Origins Awards Report

[Steve Long]

Just wanted to give everyone a brief report on the Origins Awards now that they're done.

The Bad News: Unfortunately, the write-in campaign didn't work. Hero didn't win any awards.

The Good News: If I had to lose, at least I lost to... myself. As a consolation prize I walked away with the Best RPG of 2002 award for the Lord Of The Rings RPG (along with Christian Moore and the other fine folx at Decipher, natch).

So, all in all, not a bad finish for the evening. ;)

[Lord Liaden]

Talk about bitter-sweet.

Condolences:( and congratulations.:) It's a worthy winner, even if it's not the one you were hoping for.

Would you know and be able to say how close the write-in voting got to a win?

[Hermit]

Well, stop beating yourself man :)

Seriously, I think it's a shame the write in campaign didn't work, but it's still nice to hear of your victory. Congratulations!

[keithcurtis]

:(

Keith ":(" Curtis

[TechnoViking]

Originally posted by Steve Long

The Good News: If I had to lose, at least I lost to... myself. As a consolation prize I walked away with the Best RPG of 2002 award for the Lord Of The Rings RPG (along with Christian Moore and the other fine folx at Decipher, natch).

Congrats Steve, lets party like we rolled 18/99 :).

Do they release the vote count? I'm curious how well the write-in campaign did.

Mike

[Steve Long]

Would you know and be able to say how close the write-in voting got to a win?

No. The Academy staunchly refuses to release any voting numbers whatsoever. However, I have been told that the number of write-in votes we received was "considerable" -- enough to make the Academy wonder how the heck they could explain why none of the nominees in a category won without giving the winner away in advance.

[GestaltBennie]

Originally posted by Steve Long
No. The Academy staunchly refuses to release any voting numbers whatsoever. However, I have been told that the number of write-in votes we received was "considerable" -- enough to make the Academy wonder how the heck they could explain why none of the nominees in a category won without giving the winner away in advance.

Well, I'm glad we accomplished something, Steve.

Frankly,for the winner of best RPG supplement to take that award, while Champions, Star Hero, Transhuman Space, Exalted: Dragon-Blooded and *many* others weren't even nominated makes my blood boil. , I feel like our entire industry's been spat on and I'm as mad as hell about it.

Scott Bennie

[Steve Long]

You're not the only one, Scott. A lot of us are hopeful that the appointment of Nicole Lindroos as Academy Chair, along with the election of Chris Wiese (sp?) as the new GAMA President, have removed the roadblocks that have prevented significant reform for so long. Like myself, a lot of people who were seriously considering leaving the Academy are now planning to remain members in the hopes of effecting said change. Hopefully in coming years the process will be more equitable, and more importantly more likely to accomplish its stated goal of honoring the best games -- not just the most popular ones.

[Bazza]

Steve, congrats in winning the Award as best RPG writer this year. Maybe you you ask Darren for a raise? ;) Your writing / rpg design is a real asset to Hero Games as been proven with this award. Very ironic that it wasn't Hero, but as Hermit says "stop beating yourself". I hate speaking for others, but I appreaciate your writing and I'm sure lots of others here do to.

What else could we do? Well we could kidnap the "rogue" element within the Academy...

* tap on shoulder *
* Bazza looks around *

"I've been told to leave the keyboard and follow a stranger. Foxbat says that I've just revealed his latest scheme. Opps! Gotta go, Foxbat looks threatening."

* Foxbat handles Bazza a costume *
* Bazza puts on costume *

"Oh brother. Here we go. Cya later, be back soon, if I don't need to call on your 'other' services first."

* "Foxbat and Foxbat Junior Sidekick Extraordinaire away!" *

:D

[buzz]

Congrats, Steve. :)

Admittedly, I was hoping that if the write-in campaign didn't succeed, that M&M or CoCd20 would have won.

And "Celtic Age" winning Best Suppliment... oy. :rolleyes:

[tmutant]

Originally posted by Steve Long
Just wanted to give everyone a brief report on the Origins Awards now that they're done.

The Bad News: Unfortunately, the write-in campaign didn't work. Hero didn't win any awards.

The Good News: If I had to lose, at least I lost to... myself. As a consolation prize I walked away with the Best RPG of 2002 award for the Lord Of The Rings RPG (along with Christian Moore and the other fine folx at Decipher, natch).

So, all in all, not a bad finish for the evening. ;)

Condolences for Hero.:(

Congratulations for Steve.:) :cool: :)

Maybe next year, but FRED won't be eligible, only supplements. :(

I like the Decipher products, and they may well be deserving of the award, but for FRED not even to be nominated was ludicrous. I think between them, one is the best system to come out this year, and Steve was instrumental in designing both systems.

Yaayyy, Steve. :D

[Talon]

Here's hoping they get reforms done in time for next year, so Fantasy Hero can win. :)

[TheEmerged]

Are the results posted somewhere? I'm curious if Nodwick won the award it was nominated for...

[Tom McCarthy]

I did a search for Origins Award 2003, and found it at ogrescave.com or something like that.

Since I didn't buy it, can anyone say just what was so wrong with Celtic Age ?

[Blue]

Recount! Reeeeeecount!

[Steve Long]

Nodwick didn't win the award it was nominated for; Dork Tower #18 won that award.

If you haven't found 'em already, you can find the results on ogrecave.com, and probably by now RPG.Net and the like.

As for Celtic Age, personally I don't think there's anything "wrong" with it; in fact, I picked up a copy at Origins and am looking forward to reading it in greater detail at some point (if for no other reason than to ensure that Tuala Morn is even better:)). However, I think a lot of people question whether it deserved the award, that's all; I, for one, think that many of the books Hero published last year are better. But such is the nature of a popular vote system. ;)

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Steve Long
Nodwick didn't win the award it was nominated for; Dork Tower #18 won that award.

Dork Tower #18 had better have been the gaming equivalent of Hamlet, then :rolleyes:

[Killer Shrike]

Sigh. Im sad to be living in a world where WizKids wins numerous awards for retarded (IMO) clik-and-d6-games that all use the same basic mechanic, and the Phoenix of the industry (HERO Games) doesnt even get nominated.

[buzz]

Originally posted by Tom McCarthy
Since I didn't buy it, can anyone say just what was so wrong with Celtic Age ?

There was nothing really wrong with it, but I think Bruce Baugh sums up the problem pretty well here (http://rockscissorsblog.blogspot.com/):


Celtic Age from Avalanche beats out the big Freeport book from Green Ronin, the Kingdom of Kalamar Player's Guide, Nyambe, and another bit of dry-as-dust historical drek from Avalanche. This one's really pathetic. Nyambe is one of the really ground-breaking supplements of recent memory, and is not just a good idea but wonderfully executed. Even the Kalamar book, while tedious to my taste, is done with care and intelligence - if what you're looking for is the ambience of an atlas and encyclopedia mixed in with detached tone and game mechanics, it's a great pick. The Freeport book is darned cool, and would be higher on my list in any year without Nyambe. Any of those three would have been worthy winners. But yeesh. Exalted deserved some attention here, just for starters. There was first-rate work in the World of Darkness, for Unknown Armies, for d20 lines like Spycraft and Legend of Five Rings...for a lot. I could stock this list over and over again without feeling the need to start nominating Avalanche books, let alone letting them win.

So it's another year of awards which sometimes make sense but are overall just too unreliable and indulgent to their administrators* to be worth the attention of the public at large.

*One of whom being Avalanche.

[Killer Shrike]

Isnt Avalanche the d20 publisher that runs towards glossy cheesecake models on thier covers?

[Vondy]

Bingo!

Maybe slingshot-thong-bikini hero would be meritorious of an award at Origins... :(

Steve, you want me to get started?

[Killer Shrike]

Hmm...perhaps we've discovered the secret to an awards heavy year.....;)

[Tempuswolf]

Originally posted by D-Man
Bingo!

Maybe slingshot-thong-bikini hero would be meritorious of an award at Origins... :(

Steve, you want me to get started?

lol

[zornwil]

Overall, still cause for celebration - congrats, Steve!

[JohnTaber]

Hi Gents: Just caught this at Gaming Report. Looks like hopefully some changes WILL be in the works. Go to Gaming Report to respond with comments and such.
John T>

Reports: We have received the following draft of a proposal to revamp the ORIGINS awards from Ryan Dancey. As it states below, he is looking for reader feedback on the proposed ideas. Please make your constructive comments below-

"The following is a proposal I intend to submit to GAMA and the Academy for review. Following the widespread dissatisfaction

with this year's ORIGINS Award process, I believe rapid, significant change is necessary to rebuild the stature and interest in the Awards that is required to make them meaningful and relevant.

Your comments are welcome!"

----------------------------------

PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE ORIGINS AWARDS - DRAFT

Intent:
The intent of this proposal is to focus the ORIGINS Awards toward the games which are produced by the members of GAMA, specifically products that represent the bulk of the products sold by the majority of the members of GAMA, and to position the ORIGINS Award as the pre-eminent award which could be earned by those products in any venue.

Problems with the Current System:
1.Awards Not Representative of Best in Class
------------------------------------------
Due to the challenges in working with European and Japanese publishers, the ORIGINS Awards do not fully represent the extremely active and diverse publisher communities in either region. As a result, awards in the Board Game, Card Game and Trading Card Game categories (by any terminology) often overlook worthy entrants. And, even if the nominations process was improved, the vast preponderance of voters are located in North America, meaning that the chance of a product from either Europe or Japan winning in its category regardless of merit is essentially nil.

2.Specificity of Game Types
-------------------------
The increasing overlap between the terms used to describe tabletop games and video/computer/console games makes it hard to differentiate the ORIGINS Awards from Awards targeting the computer game market.

3.Get Out the Vote drives unduly influence winners
------------------------------------------------
Each year, a handful of publishers make an extraordinary effort to motivate their consumers to vote on their behalf for ORIGINS Award consideration. As a result, a number of products have won ORIGINS Awards despite overwhelming general consensus that they were not the best products in the categories in question. This effect is especially pronounced when the publisher in question operates a widely distributed house-organ such as a magazine or a highly trafficked website.

4.A number of categories are outdated
-----------------------------------
Several ORIGINS Awards are given to product categories which no longer have any material effect on the financial health of the industry. These categories slow down the awards presentation, clutter the ballot, and reduce the overall impact of ORIGINS Award nomination and winning.

5.A number of categories are subordinate to other awards
------------------------------------------------------
A number of the current ORIGINS Award categories are subordinate to more prestigious awards handled through other venues. Continuing to make awards in these categories, without realistic hope that the ORIGINS Award will rise to become the pre-eminent award in that category, reduces the overall value of the ORIGINS Awards substantially.


Proposed Award Category Revision
The following is a list of the current Award categories, and a proposed list of new award categories, removing a number of existing categories and adding three new general recognition award categories.

Current Categories (as of 2003):

Best Abstract Board Game

Best Board Game Expansion or Supplement

Best Card Game Expansion or Supplement

Best Game Aide or Accessory

Best Game Periodical

Best Game-Related Fiction Long Form

Best Game-Related Fiction Short Form

Best Graphic Design of a Board Game

Best Graphic Design of a Book Format Product

Best Graphic Design of a Card Game Or Expansion

Best Graphic Fiction

Best Historical Board Game

Best Historical Figure Miniature Series

Best Historical Miniature

Best Historical Miniature Rules

Best Play-By-Mail Game

Best Roleplaying Adventure

Best Roleplaying Game

Best Roleplaying Supplement

Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Board Game

Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Miniature

Best Illustration

Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Figure Miniature Series

Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Miniatures Rules

Best Trading Card Game

Best Traditional Card Game

Game of the Year

Proposed Revised List of Categories:

Best Game Periodical

Best New Game Aide or Accessory

Best New Traditional Board Game

Best New Traditional Card Game

Best New Tabletop Wargame

Best New Tabletop Roleplaying Game

Best New Tabletop Roleplaying Supplement

Best New Tabletop Roleplaying Adventure

Best New Game Requiring Sculpted Miniature Figures

Best New Sculpted Miniature Figures Line

Best New Individual Sculpted Miniature Figure

Best New Trading Card Game

Best New Trading Card Game Expansion

Artist of the Year

Designer of the Year

Publisher of the Year

Game of the Year


Revisions to Policies & Procedures:
The following points represent changes to the ORIGINS Award policies and procedures which are designed to better achieve the objectives of the Awards in general.

Scope of Awards:
The ORIGNS Awards will specifically be described as:

"The premiere Award recognizing excellence in the field of tabletop game publication featuring products distributed in the North American market."

It is important to note that these are not "game design" awards. They are product awards, which encompass game design, graphic design, illustration, editing, marketing, and brand management. As such, separate recognition for the components of the game products (as per the current "Art" awards) is not desirable.


Changes to Award Categories:

Many of the current categories represent works eligible for more prestigious awards in other venues. Several are legacy awards that no longer represent mainstream unit volume or revenue for most GAMA members. Others target things sold in game stores which are not games. And some are subdivisions of categories that already represent small portions of the general GAMA membership's marketplace.


The list of categories eligible for Award consideration is changed substantially by this proposal. First, it focuses on the 3 significant categories of revenue which support the whole industry: RPGs, CCGs and Miniatures games. Second, it removes legacy categories and categories with more prestigious awards. Third, it recognizes individual excellence in the fields of Artist, Designer, and Publisher.


The net effect of these changes should be a much more focused Awards Ballot and Ceremony, and an increase in the overall prestige value of the Awards. The Awards will also be more fully representative of the actual market represented by the GAMA Memebership.


New and Unusual Formats:
In the event that a game appears which is both popular, and defines a new category not covered by the existing ORIGINS Awards categories (i.e. Diskwars or Magic: the Gathering), the Academy would have the ability within 2 years of the game's first distribution in the North American market to award a special "ORIGINS Award for Innovation" to that game to ensure proper recognition of the achievement.


Selection of Products for the Final Ballot:

Based on market research provided either by GAMA, or gathered by the Academy in a process acceptable to GAMA, the top 3 best-selling (by unit volume) products that qualify for each category will be automatically placed on the Final Ballot.


A Nominations Form will be circulated to the members of the Academy. The Nominations Form will list all products qualifying for each category to the best of the Academy's ability to assemble such a list. The list will not include the marketshare leading products that are automatically placed on the Final Ballot. The members of the Academy will be allowed to vote for 3 products in each category. The 3 products with the most votes in each category will be added to the Final Ballot.


The Academy committee may, at its sole discretion, add one or more products it deems worthy, but overlooked, to the Final Ballot for each category.


The Academy Nominations Form will be used to select the Artist, Designer and Publisher of the Year nominations.


The Academy committee will determine which products are nominated for Game of the Year. Game of the Year consideration is not limited to products eligible for the other ORIGINS Award categories.


Publisher Control of Nominations:
The publisher of a given work may elect to omit that work from the Final Ballot for any reason and without prejudice. Publishers with products nominated (or placed) on the Final Ballot will be contacted in a timely manner prior to the public release of the Final Ballot and asked if they wish to exercise this privilege. In the event that a publisher exercises this option, the next product in the natural sequence of selection for that category would be placed on the Ballot.


Voting Process:
The winner of the ORIGINS Award will be determined as follows:


Each GAMA Full Voting Member will be permitted to vote, and those votes will constitute 33% of the total value of the votes.


Each Academy member in good standing will be permitted to vote, and those votes will constitute 33% of the total value of the votes.


Members of the general public (those who are neither GAMA members nor Academy members) will be permitted to vote, and those votes will constitute 33% of the total value of the votes.


In the event of a tie, the Award will be given to both products.


This procedure will tend to minimize the impact of "bloc voting" engendered by publisher campaigning, and will shift a preponderance of the vote value to professionals in the industry. Essentially, the public vote becomes a tiebreaker between the publishers and the gaming professionals who comprise the Academy itself.

[zornwil]

Interesting proposal. I think the awards should just be eliminated - I hate industry jerk-off sessions of any kind. But if they are to be in place, I think they should just eliminate the general public voting process entirely, I see no value in having fandom en masse involved. The voting membership should just have some assurance of inclusion of "prominent" figures in the hobby. There shouldn't be an automatic inclusion of "best-sellers". I do think there should be a category for either amateur or, as that is hard to differentiate in this field, free products.

[buzz]

Originally posted by zornwil
Interesting proposal. I think the awards should just be eliminated - I hate industry jerk-off sessions of any kind. But if they are to be in place, I think they should just eliminate the general public voting process entirely, I see no value in having fandom en masse involved. The voting membership should just have some assurance of inclusion of "prominent" figures in the hobby. There shouldn't be an automatic inclusion of "best-sellers".

I have no problem with letting fans vote or taking sales into consideration. Considering the small percentage of the hobby community that actually bothers to vote, sales would seem to me a pretty good indicator (though not the only) of how a game is received. The rpg industry is not the music industry; popularity is often an indicator of quality.

Besides, the "best-sellers" simply earn a nomination; it doesn't mean that they will always win. I think Dancey included this as sort of a failsafe, e.g., Avalanche can't cram a category full of their products, because ta least three of the nominees will be based purely on factors they have no control over. :)


Originally posted by zornwil
I do think there should be a category for either amateur or, as that is hard to differentiate in this field, free products.

It's not part of Origins, but such a thing does exist:

http://www.rpg-awards.com/rpga/index.shtml

[Steve Long]

Just to be clear, the "proposal" John posted was a list of suggestions from Ryan Dancey, reflecting his particular opinions and views. It is not something that comes from the Academy itself, or anyone else in any position of authority.

While I think that changes are likely to occur, these are not necessarily the changes that will occur. In fact, I personally hope quite a few of 'em don't occur.

[Lord Liaden]

Steve, as you are to some extent an "insider", I'd be interested in hearing what changes you would like to see in the awards process, if you'd be comfortable discussing them publicly. I'd understand if you prefer to keep any suggestions behind closed doors for the time being, though.

[Steve Long]

Sure, I can discuss 'em briefly.

First, I think that before any changes are initiated, the Academy should clearly decide, and state, the purpose of the Awards. Are they intended to recognize "excellence in games" (however defined)? Are they intended to drive sales? Are they intended to raise the industry's profile?

My answers are generally premised on the idea that the purpose of the OAs is to "recognize excellence in game design and production." Someone who has another view may have other answers. With that in mind, here are some of my ideas, developed over numerous discussions with various other people interested in the topic.

1. Change it to two awards -- one an "Academy Award" voted on only by members of the Academy; one a "People's Choice" award voted on by the fans. The AAGAD would continue with the Origins Awards (the "Academy Award"), while some other organization would take over and administrate the "People's Choice" award.

2. Restrict the membership of the AAGAD in some way so that only qualified professionals can belong. The current criteria, which involve little more than paying $30 and some ill-defined involvement in the industry, don't really create a "body of peers" such as one needs to give out an "Academy Award"-style award.

3. Use a Stoker Awards-style process for nominations: any member can nominate a product, but he cannot nominate any product he worked on, or that a company he works for created. IOW, if you're product's not good enough to attract the attention of someone outside you and your company, it shouldn't make the ballot. While this virtually guarantees Hero Games would never get any nominations, I think it's the best process overall. After the nominations round closes, the Academy membership votes; the top vote-getter in each category wins.

Of course, some governing body that runs the Awards -- the Academy Committee, probably -- should have the power to put on the ballot any products that are unfairly neglected by the process. A few safety valves and checks-and-balances never hurt. ;)

4. Ideally I would like a way to force all Academy members to pay their own dues -- right now the ability of companies to pay for their employees' memberships and then bloc vote really hurts the process. However, there's no real way to enforce something like this, so it's a waste of time to fuss with it.

5. It might also be worthwhile to consider creating "tiers" of membership, with "more qualified" members receiving more votes or the like. However, that may cause more trouble than it's worth.

6. Change/streamline the categories as appropriate -- though heaven knows that if there are 100 Academy members, you'd probably get 100 opinions on what "appropriate" should be. Personally, I would like to see no PBM category, fewer miniatures categories, and more RPG categories, but others would disagree vehemently. ;)

Those are my main ideas at this time. All opinions subject to change without notice. ;)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Steve Long
Sure, I can discuss 'em briefly.

First, I think that before any changes are initiated, the Academy should clearly decide, and state, the purpose of the Awards. Are they intended to recognize "excellence in games" (however defined)? Are they intended to drive sales? Are they intended to raise the industry's profile?

My answers are generally premised on the idea that the purpose of the OAs is to "recognize excellence in game design and production." Someone who has another view may have other answers. With that in mind, here are some of my ideas, developed over numerous discussions with various other people interested in the topic.

1. Change it to two awards -- one an "Academy Award" voted on only by members of the Academy; one a "People's Choice" award voted on by the fans. The AAGAD would continue with the Origins Awards (the "Academy Award"), while some other organization would take over and administrate the "People's Choice" award.

2. Restrict the membership of the AAGAD in some way so that only qualified professionals can belong. The current criteria, which involve little more than paying $30 and some ill-defined involvement in the industry, don't really create a "body of peers" such as one needs to give out an "Academy Award"-style award.

3. Use a Stoker Awards-style process for nominations: any member can nominate a product, but he cannot nominate any product he worked on, or that a company he works for created. IOW, if you're product's not good enough to attract the attention of someone outside you and your company, it shouldn't make the ballot. While this virtually guarantees Hero Games would never get any nominations, I think it's the best process overall. After the nominations round closes, the Academy membership votes; the top vote-getter in each category wins.

Of course, some governing body that runs the Awards -- the Academy Committee, probably -- should have the power to put on the ballot any products that are unfairly neglected by the process. A few safety valves and checks-and-balances never hurt. ;)

4. Ideally I would like a way to force all Academy members to pay their own dues -- right now the ability of companies to pay for their employees' memberships and then bloc vote really hurts the process. However, there's no real way to enforce something like this, so it's a waste of time to fuss with it.

5. It might also be worthwhile to consider creating "tiers" of membership, with "more qualified" members receiving more votes or the like. However, that may cause more trouble than it's worth.

6. Change/streamline the categories as appropriate -- though heaven knows that if there are 100 Academy members, you'd probably get 100 opinions on what "appropriate" should be. Personally, I would like to see no PBM category, fewer miniatures categories, and more RPG categories, but others would disagree vehemently. ;)

Those are my main ideas at this time. All opinions subject to change without notice. ;)

Steve, FWIW, I think these are pretty solid and will lend at least some credence to the process.