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: 1396219" data-attributes="member: 2013">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.You got my vote, I just assumed you won... after all, I'm always right... except when I'm not. <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=";)" />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</blockquote>

Verification