What makes you read a circuit?

[rey619]

OK, even though it's been said again and again that you should book and write up shows the way you want and that we're doing this for ourselves and not anyone else, I thought about starting a thread where everyone who wants can write what they're looking for in a fed, what are the turn ons and turn offs, etc.

I'll start:

Turn offs:

• Only results without any write-ups (you haven't really done anything except copy paste from TNM)
  
• Promotions that are entirely un-booked (Colin Delaney defeating Hulk Hogan via side headlock is just silly)
  
• PbP results (let's face it, TNM cannot simulate a wrestling match anywhere near perfect)
  
• Mixing time periods / dead wrestlers (Bruno Sammartino vs Daniel Bryan might have been an awesome match if they were of same age, but they're not)
  

Stuff that may be problematic:

• Fantasy wrestlers (but I did follow Peter Abram's excellent Fantasy Circuit based out of UK a few years back, so it is possible if you're really good at writing the wrestler's personalities and appearances).
  
• Retro circuits (but since I am an avid follower of the GCW Universe, good writing and excellent booking trumphs this).
  

Turn ons:

• Great writing and booked circuits
  
• Consistency (the reason I follow Josh and Ryan is that I know they're in it for the long haul, I prefer that over short-lived circuits)
  
• Contemporary wrestlers (it's easier when you know of the wrestlers)
  
• Circuits in an already established universe (I like it when the booker takes into account that he cannot use TNA or WWE wrestlers)
  
• Women's promotion that uses my women exports (I realize I make them for my own sake, oh well
  

[snabbit888]

Consistency is huge for me. If I don't think the circuit is going to last more than a month, I don't have much reason to invest in it.

I want to see writeups of some sort, but not too long. I need to know that there are angles and motivations for the wrestlers, but let's face it - this is a hobby at best. I spend a decent amount of time writing my circuit, but I want to keep it at a length where people can get a card read in short order.

Fantasy wrestlers are tough to get into. Just takes a lot of time to get invested into characters that come from scratch.

[gentlemanjeff]

I agree mostly with rey's list, with a few exceptions/additions:

What I dig:

x. Retro circuits. I love what-ifs, and I feel like I'm learning something when I read a fed set in the 60s or 70s or 80s, especially when the booker incorporates real-world quirks and angles (for example, Ryan's take on Snuka's cage splash). I would love to see a Hogan AWA, or a non-Hogan WWF, or a successful AWA/WCCW/USWA alliance, or any take similar to my CWF--pick an old territory, fire up TNM, and book it.

x. Tight writing. I'm trying to adhere to this in CWF. For non-super-mega cards, I don't want a wall of text. I prefer to read cards like King of Old Schools retro WWF, where everything is brief, tight, and to the point. Each TV show is about one screen of text.


What I dislike:

x. Ridiculous star ratings. I do not believe your indy fed just put on the greatest show of all-time with four **** matches and two ***** matches. Edit that business. I just got TNM7 Second Edition (hey, I had a perfectly good First Edition!), and Oliver appears to have completely re-done star ratings, with Heat being factored in more logically, which is great. But now everyone has to lower their wrestlers' work rates to something approaching reasonableness--average/solid is now 75, 85 is a very good worker, 90+ is great.

x. Dialogue. I like it when writers occasionally provide a quote for a wrestler or announcer, but I do not want to see a show written out like a play. It's way too long and feels artificial and forced.

x. Colors. Stop that.

x. Promotions with no story or context. "Here are guys! They are wrestling!"

x. No attention to match lengths. In 2000, WWF's matches on TV were 2-3 minutes, on average. Nowadays, they're 3-5 minutes. If you're running weekly TV, don't give six matches 15-20 minutes each, unless you've got a four hour broadcast.

x. I'm actually against weekly TV for anything put 1994+ promotions, and even then I could do without. The TV cards are usually a boring, hard slog. I would forgive someone for skipping TV and just booking PPVs and the occasional super-TV card (like, say, one PPV, then a Raw, then another PPV, then a Raw). I think Oliver had the right plan--circuits should do about 12-20 cards a year. That's one of the things I like about the GCW/NWF system, where every card is a big card. I don't want to see Ivan Koloff punk out three weeks of jobbers, though I do miss Johnny Rodz.

x. Alliance/multi-feds run by one person. Seriously bro, that's WAY too much work. It will never happen. You don't want to book four feds simultaneously. It will die in a week.

[rey619]

I forgot about the match lengths and agree about that too. Even in a booked circuit, it should be edited down in instances like Battle Royals. The way TNM is built, a 12-man battle royal is still likely to last 20+ minutes, while in reality it would probably last less than 10 minutes.

[JoshiQ]

I'll come up with a more detailed list later, but here are just a few things I look for:

1) Write-Ups: If there isn't a write-up I'm not going to read it. That's pretty simple. But even if you do go to the effort of writing something out about what happened on the card, there needs to be for the most part decent grammar and spelling. I also think the format plays a huge factor. I like paragraphs. I like that when I'm reading something there's a break here and there to show that we are onto a new angle or segment.

2) Length: I used to be a guy that posted cards that were probably 30-40 pages long. I've changed that with time, and I think it's for the best. If I can't read the card in on sitting then I doubt I will even attempt to read it. That's sad because I know how much effort they put into the actual card. The length can also be applied to matches. I don't need to know each and every move a guy used. Just simplify it, give us a brief summary, and be done with it. Rey and Ryan do a great job of this.

3) Consistency: If I see a guy that posts 3-4 feds over a year but they never get past the first page, I'm probably not going to read it. Now, if you can take a fed and post 4-5 pages worth, and then open up a new circuit, I probably will read it. To me that's enough to give you the benefit of the doubt.

4) Reciprocation: This probably isn't a huge factor, but I know that if somebody responds to my circuit and gives me some constructive feedback then I am more than likely going to read a few of your cards. If they still suck, I may not be reading it for long, but I will at least give it a look. Constructive feedback to me isn't "Good card." or "That sucked." But if you simply say "I wish Roddy Piper would have gone over because I feel he makes a better IC Champion, and there's no way they would have had a heel champion go over at WrestleMania." I think it does a lot to help people. I may not always agree with the feedback, but it at least lets people know what they are thinking about the fed.

5) Realism: I've talked with Ryan about this some. If you take over a retro circuit or even a current one, I don't want to see main eventers start being jobbed right away. Ryan usually brings up the point that he wouldn't mind the Brooklyn Brawler winning the World Title if it was done correctly. And I've come along on that viewpoint. I don't care if Santino Marella wins your World Title, but it better be a year of slow build and not happening two months after you started the circuit. It's just always been a pet peeve of mine to see Hogan jobbing to Glacier or Cena dropping four matches straight to Evan Bourne. If you started the circuit before Cena is a star, I don't care what you do with him. But if you started after he became the biggest star in the company, you better treat him like so.

[rey619]

Sept 17, 2011 11:53:06 GMT -5 JoshiQ said:

2) Length: I used to be a guy that posted cards that were probably 30-40 pages long. I've changed that with time, and I think it's for the best. If I can't read the card in on sitting then I doubt I will even attempt to read it. That's sad because I know how much effort they put into the actual card. The length can also be applied to matches. I don't need to know each and every move a guy used. Just simplify it, give us a brief summary, and be done with it. Rey and Ryan do a great job of this.

To add to this:

* Convey the story (why are they fighting? Has anything in special happened to one or both of them in the recent past that is worth mentioning to put over storylines?)
* Convey the feeling (was this a technical match, a wild brawl, big man vs small guy)
* Write the finishing spot if it was anything out of the ordinary (e.g. cheating, interference, a nice reversal, etc).

If you do a TV/PPV format, PPV cards can be a little longer and should probably consist of more match descriptions than a TV show (e.g. a high spot, a missed spot leading to one of the wrestlers working over the knee of the opponent etc.).

These are just something I look for, others may have different tastes. The first two items help when you're reading a circuit when you don't know the wrestlers very well, e.g. old-school circuits or my TNAW. It can also be of great help with fantasy wrestlers. If you're doing WWE, we know what type of match Rey Mysterio vs Big Show is, but if you can offer a paragraph about what kind of psychology was used, great!