| Welcome to JTF Squaretable. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| RP Criticisms - Past Feds, Titles, Events | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 20 2012, 08:27 PM (224 Views) | |
| Berger | Jan 20 2012, 08:27 PM Post #1 |
|
Wooooooo!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I apologize if I took this particular bit of criticism wrong from the Showcase thread, but - I have seen more complaints about "Oh, he brought up this fed or that fed and this title or that title and this that or the other and nobody here really cares about that stuff." There seems to be some kind of PVW stigma against mentioning past titles, accomplishments, feuds or anything that didn't happen in PVW. We all know where Tiegs went wrong and that isn't the kind of thing I'm talking about here. In one flash I mentioned that Manson was a UEW TV champion, and I believe I recall someone suggesting that that reference should have been left out. This Showcase TheotherJC suggested that the story Manson told about his IWS debut could have been more vague, shorter, and still gotten the point across... why? Maybe it's cus I had Manson say he was going to be succinct at the beginning. Maybe his opinion is that it just would have worked better if it was shorter, which is valid criticism. If that's the case, my bad - but - if its because it mentions something that did not occur within the confines of PVW... who cares? Personally I do not flinch when people mention anywhere else they may have been, or if they were the heavyweight champion here or there. These characters do not exist solely within the confines of PVW, they all have a past and its going to be brought up, why should it be censored if it involves something from somewhere else? Maybe I'm completely off base here, but what are your thoughts? Is this just a very vocal minority? Am I making up more instances of this occuring than there actually have been? |
![]() |
|
| Picky | Jan 20 2012, 08:55 PM Post #2 |
|
Now let us retreat wench, for tonight, we feast on snobbery...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree with the not mentioning other places when it pertains to lauding past accomplishments as a reason for success in a new place. When it comes to telling some background it can work. I think, though, Manson's could have been tightened up (the RP as a whole) and that without the super structure to support the RP as a whole, the mention becomes the most memorable part of the RP. |
|
Have I told you how much I loathe your continued existence today? Proud member of the Quote Pyramid Builders Union Local #317 | |
![]() |
|
| DCGMoo | Jan 20 2012, 11:32 PM Post #3 |
|
Disciple of Moo
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was one of the people who suggested the Manson RP from a few Showcases ago didn't need the UEW TV Title reference, though I don't think I was the most vocally opposed. So lemme share my thoughts. Like Picky, I don't think mentioning other feds and accomplishments from said feds should never be done. Providing background information, especially in times of feuds that carry over from other places (see also: Cole/Wallace, Wright/Dawson, etc), can be valuable in understanding the motivation for a feud. And bringing up titles won in other places can establish a character's ability, if done in the right context. My biggest problem with that particular past Manson RP (the one where the UEW TV Title was mentioned) was that it seemed to be the centerpiece to the promo. "I'm great because I won this title" isn't something that means much in PVW unless you're talking about a PVW title. Had Manson, for example, phrased how some part of his journey to win the UEW TV Title was comparable to something he needed to do to accomplish a PVW goal... I would have been far more agreeable to that. But, to me, it came across as more of "I won the title in UEW, so I can do it here too", which did nothing to further the character or the feud/angle that was in play at the time. I totally understand what it was attempting to pull off, but for me, that specific RP didn't accomplish what I think you were trying for. It left me seeing "OK, Manson was a former UEW Champion" as the lingering message from the promo. It's a very fine line to walk. Personally, I try hard not to walk it when I can, and I almost totally avoid specifically mentioning feds that a character has been a part of unless it directly affects a storyline (like when two characters from Fed A carry over their feud to Fed B). But I've also seen instances where characters can get away with specific fed dropping and make it work. That said... This week, I disagree with JC. I think you walked the line much better in the Manson piece on THIS Showcase. Uncle Frank asked Manson for an apology. Manson used an example from his past to explain why said apology wasn't going to be given, and it did a decent job of developing Manson's character and furthering Manson/Frank. Manson never apologizes for anything, he hasn't since his career started... and he isn't about to start now. That message is stronger in my mind than the specific IWS mention was. I do agree with Pick that some refinement could have been used. Things like the mention of Regnigh and Pillow being there were totally unnecessary and did nothing for your point... I would have struck that entire sentence, and maybe the one before it about not looking up the place. Frankly, even mentioning IWS specifically wasn't needed, as you could have just gone with "The first promotion I ever worked in..." or "When I was a rookie just starting out in this business...", but I don't think the fed dropping in this promo hurt anything. Like I said, it's a tough line to walk. I think the past UEW promo didn't walk it so well, but I think this one came off better (and had planned to say just that in my Moo Review). So I wouldn't worry too much about this one. At least, that's my two cents. Or hell, after that many words typed, two dollars.
|
| Working on new characters you didn't see a decade ago. Honest. | |
![]() |
|
| Picky | Jan 21 2012, 12:11 AM Post #4 |
|
Now let us retreat wench, for tonight, we feast on snobbery...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So where is your moo review? |
|
Have I told you how much I loathe your continued existence today? Proud member of the Quote Pyramid Builders Union Local #317 | |
![]() |
|
| El Dandy | Jan 21 2012, 12:19 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Is the She of the fight!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The topic is very subjective. I agree with Jerrod, name dropping feds and title reigns to prove a "I made it there, so I can make it in PVW" isn't needed. It's useless and was quite a common tactic in the competitive days of this circle. If two characters are feuding and have a history, I do want to know the history. I didn't compete in every fed. I want to understand what the motivation is for each character and what's a stake in the feud. That will build my interest and have me reading RPs, angles, and matches until the whole thing is done. There is too much information. Does every promotion need to be mentioned by name? Do belts involved need to be mentioned? How much information do you want to pass along? I really liked the Detson/Johnstone piece from Heatwave. I never read WWO. It gave me insight into the relationship between Detson and Johnstone. That bit of of history elevated my interest in Detson chasing Gibson for the top belt. I'll toot my own horn since JC (thanks for the props!) got sucked into the Legacy promo this week. I knew after the Wallace/Cole, I wanted to explain that history. Doran, I think, said the history between the two didn't need to be explained. I decided to take the quick and dirty route and hit the high points because no one would've known the feds all this stuff happened in, AWMC aside. I think what sold it was it was Tommy relaying the story to Sterling about the Wallace/Cole history. Well... that's up to everyone else. Yeah, it's a fine line to walk. If you're not sure, ask Picky. If he shitcans the idea, then don't go with it. |
![]() |
|
| Berger | Jan 21 2012, 02:29 AM Post #6 |
|
Wooooooo!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok, I see what everyone here is saying, I get it now. Much like lots of other things, if done, it needs to be done right. That being said, whenever I have had Manson bring up a past fed or title I never intended it to become the centerpiece of the Rp, and likened it more to talking about how Kurt angle was an olympic gold medalist or if someone in the NFL was touted as having won the Heisman trophy. I can see Jerrod's point about the IWS stuff. I didn't even think about the mention of it. It just kind of organically happened.
I've been in E-W since 96, but the feds that I spent most of my time in were IWS (Which was an AOL fed), UEW, and now PVW. there were other feds in there but they didn't last and I wasn't big in the e-w circle on RSPWF or anywhere else aside from talking on AIM or IRC with other UEW handlers. So the name dropping thing during the competetive years was not something I was exposed to personally, but I can see where it may not be the favorite thing of people who were there at that time. This has been educational. I hope this didn't come off as me being defensive, as I used myself as the example. I was genuninely curious about why there seemed to be such criticism around things like this. I'll be a little more critical of my own editing in the future. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · PVW · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




7:22 PM Jul 10