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: 1395212" data-attributes="member: 2013">The reason I brought it up was because I KNOW it's an excellent test case. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  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</blockquote>

Verification