RPGnet Columns
08-05-2003, 12:56 PM
Post originally by Chad Underkoffler at 2003-08-05 11:56:19
Converted from Phorums BB System
Interesting analysis, Sandy.
A note, however -- when you say:
================================
This is a complete reversal of the usual model. Usually I, as a writer, only have to sell the editor with my pitch. By the time the gig is assigned, I'm already pretty much guaranteed pay, so I can write whatever I want. As long as what I wrote is good, the editor may re-hire me. And the resulting RPG book may sell because of numerous factors-- good art, popular topic, strong editing, famous publisher-- none of which are necessarily tied to the words they bought. My words have to be good, but a book with great words may sell worse than one with good words but strong production, marketing, or fan following.
In the Pyramid contest, though, I have to sell the readers on my finished product. The editor isn't even involved. He (Steven Marsh) isn't editing our works. He isn't assigning topics. All he did was choose 5 Writers. The readers read our stuff and vote on which ones didn't suck. Those that didn't suck get to keep writing (at 3 cents a word). Those that suck don't get any more work.
================================
Your experience is slightly different than mine; granted, the majority of my work has been generating Pyramid articles and columns, with a sideline UA and in contributions to SJ Games products. Plus, I've just written my first game, DEAD INSIDE, which is currently in layout.
In terms of articles, there's no query or pitch: I write the article, make it as well-crafted as I can, and send it in. The editor either accepts or rejects it. There may or may not be any editing after the acceptance. On Pyramid, I believe -- though I have no proof -- that the readers' ratings of an article may influence the evaluation of future pieces submitted.
In terms of my Campaign in a Box columns, there's no query or pitch: I write the column, make it as well-crafted as I can, and send it in. Steven has thus far accepted all of them. There's usually no editing except layout after the acceptance. In this case, the readers' ratings of two of my articles written in my desired column style had a direct effect on getting me the column: if they had done poorly in the ratings, I wouldn't have gotten the gig. And, I suspect that if my columns start tanking in the ratings, there's a chance I could get replaced.
In terms of submissions to UA or other game books, after getting past a few open calls (which operated much as the article process above), I've been told "here's what we want." I write the piece to the best of my ability and send it in. I may or may not be handed redlines back so as to revise. Usually, my text is then edited, sometimes significantly sometimes not at all, to match the creators' tastes as much as pure copyediting. My only feedback in these cases, really, is being asked to write again.
In terms of DEAD INSIDE, there's no one to submit to but the public. I've written and crafted to the best of my ability, and once the book is laid-out and edited (interesting take, here -- the editor in this case will be "working for me" in that it's a utterly pure copyedit/proofreading, not a content-focused edit), I'll let the book fly out of the nest on its own. The only feedback in this case will probably be fan/hate mail, joiners to the DI yahoogroup, and sales.
I see the audience and the effect of the quality of my words breaking out this way:
* Articles: Mostly editor, somewhat readers; quality influences future acceptances.
* Columns: Partially editor; partially readership; quality maintains current position.
* Submissions: Totally editor; quality influences future work opportunities.
* Self-created works: Totally readers; quality influences sales, especially future sales of item or later-created items.
(Oh, and btw, you got a 5 from me this week.)
CU
Converted from Phorums BB System
Interesting analysis, Sandy.
A note, however -- when you say:
================================
This is a complete reversal of the usual model. Usually I, as a writer, only have to sell the editor with my pitch. By the time the gig is assigned, I'm already pretty much guaranteed pay, so I can write whatever I want. As long as what I wrote is good, the editor may re-hire me. And the resulting RPG book may sell because of numerous factors-- good art, popular topic, strong editing, famous publisher-- none of which are necessarily tied to the words they bought. My words have to be good, but a book with great words may sell worse than one with good words but strong production, marketing, or fan following.
In the Pyramid contest, though, I have to sell the readers on my finished product. The editor isn't even involved. He (Steven Marsh) isn't editing our works. He isn't assigning topics. All he did was choose 5 Writers. The readers read our stuff and vote on which ones didn't suck. Those that didn't suck get to keep writing (at 3 cents a word). Those that suck don't get any more work.
================================
Your experience is slightly different than mine; granted, the majority of my work has been generating Pyramid articles and columns, with a sideline UA and in contributions to SJ Games products. Plus, I've just written my first game, DEAD INSIDE, which is currently in layout.
In terms of articles, there's no query or pitch: I write the article, make it as well-crafted as I can, and send it in. The editor either accepts or rejects it. There may or may not be any editing after the acceptance. On Pyramid, I believe -- though I have no proof -- that the readers' ratings of an article may influence the evaluation of future pieces submitted.
In terms of my Campaign in a Box columns, there's no query or pitch: I write the column, make it as well-crafted as I can, and send it in. Steven has thus far accepted all of them. There's usually no editing except layout after the acceptance. In this case, the readers' ratings of two of my articles written in my desired column style had a direct effect on getting me the column: if they had done poorly in the ratings, I wouldn't have gotten the gig. And, I suspect that if my columns start tanking in the ratings, there's a chance I could get replaced.
In terms of submissions to UA or other game books, after getting past a few open calls (which operated much as the article process above), I've been told "here's what we want." I write the piece to the best of my ability and send it in. I may or may not be handed redlines back so as to revise. Usually, my text is then edited, sometimes significantly sometimes not at all, to match the creators' tastes as much as pure copyediting. My only feedback in these cases, really, is being asked to write again.
In terms of DEAD INSIDE, there's no one to submit to but the public. I've written and crafted to the best of my ability, and once the book is laid-out and edited (interesting take, here -- the editor in this case will be "working for me" in that it's a utterly pure copyedit/proofreading, not a content-focused edit), I'll let the book fly out of the nest on its own. The only feedback in this case will probably be fan/hate mail, joiners to the DI yahoogroup, and sales.
I see the audience and the effect of the quality of my words breaking out this way:
* Articles: Mostly editor, somewhat readers; quality influences future acceptances.
* Columns: Partially editor; partially readership; quality maintains current position.
* Submissions: Totally editor; quality influences future work opportunities.
* Self-created works: Totally readers; quality influences sales, especially future sales of item or later-created items.
(Oh, and btw, you got a 5 from me this week.)
CU