Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crothian" data-source="post: 1719677" data-attributes="member: 232">I still perfer that all publishers be lumped in one group.&nbsp; It would be hard to determine who has produced what in a year without either demanding that they send us the info or we happen to notice what they have been producing and when.I agree with Psion that rewarding individual writers and artist in this way will be too hard.&nbsp; If we did that we would want to look at their whiole work for the time period not just a sample.&nbsp; And that's just not feasible.&nbsp; Including the non d20 stuff really did not make the judging harder.&nbsp; I like that we include the non d20 stuff.Setting and their suppliments need to be combined.&nbsp; There will be years there just isn't that many setting anyway.&nbsp; It is always one of our smaller categories.&nbsp; I'd do away with fan sites as well.&nbsp; I liked the idea orginally but there just does not seem to be that many out there and they never really change.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crothian, post: 1719677, member: 232"] I still perfer that all publishers be lumped in one group. It would be hard to determine who has produced what in a year without either demanding that they send us the info or we happen to notice what they have been producing and when. I agree with Psion that rewarding individual writers and artist in this way will be too hard. If we did that we would want to look at their whiole work for the time period not just a sample. And that's just not feasible. Including the non d20 stuff really did not make the judging harder. I like that we include the non d20 stuff. Setting and their suppliments need to be combined. There will be years there just isn't that many setting anyway. It is always one of our smaller categories. I'd do away with fan sites as well. I liked the idea orginally but there just does not seem to be that many out there and they never really change. [/QUOTE]

Verification