Crothian said:
That's what I'm interested in.
From what I've read it seems that Shackled City being nominated for Best Adventure and Best Campaign Setting/Setting Supplement is the issue.
Actually the issue is that it was nominated in two distinct categories. Personally, I feel that it does not belong in the category you mention, but I have heard (from others) that there may be a case for it being there. But if it does belong there, then I think that it should NOT belong in Best Adventure. The issue is not what categories, but the fact that it is in two categories that I feel are not fully compatible for sharing a product.
However, there are several other issues that this has brought to light, more than I have actually mentioned.
One of the main ones being category definitions, AND names as well. Best Campaign/Campaign Supplement is a bad name for a category that is supposed to be about settings. Even more so when the name used on the announcement flyer is different than the name used on the ENnies website (lack of consistency - this is NOT meant as a slight to Dextra, I fully understand that she is well and truly overworked).
Crothian said:
As one of the Judges I felt that Shackled City is one of those rare products that covers a lot of areas. It has setting material in it as well as Adventures. Not every product fits neatly into one or the other category, there is going to be cross over.
Problem is, I think that whole group of categories (as they are divided on the ENnies website:
In order to make room for product images and descriptions, the nominations have been broken into five separate pages:
1. Fan Site and Fans' Choice for Best Publisher: Best Fan Site | Fans' Choice: Best Publisher
2. The elements that make up the products: Best Cover Art | Best Interior Art | Best Cartography | Best Production Values | Best Writing | Best Rules
3. Type of products by content: Best Adventure | Best Supplement | Best Campaign/Campaign Supplement | Best Adversary/Monster Product
4. Type of products by medium Best Aid or Accessory | Best Free Product or Webhancement | Best Electronic Book
5. Best overall products Best Game | Best d20/OGL Product | Best Product
Looking at the above categories, I think that I am of the opinion that anything in the third group should have been exlusive any single category listed within that group and that submission should be limited to the manner in which the product was marketed/advertised.
Meaning that if it was advertised as a campaign (read "linked series of adventures") then it belong in the Best Adventure category, not in the category dealing with settings and setting supplements. And definitely not both.
I also notice that Artesia is in both Best Game and Best setting. It is marketed/advertised as a full game, thus I would say it belongs under full game. Was Pendragon considered for Best Campaign/Campaign Supplement? It is a full game with a built in setting, so if Artesia was considered for nomination based on its setting then why wasn't Pendragon?
If it was considered, then answer this, if the games Buffy or Angel were released this year, would you consider them for Best Campaign/Campaign Supplement becuase of any setting material the game included?
I see other oddities and potential issues, but I will leave them alone for now (I hope that the announcement flyer stays available even after GenCon is over, as it will be a great tool for making arguements later for improvements to the ENnies.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I just took a break from writing this, and read the post by Chris Pramas. I'll make responses to his points, but won't quote him, since this beastie is long enough..
Setting Supplement Category - Not sure if I would have had an issue with it or not. Cannot honestly say. However, I do think that having the categories be separate would have been a good thing. I also think that how a product is marketed should help determine what sort of product category is should be in. Less strongly (meaning that a good arguement might sway me), I also think that when it comes to the product type categories (adventure, supplement, campaign setting, setting supplement, full game, etc), that the submitted product should likely be limited to how the product is presented/marketed as (I think that this would reduce attempts to game the system).
Category Definitions - Chris, I cannot remember how much you participated in the OATF discussions, but I have always been a strong proponent of solid, unambiguous category definitions. This issue with SCAP is a strong indicator, to my way of thinking, that good category definitions could possibly have avoided this problem.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Chris points out, the ENnies are, right now, THE rpg awards. However, the ENnies (after GenCon), really needs to think about codifying its rules and definitions in a much more solid manner than they currently are (and Dextra has done a fabulous job of this so far, but I think it is going to require more than just her). For example, the entry form says judges have the right to move products from one category to another or to remove it from a cat or to add it to another cat if needed. Yet, I have never seen any documentation which shows under what circumstances this may be done, nor even if such moves are tracked. The ENnies are great, but there is still a LOT of room for improvement....
Edit --- Added --
I may not be able to respond to this thread again until Saturday or Sunday. I am moving, and will be without an internet connection for several days. I am not ignoring the conversation or anybody in it.
.
