ENnies V - and beyond...

[Crothian]

I wasn't aware that the ENnies weren't taken seriously. Most publishers who receive one prominently display it on their web site .

I think its a mix of three. We are taken serious by some, we are unknown to some, and then there are the ones who really don't care.

So, we need to get our name out and increase the awareness. Hopefully that will really limit the ones who are unaware of us and we can win over some of them that don't care.

 

[Psion]

Guess I'd have to ask the same thing. I post over there, not quite as frequently as I do over here mind you, and have posted numerous reviews over there. I believe Psion is in the same boat.

My postcount over there compares to my postcount here (often the conversations are much more interesting... you'd be surprised), and that's where I got my start reviewing. I still review non-d20 products over there from time to time (I reviewed Fantasy Hero over there a few months ago.)

 

[Vigilance]

Well, that's quite a chunk of change. It brings to mind a couple of questions, if you don't mind my asking...

1)How many products did you guys enter this year?

I believe we entered everything we had made in the past year.

While Im not sure where all of that came in I can give you a run down on what just four of them cost us, namely the Darwin's World 2nd edition HC, the Legends of Excalibur HC, the Blood and Fists SC and the Blood and Guts SC.

6x Darwin's World 2e (40 dollars each)= 240 dollars
6x Legends of Excalibur (30 dollars each)= 180 dollars (420 total)
6x Blood and Guts (20 dollars each)=120 dollars (540 total)
6x Blood and Fists (15 dollars each)=90 dollars (630 total)

Plus shipping. As I said I dont know where the whole figure Chris quoted me came from, but just those four were the bulk of it.

2)Why would you choose to enter none if the cost went up? Why would you not set yourself a budget, and send your top products to stay within that budget? Woudl it be the principle of the thing?

Well I didnt mean to sound vindictive. Its not like Im saying raise the entry fee and we'd bail in a snit or something.

It was hard for me, at the price quoted above to convince the boss to enter the Ennies this year.

When, after being nominated three years in a row I routinely run into ENW regulars who have no idea our company exists, its sometimes hard to justify it as a marketing expense, one that comes much later in the life cycle of some products (especially in the case of Blood and Fists and Blood and Guts those books had already done the bulk of their sales).

So it would probably NOT cause us to enter nothing. And maybe companies like us, who don't stand much of a chance to win, for which nominations are the whole honor, entering fewer products is a good thing for the Ennies.

As I understand it, for the past couple of years the judges have been veritably swamped with products. Giving them each a proper review is tough. A policy that leads to publishers entering only the cream of their crop might well lead to our judges being better at their job.

Well we don't print every product, so when we enter all our print products, as I believe we did this year, that is the cream of the crop.

But as I said, for smaller companies like us who don't stand a lot of chance in the popular voting (no this isn't me being snippy either- I just dont feel we have the "presence" to get nominated over a company like GR), that might be a good thing for the Ennies, and Im ok with that.

People just asked for publisher opinions and I know that for us, its been a question mark every year and this year, with our print schedule expanding rather considerably, and especially with our first two hardcovers being entered this year, the cost for us went up rather steeply, and there were some serious internal discussions about whether it was worth it for us.

So as the cost continues to climb it becomes a harder sell.

If ENWorld is losing money on it I wouldn't regret them doing whatever they had to do to stop that from happening. If that means raising the bar for submissions financially I can understand that side of it.

Chuck

 

[Psion]

I wasn't aware that the ENnies weren't taken seriously. Most publishers who receive one prominently display it on their web site (hell, Malhavoc have had an ENnies medallion on their site for as long as I can remember). The shortlist announcements and results are met with much trepidation and excitement in all of the roleplaying circles I mix in. The very first thing I wanted to do when I found out about the Dragonlance Bestiary's silvers was mail my congrats to the authors, whom I work with regularly. There is already prestige and cachet in these awards. Unquestionably, they have become one of the most respected awards on the scene (as far as I'm concerned, the most respected), for many and varied reasons many of which are being analysed here. I just hope that 'reinventing' the ENnies doesn't detract from the very reasons why they have become so respected in the first place.

And we thank you for your support.

Yes, it could be that many of the publisher objections we see could be exagarated or exceptions. But I don't think that we can really afford to shut off the publishers and their concerns, lest we lose touch. It's in large part BECAUSE of publishers banking on us that we are credible (and I am thankful that the likes of White Wolf and Guardians of Order, companies that previously weren't part of the ENnies, chose to get involved.) It's not so much to me that we have much credibility to gain so much as we have much to lose.

 

[Arnwyn]

Actually, it isn't. Considering the possibility that most people only used the numbers 6-10 it makes sense to get rid of half the numbers that are never used.

A very strange response, especially coming from a reviewer.

A 6-10 on the 1-10 ENnie scale is obviously not the same as a 1-5... unless whoever wrote the instructions for ENnie voting was completely incompetent.

The 6-10 rating is obviously a "higher than average" mark. Did you not stop to think that most people rate products that they are familiar with a higher than average mark for a good reason? Certainly, because they are ENnie nominated, a higher than average rating is a likely possibility. As well, I think that people who "are familiar with" the different products and feel comfortable enough to rate them in the ENnies likely bought and own them - and thus are more likely to "like" the books that they bought (or, alternatively, are likely to at least validate their own choice/opinion of a book they bought and rate it above average).

Having a 1-5 scale will instead result in a whole lot of 4's and 5's. Not a particularly valuable result, IMO, especially if a lot of books are close in the running. So, instead of a lot of 6-10's, you'll end up with a lot of 4's and 5's - well, I guess 1-3 isn't used a lot. So heck, let's just follow through to the logical conclusion, and just have 1's and 2's. Brilliant.

(And, none of this changes the fact that the 1-5 star scale is extremely granular and over-limiting, as I said in my first post. Nothing wrong with that in the reviews section, where one should read the actual review to get real value from the review - but it's wholly inappropriate for the actual ENnie voting.)

So no, Crothian, it doesn't make sense to "get rid of half the numbers that aren't used". (Are you sure you had something to do with the ENnies? Because your response leads me to believe that you're not entirely sure what you're talking about. Hmmm...)

 

[Crothian]

A very strange response, especially coming from a reviewer.

Most of my responses are strange, and not just for a reviewer.

Another reason people want the 1-5 rating is to limit the effect of people voting bad for products not casue they don't like them but becasue they want product X to win. So, they might vote 4 products 1's and one a 10. Limiting the numbers make that not mess things up as bad. Also, if we define the numbers instead of just listing them it will be easier to define 5 numbers then 10. These are just ideas, and one should take into consideration that the poster of an idea is not always a supporter of the idea.

 

[Umbran]

Plus shipping. As I said I dont know where the whole figure Chris quoted me came from, but just those four were the bulk of it.

Hm. Okay, here's a problem - you're quoting list prices. The list price includes the cost of the physical item, the publisher's profit, plus significant markups for the distributor and the retailer. It should not cost RPGObjects the full list price to submit the item, unless you're going out and buying it off the shelf to ship to the Ennies. So, perhaps you guys don't quite have an accurate view of how much the Ennies are costing you?

When, after being nominated three years in a row I routinely run into ENW regulars who have no idea our company exists, its sometimes hard to justify it as a marketing expense, one that comes much later in the life cycle of some products (especially in the case of Blood and Fists and Blood and Guts those books had already done the bulk of their sales).

Valid criticisms, surely. We cannot fix the fact that the Ennies will generally come well after the life cycle of a product. Sometimes, it is at best a feather in the cap of the company. If you find that few folks are noting that feather, then there is a problem.

As has been noted before, the Ennies do need to do a bit of outreach if they want to be more than marginal.

But as I said, for smaller companies like us who don't stand a lot of chance in the popular voting (no this isn't me being snippy either- I just dont feel we have the "presence" to get nominated over a company like GR), that might be a good thing for the Ennies, and Im ok with that.

Personally, I'd like to see a voting procedure that does as good a job as we can reasonably manage of dealing with the market penetration issue. It would be great if little-known publishers with great products could win. I am a little concerned that there are not enough people voting to manage this, but it bears looking into, I think.

 

[Nisarg]

Guess I'd have to ask the same thing. I post over there, not quite as frequently as I do over here mind you, and have posted numerous reviews over there. I believe Psion is in the same boat.

Well, I'd presume that this plan to "give" 3 of 5 judging posts to RPG.net would take form in one of two ways:
1. letting the admins of RPG.net pick the judges, in which case the majority of the ENnies judges would be under the control of the admins of rpg.net, quite absurd..

2. Public voting on RPG.net, where I guarantee you the anti-d20 crowd would vote en masse to make sure the anti-d20 candidates got in.

Nisarg

 

[Dinkeldog]

I'm at a loss myself as to why things have to "change". Let the ENnies be what they are. They'll be important to some, laughed at by some, and others will charge corruption no matter what--sort of like the Academy Awards (TM), Tonys, Emmys and Grammys.

 

[Vigilance]

Personally, I'd like to see a voting procedure that does as good a job as we can reasonably manage of dealing with the market penetration issue. It would be great if little-known publishers with great products could win. I am a little concerned that there are not enough people voting to manage this, but it bears looking into, I think.

Im not looking to change the way the awards are nominated or voted on at all. Smaller publishers than RPGObjects can win and have won in the past.

I personally think its easier for a small publisher to win than a medium-sized publisher like us. And Im not sure there's any way around that.

Its more difficult, we realize that going in, and I wouldn't advocate a change in the process of voting I think its more than fair.

Chuck