Sanguine Productions withdraws from Origins Awards

[Sammael99]

That said, from what I understand, their sour grapes are over the inclusion of things like Spycraft and T20 that are not the same game as D&D. Someone who has the full skinny, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

You are right in principle. But if that is the case then every single GURPS supplement is more or less eligible in this category, and they never were. The fact is, "stand-alone" was the only thing that defined a game as opposed to a supplement... So tyhey have opened a can of worms...

Not that most buyers care (we don't even see the stickers here in France, AFAIK) but the game designers most likely do...

 

[Synicism]

I'm not sure of the extent to which Delta Green is stand-alone, but I can say that I wouldn't be comfortable having Freeport enter as a game. If that's the extent of their changes, then I would be compelled to agree that's a bad call. That said, from what I understand, their sour grapes are over the inclusion of things like Spycraft and T20 that are not the same game as D&D. Someone who has the full skinny, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Well, no one knows what d20 books will get into the category because of the change, but it worked like this.

By default, to compete for Best RPG, a game has to stand alone. It can't require another book to play.

Their examples: Vampire: the Dark Ages is a standalone. You don't need the original Vampire: the Masquerade book. Delta Green is not. It requires the CoC core rulebook.

According to the rule, most d20 books (Dragonstar, Freeport, Kalamar, Deadlands, etc.) count as supplements because you need a copy of Dungeons & Dragons to play, in the same manner that GURPS: Discworld and GURPS: Traveller, which are totally different games, are supplements because you need the GURPS roleplaying game to play.

But Origins has carved out an exception for d20 books.

 

[bondetamp]

I think Sanguine is in the right. If a product does not include the rules for character generation and experience than it is a supplement, not a stand-alone game, no matter how distinct the flavor text might be.

Wouldn't this definition make HOL a suplement for the game "Butterly Wholesomness"?

(Oh, and I also think I agree with the Sanguine position.)

 

[CaptainCalico]

My question is, what has Sanguine produced lately that would have qualified for the best RPG category? I don't keep up on everything, but I haven't seen anything from them in quite a while.

They have not come out with anything that would qualify in that category recently: they are withdrawing on principle. The Origins awards are making an exception to their rules in favor of d20 games, which is blatantly unfair. It is an objection over the rule being changed during middle of the game. The deadline has been specifically extended to allow d20 products that would only have been eligible for best supplement to suddenly jump into the best RPG category.

My question is, why taint the integrity of the awards by making this last-minute exception? Whose bright idea was this?????

[edit: clarify closing question]

 

[Mark CMG]

Sounds to me like they are not "man" enough to let their product stand alone against more competition and would rather have some compelling entrants excluded on a technicality.

Let's work backwards through this one...

A "technicality" is a minor point, a detail. The point being rescinded (and not even across the board but apparently only for d20 products and after the fact) is the very heart of the difference between entry into the "Stand Alone" RPG category and the "Supplement" RPG category. As to the 'not "man" enough' accusation... ...when someone stands up for an issue of integrity, do you always question their "manhood" to deride them? That's simply foul.

It seems to me as if the rules are clear, but outdated. Clearly the rules were not written anticipating the OGL and the ability of games like T20 (for instance) to exist. Therefore, to exclude them on a technicality seems to be elitist in the extreme and completely counter to the spirit of the rules.

I'm with Psion on this one: Sanguine seems to be throwing a childish temper tantrum about competing products that are likely to beat them.

See above...

 

[The Sigil]

For those who haven't done so, please read the original article.

IMO, Sanguine is expressing disappointment on two counts:

1.) That d20 products are getting a double-standard. The Origins rules explicitly state that a "Best RPG" candidate must not require use or knowledge of another book/system. As Sanguine noted, by default, almost all d20 products refer back to the PHB, thereby requiring knowledge of another book/system.

This is a "technicality," I suppose - I happen to agree with them in this case, but will admit that it is a technical point. I can see why this might be perceived as a temper tantrum. The problem is that the d20 license's restrictions force games such as Spycraft to refer to the PHB when Spycraft is, IMO, not a "D&D" book. IOW, the rules do not adequately account for the d20 license. That's a problem with the letter vs. the spirit of the rules.

However, these were the rules that were in place during the submissions period. That's nobody's fault but Origins - if Origins really felt the need to change them, they should have done so before the submissions period. You have to play by the rules in place at the time.

2.) That the rules are being changed ex post facto - the submissions period is over now. Suddenly, an exception is made and even though "the submissions period is closed" it is suddenly opened up again for d20 products only.

This, IMO, is a valid complaint and just grounds for their rant. If the committee had said during or before the submissions period something to the effect of "because of the intricacies of the d20 license, an exception to the 'no other works' rule is made for those works that reference XP rules in the PHB," that's fine - that's IMO within the spirit of the rule. But you don't do it AFTER the submissions period ends.

Obviously, the Origins should try to anticipate these problems and change the rules prior to the submissions period. Even if they don't realize it until someone brings it up to them during the submissions period and then change it during the submissions period on grounds of "following the spirit of the rules" (which I think their ruling does, BTW), that's fine with me. But you don't change it after the period is over.

If they did not come to a decision until after the submissions period, I think an acceptable solution would have been, "make the d20 exception and products that were ineligible to this point are granted a one-year term of eligiblity in the next submissions period." IOW, because of the wording, Spycraft, Dragonstar, et al were not eligible this year. They ARE eligble for consideration - as best RPG only - next year (but not after that).

I'm okay with Origins rescinding a technicality to stay within the spirit of the law - just not AFTER the fact. It falls under the same principle as the inability to watch someone commit an act, then pass a law to make that act illegal, and THEN prosecute them for committing the act in the first place... it wasn't illegal when they committed the act. In the same way, d20 submissions were not "legal" during the submissions period. Changing it after the fact is the wrong way to go about it.

So, I agree with Sanguine's complaint - based more on point 2 than point 1.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

My question is, why taint the integrity of the awards by making this last-minute exception? Whose bright idea was this?????

Even worse, it's not a last-minute exception. The submission period had already closed. This is an "after-the-last-minute" exception. Which is why I don't like it. Last-minute exceptions are fine with me. After-the-last-minute exceptions are not.

--The Sigil

 

[Mark CMG]

The Origins rules explicitly state that a "Best RPG" candidate must not require use or knowledge of another book/system. As Sanguine noted, by default, almost all d20 products refer back to the PHB, thereby requiring knowledge of another book/system.

This is a "technicality," I suppose - I happen to agree with them in this case, but will admit that it is a technical point. I can see why this might be perceived as a temper tantrum. The problem is that the d20 license's restrictions force games such as Spycraft to refer to the PHB when Spycraft is, IMO, not a "D&D" book. IOW, the rules do not adequately account for the d20 license. That's a problem with the letter vs. the spirit of the rules.

It's not a technical difference, it is the main difference, between a supplement and a stand alone RPG product. Spycraft chose to be supplemental to a rules system and gain the benefits of that choice. Can they now claim that they stand alone and have character creation rules that are not even in the book...and simply to attempt to win an award?

 

[The Sigil]

It's not a technical difference, it is the main difference, between a supplement and a stand alone RPG product. Spycraft chose to be supplemental to a rules system and gain the benefits of that choice. Can they now claim that they stand alone and have character creation rules that are not even in the book...and simply to attempt to win an award?

I do see what you're saying. Basically, the choice to go d20 is a choice that adds recognition and market share - in exchange for creating supplements to a rules system, not rules systems themselves.

But the reason I called it a "technicality" is that under the current version of the d20STL, all d20 products are REQUIRED to reference the PHB. Only those produced under separate license with WotC (Kalamar and Ravenloft come to mind) are exempted.

Hence, even if you don't really "need" the PHB to make use of a book (e.g., you *don't* need the PHB to make use of the Enchiridion of Treasures and Objects d'Art because nothing in that work refers to character advancement, et al), you are *required* to reference it.

That requirement to reference the PHB - even when (in theory) you could create a standalone system that does *not* require the PHB (for instance, a d20 system game that has characters spend XP directly for BAB increases, Save increases, and other benefits - rather than a level-based system - and we have seen these sorts of ideas - direct XP expenditure for a specific benefit - in Encyclopedia Arcane:Elementalism, FFG's Path of... Series, and Bastion Press' Guildcraft for instance). This would be a system that does not require the PHB to play and yet is required by the d20 license to reference it. IMO, this is a system that SHOULD merit consideration as a "standalone" game regardless of the d20 requirement to make (uneccessary) reference to the PHB.

Now, I'm not arguing that Spycraft fits that description. In fact, I don't think any of the games in consideration for this year's award do. I am just pointing out that I believe it IS possible to create a true standalone game under the d20 license... and in that particular set of circumstances, a "vestigal" reference to the PHB required by license should not be sufficient to disqualify the game in question from consideration. But again, I'm not saying that anything currently under consideratino fits that description - I'm instead saying that I can visualize a game that would.

Whether or not releasing such a game as a d20 game for the added market value based on brand recognition is a good idea is another question entirely. And whether that "extra market value" should be considered sufficient counterweight to "this is really a supplement" - IOW, "if you want the extra market share, you can't call it a stand-alone" is a much more philosophical question - and one that I'm not sure I have a solid stance on either way yet.

--The Sigil

 

[Greatwyrm]

Wouldn't this definition make HOL a suplement for the game "Butterly Wholesomness"?

Not really. The character generation rules in Buttery Wholesomeness, besides being the most convoluted I've ever seen, were optional. The official character generation rule in the basic HOL book is that the Holmeister (I think that's what they called a GM) gave you a character with whatever stats he/she decided on and you were happy with it, or else.