Opening can o' worms

[Turjan]

Actually, I wouldn't change too much regarding the categories. Nearly all of them worked nicely. I'm also fine with products appearing in several categories, because some of them are really, e.g., half rulebook and half adventure (some of the recent Necromancer titles come to mind). I would like to have some kind of lower threshold for the nomination in a category, though. Shackled City is a good example. It has nice maps, but the setting information is more or less restricted to the stuff that's necessary for the adventures, as you will easily notice if you want to use the city outside of the adventure path. Something like 10% setting content is a bit low to warrant a nomination in that specific category. Otherwise, you can nominate all adventures in the setting category. Something like one third to one half would be more justified.

I'm not in favor of a paraphernalia award. This somehow devaluates the other awards.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

1. Shrug. Doesn't matter. Someone who wants to be a judge can find two people to nominate them.

2. What Capellan said.

3. If it's good enough to get multiple nods, it must be a really good product, right? So no, no need to restrict it.

4. I like Best Game Aides (or whatever). I do think that's an up and coming topic.

5. Fine. Although too many awards more and it's going to get top heavy.

6. Isn't that up to the judges? I've never seen a written set of criteria, and I think it would alter the way the ENnies work currently. (For better or for worse is left for each to decide on their own.)

 

[Ghostwind]

Hmmm, fried worms...

Judge Selection: Should judges be able to self-nominate, or should they receive a nomination and second before being put on the ballot?

I'm not sure there is a good answer to this question. Both have their good and bad.

Having a judging panel has always been a double-edged sword. They all do a fantastic job with the tools they are given. However, there are always going to be products that the judges pass over either because they weren't submitted or because there is a certain bias within a judge against a particular product/company. Either way, there is no way you can avoid this because of the existing parameters within the awards system.

Since the ENnies first began, there have been certain rules in place that make the selection of judges more of a popularity contest among the EN World crowd than one of who really is best qualified for the judge position. When it was just the EN World awards, that was fine. But now that the awards are much larger and have the backing of Gen Con, there should be more of an effort towards having individuals that not only come from EN World but other prominent communities and websites. I don't have access the to exact rules, but I seem to remember that one of the qualifications for being a judge was that you couldn't be associated with other review websites, companies or have been published at all. Personally, I think that the publishing limitation should be restricted to only having been published since the previous year's awards. You got a lot of very good potential judges out there that would be good if they weren't disqualified for having their name in a book back in 2002 when the d20 craze was at its height.

Additionally, voting for judges should be done on the ENnies website and not here on EN World where the results can be biased. As is stands, a person can view who has the most votes and then make a decision. The voting should be blind, just as the awards.

d20: I would like to keep the best d20 category as a nod to the origins of the Awards as well as reflect the unique advantages and disadvantages of using the d20 STL, but redefine it so that a product cannot compete in the Best Game as well as Best d20 Product.

I disagree with this. Either eliminate the d20 award altogether in favor of a Best Game category, or split the awards in Best d20/OGL Game and Best non-d20/OGL Game.

Mega Books: With the increasing number of mega-books with content spanning multiple genres, should we limit the number of categories an individual product in which a product can compete in the "Genre" domain (best adventure, best campaign/campaign setting supplement, best monster/adversary, best supplement)? Ie. publisher picks one? Or do we reward the products for their content, so in theory a Ptolusesque product could receive nominations in all?

Limitation of books will come across as too unfair and potentially damage the awards' credibility. What is needed is to sharply define the definitions so that mega books like Shackled City, Ptolus, Rappan Athuk Reloaded are precisely fitted into their proper categories. If they meet the criteria of more than one category, then they should be eligible for more than one award.

Best Adventure - Awarded for a product that is primarily an adventure, adventure ideas, or seeds.

Best Supplement - Awarded for a product which adds supplementary rules or details to the game.

Best Campaign/Campaign Supplement - Awarded for a product particular to a campaign setting.

Best Adversary/Monster Product - Awarded for a product whose primary focus is monsters or adversaries.

These are the awards whose definitions need to be expanded upon and further defined.

Additional Categories: I am contemplating adding the "Best Paraphernalia" category to the list to include items such as T-shirts, RPG fiction (and comics), dice bags, RPG movies, etc. In other words, the Aid/Accessory category would be open to products that enhance game play, paraphernalia to products that enhance gamer lives.

I think Best Paraphernalia would dimish the awards. If you really want to add a category, I would favor one that focuses upon and awards innovation within the industry. This would be something that is not only a fresh idea but also presented in such a manner that hasn't really been done before. Dread would be one such game. A potential nominee for next year would be Open Mind Games' Combat Pad because of its simplicity and ability to make you think "why didn't I think of this?"

The other two questions require some more thought before I can give you a good answer.

 

[Turjan]

You got a lot of very good potential judges out there that would be good if they weren't disqualified for having their name in a book back in 2002 when the d20 craze was at its height.

I thought you are just not allowed to have anything published in the entry period?

I disagree with this. Either eliminate the d20 award altogether in favor of a Best Game category, or split the awards in Best d20/OGL Game and Best non-d20/OGL Game.

I actually like your splitting idea very much. This would make sure that d20 games (subsuming D&D, d20 and OGL) and non-d20 games are treated equally.

 

[pogre]

The Ennies are highly respected as a gaming award these days and it has happened in a fairly short time. Certainly your efforts have played a large part in this. You cannot get enough accolades for this as the fall can come very quickly - witness the GAMA awards...

I do think Best Supplement and Best Adversary/Monster Product should be combined. I agree with those suggesting products should compete in Best Adventure OR Best Campaign/Campaign Supplement.

 

[Glyfair]

3. I don't think it should be put in two conflicting categories, IE Shackled City. Either it is an adventure, or it is a setting. Greyhawk, Wilderlands, DCC #35, Kalamar, Bards Gate, Mithril City, Hollowfaust, etc... are settings. Shackled City was a HUGE adventure path.

There are some products that clearly cross lines, though. If Thoughts Could Kill (and similiarly Hyperconcious) is both an adventure and a supplement. One part was a straight adventure, the other part was a straight sourcebook (with the adventure using some pieces from the sourcebook).

An option would be to allow such books to be admitted partially. Only grade the adventure part in the adventure category and the supplement in that category. I'm not sure that's practical, though. I'd say just allow those few books to be listed in both categories.

I do think it should be very concise. Shackled City was clearly an adventure, that just had bits of setting information to support the adventure. The Eberron Campaign Setting, on the other hand, is clearly a campaign setting that just happens to include an adventure. Very, very few books should really straddle the line.

 

[DaveMage]

I agree with those suggesting products should compete in Best Adventure OR Best Campaign/Campaign Supplement.

I think that's a good solution.

While I favor products being allowed multiple categories, this would seem to be a good solution for this particular point of contention.

 

[Belen]

Well, having attended the awards, I found it very painful for the same books to win all of the awards. I think that the d20 award is irrelevant and should be expelled from the program. If we are going to have an RPG awards, then we should not have a designation for a single system.

I liked the awards, but it seemed to me that the same books won time and time again. I think that this may be a fault with category definitions that are too loose.

I like the mthod by which the judges are selected now. If I remember correctly, threads on the other sites asking for judge nominees were started.

I am not sure I agree with ghostwind about the voting on the Ennies site, unless there was a way to insure that everyone just voted a single time. Unless voting is ties to usernames, then I think we will have a lot of people using different IPs to vote multiple times.

 

[gribble]

I agree that there should be two "best game" categories - d20 and non-d20. I think having a "Best d20 game" and a "Best game" and only allowing publishers to enter one category will soon make the "Best d20 game" category obselete, as publishers would always opt for the more prestigious "Best game" category.

In terms of the adventure/setting thing, why not make it so that a product can only be entered in a single category, and let the publishers decide which one they think it is?

 

[Umbran]

However, there are always going to be products that the judges pass over either because they weren't submitted or because there is a certain bias within a judge against a particular product/company.

Well, the first is not a bug, it is a feature. It helps to counter bias from greater distribution. A product with poor distribution can still get on the radar by submitting a few copies.

For the latter - one person's "bias" is another's "judgement". This is why we have judges nominated and voted on, rather than selected by Morrus, or something - the voting users can select judges that reflect their own judgement. If you don't know a judge's biases, you shouldn't be votign for him or her.

Since the ENnies first began, there have been certain rules in place that make the selection of judges more of a popularity contest among the EN World crowd than one of who really is best qualified for the judge position.

One possibility that might help this: around judge selection time, we find one short pdf product. To be elegible, each judge nominee must (or maybe it is optional) rate the product, and give a short description of why they gave the rating.

But now that the awards are much larger and have the backing of Gen Con, there should be more of an effort towards having individuals that not only come from EN World but other prominent communities and websites.

Folks here put a whole lot of time, effort, and resources into the Ennies. I doubt we are in a position to start spending those contributions on those who don't take part here, or otherwise support the effort. If other parts of the gaming community are interested in the awards, they can, as individuals or organizations, come here and get in on the action. Nobody's stopping them.

As is stands, a person can view who has the most votes and then make a decision. The voting should be blind, just as the awards.

Agreed. The results of judicial voting should be hidden until the polls are closed.