Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 1041434" data-attributes="member: 1">Yikes!OK, I got back from a long journey from New York to London about an hour ago and I'm tired - so I apologise if I misunderstand anything here. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I've read through the thread, and I'm going to pick up on just a few of the points for now - the ones that stood out to me most clearly.The ENnies have only existed for 3 years and I fully agree that they are evolving.  The aim is to get the awards right (or as right as they can be) by asking for feedback and being as transparent and open as possible about how things work.  Not everyone will be happy - that's impossible, as some poeple have diametrically opposed views, but I think that this year we made some good headway towards a great medium point.1) The OGL/Non-OGL thing.  The changes made this year were in response to a *lot* of feedback from people - fans and publishers.  Perhaps the pendulum was swung back a little too far, perhaps not -- however, side by side with this issue are my longer-term pplans for the ENnies which I want to make as inclusive as possible.  However, I didn't want to make mass sweeping changes in one year, so I felt it was best done over two years.  Next year, you should find that WotC can enter any of their products, as can everybody else, while keeping the playing field as level as possible - categories will be revised next year, as will entry criteria.  The non-OGL category was the start of this.The important thing, though, is to keep the awards focused.  We're not trying to cover the whole gamut of gaming here - that's the job of the Origins awards.  2) Ghostwind has made a few points which I feel are factually inaccurate:--2a) I disagree that there is *anybody* who stands a greater or lesser chance of nomination.  Popularity is definately not a factor in the nomination stage - that part is entirely down to critical evaluation of the products themselves.  The judges are honest - I can attest to that fact, as I was present during the nomination porcess (although I had no say myself).  I can assure everyone 100% that any product entered has exactly the same chance of nomination as another given equal quality.--2b) There is no EN World membership requirement for voting.  I'm not sure where that came from.3) So, categories: yes, they should be clearer and, yes, there was some confusion amongst some publishers.  That's solely down to me - my fault completely.  However, any queries were easily dealt with by email, and next year I'll be very careful to make sure things are very clear.4) Funding - there ain't none.  This is how it works: Peter Adkison provides a venue for the ceremony, plus Gen Con passes and a hotel room for ENnies judges.  That's it.  I pay for the statuettes themselves, all the shipping costs of the entered products after they have arrived at the address for entries (it cost well over $1000 this year) plus my airfare to Gen Con (thanks to everyone who donated, by the way - you saved my bacon!).  Would I like some funding?  Sure!  Would I like it if publishers didn't have to fund sending the products to the address for entries?  Sure! [Although I really don't think the expense is exactly crippling - I myself pay far more shipping costs than any given publisher does]. Maybe something can be worked out.However, I don't think that this is something that you guys need to concern yourselves about too much.  That's a problem I have to deal with myself.5) Small window for voting?  Sounds like a reasonable point, and one that can be easily addressed.Personally, I think the results this year were great.  I was suprised ina  couple of places, but that's not a bad thing.  I don't think anyone got an award which they did not deserve.  I most certainly think that the nominations were very fair.If any publishers have serious reservations about how things work, then keeping quiet about it won't help.  If you ask around, you'll find that I have been very receptive to comments made and am very open to suggestions.  This will always be the case.  I'd hate to think that someone was stewing over something in the corner and not coming forward, as Ghostwind suggests is happening.  If any publisher feels they don't stand a fair chance at nomination - ANY publisher - then they are wrong.  I have a reasonable idea who the people who feel this way are, and I certainly invite them to approach me directly so that I can assure them that their fears are completely unfounded.  I have to say that I've seen some of the most absurd conspiracy theories I've ever come across (mainly by fans of particular publishers, not the publishers themselves).  Well, there ain't no conspiracy, there ain't no anti-Publisher X agenda, there ain't no bias or intent to exclude.  Anyway, more later.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification