What's Better?

[JamJam]

Thought of this thread as I read some KC RPs and I was just generally interested in the opinions of everyone in the fed. So use this thread to ask the fed what's better. I'll start this thing off.

What's better: RPs that are focused on the prose or RPs that are focused on the story?

For me, I've always been a fan of the overall story in a RP rather than the dialogue. Which probably explains why I'm not a huge fan of interview RPs. No offense to those who do them, they work in certain situations, but overall, I'm not a huge fan of them. Your responses to this question will probably be that the dialogue is what drives the story but for me, I see it differently. I like it when you see things come around full circle instead of reading a character blabber on and on. But like I said, I'm super curious as to what you guys think and I don't look down on people who do interview RPs or have dialogue-heavy RPs.

Discuss

 

[NSL]

With Steel, I tried to do both. I tried to have a guy that could do interviews and promos, but still have a story, and it ended up feeling forced. With Skinner, I tried a guy that would be purely interviews and promos, and I couldn't manage to keep the dialogue interesting. When I came back this time, I wanted to make sure I had a character with a must-read story, so that even if I never got a storyline or feud, I would have something to write about every week, and it would flesh out my RPs.

John Doe was fun to write, even when I was losing every match at the beginning, because I had something to work with. And it has gotten exponentially better, being involved in an angle.

Basically, what I'm saying, is that I prefer to write a story. It feels much more organic than an interview. That said, I think a properly done interview can beat any story, no matter how good it is, but it's so hard to perfect. Flex and Ram had a solid interview promo for LL, and I really thought they were going to win. That's a solid example of how to do it properly.

Promo RPs are a league all their own. For them to be effective, to me, it needs to read like a TV segment. Help me envision it, or I'm basically just reading a letter. Tasty has managed to write solid promo RPs week after week, and if anyone were going to attempt it, I'd say to look at his work for pointers. Promos are usually either spot on perfect, or contrived shit. It's hard to find them in the middle.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

IMO stories that have more dialog are .....

A: Easier to read

B: Gives the eyes a break from long paragraphs of description

C: Straight up more entertaining and engaging to read opposed to a story chalk full of talkless storytelling.

D: Less tempted to skip ahead of winded paragraphs

E: There is no E.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

IMO stories that have more dialog are .....

A: Easier to read

B: Gives the eyes a break from long paragraphs of description

C: Straight up more entertaining and engaging to read opposed to a story chalk full of talkless storytelling.

D: Less tempted to skip ahead of winded paragraphs

E: There is no E.

My problem with my own RPs is not enough storytelling thus Mark Keaton is basically an unknown character with unknown ambitions, drive and whatnot. I plan to try and add layers to him in the future.

 

[NSL]

C: Straight up more entertaining and engaging to read opposed to a story chalk full of talkless storytelling.

Did you read Dave's (Constantine) or Funkay's (Abel Hunnicutt) RPs this round? Both were heavy on description, light on dialogue, and the stories they told were incredible.

 

[Lee]

I find most people don't read all my RP's so a story one can get laborious. I like to think of it as an episode of a sitcom. You can watch it by itself and it's good but to appreciate you have to have seen them all.

 

[John McCass]

Interviews work especially when Lee does them. Damn! What an awesome masterpiece you wrote this round, dude! Other than Lee's, I don't like interviews much. Storied RP's give an insight into the character and help in character development.

I might probably use interviews once I get past the story.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I like the stories better, but dialogue is important. Too many descriptions can cause me to lose focus and get distracted. Promos are fine.... I'm not a fan of interview RP's typically although that was more of an issue with EVERYONE constantly using Leon. It got really old. To me "just doing another Leon interview" comes off as lazy and taking the easy way out when most are capable of better. I automatically roll my eyes at Leon interviews at this point, hoping you still do something cool or say something really good in them. Could be due to my own dislike of the argument "Well, everyone else is doing it" that I've always had in life. I've been glad to see more Stacey lately. Stacey interviews are MUCH better than Leon interviews.

With mine, I kinda try to do like what Lee said. Mine are meant to be like episodes of a cartoon. Theron still looks like Cloud from FF7's cutscenes in "real life", Kirilah still looks like Darcy from Degrassi in "real life" etc.... but how Theron sees the world it's meant to be like a cartoon, if that makes sense. Yet even though they are episodic there is still an overall story being told, intended to reach its high point by the PPV RP. This to me is almost always better than an interview RP unless you do something AWESOME with it. I agree that Tasty's "CM Punk pipebomb" route is good reading for those who want to go more of the backstage segment route in their RP's.

 

[Prince Vee]

I find most people don't read all my RP's so a story one can get laborious. I like to think of it as an episode of a sitcom. You can watch it by itself and it's good but to appreciate you have to have seen them all.

I use to read your RPs but you should stop picking on dead people -.-

Anyway, you're right. Story can be really laborious and even a slightest of the flaws would tend to collapse the character off the grid. In the meantime, I don't support the entire Interview RPs either. There should be a composite of it, not a comparative study.

 

[Dave]

The correct answer is a mixture of both in my opinion. The people who do the best in this Fed are the people who can advance a story of their own, develop their character, sell a match and still be interesting. Some people are just better at that than others.

 

[Prince Vee]

The correct answer is a mixture of both in my opinion. The people who do the best in this Fed are the people who can advance a story of their own, develop their character, sell a match and still be interesting. Some people are just better at that than others.

Precisely the point!

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

I think you can boil it down to a reader's taste in material and writing style as well. For example, I used to love Stephen King and Jeffery Deaver is a god. Simply because both have amazing imaginations and the subject of the stories are usually..well, 98 percent dark , thriller type material. Jeffery Deaver is excellent at keeping the reading material simple and his story telling is off the charts with how he weaves an exciting twist damn near every effing time. Stephen King can be preachy and go five pages describing a porch, but I still like most of his work.

Reader # 2 could enjoy documentaries and softer subject matter.

Reader # 3 likes romance novels.

No reader is exactly the same, you could argue this with movie's as well.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

I know I can be one to talk but I can see descriptive RPs being rather tedious at times and not "to the point". So usually I do focus on reading the dialogue in (and why I've been trying to cut back on the Ram ramblings)

Fun fact I'm sure a few picked up on...the darker your character, the likelier you are to use metaphors.

 

[Lee]

I'm still finding my new medium, I think the mixing up interviews with local celebs adds to it. It's keeping the same format but making it fresh. I dunno, we'll see.

 

[JamJam]

Another question to bump this thread.

What's better: three shows, two shows, or one show?

So we've seen WZCW when it had three shows in Meltdown, Ascension, and Aftershock and now, we're down to Meltdown and Ascension. But we've never been to the point where the fed only had one show. However, I think now would be the perfect time. Raw has gone to four hours and I think it'd be cool if a WZCW show went to "four hours" as well. The argument against having only one show may be that there's less time to build feuds but with having only one show, creative would need to really make the segments that involve our characters meaningful. Not saying that creative writes meaningless segments though, so don't put me on record saying that. Gives creative more time to work on shows as well. For all the good my arguments for WZCW having just one show can also be reasons as to why it's not a good idea.

But yeah, I just wanted to pose this question to you all and see what you think. Discuss away!

 

[NSL]

I think one show would be incredibly hard at this point. The roster is large enough that if we squeezed it into one, we'd get a lot of odd tag matches and triple threats, and hardly every any one on ones. Also, if every round is one show, what makes the PPVs special?

 

[Richard Blonoff]

When did Raw go to four hours? You're clearly drunk Jam, go home.

 

[Lee]

Another question to bump this thread.

What's better: three shows, two shows, or one show?

So we've seen WZCW when it had three shows in Meltdown, Ascension, and Aftershock and now, we're down to Meltdown and Ascension. But we've never been to the point where the fed only had one show. However, I think now would be the perfect time. Raw has gone to four hours and I think it'd be cool if a WZCW show went to "four hours" as well. The argument against having only one show may be that there's less time to build feuds but with having only one show, creative would need to really make the segments that involve our characters meaningful. Not saying that creative writes meaningless segments though, so don't put me on record saying that. Gives creative more time to work on shows as well. For all the good my arguments for WZCW having just one show can also be reasons as to why it's not a good idea.

But yeah, I just wanted to pose this question to you all and see what you think. Discuss away!

Yes we have.

 

[JamJam]

When did Raw go to four hours? You're clearly drunk Jam, go home.

You get what I mean! Now answer the damn question

 

[Ty Burna]

Another question to bump this thread.

What's better: three shows, two shows, or one show?

So we've seen WZCW when it had three shows in Meltdown, Ascension, and Aftershock and now, we're down to Meltdown and Ascension. But we've never been to the point where the fed only had one show. However, I think now would be the perfect time. Raw has gone to four hours and I think it'd be cool if a WZCW show went to "four hours" as well. The argument against having only one show may be that there's less time to build feuds but with having only one show, creative would need to really make the segments that involve our characters meaningful. Not saying that creative writes meaningless segments though, so don't put me on record saying that. Gives creative more time to work on shows as well. For all the good my arguments for WZCW having just one show can also be reasons as to why it's not a good idea.

But yeah, I just wanted to pose this question to you all and see what you think. Discuss away!

Fuuuuuuck no we shouldn't go to just one show. The only reason to ever go back down to just one show would be if our roster became that desolate, and we'd be in far more trouble than worrying about how many shows to put on.

You really don't have a good argument here other than basically having a PPV like show every single week at this point, and there's enough on the roster that it would cause a ton of multi man matches. It's why we created Aftershock in the first place so we didn't have to try and force everyone into the cards where they maybe didn't fit. You don't want to have 8-10 matches on a single show every week, and as it is right now you can use one show to focus on some feuds, and then the other to focus on the rest. Other feuds may require both shows for the build for that week. Going back down to one minimizes that flexibility for feuds, and the potential to further a storyline at a bit quicker pace. Otherwise if it's just one show a round, storylines that have been put together could stagnate when they would really benefit from a second show to add more content to it swiftly. With the shows being independent of each other sort of, it allows for an extended timeline if needed. Take this week, Fallout gets wrecked on Meltdown, and on Ascension Doe and Zeus are able to comment and further the angle hinting a replacement is soon. If we did that with just one show, the response and hinting of a 3rd member could not be done until next round, which would drag the storyline out further. Add in the fact that this is a short cycle with only two rounds before the PPV, you can't get much accomplished in that time frame for each feud as it is, but taking away the capability of stretching things over two shows per round would make it far worse.

Also if you want to use Raw as an argument for this, I would recommend against it. Because Raw being 3 hours long is a major issue on why it's sucked so bad as of late.

 

[Con T.]

Also if you want to use Raw as an argument for this, I would recommend against it. Because Raw being 3 hours long is a major issue on why it's sucked so bad as of late.

Sooo much this.

Also, something else that I would consider, as it pertains to this. Part of the reason Raw sucks so much is because WWE, on a weekly basis, is putting on five hours of first run content. And that's on a week they don't have PPVs. Factor in Main Event and Superstars, and you have the recipe for a burnt out writing team.

Now then, divide that writing team by four, because we work with seven writers typically writing the show. If you go to one show, I would expect the vast majority of the WZCW population is going to expect Meltdown to have the same timetable for a release. Which, of course, is going to make creative feel as though they need to push out the show to fill the deadline. Matches will get shorter, promos will get cut. The truth is, the show by and large would suffer.

 

[Dagger Dias]

What's better: three shows, two shows, or one show?

My thoughts on this.... the best format is two shows unless the roster becomes massive. Meltdown is our Raw which could be home to the Eurasian or Elite Openweight Champion while Ascension is our Smackdown which could be home to the other midcard champion. I'm talking of course the blue brand in WWE from before the brand extension ended, Ascension should never (and likely will never) be a Meltdown recap show with pointless rematches. The world title feud then should be featured on both shows and anyone else could compete anywhere. Should the need for it arise with a bigger roster, then bring back Aftershock to be like our NXT for the new guys to start out on. We are nearing the point where we could have Aftershock again with this roster size. Aftershock could also be used as our Pre-Show brand for PPV's if it returns, I believe this was done in the past.


Meltdown
Singles match 1
Singles match 2
Singles match 3
Tag Team Match 1


Ascension
Singles match 4
Singles match 5
Singles match 6
Tag Team Match 2


Aftershock
Singles match 7
Singles match 8
Singles match 9
Tag Team Match 3


This card requires a roster of 30. We have 14 faces and 16 heels if I remember correctly. If we get about 2 more characters who have handlers RP'ing each cycle, then I say try 3 shows again for a cycle to see if it works. If not, bump it back down to just the main 2. The format we are in right now works, although I would prefer to really only have one tag team match per brand per round myself. By the round after Apocalypse, I see Aftershock making a temporary return on the horizon.... Maybe it's just me though.

We should absolutely not go to one show. Others have already pointed this out. Shows like Ascension 100 and the PPV's are special because everyone comes together one one show for a super-show. If it was nothing but Meltdown every round then the shows would get delayed due to having to set up shows as long as a PPV every round. With two brands (or 3 later on) it spreads out the content so that you get two shows to enjoy, and the bigger shows retain that special feel. Now, back in the Unscripted cycle or so of this past year we were getting pretty small on the roster numbers. Back then would have been a valid discussion of temporarily doing only Meltdown. We were able to make it work though. It should never go down to only Meltdown unless the roster dwindles past the point of only needing one midcard title, and I hope we never get there. Discussing whether to bring back Aftershock or not is a much better problem to have than discussing whether to end Ascension or not.

2 shows is the best format for us now until we get a couple more guys, then back to 3 in my opinion.

 

[M]

Basically, with the roster the size it is now, I'd always prefer a promo heavy set of two shows, promos being anything creative can do to further story, character, show progression.
Stealing Dagger's format;

Meltdown
Promo 1
Promo 2
Promo 3
Singles match 1
Singles match 2
Singles match 3
Singles match 4
Tag Team Match 1



Ascension
Promo 4
Promo 5
Promo 6
Promo 7
Singles match 5
Singles match 6
Tag Team Match 2


It's very similar to what we have now, just putting another match on Meltdown and replacing it with another Ascension promo, which would probably make the shows feel a little longer but also give an extra emphasis on character. I liked how the past round did it.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Basically, with the roster the size it is now, I'd always prefer a promo heavy set of two shows, promos being anything creative can do to further story, character, show progression.
Stealing Dagger's format;

Meltdown
Promo 1
Promo 2
Promo 3
Singles match 1
Singles match 2
Singles match 3
Singles match 4
Tag Team Match 1



Ascension
Promo 4
Promo 5
Promo 6
Promo 7
Singles match 5
Singles match 6
Tag Team Match 2


It's very similar to what we have now, just putting another match on Meltdown and replacing it with another Ascension promo, which would probably make the shows feel a little longer but also give an extra emphasis on character. I liked how the past round did it.

I was referring to the number of matches to RP for in my listing, but yeah this pretty much. Promos are infinitely more important than matches. Without promos how do we know who to like within kayfabe? It's just like in real wrestling. Cheering for (character) "just because (poster) is his handler" isn't logical. The RP's and promos give us reason to support a character when it comes time for the big PPV match.