Ennies judges seek publisher inputs on categories

[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.

Just to clarify, I should have said:

For purely selfish reasons, I'd rather it be limited to official and non-official D&D and d20 products, whether OGL or not. That way it's not limited to only one type product. I have no problems with OGL being included.

 

[Psion]

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.

You mean like we did last year, which is why M&M was eligible?

(This was mentioned up thread, BTW.)

Yes, it certainly is possible to do so again, but we aren't sure yet. I have even put forth the idea that we not make d20 SRD a requirement at all and make open products open to ALL OGL products. Not that I expect that to make a huge amount of difference.

 

[BryonD]

You mean like we did last year, which is why M&M was eligible?

(This was mentioned up thread, BTW.)

Yes, it certainly is possible to do so again, but we aren't sure yet. I have even put forth the idea that we not make d20 SRD a requirement at all and make open products open to ALL OGL products. Not that I expect that to make a huge amount of difference.

Yeah, I guess I do.

 

[jaldaen]

One possibility (not necessarily the best) in regards to "revised" products is to have a "Best Revised Product" category... that way such products can be recognized in some way and don't get left out.

If not this then I'd prefer either no revised products or a 50% new material = "new" product guidline. Both arbitrary, but that's what judges do ;-)

 

[Vigilance]

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.

This would eliminate such a huge percentage of electronic products I would not recommend this tack. Monte's PDFs would not be eligible, RPGObjects would not be eligible, last year's winner, and the clearest example of how electronic products can, and do, break out, MMSWE also was in print by the time of the Ennies, and thus would have been ineligble under this system.

Phil Reed is also going print with his titles.

In short, I don't think is fair, because one way the best PDF titles are consistently recognized is through a print run.

Also products in print are going PDF all the time. These two media, once totally seperate fields, move closer all the time. Companies that do one are doing both more and more consistently. GURPs is preparing to do PDF runs of out of print books, WOTC does this, Bastion and Mongoose do PDFs on occasion, etc.

My recommendation would be to judge the product in the medium in which it first appeared. If it was printed and then went PDF, its a print product. If it was PDF and then went print, its a PDF product.

I realize this recommendation has disadvantages. Id certainly like my books to be considered *both* for example. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and with PDF and Print products, that line gets a little more blurred all the time.

Chuck

 

[Psion]

My recommendation would be to judge the product in the medium in which it first appeared. If it was printed and then went PDF, its a print product. If it was PDF and then went print, its a PDF product.

The way I am leaning (and don't take this as a statement from the judges, as we are far from having this totally hashed out yet) is to not allow the same material (possible subject to some percentage of original material criteria as alluded to above) in consecutive years. As someone said upthread, "double dipping" may not be exactly fair. That said, even if we have a PDF category, there is no reason a PDF product can't be considered in both the PDF categories and the more general categories in the same year. The PDF category may just be considered a special effort to recognize PDF publishers, a publishing category that I feel has a lot to offer d20 gamers.

 

[Vigilance]

Well I certainly would like to see some products considered in both categories. I was merely responding to the statement that if it goes print it is categorically not eligbile for a PDF award.

I had to speak up that I thought this was not the way to go, especially since that would have disqualified both of last year's winners (Mindscapes and MMSWE).

Chuck

 

[Crothian]

Just a bump. We are looking for input from any publisher, writer, artist, freelancer etc. Thanks!!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

You also have to consider the case of OGL-only products that reproduce large portions of the SRD-- classes, feats, spells, combat, etc. I don't believe any company should be penalized for SUPPORTING the Open Gaming Movement by NOT reinventing the wheel for those things that are working and established in terms of design.

Sometimes, it is the application of the SRD in new ways that is worthy of note, and it doesn't always require 25% or more "new" material to do it.

I'd also like to second Ed's excellent suggestion to give cartographers, artists, freelance writers, and their ilk the credit they deserve.

Wulf

 

[Morrus]

I'd also like to second Ed's excellent suggestion to give cartographers, artists, freelance writers, and their ilk the credit they deserve.

There is a considerable practical difficulty in doing that, in that it would require us to determine which artists did which illustrations (and for the voting public to do the same!), and also which writers which which parts of some books.