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.

 

[Lanefan]

Nobody is stopping anyone from using AI, or even publishing work with AI. But some folks are choosing not to support it, usually due to the fact that it takes work away from humans. So @Lanefan , if you don't want to work with an artist and just use AI, you're right that the revision process will be fast and you can probably get the image you desire. But the consequence is that your product won't be eligible for an ENnie.

And my proposed way of sorting the "no work for humans" piece is to get the image the way I want it via AI and then commission a human artist to duplicate that image as closely as possible. Seems the best of both worlds: artist gets paid and I get the image I want.

So I'll ask again: does doing it that way qualify for an ENnie? (asking hypothetically, as my chances of ever winning one or even being entered are vanishingly close to zero)

 

[stonehead]

That's heavily dependant on jurisdiction. There are places where the creative intent would be recognized to the person doing the very specific description (and they'd get the IP rights), while the executant wouldn't. It would need to be a really precise description, not just "paint me a character", and the executant would generally be paid by the hour and not for an end product. The reasoning behind this is that, if someone dictates a text to a typist, the typist wouldn't be considered the author, and if the description of the illustration needed is precise enough, it should be treated by a book just being typed down. So in some place, Lanefan and his very precise specification would be the artist, not the illustrator.

Jurisdiction doesn't matter because this isn't a legal question, it's an artistic one. The IP rights typically go to whoever is financing the thing, not who created it. I mean, you can sell the rights to an IP you created, but you can't sell the fact that you were the one who created it. The Disney corporation isn't the "artist" who created Star Wars: A New Hope, even though they hold the IP rights to it.

In the case of the typist and the dictator (is there a better word for one who dictates?), thats an old school example of copying. The "art" we're referring to here is the specific words used in this specific order, regardless of whether those words are spoken aloud or written or typed on a page. A medieval monk who copied the works of Plato from one book to another doesn't get to say he's the author who wrote The Gorgias. In the same way, a typist copies a work of literature from words spoken by an author to words written on a page.

In the case of an AI image, you can claim to be the "artist" who created the piece of literature that is the ~300 word prompt, but you aren't the artist who created the image. That's why picture books often credit both an author and an illustrator. Because the author doesn't get credit for creating the pictures that they described with words.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Jurisdiction doesn't matter because this isn't a legal question, it's an artistic one. The IP rights typically go to whoever is financing the thing, not who created it. I mean, you can sell the rights to an IP you created, but you can't sell the fact that you were the one who created it. The Disney corporation isn't the "artist" who created Star Wars: A New Hope, even though they hold the IP rights to it.

They hold the IP rights because they bought them, not because they are the author. But the point can be made that the IP right belong in the first place to the one doing the creative effort, which can be either the person who draw or the person who design in his head the artwork. That jurisdiction have been differing on the solution to this debate (either the copyright belong to the person who draw (and he can cede the right to a corporation afterwards) or it belongs to the designer, or there is a middle ground with shared IP rights in a collaborative work) illustrate that the debate on who is the artist isn't as clear cut as you said. It tend also to depend on the precision of the instruction to create the image. If there is no artistic liberty at all, the point can be made that the drawer is just drawing to spec, and has no artistic input on the result, with the designer being the author (much like a printer isn't the author of an image I create on my computer, even if there are substantial material differences between the work I created and the printed result).

If I am instructed to draw four black lines, indicated which one are parallels and which are perpendicular, and told to paint a square in a specific red, another in a specific yellow, and two small ones in a specific blue, I don't think I am the artist, I think Piet Mondrian is and I am just holding a brush under his supervision. Same, I don't think the person physically turning the urinal upside down was the artistic author of Duchamp's Fountain. As long as the maker input is totally under the control of the designer, the latter is the artist.

 

[Art Waring]

What I'm looking for in the art realm is the exact opposite of your can't-read-sheet-music example, and would be more analagous to a couple of people I knew at different times many years ago who, when given the sheet music and a piano, could play the most complicated concertos perfectly, every time...and yet if you took away the sheet music they couldn't play a note. They were more processors than creators.

I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one, different perspectives and all. Cheers!

When I say "exactly this" I don't just mean a style or look or anything general; I'm talking about the positioning of each branch (maybe even each leaf!) on the trees in a forest scene, the position and amount of trees, the precise pattern of sun and shade in the scene, the angle of view, the colour of the moss on the rocks, the steepness of the nearby bank, and a thousand other small details that add up to the exact image I have in my head.

And yes, this is what makes it difficult to work with another person...and the advantage of AI is that in effect I'm only working with myself. The AI program is endlessly patient and can trial-and-error the image hundreds or even thousands of times while slowly closing in on - and ideally, maybe with some by-hand tweaking* along the way, eventually reaching - what I want the image to be.

I understand what you are saying, but I think this boils down to your personal preferences, and that is fine, but I don't think that it would be easy to as you say, work with another person in this way. Part of working with other people can sometimes mean working towards a compromise.

Or, flip side, allow the existence of gen-AI to raise my expectations far beyond what they'd otherwise be. I can't afford the very best but I can afford free AI, and it opens the door to a whole wide swath of possibilities that previously would have been out of reach. I'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it while I can.

Well, I mean that is your choice, but by making that choice you are closing a lot of doors for your publication right from the start. But hey, do what you want to I guess.

Again @Faolyn for a good response here:

Well, then, you have a decision. You can (a) get a real human artist who may not get your complete-and-total image exactly as it appears in your head (but who may do something that ends up more evocative or interesting in some other way), or you can (b) use AI and get a lot of people to refuse to buy your hypothetical product on principle.

Cheers folks, I hope you have a good day.

 

[LordEntrails]

But some folks are choosing not to support it, usually due to the fact that it takes work away from humans.

So they said about Gutenberg.

 

[Faolyn]

So they said about Gutenberg.

That's really, really different. The printing press reduced the amount of labor needed for one aspect of printing but didn't alter the fact that an actual person had written the thing to be printed. However, generative AI does. You can't compare a labor-saving decide to a creativity-saving device.

Also, if I'm buying a creative work, then I want to the writer or artist to actually have done the creating. If AI is going to write or paint, then I should be giving money directly to the AI, not to the person who typed a description into a box and then pushed a button and then stuck their name on it.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Also, if I'm buying a creative work, then I want to the writer or artist to actually have done the creating.

In this case, you're doing the creative work (designing what you want) and just hire the material execution. That's different from letting creative control to another person (in which case it's reasonable to pay for the creative input on top of the material execution).

If AI is going to write or paint, then I should be giving money directly to the AI, not to the person who typed a description into a box and then pushed a button and then stuck their name on it.

Why would you give money to anyone? Just run a local generator and type the description yourself and save money in this case.

 

[Lanefan]

I understand what you are saying, but I think this boils down to your personal preferences, and that is fine, but I don't think that it would be easy to as you say, work with another person in this way. Part of working with other people can sometimes mean working towards a compromise.

Except in this case I don't see it as I'm working with someone else, instead it's someone else working for me (and being paid for it), and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Well, I mean that is your choice, but by making that choice you are closing a lot of doors for your publication right from the start.

My point is that those doors should not be closed to me.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Except in this case I don't see it as I'm working with someone else, instead it's someone else working for me (and being paid for it), and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

My point is that those doors should not be closed to me.

I think the answer is to create your own Award with which you can choose the parameters for entry?

 

[Faolyn]

In this case, you're doing the creative work (designing what you want) and just hire the material execution. That's different from letting creative control to another person (in which case it's reasonable to pay for the creative input on top of the material execution).

Because the AI isn't doing anything creative here. It's not sapient. It's just regurgitating info it's been trained on. Anything it puts out is meaningless.

Why would you give money to anyone? Just run a local generator and type the description yourself and save money in this case.

See above.