Nominations are up!!

[JoeGKushner]

I believe the important thing to recognize, though, is that there's a difference between valid complaints and just plain whining.

And differences of opinion.

People can tell me the Shackled City isn't a campaign setting all day and I'm not going to agree with them.

 

[DaveMage]

And differences of opinion.

People can tell me the Shackled City isn't a campaign setting all day and I'm not going to agree with them.

In that case, the term "Campaign Setting" needs to be defined.

To me, a campaign setting details a campaign world or large part thereof. It also lists a full pantheon, details the nations within the world (or large part thereof) and details (briefly or extensively) the history of each. If your (or, more specifically the ENNies as a whole) definition is something else (which is fine), then it needs to be stated for the benefit of the awards.

"Setting supplement" and all other terms should also be defined.

 

[malladin]

1) It really is worth the effort to define the categories in a clear and unambiguous way. The OAs have been poor about actually documenting what the awards are for and often leads to a disconnect between what people think an award is for and what it's actually for.

This would also remove the whole my opinion/your opinion back and forth which does constructive discussion about the awards no good.

Nigel

 

[malladin]

In that case, the term "Campaign Setting" needs to be defined.

To me, a campaign setting details a campaign world or large part thereof. It also lists a full pantheon, details the nations within the world (or large part thereof) and details (briefly or extensively) the history of each. If your (or, more specifically the ENNies as a whole) definition is something else (which is fine), then it needs to be stated for the benefit of the awards.

"Setting supplement" and all other terms should also be defined.[/QUOTE]

Didn't see this before I posted but agree 100%.

Nigel

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

In that case, the term "Campaign Setting" needs to be defined.

Agreed

To me, a campaign setting details a campaign world or large part thereof. It also lists a full pantheon, details the nations within the world (or large part thereof) and details (briefly or extensively) the history of each. If your (or, more specifically the ENNies as a whole) definition is something else (which is fine), then it needs to be stated for the benefit of the awards.

Not necessarily. I own several "campaign settings" which are neither a large part of a world, or contain a pantheon of gods. What if the world assumes the real world, but with changes, and the religions that exist on it? Would World of Darkness be excluded? what about settings that assume that religion is not a part of the world? What about something set in the modern world, in a genre that is not fantasy? A Pantheon of gods is a pretty poor thing to have as a requirement for a setting.

"Setting supplement" and all other terms should also be defined.

Also agreed

 

[DaveMage]

A Pantheon of gods is a pretty poor thing to have as a requirement for a setting.

All I play is fantasy/D&D, so for me, it's a big requirement. My clerics get depressed when there are no gods to worship.

Again, it's OK if this is not part of your definition - or anyone else's - but it would be helpful to know what *is* part of the definition for the sake of the awards.

 

[malladin]

I think the specifics of a defination are unimportant to the current discussion, but the general agreement Dave & CL about the need for definations is the important point and its good to see. Dealing these issues dealt through discussion rather than just I'm right, your wrong, who cares what you think etc, which only causes friction, is really positive and good for the thread. Wow, I've finally had a positive reason to post, cool

Nigel

 

[Psion]

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.

I disagree with this. Some "games" are marketing with settings, some are not. Spycraft 2.0 has no setting, for example. It would have been wrong to judge as a setting. This is different than, say, Blue Rose, which has a setting and, as the author professes, the setting is the major point. The change in the game mechanics were principally to support the setting.

If I offer up the gaming public a list of what are judged to be the best in various categories, and I use this "mutual exclusion" principle, then I am in essence, not offering the public my best, because I am not considering some of the best settings out there merely because they are marketed as part of a game.

I find this "mutual exclusion principle" faulty (except in cases where it makes sense, and there are some) and feel that operating by it across the board would diminish the value of the awards.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

I think the specifics of a defination are unimportant to the current discussion, but the general agreement Dave & CL about the need for definations is the important point and its good to see. Dealing these issues dealt through discussion rather than just I'm right, your wrong, who cares what you think etc, which only causes friction, is really positive and good for the thread. Wow, I've finally had a positive reason to post, cool

I agree that we need definitions, but I will say that when the judges decided on the definitions for this years categories, we thought we had made it clear enough what was expected for a given category. We wanted them to be broad enough to include all titles that could reasonably fit, while being narrow enough to eliminate things that didn't fit. We went back and forth on categories, definitions,a nd acceptable wording wuite a bit, and in the end, we provided what we thought were useful, reasonable definitions that we would be comfortable working within. Obviously, those definitions, while we were all in agreement (along with the Board fo Directors), were not found to be specific enough for some people. There is a balance point, and I am confident that it can be reached.

However, one thing that I will point out, the judges have always, and will always, have the right to move titles into or remove them from any categories. If, upon reading, they find that a title fits into a category where it was not entered, but they are all in agreement, that title can be moved into that category.

 

[JoeGKushner]

In that case, the term "Campaign Setting" needs to be defined.

To me, a campaign setting details a campaign world or large part thereof. It also lists a full pantheon, details the nations within the world (or large part thereof) and details (briefly or extensively) the history of each. If your (or, more specifically the ENNies as a whole) definition is something else (which is fine), then it needs to be stated for the benefit of the awards.

"Setting supplement" and all other terms should also be defined.

For me, the definition would probably be a lot smaller. Can I run campaigns based in or off/around this material. I've run adventurers in Carse, Tulan, Eldrad, and Haven for example, all city based books. A campaign can be a 'micro' shot of a setting too. Some books try to put a 'generic' spin on things so that the GM can 'add' his touches. A smaller setting piece, say like those found in Troll Lords Cities & Settlements, doesn't necessarily have to define everything to be useful in my opinion. Just define enough to be useful.

For Pantheons... as some settings, like that of Unknown Armies, is well away from Fantasy, or others that may lean heavily on other modern settings or sci-fi might not have a panethon, I see that as a very limited set of criteria.

I agree that 'clearer' defintions wouldn't hurt though.