Opening can o' worms

Might be good to elicit support from some sites that are not specifically RPG oriented but have some gamer or cursory connection that would tie into the awards.

I'll add some links here -

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/

http://www.ebay.com/

Add all game distributors and retailers to a list and provide them with text and links for a "What are the ENnies" page they can easily put up on their own web sites.

(I'll add more as I think of them, just to have them all in the same place.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dextra said:
Ah, but the way I see it, a d20 product shouldn't be awarded Best Game, because it isn't a game. A d20 product -using the strict definition of d20, ie. having the logo on it, not having character creation or levelling rules, etc- is not a complete game in itsself. Nor should its designers be able to take credit for it being a game, because chances are, they didn't create d20- WotC did.

d20 products can still compete in Best Product, as can Best Game, but Best d20 and Best Game should be mutually exclusive.
I'm sorry, Dextra, but I still have to disagree.

What about Mutants and Masterminds, then - the operative example from this last year? Although classified as a "D20" game for the 2006 Ennies, it is a complete game in and of itself, with character creation rules, etc., just as you mention. I don't think we should pretend that it "stole" any of the categories it was in - it's a really good game, and earned its accolades with that quality, even though it uses D20.

Further, even if character creation and XP-equivalent tables were not present in the book, I think it's silly to deny that any of the wonderful D20 products out there aren't games - they are, and the license-demanded absence of a couple of tables does not change that status. Additionally, despite your implications to the contrary, its not really as if people writing for other game systems, with a few exceptions (like Dread) are writing their own systems from scratch, either. The guys working on Shadowrun 4E, for instance, were working from Shadowrun 3E, simply refining and expanding an existing ruleset. I can agree that D20 publishers (except companies like Malhavoc and the Game Mechanics, who have staff who DID originate the rules) didn't originate D20. But did the all the guys working on Promethean for White Wolf originate the WoD ruleset? Of course not! If D20 publishers are to be penalized for working with a pre-existing set of rules, ought we not also penalize the guys working on every other game based on pre-existing brands?

If you've really already decided to deny D20 products access to the Best Game Category (and it sounds like you have), I'd add my voice to the chorus of people asking that the category names be changed to reflect this fact. Just make it Best D20 and Best Non-D20, and then, theoretically, they can fight it out in "Best Product" for ultimate fun supremacy.

All that said, I still don't think allowing D20 products to compete in the Best Game category does anything to diminish the award's prestige. If it is the best game, it ought to be treated as such, no matter what dice (or Jenga tiles, or playing cards, or whatever) it uses as a core mechanic. However, preventing D20 products from competing in the category could very well do just that.

I think we need to face the fact that telling competitors and consumers that any game using the core D20 mechanic simply cannot be the best amounts to the pre-judged dismissal of an entire class of games. I think we're best off letting the judges and the voters make these decisions, rather than telling them what can and cannot be "the best" beforehand. Surely, thousands of players can better make that decision than a few of us?

I know if I were writing Shadowrun, or WoD, or Artesia, or Mutants and Masterminds, etc., I'd want to win because (or in spite of the fact that) I'd been judged against other RPG's, not because I'd been declared champion of a category set aside because of a technicality based on task-resolution mechanics.

Apart from that, though, as mentioned in my initial post here, I think most of your other innovations are just dandy! :)
 
Last edited:

Crothian said:
This might be a fast way to see a few Staff Reviewers retire. I know if this became a policy I'd step down as a Staff Reviewer in a heartbeat. I would go back to being a fan reviewer and frankly, other then the title I doubt much would change. :)
Furthermore, it's like asking someone who doesn't like to watch movies "critically" to pick the "Best Picture" for the Academy Awards. While that hypothetical person's opinion is certainly valid, it certainly doesn't override (or disqualify) the opinion of the reviewer - contrary to Mark's discomfort, you guys are generally on my short list of votes.

To deny reviewers the chance to be Ennies judges is like telling Ebert and Roeper you don't want to hear what they think of the latest flicks, and then going to ask someone who hasn't ever rendered a critical opinion of a movie what they think, instead.

Further, as I've mentioned before, the voting process is our opportunity, as gamers and consumers, to weed out inapropriate judges. Trust the populace to make a valid, informed decision, rather than unnecessarily restricting the pool of entrants.
 

The_Universe said:
Furthermore, it's like asking someone who doesn't like to watch movies "critically" to pick the "Best Picture" for the Academy Awards.


Naw. There are plenty of the (supposed) 50,000 + pool of potential committee members who are capable of great depth of critical thought. Many of them do it for a living in other, sometimes very similar, fields and could easily apply it to the task. I wouldn't discount them so easily if I were you, despite our obvious bias to our friends who are here on staff. It might be interesting to have a committee completely unattached to EN World with some contingent of oversight from a staff reviewer or three.


The_Universe said:
Further, as I've mentioned before, the voting process is our opportunity, as gamers and consumers, to weed out inapropriate judges. Trust the populace to make a valid, informed decision, rather than unnecessarily restricting the pool of entrants.


Well, that's really part of the problem. The public can just as eaily each pick one, two or three people who wind up on the committee but intend for their votes to signify they want at least two people who have never been on there but once the full tally comes up, it can be all the same people from a previous year. The voting process, itself, restricts, to some extent, the possibility of new blood being on the committee despite that possibly being the actual intent of the voters. This, of course, doesn't assume that anyone who doesn't make it would be inappropriate, which is a charge I would be unwilling to make.
 
Last edited:

Mark said:
Naw. There are plenty of the (supposed) 50,000 + pool of potential committee members who are capable of great depth of critical thought. Many of them do it for a living in other, sometimes very similar, fields and could easily apply it to the task.
Then I very much believe they should nominate themselves to judge. I tend to think people get a fair shake once their names are up for consideration.

It might be interesting to have a committee completely unattached to EN World with some contingent of oversight from a staff reviewer or three.
Doesn't it seem a little silly to demand that the judges of the ENnies be absolutely unaffiliated with ENworld? I'm not sure I see the logic behind (or benefit of) asking the ENworld community to support these well-respected awards, and then barring them from participation.

Well, that's really part of the problem. The public can just as eaily each pick one, two or three people who wind up on the committee but intend for their votes to signify they want at least two people who have never been on there but once the full tally comes up, it can be all the same people from a previous year.
I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing, here. Are you intimating that the votes are somehow fixed? Or rather that there's some inherent flaw in letting majority vote choose the Ennies judges?

If, as you mention above, you want us to trust the potential critical judgement of all 50,000 Enworlders to evaluate these games (and I certainly have no objection to that, in theory), surely we can also trust them to choose their judges. Either the masses are smart, or the masses are dumb - you can't have it both ways.

The voting process, itself, restricts, to some extent, the possibility of new blood being on the committee despite that possibly being the actual intent of the voters.
I think I missed the reasoning behind this conclusion, somewhere. How does the voting process prevent new blood from coming in, aside from the fact that any "new blood" must be known, to a certain degree, by the community of voters?
 

The_Universe said:
Doesn't it seem a little silly to demand that the judges of the ENnies be absolutely unaffiliated with ENworld? I'm not sure I see the logic behind (or benefit of) asking the ENworld community to support these well-respected awards, and then barring them from participation.

Having a judge or two not affiliated is a good thing. EN World is a d20 haven and having everything happen here makes some people believe there is a bias towards those products. We have to fight the perception of being bias.
 

The_Universe said:
I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing, here.


I don't think I can help you further. I'll let my remarks stand as they will.


Crothian said:
We have to fight the perception of being bias.


My proposal fights it by acknowledging the perception, accepting that it exists, and buffering the awards against it by removing even the appearance of possible conflict.
 

Crothian said:
Having a judge or two not affiliated is a good thing. EN World is a d20 haven and having everything happen here makes some people believe there is a bias towards those products. We have to fight the perception of being bias.
I'm fine with an unaffiliated judge or two - as long as they garner enough votes in the normal process. What I am uncomfortable with is taking these decisions out of the hands of the community, and placing them in the hands of a complex rules structure designed to eliminate a conflict of interest that, as far as I can tell, does not actually exist. Surely the actual pattern of award winners, (like Shadowrun 4E) can do a great deal more to eliminate the perception of bias than the alternative?
 

Mark said:
I don't think I can help you further. I'll let my remarks stand as they will.
What's the fun in that! :p ;)

Seriously though, I'd like a clarification of what you were trying to assert. I am, however, happy to take it to PM or e-mail.
 


Remove ads

Top