|
|
Post by bobversion1 on Jun 15, 2011 14:11:31 GMT -5
When your reading a circuit, what usually keeps bringing you back?
Length of cards?
Angles?
Match Descriptions?
Roster?
I've started a few in the last year and even though having comments after every card is unrealistic, comments do help drive me to want to continue and not feel like I'm just doing it for myself. I'm quite busy (Full time job, 1 1/2 year old son and a wife) so I have a lot going on, but also can set time aside to do cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jun 15, 2011 15:20:21 GMT -5
Yes to all of the above. I will tell you that once you start writing cards to get comments it usually leads you to burnout and a circuit ending prematurely. I get a few responses on my circuit, some of it is probably people being friendly since I respond to their feds, and other people respond because they enjoy it. I'm not sure who is who, but I take what I can get.  I have noticed, however, that you do get more comments if you respond to other people's circuits. It's something I do on occasion. If somebody responds to my circuit I'm more likely to take time and read theirs. That doesn't mean I will always comment on it because sometimes there is nothing to say. I also comment on other people's circuits even if they have never read mine because I enjoy them, and I also want to keep the TNM community alive. But the best way to get comments on your circuit is just to write clean, coherent sentences. Have at least a small description of what is going on. Keep some notes so you don't get lost in your own fed. And for me, try to keep it a little bit realistic where people aren't jobbing one week and winning the World Title the next week. In that same line of thinking, you probably want to book your circuit. Now if none of that stuff makes you have fun then don't do it. If you want to run it unbooked then do it. You are far more likely to keep it going over a longer period of time, and it will then lead me to probably reading a card or two to see what it's all about. If you aren't having fun the circuit will last 2-3 cards and then be over. And who knows? Rey was the guy that got me to like a women's circuit, you might be the guy to make me like an unbooked circuit. One small note, don't expect a ton of feedback or fan following after 2-3 shows. A lot of the time people don't start reading until 7-10 cards are posted so they know they aren't wasting their time on a circuit that won't be around in a week. |
|
|
|
Post by mdale2k on Jun 15, 2011 20:08:31 GMT -5
Personally different rosters always grab my interest like the gcw league in the old school. But I will say this write for yourself.
Also people reply to cards if they post a lot of cards. Like Josh said some people might not post right away and wait til 5-6 cards
Good luck and look forward to reading
|
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 15, 2011 21:42:17 GMT -5
I'm going to give some lengthy thoughts point-by-point.
Roster?
To some extent.
Most of the wrestling I watched was in the 90s so I know who most wrestlers are from that era. 80s and 2000s are weaker, but I've seen/read enough to have a moderate idea of the main guys. So such circuits I can follow fairly easily because I know who people are.
This isn't a make-or-break thing because of other factors. GCW-OS proves this, as does my general fandom of fantasy/fictitious wrestler circuits (I was a huge SMWA mark).
One thing I will personally note (and take this with a big grain of salt because I think I'm in a small minority): I read a great deal of non-fiction and enjoy good alternate history. What If's. So I gravitate toward circuits where there is a logical departure point from real history and not care much for circuits where a bunch of seemingly random guys are thrown together from different time periods for no logical reason beyond "I think these guys are all cool". In theory, it's a one of the great things about TNM, that you can have wrestlers in their prime from different decades face off in dream fueds. But it's just not my thing.
Why do I like fantasy circuits? It's the difference between fanfiction and original fiction. Even if some of your characters are knockoffs of real characters, it's hard to go out of character. There was an angle in Tommy's WCW-SF where Sting was revealed to be Daffney's father (and I think Daffney was Raven's sister?). I hated it because I felt it was destroying Sting's character. If you did that exact same angle with three original characters it would be much harder for the angle to feel "out of character" because I have no memories of how the characters "Should Be" beyond what your writing has given me.
Angles?
Yes. You can have a great roster where I know everybody, but if the angles are bland or nonsensical it's boring to read. Logical booking is good. Catching people by surprise is good, but the surprises need to make sense otherwise you've gone Vince Russo with OMGWTF moments that just cause shock value.
Length of cards?
Match Descriptions?
I'll lump these together because they're essentially related. I've read and enjoyed different styles over the years. SMWA had huge writeups, Tommy had a WCW circuit with a unique writeup style, and there's a certain style popular right now because it is very efficient: results with interview summaries and - when relevant or interesting - some match descriptions.
Ultimately, if a writeup gets too long readers tend to skim over it. I think any writer - TNM or otherwise - needs to understand how well they write and how much or how little needs to be said to be interesting. If you have the writing skill and energy to crank out huge cards then it might be worth it. Otherwise, brevity is the soul of wit as it were. Get across what happened to develop angles and characters. Not every match needs anything said about it. If one of your name wrestlers pins a jobber in a squash match you don't need to say anything about it. Some matches are just a name and a result to give the guy screen name and that's fine.
GCW-OS is a great example. Ryan has good, efficient writeups. I don't know who half these guys are (and I doubt I'm the only one) yet he develops characters and angles such that I can follow it. I understand why A and B are fighting and can be persuaded to cheer on A. I've never seen Harley Race in a ring for one second, yet I'm cheering for Backlund to beat him because Race has been developed as a cheating bastard who will try any underhanded tactic to weasel out of a loss.
Three types of writeups that I think are doomed to garner little interest (and in this case I think these opinion are widely held):
1) TNM play-by-play. Too dry to read and feels lazy. Give a summary if there's something relevant/interesting or just give the results.
2) Match results but little else for pretty much every card.
On your B-show or a House Show this can be okay sometimes (and I'm guilty of too little happening on WCW Saturday Night myself). But there needs to be angle and character development otherwise its just a bunch of results that don't tell us who is fighting or why we should care.
3) Repeatedly stating the obvious. Here's a classic error:
What does that sentence tell us about the match, the wrestlers, or any angle that we didn't already know?
Tell us if Triple H attacked Austin after the match. Tell us if Austin cut a promo on The Rock before the match. Tell us if The Brooklyn Brawler beat Austin with a chair until he bled while the referee was knocked out and Austin only won because he rolled up Brawler with an inside cradle while Brawler was waking up the referee then Austin had to be taken away by EMTs and OMG Brooklyn Brawler is suddenly a threat not a jobber! Otherwise, just show the result without comment and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by magiccitydawg on Jun 16, 2011 0:36:12 GMT -5
When your reading a circuit, what usually keeps bringing you back? Length of cards? Angles? Match Descriptions? Roster? I've started a few in the last year and even though having comments after every card is unrealistic, comments do help drive me to want to continue and not feel like I'm just doing it for myself. I'm quite busy (Full time job, 1 1/2 year old son and a wife) so I have a lot going on, but also can set time aside to do cards. I will agree that comments after every match is unrealistic and do tend to repeat sometimes. I think that great angles and roster are important to me. The length of a match does not matter to me. You can have a short match which tells a better story than a long match that leaves you wondering what the heck you just saw. I also want to see if the writer is going to bring different ideas to the universe/circuit/promotion/whatever. For instance, I tried a universe where the promotion was run on a seasnal basis, much like the NFL. Now, I am going to use that idea to crown a champion in the new universe I am launching. I must echo everyone by saying to check out the GCW OS site as well. |
|
|
|
Post by snabbit888 on Jun 16, 2011 0:56:49 GMT -5
The main things I look for in a circuit:
Length of card: enough so I know what's going on, basically. If you can do this in one sentence, great. If it takes you a paragraph, awesome. There's a nice middle point that I think the members of this board have really hit consistently. It's not just match results (Wrestler A beat Wrestler B? Who cares.) and it's not a novel. Let's be honest - I love TNM and fantasy booking, but this is a hobby, and kind of a dorky one at that. I put enough time into writing my own stuff - I don't have 4 hours to set aside to read your 25,000 word TV show.
Angles: I don't necessarily have to enjoy all your angles, but I like a circuit where some effort is being made. It's why I don't like unbooked circuits for the most part. I want to see what YOU can do, not what the program can do. I want to see what you think is a good wrestling angle. If in your circuit, let's say Trent Baretta becomes your World champion. If it's unbooked, meh, I don't care much because that's the nature of the program sometimes. If you booked it though, I'm likely to be more invested to see what you did to build Baretta up, make him credible as a champ, etc.
Match descriptions: give me SOMETHING. I kind of disagree with the crowd a little bit in that I think every match deserves some sort of description. Even if it's a jobber squash, I always try to mention something about it, if even just to remind the reader what angle the wrestler is currently in. I try to assume that every card I write might be the first card someone ever reads, so I try my best not to keep anyone in the dark.
This one may be splitting hairs a little, but grammar and sentence structure. I just fine bad grammar, punctuation, etc. to be a sign of laziness and that you don't care enough to spell check. I'm a reasonable man - no one here is going to be the perfect writer (I know I'm far from it), but if you can't be bothered to use capitalization, I can't be bothered to read it.
Most importantly, I just want things to make sense. I'm not always going to be happy with what you booked, and I will let you know that, but it doesn't mean I don't like the circuit. I think that's the fun of this forum specifically - we all kind of know each other well enough now where if you criticize something, no one is going to get butt hurt about it. But really, the circuit needs to make sense. I may HATE your top angle, but as long as it's logical and well written, I will keep coming back to see what you do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by asover7s on Jun 16, 2011 1:21:23 GMT -5
What keeps me coming back to a circuit I guess is no different then what keeps me coming back to a real life fed. I like to be entertained. If you can produce good storylines that can keep me interested, I'll keep reading. Have good characters that you want to cheer for or cheer against, that always helps. And like what was said above, I might not always like who won a title or the direction of an angle, but if it's interesting, then I'll keep coming back to see where it ends up.
For match descriptions, I don't need a full play-by-play of each match. A breif summary usually works for me. Who won, how they won, was there a key turning point.
Roster? I think any roster can work if it's done right. Although I think there should be some difference in the roster then whats on the boards now. For instance, there are currently three WWF feds running in a span of 5 years from each other with a lot of the same names. And although each one is really well done, I've caught myself getting confused of which storylines are in whos fed and usually have to go back and read a card prior to a new one to regrasp whats going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jun 16, 2011 9:28:39 GMT -5
And to prove a point, I liked Tommy's angle based around Sting-Raven-Daffney. Liller hated it. But I bet we both kept reading it because Tommy wrote some interesting stuff, used proper grammar, and spelled correctly. It doesn't matter how silly an angle is and how much people dislike it, they will keep reading for the most part if you take the time to make sure it all flows.
I'm with Ryan that each match should get at least a sentence or two of description. I use jobber matches probably as much as anyone, and I will use those matches to either have somebody cut a promo or just remind people of their current feud. The only times I don't do this is when somebody isn't involved in an angle, but I need to use him to remind people that he is on the roster.
People should also realize that constructive criticism is the best thing on this board. I know when somebody says they don't like my main event scene or not a fan of who my tag champs are that they aren't attacking my entire circuit. What I do with that information is to look at it and see if I agree. If I do, I work on it. If I don't, I keep it the same and hope that I keep my readers. Sometimes I will do an angle that nobody likes, but since I am so into it I refuse to drop it. That goes along the lines of making sure you are enjoying what you are writing and not just doing it for the people that are reading it.
An example of this would be asover7s. He has a very valid point that there are three WWF feds within a close period of one another. I knew that KingofOldSchool had a circuit around this time period and was considered to be one of the best on the board, but I really wanted to write about WWF '92. I could have decided to do something else like WWF '98 or something, but I didn't want to. And forcing myself would have made me drop the fed pretty quickly. So I decided to continue with WWF '92 and if people didn't want to read it because it was too confusing then I would at least enjoy what I was writing.
MDale probably had the same problem. He wanted to write about '89 WWF, but saw that there were now two WWF circuits. Instead of making himself write about something he didn't want to, he wrote what he enjoyed. And I think at this point there are so many differences (from the writing style to the roster to the format) that it would be hard to get them confused. But it is the type of constructive criticism that I will listen to, and I will make sure that my circuit is different enough so that there is no confusion as to which fed is which.
And I agree with Ryan on the length of the card. It's tricky because you can either go way too short or way too long. I get a little wordy sometimes, and I know it, but I don't even realize it until I'm done with the card. I then do a little bit of editing, but I feel like I need a lot of it to get across what I want the reader to see. On the other hand, there are some guys on the board that could take my card, edit it down by half, and still get across the same points, and I'm sure the cards would be just as good.
Trying to find that middle ground is hard, but once you can do it your readers will probably increase.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanh529 on Jun 16, 2011 10:14:35 GMT -5
I think most of us look for circuits that are unique. The Heaven sent Wrestling circuit that has been posted was a nice unique concept.
I also liked the spinoffs of WCW and these 1994 WWF circuits really remind me of Olivers original sample fed.
Two of the circuits I loved the most, after almost 15 years, was "Brians WWF circuit" and someone posted an XPW circuit to the TNM Newsletter. I don't know if it was the writing or what, but it really got me reading.
If a card gets posted that is really wordy I tend not to read it. It is just so much to get into, but on the other hand I tend to skim a lot of cards looking at interesting angles and pairings for feuds. I particularly like to find feuds that never really happened between real life wrestlers and where people can take them.
Rosters don't particularly bug me because anyone can make them work in the details of the federation or angles they run.
As far as comments go, just write them and post them. Nobody is going to force themselves to comment just because a new card is posted, but usually after a few shows built up and a payoff card, you will get a comment about the entire month or shows. It's hard to comment on angles and story lines until they are finished, or come to a major point in a feud.
I do try to comment on more cards, because I'm just like everyone else and enjoy comments, but my circuit doesn't live and die on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobversion1 on Jun 16, 2011 10:17:50 GMT -5
Thanks for all of your responses! They definetly helped me see from different view points. I'm going to hopefully have a new circuit up soon and these will help!
|
|
|
|
Post by mdale2k on Jun 16, 2011 10:57:14 GMT -5
And to prove a point, I liked Tommy's angle based around Sting-Raven-Daffney. Liller hated it. But I bet we both kept reading it because Tommy wrote some interesting stuff, used proper grammar, and spelled correctly. It doesn't matter how silly an angle is and how much people dislike it, they will keep reading for the most part if you take the time to make it all flows. FYI I loved the Sting / Raven / Daffney stuff.! |
|
|
|
Post by mdale2k on Jun 16, 2011 10:57:56 GMT -5
Two of the circuits I loved the most, after almost 15 years, was "Brians WWF circuit" and someone posted an XPW circuit to the TNM Newsletter. I don't know if it was the writing or what, but it really got me reading. Not sure if this was the XPW circuit you were talking about. But it could be. |
|
|
|
Post by seanh529 on Jun 16, 2011 12:05:14 GMT -5
Yes! That is totally it! I remember the way you wrote in a way that it was more of a recap style. I loved it and actually based the way I recap my shows off this circuit! I am so happy you're on the board now! Honestly, this was one of the best circuits I kept up with back in the day. My old circuit cards from TNM 1997-99 are out there somewhere I know it, I wish I could find them. If you have the HTML to this circuit and wanted to post it on an ad free site, I'm more than happy to do it on my site. Let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by mdale2k on Jun 16, 2011 12:23:27 GMT -5
Haha that's funny. I still have a years worth of bookings written down in excel.
Glad you enjoyed it. It was real fun, I may get back it.
If you click on their the cards are all there.
i had another site before that i can't find haha
|
|
|
|
Post by snabbit888 on Jun 16, 2011 12:56:35 GMT -5
I was a big fan of Brian's WWF Circuit. One of my early favorites.
Someone I wish we could get back into the community is 91. His circuit is one of my favorites of all-time.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jun 16, 2011 13:17:54 GMT -5
Which circuit of 91? I'm always interested to look at some good circuits from the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by snabbit888 on Jun 16, 2011 13:28:16 GMT -5
DWF. It was on the original TNM website forums, as well as the forums on the other current TNM website. Might have to do some digging, but it's awesome stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 16, 2011 18:12:07 GMT -5
I'm always interested to look at some good circuits from the past. I miss Colin's AAA which was I think easily the most successful lucha circuit. I think it was also the longest running circuit from the original TNM-MP? Probably was posted to the Topica list. Another good circuit - possibly also on the Topica list - was Pro Wrestling EDGE. It was a "next big thing" type of circuit that started in one of the TNM-MPs (probably early 2000s post-ECW pre-TNA). Unfortunately, the guy running that circuit entered into TNM infamy when he suddenly disappeared and it was later learned he got a long jail sentence.  |
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jun 16, 2011 19:01:46 GMT -5
I'm always interested to look at some good circuits from the past. Another good circuit - possibly also on the Topica list - was Pro Wrestling EDGE. It was a "next big thing" type of circuit that started in one of the TNM-MPs (probably early 2000s post-ECW pre-TNA). Unfortunately, the guy running that circuit entered into TNM infamy when he suddenly disappeared and it was later learned he got a long jail sentence. Are you talking about Adrian English (Drin)? That was, by far, the most bizarre and unsettling thing to happen on the list. He seemed pretty normal. |
|
|
|
Post by mdale2k on Jun 16, 2011 21:37:17 GMT -5
What happened to him I vaguely remember him
|
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jun 17, 2011 11:07:52 GMT -5
www.onlineathens.com/stories/100603/new_20031006008.shtmlIt's pretty disturbing. I think he had been on the list for around a year or so when this all happened. On a lighter note, I can't recall too much about Colin's AAA. It was probably back in the days of me not enjoying lucha (still don't), and so I probably skipped over it. I do miss Leamon's ECW. One thing that is funny is when I go back to read some past cards of some circuits that I loved, they don't always deliver. I enjoyed Brian's WWF circuit, it was a really fun read. Does anybody remember DeWF? Ryan mentioning DWF reminded me of it. This was way back in something like 1996, and Copp had a TNM website that was on a German host, I believe. He had a link to some e-wrestling cards for the DeWF. I remember liking them quite a bit. And that made me just realize that I've been around TNM for at least 15 years. Uck.
|
|
