ENnies To Ban Generative AI From 2025

The ENnie Awards has announced that from 2025, products including content made by generative AI will not be eligible for the awards.

Established in 2001, the ENnies are the premier tabletop roleplaying game awards ceremony, and are held every year in a ceremony at Gen Con. They were created right here on EN World, and remained affiliated with EN World until 2018.

The decision on generative AI follows a wave of public reaction criticising the policy announced in 2023 that while products containing generative AI were eligible, the generative AI content itself was not--so an artist whose art was on the cover of a book could still win an award for their work even if there was AI art inside the book (or vice versa). The new policy makes the entire product ineligible if it contains any generative AI content.

Generative AI as a whole has received widespread criticism in the tabletop industry over the last couple of years, with many companies--including D&D's owner Wizards of the Coast--publicly announcing their opposition to its use on ethical grounds.

The new policy takes effect from 2025.

The ENNIE Awards have long been dedicated to serving the fans, publishers, and broader community of the tabletop role-playing game (TTRPG) industry. The ENNIES are a volunteer-driven organization who generously dedicate their time and talents to celebrate and reward excellence within the TTRPG industry. Reflecting changes in the industry and technological advancements, the ENNIE Awards continuously review their policies to ensure alignment with community values.

In 2023, the ENNIE Awards introduced their initial policy on generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs). The policy recognized the growing presence of these technologies in modern society and their nuanced applications, from generating visual and written content to supporting background tasks such as PDF creation and word processing. The intent was to encourage honesty and transparency from creators while maintaining a commitment to human-driven creativity. Under this policy, creators self-reported AI involvement, and submissions with AI contributions were deemed ineligible for certain categories. For example, products featuring AI-generated art were excluded from art categories but remained eligible for writing categories if the text was entirely human-generated, and vice versa. The organizers faced challenges in crafting a policy that balanced inclusivity with the need to uphold the values of creativity and originality. Recognizing that smaller publishers and self-published creators often lack the resources of larger companies, the ENNIE Awards sought to avoid policies that might disproportionately impact those with limited budgets.

However, feedback from the TTRPG community has made it clear that this policy does not go far enough. Generative AI remains a divisive issue, with many in the community viewing it as a threat to the creativity and originality that define the TTRPG industry. The prevailing sentiment is that AI-generated content, in any form, detracts from a product rather than enhancing it.

In response to this feedback, the ENNIE Awards are amending their policy regarding generative AI. Beginning with the 2025-2026 submission cycle, the ENNIE Awards will no longer accept any products containing generative AI or created with the assistance of Large Language Models or similar technologies for visual, written, or edited content. Creators wishing to submit products must ensure that no AI-generated elements are included in their works. While it is not feasible to retroactively alter the rules for the 2024-2025 season, this revised policy reflects the ENNIE Awards commitment to celebrating the human creativity at the heart of the TTRPG community. The ENNIES remain a small, volunteer-run organization that values the ability to adapt quickly, when necessary, despite the challenges inherent in their mission.

The ENNIE Awards thank the TTRPG community for their feedback, passion, and understanding. As an organization dedicated to celebrating the creators, publishers, and fans who shape this vibrant industry, the ENNIES hope that this policy change aligns with the values of the community and fosters continued growth and innovation.

 

[CleverNickName]

But it won't be. AI is indeed here to stay. Even Gen-Ai is not going away.

I'm not opposed to the concept behind this new ENnie awards rule. (lets keep the awards to humans, not computers). But it has been implemented horribly. It's not enforceable because their is no reliable way to make the determination. And they haven't even said how they might make such determinations. That tells me that they did this simple as a CYA and are going to reply upon the mob to determine, and lynch, anyone who supposedly submits a work with AI in it. Therefore I'm opposed to the rule.

There's no evidence to support the "AI is here to stay" claim. I'm old enough to remember folks saying CD ROMS were here to stay.

We don't know how Morrus is going to implement the "no AI" requirement. But if it were up to me (and it's not), here's how I would do it: after everyone on ENWorld has nominated their favorite products, I would reach out to the nominated products' authors and get (1) a signed statement that no AI products were used on the nominated product in any way, and (2) thumbnails, outlines, drafts, and other evidence to support it. Entries that can't provide both would be disqualified before the voting could even begin.

 

[dragoner]

There's no evidence to support the "AI is here to stay" claim. I'm old enough to remember folks saying CD ROMS were here to stay.

We don't know how Morrus is going to implement the "no AI" requirement. But if it were up to me (and it's not), here's how I would do it: after everyone on ENWorld has nominated their favorite products, I would reach out to the nominated products' authors and get (1) a signed statement that no AI products were used on the nominated product in any way, and (2) thumbnails, outlines, and other evidence to support it. Entries that can't provide both would be disqualified before the voting could even begin.

Yeah, I press to doubt on that too. I look at my business emails, and the spam folders are filled with "Get the new crypto AI for seo blah blah blah ..." Feels like just another scam, I remember people saying NFT's are here forever also. On another forum someone asked chat gpt a torque value and it looked wrong, and I looked at a datasheet, yep, wrong. So not only is AI not smart, it is making people stupider, amazing. Who would have thought that Idiocracy would be so prophetic? Yet here we are.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's no evidence to support the "AI is here to stay" claim. I'm old enough to remember folks saying CD ROMS were here to stay.

We don't know how Morrus is going to implement the "no AI" requirement. But if it were up to me (and it's not), here's how I would do it: after everyone on ENWorld has nominated their favorite products, I would reach out to the nominated products' authors and get (1) a signed statement that no AI products were used on the nominated product in any way, and (2) thumbnails, outlines, and other evidence to support it. Entries that can't provide both would be disqualified before the voting could even begin.

Didn't those same people think personal computers were a fad?

 

[Lanefan]

@Art Waring - as you've said you're a working artist, I've a question for you:

Actual situation: I have a clear and quite exact idea in my head for an image to use on a module cover. However, I don't have anywhere near the artistic talent-training-experience required to get this image on to paper or canvas or a computer screen by my own doing. The best I could do would be to try to describe it to someone else - maybe such as yourself -who does have that talent, in full knowledge there's at least a 95% chance that what comes back won't match my vision.

With AI as the "artist", I can just keep trying as many times as I like, tweaking the prompts over and over again until I get the image to match what's in my head; while an actual artist would probably (and quite understandably!) want to strangle me after I sent the image back for the seventeenth time requesting corrections or even a complete start-over.

So, my question is this: what would be your reaction were someone to get the image just the way they wanted it by using AI then bring that image to you with the commission: "Here, paint me an exact duplicate of this image".

And for purposes of inspection, would that duplicate image you painted then count as human-generated?

 

[Morrus]

There's no evidence to support the "AI is here to stay" claim. I'm old enough to remember folks saying CD ROMS were here to stay.

We don't know how Morrus is going to implement the "no AI" requirement. But if it were up to me (and it's not), here's how I would do it: after everyone on ENWorld has nominated their favorite products, I would reach out to the nominated products' authors and get (1) a signed statement that no AI products were used on the nominated product in any way, and (2) thumbnails, outlines, drafts, and other evidence to support it. Entries that can't provide both would be disqualified before the voting could even begin.

I (and EN World) are not affiliated with the ENnies.

 

[BookTenTiger]

@Art Waring - as you've said you're a working artist, I've a question for you:

Actual situation: I have a clear and quite exact idea in my head for an image to use on a module cover. However, I don't have anywhere near the artistic talent-training-experience required to get this image on to paper or canvas or a computer screen by my own doing. The best I could do would be to try to describe it to someone else - maybe such as yourself -who does have that talent, in full knowledge there's at least a 95% chance that what comes back won't match my vision.

With AI as the "artist", I can just keep trying as many times as I like, tweaking the prompts over and over again until I get the image to match what's in my head; while an actual artist would probably (and quite understandably!) want to strangle me after I sent the image back for the seventeenth time requesting corrections or even a complete start-over.

So, my question is this: what would be your reaction were someone to get the image just the way they wanted it by using AI then bring that image to you with the commission: "Here, paint me an exact duplicate of this image".

And for purposes of inspection, would that duplicate image you painted then count as human-generated?

Two thoughts:

1) Artists almost always send multiple drafts and revisions to whoever is commissioning them. Revision is a baked-in part of the process.

2) I think your situation is somewhat analogous to giving a painter a photograph and saying "paint this." The painter could just replicate the photograph, but in truth that's not why you hire a painter. An artist is supposed to add something to the piece, their own voice, vision, atmosphere, creativity, soul. (And I'm not saying photography doesn't have all these things, but in this case let's just say the photograph is a reference, not a piece of art itself.) An artist doesn't just replicate, they interpret. There's a human process happening there that's been honored and celebrated since folks were doing this on cave walls.

So I think a much more likely scenario would be giving an artist an AI generated image and saying "I want something like this, but make it more grim, and have the hero match this description." And then the artist can use the image as one inspiration and create something unique.

Then again, this is probably very common anyways without AI! You would probably want to show an artist other art that matches the style, feel, or designs you're looking for.

 

[LordEntrails]

Well, I never said it was going away altogether, I said that nothing (save for death I guess, even taxes are avoidable for the mega-rich) is inevitable. Beta-Max tapes, although superior to VHS (500 lines vs 240 lines in VHS tapes), were once thought to become the dominant media cassette, they are now forgotten and obsolete. It can still exist and no longer be relevant to current discourse (just look at NFT's).

Think technologies not specific products. Yes Beta-Max tapes went away, but the PCM technology that was developed as part of them is still widely in use today. NFT's are a product, block-chains are a technology and still widely used in appropriate (i.e. banking) products. Products go away all the time. Though since the computer age, technologies really don't. Machine learning, large language models, and artificial neural networks are the technologies behind Gen AI, they pre-date what is now called Gen AI and will remain. Sure, maybe near-free quick text based image generation will go away. I know artists are hoping for such. But I don't see why. The technology will certainly remain.

Well, where exactly are these wonderful technologies then? Where is your proof that these things are in fact generative-ai and not just being lumped in with the words "ai" in order to lump everything under the same umbrella? There are multiple types of ai, everything from narrow ai (focused on specific tasks), to those with more broad applications. You will have to be more specific as to exactly what you are talking about here.

First, I said Gen and No-Gen AI. And you seem to acknowledge that their are many AI products other than specific tools that are used to create images that compete with your work. Since you asked for specific examples; At your local police department in products such as facial recognition and age progression. As part of your favorite web search tool. In the satellites that are going into space. On the battlefields in Ukraine. On Wall Street and the Canary Wharf in London. At your doctor's office or hospital for monitoring patient medications and symptom analysis.

As for specific image and video gen-AI tools? All across the aerospace and defense industry. Some of it is used to train human operators. Some to train other AIs. Some as part of deployed systems such as target recognition.

Not to mention that we are specifically talking about generative ai with regards to publishing ttrpg's, which has nothing at all to do with hypothetical tech that is still in development. We are talking about gen-ai that is here right now, not what they are promising you at some undetermined date. Empty promises from techbros don't carry relevance to publishing.

I'm not talking about future promises. But I can see why you are interested in talking about TTRPG publishing. But the same tools used in this narrow TTRPG niche are also being used in other industries, such as the wider publishing and entertainment industries (are we really going to ignore the AI tools already included in so many art tools?). As well as via state actors for the sixth domain of war. You can Google that for plenty of evidence of Gen-AI use there. And those actors, yea, there willing to spend money.

In short, there are current uses of the same technology that the ENnies are looking to ban in other industries. And the R&D is not being funding by the TTRPG industry.

Again, I am trying my best to stay on topic, which is to address the use of gen-ai in publishing ttrpg's, specifically for the Ennies. This will stray into other topics not covered by this thread. I would prefer to stay on the subject of publishing, and not on hypotheticals.

Sure, so since so many other industries are spending vast amount of money on Gen AI, why do you think these tools won't stay available to the TTRPG publishing industry? We were never the target market, just an incidental user segment.

Again, gen-ai cannot achieve specificity nor can it understand context,

Not yet. Maybe never. For your sake I hope not. But I don't see any technological roadblock for it to gain that capability. It will just take vast amounts of data and human teaching.

Yeah I get what you are saying, but think about it from their perspective. They are trying to find answers to this problem because it is a very new problem facing ttrpg publishing. Nobody really knows how to enforce it yet, and so long as there are bad actors willing to lie about it there will always be problems with gen-ai in the industry.

So far they have discussed showing your work (proof via sketches and progress), which so far I think is one of the best possible solutions (so far). However, this has its own inherent problems. Fore example, a lot of art was made years before gen-ai ever existed, many artists were not (at the time) in the habit of keeping that many older "rough sketches," especially digital artists.

IMO ENnies has done this in a half-assed and amateur method. Implementing a rule before they really even understand the implications and have no plausible means of evaluating it. Sure, they are coming up with ways now, but even those are horrible flawed. As you point out in your second paragraph here.

Furthermore, the "mob/ lynch" crowd already failed in this respect. If you remember, some youtube influencer guy who I would rather not name accussed the cover artist of the new dnd book of using gen-ai, and it backfired spectacularly. The artist showed his proof of work, and the matter was dropped, and I don't doubt that influencer lost some credibility in the process. When you make accusations like that, there are going to be consequences, especially if you just throw your opinion out there without any kind of proof.

The mob failed once. That doesn't mean they are going to keep failing. Besides, what harm was done even with just this failed example? How much pain and anguish did this one artist go through? how many hours of productive work or family time did this take away from the artist? And do you think this isn't going to show up when folks search out that artist in the future? And half of those people won't get the details, only that Artist X was accused of using AI. And they will shy away from that artist.

There's no evidence to support the "AI is here to stay" claim. I'm old enough to remember folks saying CD ROMS were here to stay.

See my comments above about technology. Product come and go. Some day ChatGPT, Jasper and Wondershare will be gone. But the technology won't and it will be in use. Where's your evidence that these technologies would ever go away?

(2) thumbnails, outlines, drafts, and other evidence to support it. Entries that can't provide both would be disqualified before the voting could even begin.

Let's change the tax code and make it retroactive. That's fair!
Or the other way to think of this, guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Faolyn]

@Art Waring - as you've said you're a working artist, I've a question for you:

Actual situation: I have a clear and quite exact idea in my head for an image to use on a module cover. However, I don't have anywhere near the artistic talent-training-experience required to get this image on to paper or canvas or a computer screen by my own doing. The best I could do would be to try to describe it to someone else - maybe such as yourself -who does have that talent, in full knowledge there's at least a 95% chance that what comes back won't match my vision.

With AI as the "artist", I can just keep trying as many times as I like, tweaking the prompts over and over again until I get the image to match what's in my head; while an actual artist would probably (and quite understandably!) want to strangle me after I sent the image back for the seventeenth time requesting corrections or even a complete start-over.

So, my question is this: what would be your reaction were someone to get the image just the way they wanted it by using AI then bring that image to you with the commission: "Here, paint me an exact duplicate of this image".

And for purposes of inspection, would that duplicate image you painted then count as human-generated?

Not them, of course, but as an artist, I'd be OK with using AI to produce a model. If I need to draw a picture of, say, a werewolf leaping on someone, I might find a picture of a human in the right pose (or use an app that gives me a digital mannequin to pose)
and a picture of a wolf with the right snarl, stick the wolf's head on the human's body, and use that to draw from. AI could do that easily enough. I haven't done that, but I could see doing it.

But the important bit would be that the AI image is only the model. So yes, using the AI to model a complete image like you mention above and then drawing it myself--yes, that would count as human-generated, even if the final image was an exact duplicate of the AI image. Ultimately, I'd even say it's no different than taking a photo of a landscape or person and then using that.

 

[Lanefan]

Two thoughts:

1) Artists almost always send multiple drafts and revisions to whoever is commissioning them. Revision is a baked-in part of the process.

2) I think your situation is somewhat analogous to giving a painter a photograph and saying "paint this." The painter could just replicate the photograph, but in truth that's not why you hire a painter. An artist is supposed to add something to the piece, their own voice, vision, atmosphere, creativity, soul. (And I'm not saying photography doesn't have all these things, but in this case let's just say the photograph is a reference, not a piece of art itself.) An artist doesn't just replicate, they interpret. There's a human process happening there that's been honored and celebrated since folks were doing this on cave walls.

It is in fact directly analagous, but using a photo image as a cover is (I think!) allowed by these rules - ditto for using hand-done art that uses a photo as a reference or template or direct-duplication source - while using an AI-generated image is not.

So I think a much more likely scenario would be giving an artist an AI generated image and saying "I want something like this, but make it more grim, and have the hero match this description." And then the artist can use the image as one inspiration and create something unique.

If I wanted it more grim and with a different-looking hero I'd have put those prompts in the AI to start with.

Then again, this is probably very common anyways without AI! You would probably want to show an artist other art that matches the style, feel, or designs you're looking for.

If I already have the art that matches what I want then I don't need the new art, do I?

My question to Art Waring is as noted upthread, my question to the ENnies people would be where the line of acceptability falls - would a hand-done duplicate of an AI-generated image pass muster? And if not, why not?

 

[Art Waring]

So, my question is this: what would be your reaction were someone to get the image just the way they wanted it by using AI then bring that image to you with the commission: "Here, paint me an exact duplicate of this image".

This is actually one of the reasons that I quit doing freelance commissions, as I don't like being asked to do 1:1 copies of other pieces of art (and thankfully, I have never had the displeasure of personally being asked to redo an ai-generated image).

The primary purpose of hiring any particular artist, is that you like their work and their particular style. If I hand over a visual reference to a freelancer, I would never expect a 1:1 replica, I would expect that they use their own insight and talents to create a piece of art based on their interpretation of the reference, and any written details I provide.

So, my question is this: what would be your reaction were someone to get the image just the way they wanted it by using AI then bring that image to you with the commission: "Here, paint me an exact duplicate of this image".

And for purposes of inspection, would that duplicate image you painted then count as human-generated?

Pretty sure I answered this above, I would not want to try to create a duplicate of anything, the point is to allow an artist to express themselves through their work, duplicating things "exactly" does not allow this to process happen. And that is of course ignoring the typical artist process of drafting and revising a piece over multiple iterations to get the desired result.

As for "does this count as human generated?" question. Well, due to the fact that a lot of these details are still being fought over in court, we will have to wait and see what happens. As it currently stands, only a human can register their work with the US copyright office, machines, no matter how many prompts and revisions you got through, will not be eligible for copyright (an ai-bro has tried numerous times to copyright an ai-generated image with the explanation that he went through thousands of prompts, the US copyright office does not care how much time you spent typing words into gen-ai to get results, as it still has to be made by a person to get a copyright certificate).