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.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Look, unless you're an absolute genius at or highly educated in layout, design, color choice, mood, lighting, etc. but somehow also incapable of producing the work yourself (which I doubt simply because of how rare this combination is), then it's highly unlikely that your vision is truly the best possible vision for your hypothetical work. In fact, what you might think is an amazing design choice may be terrible. I've gotten indie games where the creator apparently thought yellow text on a green background was a great decision. Heck, a lot of professional game companies seem to think that using a tiny, illegible script font is the way to go (White Wolf, I'm looking at you). Considering how many other people I've seen complaining about this same thing, I shudder to think of how much work has gone unread because of design choice.

This is why it's good to work with their artists or writers instead of being a boss from hell and demanding that everyone follow your orders blindly.

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

Again: you can use those doors and use AI, but you'd be alienating a lot of your potential customer base and therefore losing a lot of potential sales.

 

[Art Waring]

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.

If this is your perspective, then that's fine, for you I guess. Just don't be surprised that when you treat everything like that, well, you get what you pay for... Part of being a good client is knowing how to work with other people towards a common goal. Treating someone like that is not going to inspire them to do their best work, sometimes that requires a bit of magnanimity even if you are the one paying for it.

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

Except we have been saying this now several times, you can do whatever you want to, its your choice. The only thing you can't do (as of this thread) is try to win an award that should be going to a working artist instead of a machine.

 

[stonehead]

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.

I don't think that's true, where are you getting this information from? The ownership of a piece of artwork (and its IP) almost always goes to the one paying for it. Not to the designer nor to the artist. That's true

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.

If AI prompts looked like "draw a curved line from point [240,312] to point [531,287] then draw..." then maybe that argument could apply to AI generated images. Instead, prompts look like "pretty girl, long hair, elf, beautiful background, dramatic lighting..." Maybe you disagree, but to me that doesn't look like a gray area edge case at all. If such a prompt were given to a human, then there would be no question who the artist was.

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

I mean, you can complain, but you don't get to decide what other people want to buy, nor what they want to recognize as greatness. In what world does an actor get to demand the commercial they acted in is eligible for best picture? What band has the authority to say "consumers shouldn't be able to boycott my music"?

I don't like AI generated images, but I don't get to demand that you stop using it. Similarly, you can use AI in your product, but you don't get to demand that customers can't boycott it, nor that awards have to include it.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I don't think that's true, where are you getting this information from? The ownership of a piece of artwork (and its IP) almost always goes to the one paying for it. Not to the designer nor to the artist. That's true.

If it was the case, there wouldn't be any need to mention IP in the contract. The fact that the artists contract makes provision for transferring IP when doing commissioned work proves that the IP benefits the author, even in the case of commissionned work. Also, don't mix material rights and moral rights, as those can be treated differently, again depending on where the action takes place. In NZ, for example, the commissionned rule makes it default to have the ownership of the work belong to the commissioning party, unless agreed upon. In the UK (and since you wanted to know where I get this information: here, for example), the default situation would be that the author keeps his copyright. To paraphrase their example, if Penguin books hired Mr Smith to write a book, the copyright would still belong to Mr Smith. A specific contract would be needed to transfer the rights Penguin books want. In France, it would depend on the nature of the employment contract: all works created by civil servants belong to their employer, if they are doing them as part of their job (so if there are art teachers and the school board wants you to create a painting to decorate a wall in the courtyard, even if the instructions are just "pretty girl, long hair, elf, dramatic lighting", the artist would be the school, not the teachers (that's harsh for civil servants). In a relationship between private parties, it would be more protective of the artist, akin to the UK: if I hire someone to write a book about my life, it's still their book and I can't say "I wrote an autobiography".

If AI prompts looked like "draw a curved line from point [240,312] to point [531,287] then draw..." then maybe that argument could apply to AI generated images. Instead, prompts look like "pretty girl, long hair, elf, beautiful background, dramatic lighting..." Maybe you disagree, but to me that doesn't look like a gray area edge case at all. If such a prompt were given to a human, then there would be no question who the artist was.

The grey area is between the two extremes you present, the white (from point X to point Y) and the black (a vague prompt). That's why it's called grey. BTW, I would be very interested on your stance on who is the artist in the case of Sol Lewitt's Wall Drawings. If I follow you, he shouldn't be considered the artist behind the wall drawings, since he just creates the concept and leaves the execution to the artwork installer? And where do you draw the line between the precise instructions of his first works and the later, more fuzzy ones?

 

[Bae'zel]

The best use of AI (or Photoshop, or Poser etc) is when you can’t tell that they were used at all.

It is very easy to spot these things. They have “tells”. Poser especially. I can spot when an artist traces over rendered models. Even in A-list RPG books. If you’ve ever done 3d modelling, it’s strangely obvious (partially has to do with the camera “lens” and foreshortening; it can look off).

Anyway, I always feel a bit disappointed when I spot it because it comes across as a bit… lazy or rushed. Not naturalistic or genuine.