|
Post by Alex Schroeder on Nov 9, 2010 17:15:28 GMT -6
As I look back on reviews I wrote -- two and a half, not much! -- I find that I keep mentioning article length a lot. Now I'm curious. Do you like Fight On as it is, or would you find it more valuable if articles got pruned? How about an experiment: if you are contributing an article for the next issue and you'd like to see what it would read like if it where shorter, let me know. kensanata@gmail.com... I'll try my hands at pruning and editing your article and send it back for your consideration. Ideally you'd submit both articles and let Calithena choose. Thus, no hard feelings, and Cal has more options. And I'm putting my time where my mouth is.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Nov 9, 2010 21:22:24 GMT -6
I think length is irrelevant by itself. Some subjects lend themselves to a lengthy treatment, others are better served by brevity. I have no complaints regarding article length in Fight On
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Nov 9, 2010 21:27:44 GMT -6
A "Fight On!" article should be like a mini-skirt ...
Long enough to cover the subject, short enough to be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Nov 10, 2010 9:00:38 GMT -6
I am going to be a hardass about the 88 page thing from here on out. I love the fanzine and think we have lots of great contributors, I just think the oversize issues never turn out as well as I expect them to. Also easier to hit the quarterly deadlines at 88 pages.
Anyway, we'll keep 'em coming!
|
|
|
Post by kelvingreen on Nov 10, 2010 12:47:09 GMT -6
I submitted a One Page Something, so I don't know how much could be pruned!
I think the 88-page limit should be an unbreakable one. Leave the bigger books for Best of Fight On! type collections or somesuch.
While I'm sure there's a tendency to want to include everything that's been sent in, setting a limit means that what's left over can go into the next issue, so there's never a lack of content. As I understand it, there's no lack of content even with the bigger issues, but stockpiling for later is not a bad idea.
I say this as a fan of the magazine -- even though I barely use any of it, since I don't run any old-school games -- and as someone with no real editorial experience, so take it all with one of those big salt licks you leave outside for deer in the winter.
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Nov 10, 2010 13:29:28 GMT -6
We don't ever use everything we have. But I think the 88 page size is just right, and if it means some good stuff has to wait an issue or two to appear in our pages, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by kelvingreen on Nov 10, 2010 13:41:42 GMT -6
Oh yes, no criticism intended, and I'm sure I was stating the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Nov 10, 2010 21:38:55 GMT -6
I always try to stick to one page, myself...
;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Nov 11, 2010 3:01:54 GMT -6
I suppose I'm biased, since I wrote one of the 20-page articles. But... three supplement-sized articles in a single $10 magazine? Plus a half-dozen other scenarios/plug-in modules/one-page dungeons? Plus new rules, spells, classes, items, reviews, etc.?
Sh it, of all the targets out there ripe for fire - this is what brings down a volley? Some as sholes need to get out more...
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Nov 11, 2010 4:42:17 GMT -6
Your dungeon was awesome. I have to say, I think the value on issue 10 is sick unless you don't like larger adventures - I totally agree with your assessment.
And most of the feedback for the issue has been very positive. The 'volley' (other than some griping about the cover) has mostly been two similar mixed positive/negative reviews from two pretty prominent sources. We take their opinions into account, and then we fight on.
|
|
|
Post by stonetoflesh on Nov 11, 2010 19:07:07 GMT -6
The 'volley' (other than some griping about the cover) has mostly been two similar mixed positive/negative reviews from two pretty prominent sources. I thought the cover was pretty cool, and my wife really dug it -- so much that it actually prompted her to leaf through the entire issue!
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Nov 11, 2010 22:27:23 GMT -6
I haven't had a problem with a cover yet. What was wrong with this one?
|
|
|
Post by kabuki on Nov 12, 2010 3:35:32 GMT -6
Well guys, I've read as you did the reviews of Fight On!#10 and whatever they had to say about length, format and what not.
I'd like to point that, as far as publicity is concerned, any publicity is good and helpful, however negative. It's buzzing, and it's good news.
I would shun decisions taken upon the basis of such buzzes. If there's a need to cut, then why not, but if cutting just complies to reviews and rants, please don't. Editorial lines shouldn't depend upon flash information floods.
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Nov 12, 2010 6:28:22 GMT -6
No, I think the 88 page issues read better than the longer ones, and it is possible for me to do them in 3 months or less without sacrificing on line editing and stuff like that. I was convinced of this after issue 4 (5, 7, and 8 are all 88 page issues) but then I got a little soft.
Issue 10 would have been oversize no matter what because of the three great big setting/dungeons we got from Gabor, James, and Chris - all of those 'had to be done now' for various reasons and there was no way to do a full issue with all the other good stuff without going over. (And, I think that when you sit down with issue 10, it's a really good issue, by the way.)
But I am really going to try to make those exceptions as rare as possible.
By the way, you're right about buzz - between the reviews and the vets day sale about 40 copies of FO! sold yesterday off lulu.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Nov 12, 2010 22:25:51 GMT -6
Sweet! As long as the numbers stay up, you'll keep doing it! And I like that.
|
|