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: 1394691" data-attributes="member: 2013">Comments by category:Best d20 GameI 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 AdventureThis 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 SettingNot sure this can't be combined with a the "Best Setting Supplement" below into a "Best Setting Product" or somesuch.Best Art (Interior)Best CartographyCan stay, possibly combine them, but I think they're different enough to merit separation.Best Setting SupplementSee "Best Campaign Setting" above.Best Rules SupplementBest Monster SupplementBest Aid or AccessoryThese three seem so intermarried... perhaps combine them a bit into "Best Player-Focused Supplement" and "Best GM-focused Supplement?"Best Non-Open Gaming ProductShould 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 & LayoutShould stay.Best Electronic ProductI 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 EnhancementBest Art (Cover)Best Official WebsiteBest Resource Fan SiteBest Campaign Fan SiteBest Publisher (Overall)ENnies Peer AwardThese 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 GameBest Publisher (Overall)Best Rules SupplementBest Non-Open Gaming ProductBest Electronic ProductCREATIVE WRITING ("FLUFF")Best AdventureBest Campaign SettingBest Setting SupplementBest 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/TECHNICALBest Art (Interior)Best Art (Cover)Best CartographyBest Graphic Design & LayoutINTERNET/COMMUNITYBest Official WebsiteBest Resource Fan SiteBest Campaign Fan SiteBest Free Product or Web EnhancementOTHERBest Aid or AccessoryENnies Peer AwardThis 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.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 DesignBest Electronic Product Creative WritingBest Electronic Product Art/TechnicalTo 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 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</blockquote>

Verification