

[The Sigil]

I think people are under two misconceptions regarding the Book of Fiends.

First, people are assuming that two-thirds of the book is just reprinted material. This is not true. Both Armies of the Abyss and Legions of Hell were revised and expanded. A substantial amount of material was added, especially to Armies of the Abyss. Also, it's not like the material was straight up reprinted either. Doing 3.5 stats for all those critters required redoing every stat block from scratch. That is not an insubstantial amount of work.

I'm not trying to diminish the work you did, Chris, really I'm not.

Fact: A "new work" is eligible for ENnie consideration (duh).

Question: Is (or should be) a "revision" eligible for ENnie consideration?

Question 2: If the answer to the above is "yes," then there is no question two; however, if the answer to the above question is "no," then it begs the question, in a "mixed work," how do you judge?

In my opinion, and it's my opinion only, a strict "revision" (e.g., from 3e to 3.5e) should not be eligible for ENnie consideration. That doesn't mean that there isn't work involved! To use a simple example, suppose Legions of Hell had been revised and published standalone in a 3.5e version. Should that be eligible for an ENnie this year? To turn it away from your own products, should the Revised Book of Eldritch Might be eligible this year?

If the answer is, "yes" then Book of Fiends is fine. If, however, the answer is, "no," and I think the answer should be "no," then a "mixed bag" such as the Book of Fiends comes into questionable territory, because then we have to ask, "how much has to be new to differentiate a 'new product' from a 'revision'?" and "how much does revising mechanics count towards revision?"

I'm not saying I have the answer - I think Morrus is right and that it is going to wind up as a "Judge's Call" in that part of the process. Again, I think Book of Fiends is a wonderful book. I just think we have to be wary of letting "revisions" count as separate works or we could see the same works with "minor tweaks" entered year after year (this wouldn't endear you to repeat judges but you get the idea).

"Legions of Hell Revised" should not IMO be eligible. "Hordes of Gehenna" SHOULD be eligible. My question is when I add ineligible plus eligible together in a single work, do I get "eligible" or "ineligble?" I'm not 100% sure, but I lean toward "no." That's all.

Second, neither Legions nor Armies ever won an ENnie. They were both nominated, but didn't win.

You got my vote, I just assumed you won... after all, I'm always right... except when I'm not.

Honestly, it never even occurred to me that Book of Fiends would not be eligible for an ENnie. It required a huge amount of work and at least 50% of its content is brand new. It is much more than a simple reprint.

Again, I'm not saying the BoF was no work. I'm not saying it's a reprint. I'm saying that it's tough to adjudicate because some of it is a "revision" and I personally don't think merely "revising" work should make it eligible for an ENnie again. You may differ (as is your right) and you may be right.

Please don't take this as denigrating, or an attack - I just happen to think BoF is the best example of a "tough to adjudicate" product when it comes to the revision question. It's because you produce such doggone good work that you even came into this discussion - everyone's familiar with your stuff and it's certainly ENnie-quality. Please don't take it the wrong way. We're not slamming the BoF for being poor or "just a reprint," we're just looking at it as, "boy this is the quintessential newmaterial/revision hybrid test case."

--The Sigil

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

I'm not a publisher, and thus was not specifically asked for my opinions, so feel free to ignore my observations and suggestions:

0) Open Vs. Closed content: The majority of book buyers ( but maybe not the majority of 'hardcore ENWorlders' ) dont care if a book contains open vs. closed content. Let them compete with each other. The new voting process as implemented last year served well in judging a book by the average voting score, not a popular vote.

1) New Categories: I like the idea of expanding the categories to include Best Writer, Artist, or Cartographer as Ed Cha suggested. I never liked the idea of a 'special peer award' myself, as it kind of takes the "World" out of ENWorld, but maybe that category would not be necessary with the addition of more individual awards. If these categories are added, perhaps the "best graphic design / layout category could be changed from a specific book title to a person too. The problem here becomes where do you draw the line - Editor should be added to right?

2) OGL/d20: (continue to) let the books compete with each other in all categories without any special consideration. Just a clear announcement of definitions is required, so books that do not reference or are not based on mechanics/material from the SRD are not allowed.

2b) - Please limit the scope of the ENnies to game material that is based on the SRD. While it is true that GenCon encompasses way more than this, ENworld does not. The ENnies are well respected in the gaming community because the strength of our expertise in d20/OGL products is recognized by all. We run the risk of diluting our expert status by trying to support awards for products that are not our speciality. We can expand into other areas only AFTER showing our muscles - so if that is the long term plan, start adding forums.

3) Books with reprinted material: Let them stand on their own merit as new books. I'd like to see the revised core books by WotC be eligible to win awards, as well as books like Complete Warrior, which contain very much reprinted material (see zero above). If they are not well thought of based on not having much new usable content, they will be shaken out of the running by the judges and/or the voters.

4) Electronic categories should only be be populated with titles that are electronic ONLY - a title is not allowed to enter this category if also available in print format. Also, free products should only compete in the free category.

5) Licensed products: More exposure? - Maybe. But that does not mean a better book! I say no special categories are required. Let the book stand on its own merit.