ENnies Voting Now Open

[LordEntrails]

...
Though it still seems against the rules for Roll20 to be a valid submission.

This is why I asked the question. Perhaps if more people voiced their concern or desire for an answer in that thread (or if they know any of the parties directly), maybe we would get an answer.

[JohnD]

According to Russ Morrissey on Facebook, FG does qualify.

[LordEntrails]

According to Russ Morrissey on Facebook, FG does qualify.

Link?

My understanding, and maybe Doug will or won't wish to weigh in, is that in past years FG & other apps were told they do not qualify. I'd like to see how any of them qualify, as none of them have initial releases in the year that qualifies them. Maybe you just have to have an update within that time frame? But that's not what the rules "seem" to say...

[JohnD]

Yeah it's in that link in the first post on the forum where he says he shared his thoughts on Facebook last year or something like that - phone won't let me grab a url for some reason.

[gaara6666]

Glad to see the narrative is getting pushed. Roll20 does so little in compared to other VTT in terms of accessible features yet the free2play platform seems to be getting free undeserved marketing while mot qualifying. I would be happy to see where it says f2f7 qualifies and johnD if you can find us an email we can vocalise our concern en mass

[JohnD]

According to Russ Morrissey on Facebook, FG does qualify.

https://www.facebook.com/russell.mor...54370921148707

Down at the bottom in the comments to his post.

I don't know where you could voice concern - they're a private website and can do whatever the heck they want. I guess there might be a general inquiries email address but that's getting way beyond my earlier stated feelings on the matter - all that bothers me here is the blatant double standard and general horse ****.

[gaara6666]

Well I am as t work bored so when I get home I will launch my inquiry to them about inconsistent rules. Maybe I am don Quixote tilting at windmills but I do not like to feel slighted either personally or vicarious ly

[damned]

Guys - its possible FG didnt nominate themselves....

[ddavison]

Hey guys,

This year, like many other years, SmiteWorks did not submit any products for nomination at the ENnies. I like ENWorld as a gaming community and source of news and I participate there periodically on their forums. Russ has always been friendly towards me and we've shared some data points with him that he uses in articles each year about the growth of various game systems in comparison with each other. The reason why I have a few reasons why I didn't submit anything this year and it is mostly due to a dislike of the process. I do like the systems like the Review system. Yes, you still get people who write negative reviews because they like a competitor, but overall it seems to weather that. The entire ENnie submission and nomination process is just far too subjective for my taste.

History:
2016:
Nothing was submitted by SmiteWorks

2015:
Submitted by SmiteWorks: Fantasy Grounds submitted D&D Lost Mine of Phandelver, D&D Complete Core Monster Pack and Fantasy Grounds.
Nominated from SmiteWorks: D&D Complete Core Monster Pack
The Other Nominees: Roll20 (not a product, but just the whole thing), Hero Lab (whole product), Syrinscape's Rise of the Runelords Mega SoundPack, Eclipse Phase: Singularity Character Generator
Winners: Roll20 (Gold), HeroLab (Silver)
* We sent out an email blast and call for voting when it first kicked off, but there was a voting problem and the votes had to be wiped out and restarted a day later.

2014:
SmiteWorks did not submit any products
I contacted Russ Morrissey about the process since I saw Roll20 and HeroLab in the nominations and it was unclear to me how the rules for submissions were governed since it requires the products to be for new releases within the window specified. He was unfamiliar with the precise situation but passed me to Tony Law, who said:

It's always depended on major updates. For example, Hero Labs submitted for a while because they were constantly updated their software (not just add-ons but major upgrades to the base system). If they don't update during submission timeframe, they're not eligible.

Winners: Roll20 (Gold), Realm Works (Silver)
Nominees: (can't locate it by category)

2013:
SmiteWorks did not submit any products
Nominees: Roll20, PCGen, Dice & Dragons - 3D Dice Roller, Cthulhu Mythos Encyclopedia, The Crawler's Companion
Winners: Roll20 (Gold), The Crawler's Companion (Silver)

2012:
SmiteWorks attempted to submit Banewarrens and Deadlands Reloaded.
- Deadlands Reloaded - Don't Drink the Water"
- Deadlands Reloaded for FG (Savage Worlds ruleset, Deadlands extension, Marshall's Handbook and Player's Guide conversions)
- other products were not able to get the approval from the original IP holder in time to submit this year
Tony law wrote back with a question, "what's a 'playable software conversion?'"
After describing what it is, his reply was

Unfortunately, since the content of the module hasn't actually changed, these would not be eligible if they were published outside of the current eligibility period.

To further clarify, I will post one response in entirety instead of paraphrasing it

If a module comes out in the specific eligibility period, i.e. May 1, 2011 to April 30, 2012 for this year, then it would be eligible for submission. However, I must caveat that with the fact that, as far as I understand it, you're converting other publisher's material and not your own.

Let's say you submit a Deadlands product, using your example in the previous e-mail, that was released in June of 2011. If you submit a conversion and the original publisher does not, it would severely limit its potential for nomination. I mean, the judges couldn't nominate it for Best Adventure if you submit it because you're not the original publisher.

And let's say that the original publisher does submit it and you do as well. Effectively, we have the same book submitted twice with yours having some very cool abilities that the other does not. We'd have to work around that as well.

In the end, our standing rule has always been that, if a product was published prior to the eligibility period and then re-published during the current period, it must have significant changes to the original material in order to be eligible. For your product, adding functionality to the electronic product does not change the material, hence my initial sentence in this e-mail.

I will say, however, that this should not discourage you from submitting products if they do fall into the eligibility period. But you would be required to get permission from the original publisher and you would both be credited for the submission. If the publisher is not willing to do that, then we cannot accept it.

Nominees: There was no Best Software category this year
Other Submissions: Hero Lab, Hero Lab Starter Edition, dxContent Random Generator Library, Map Runner, Table Runner, d20Pro, ProFantasy Fractal Terrains 3

[JohnD]

That is a ridiculous line of "logic" coming from them. So Roll20 benefits from not having any sanctioned products whereas team FG does and loses as a result.

This is a prime example of why I try not to attach any importance to these things; they are invariably biased.