The Super-Protagonist

I meant to write this post weeks earlier, when I first saw The Hunger Games. While this is not a movie review, I have two points to make, the second being the topic I want to discuss today.

I. Shaky cam does not equal action or intensity. Now maybe this is a sign that I'm getting older, or proof that I spent too many afternoons too close to speakers cranked up too high and it screwed with my inner ear, but movies lately make me dizzy. When did people take every opportunity to jiggle, wobble and rattle the camera around during even the most benign scenes to give the audience a sense of "hey something's going on and you should pay attention!"  The problem is, when the camera's having a seizure, it's hard to pay attention.

Maybe it's those damn kids, and their attention spans being smashed down to fractions of a second, maybe it's because we all secretly enjoy a good jostle now and then, I have no idea....but I look at a lot of older action films (even stuff from 5 years ago) and the camera doesn't look like it's being held by a monkey going through meth withdrawal.

It's hard to convey intensity and "grr" when the camera bobs drunkenly along. If the action is supposed to rivet our eyes, why not lock in on it? If we're to invest in the anguish of a character, why not get us in a tight close-up?

And while that aggravates me, it's not why I started writing this post.

II. The Super-Protagonist is not as compelling as you think. What's a Super-Protagonist? That's a protagonist that isn't challenged by the situation they're in, but they say they are, and you sort of have to take their word for it.

Wait, John, are you saying Katniss Everdeen isn't challenged by the situation she's in? In the book, she totally says she is. And in the movie, it totally looks like she is. 

If I say I have trouble opening a soda, but you see me drinking a soda, how much trouble did I really experience? You took my word for it. I told you rather than showed you that I had a problem.

Yes, it's the old show-versus-tell problem again, this time in a new minty flavor. Let's break this down.

What defines a Super-Protagonist?
Main characters are supposed to experience trouble and difficulty along their path through the plot. It's supposed to be a challenge to them, to inspire/force/require them to change states from however they were at the beginning of the story to however they're meant to be at the end. A Super-Protagonist coasts through the challenge, sure they get a scrape or a bruise here or there to prove their humanity or mortality or their toughness, but in the overall scheme of things, it's a scrape versus being beaten and bedraggled and really limping toward the finish line.

And that's Katniss?
Totally.

But does that mean you expect or want all characters to just barely scrape by?
No. I don't want all characters to just barely scrape by. I'm not asking for the global difficulty level of books to get jacked up to 'Hardcore' or 'Insane' mode, I'm just asking that the challenges be modulated for the character. Big, strong, smart, capable character? Then break out the big, powerful, brilliant, creative problems.

But...Katniss is a YA heroine and a model for girls, etc etc? Is this a sexist thing?
This has NOTHING to do with the gender of the character or the range of the readability of the book or the genre or anything like that. This has to do with the core ends of storytelling, and the ability of an author to imperil their characters appropriately, whoever they might be.

So the idea that Katniss has to leave her home, kill others and survive isn't dangerous?
Um, no. It's not.

Wha?
Well you see, Katniss is a hunter (or as I identified her, a 1st-level Ranger). So outdoor survival isn't a new skill for her. And it's not that she's set up to be a killer, she's far more interested in self-preservation than in an active killing spree (besides, that's for the badguys to do to prove that they're bad, because, like, murder is totes bad), so she's not really out of her element.

But she sacrifices herself to save her sister....
It's only sacrifice if she dies. Else she risks herself, and as I just said, sticking her in the woods, where she's far more comfortable than when she's ever anywhere else (this is really clubbed over our head in the movie), that's not a risk. It's sort of like asking me to risk myself by going and sitting in my house with a stack of books, my Xbox and an internet connection.

But it's noble.....
No it's not. She's a great character, she's driven, talented, capable and powerful, but we can't see the full breadth of her potential because she's not out of her natural element. She's not challenged by the environment or the situation once the Game starts...her challenge came before she reached the woods, when she was back in the City and had to deal with the Game set up. But the book wasn't about Katniss-in-the-City, this was about Katniss-being-Katniss, doing-Katniss-things-that-just-happen-to-be-the-things-she's-good-at-already. Ho hum.

So how is she Super, exactly?
Okay I'll spell it out:

i. Her "struggle" occurs in her native environment.
ii. It's repeatedly made clear that she'll have access to her preferred weapon/tool.
iii. It's repeatedly said by other characters that she has a good/great/the best chance of surviving.
iv. Her knowledge (something unknown to other people, but something she acquired being herself) of berries sets up the conclusion. This wasn't knowledge she learned during THIS struggle, this was knowledge she came in with.
v. Even when she is out of her element, she's put into situations where she is clearly superior to others (she gets the Penthouse, she receives the most oohs and ahhs from the audience while interviewed, she makes the most striking impression).
vi. She says rather emphatically "she's not scared", when fear would be a natural reaction to oh-now-I-have-to-kill-23-teenagers-on-tv-and-not-die-trying.

But how is that a bad thing? I liked the series!
It's not a "bad" thing. The book/thought/movie police aren't going to come to your house and take away your ability to enjoy the experience, I'm just saying that writers need to be careful not to let themselves get drunk on the brew of their own protagonists.

Are you talking about character balance?
Partially, yes. But it goes deeper than that. This isn't just about making sure there's a flaw to counteract every positive you grant the character.

It's okay, I've given my super-smart, strong, attractive lead character a horrific mental disorder and/or drug addiction! Problem solved, right?
No....that's sort of exactly the problem.

Imagine a scale from -10 to +10. The character starts at 0, the center, and when you list the positive abilities or attributes, you move the character positively up the scale.

0 ---------> +4 

(for example)

And every time you give your character a flaw or a drawback or a hindrance or penalize them in some way, you slide that character back negatively so the overall effect is a dramatically lower state -

-8 <--------- +4 

(still with me?)

Which has the added complication of meaning you have to overcome that negative state when the story climaxes to prove the character positive overall

-8 ---------> + X 

(because you want your character to succeed and end on an up-note)

Now the tendency here is say, 'Oh but my character is so awesome, she's no longer believable, so I'll offset these mega bonuses with a super huge negative!' So that your sporty, independent, intelligent, outspoken, attractive female star now has cooties, agoraphobia and....really bad cramps or something.

Look: You don't have to swing the pendulum that far back to offset the positives. You don't need to -7 the character just to make us like them. We'll like the character for the SUM of the positives and negatives, but that means you have to show us both sides and trust us to make our own decisions.

Wait, what do I have to do?
You (the author) have to trust us (the readers) to make up our own minds about your character(s) after you present us the character(s).

But what if I want to hold something back from the reader for later?
If that "something" is skill or knowledge or something, be careful, it may come across as convenient (i.e. Your character knows just the right fact about a shoe print). If that "something is backstory, be careful, because it may change the way some readers respond to the character. (i.e. We finally learn the reason Character Bro is a douchebag, and it's different than our opinions, therefore we will make hyperbolic statements on the interwebs and rage at you!!)

I'm not saying that every story needs to spell out EVERY facet of a character for the reader. You, author, can pick and choose what you want to say and how you want to say it, but I'm cautioning you that the idea of "sum to date" (what the reader knows at whatever their relative "present" moment is) is how they judge the character - and it can be unfair to ask them to wait for stories down the road to hold off on passing judgement, especially if you spend a lot of the story cementing an idea that this character is pretty much an unstoppable force in your created universe.

But, I want the readers to love this character!
Yes, we all want that. We all want readers to love our characters, but we'll love them all the more when we see them pushed to their limits, overcome obstacles we didn't know they could and take on bigger odds to make themselves more heroic.

If you play it safe with your character, you're doing us a disservice as readers (we won't get to know the character fully) and you're doing a disservice to yourself (you're not testing yourself as best you can as a writer). If you think your character is so original and so "out of the box", ask yourself how big the box is. And how much of that box does the reader know about at any given time.

But I'm scared. What if I suck? Or fail or get it wrong?
That's sort of what makes writing hard, but worthwhile. If you do it everyday, if you commit to it, you'll get better at it. That's about the best I can tell you without getting all ranty or raining on your parade.

What can I learn from Katniss as a character?
Well, a lot, if you like physically strong and capable female protagonists with a skillset and mindset to overcome obstacles. Slightly less if you want to use her for an intelligence study (there are characters in other books admittedly older, more experienced and smarter), and slightly less than that if you want to use her for an emotional study (there are characters who experience and demonstrate a wider swath of emotions more intensely and more visibly and more acutely). But you'll get far more if you learn the pitfalls.

I. Risk includes taking the character out of their comfort zone. Like all the way out. Nero Wolfe left the brownstone (under protest, but he did); Sherlock Holmes (especially in the modern version) struggled more with people than casework; Captain America was a paragon in the 1940s, but lost in a sea of individualism in the modern era.

II. Your character does not need to be nearly flawless to be liked. Katniss has "a voice birds go silent to hear" and "a beauty enhanced by what's inside". Those are pretty high watermarks for a character. You don't need to be the best ever just to be liked (it comes off desperate and fearful on the part of the author when you've made characters that are too perfect).

III. Your character does not need to be mega-super-flawed to be realistic. You don't need to take that super skilled character and give them crippling Asperger's. Nor do you need to make them the angstiest-girl-in-high-school-like-OMG-why-won't-Edward-like-notice-me. Remember the number line, you don't need the character to 'zero' out. You need the character just end up positive if you want a positive ending, or negative if you want a negative ending.

IV. When in doubt, SHOW us the situation and SHOW us the character's responses and reactions, rather than tell us what they're thinking. Let the reader draw their own conclusions (which you can't control anyway), and stop dictating to us what 'we're supposed to think/feel' even if you're worried about us 'getting it right'. Paint for us the picture, and we'll 'get it', but yes, that means you (author) have to do some work and demonstrate your skill and your craft. Sorry, them's the tradeoff.

Anything else?
Yeah, when you make the movie version of your book, stop shaking the damned camera.

Writing/Gaming - New Faces, Same World

Good morning everyone.

Today's suggested blog topic comes from Jeremy Morgan, and for his suggestion, he gets my endless thanks, since he suggested the following topic:

 Inventing an interesting character in an existing setting. Writers working with canon and players doing backstory

Now before I get started on this, I need to disclaim something, just for the sake of balance and fairness.


I am not a fan of fan-fiction. I find it sort of like writing with training wheels on, because the person who wants to be a writer is playing around with other people's established pieces, moving them in different ways that may entirely be contrary to how the writer wanted things to play out. When this happens (I'm looking at you, shippers), you're basically lamenting that things didn't work out the way you wanted, so you're going to make it happen your way.


Here's the fundamental issue with that - you're not the original author. And that means a lot of things. You may lack the author's particular talent for stringing words together, you may lack knowledge the author has held back, you may even lack the necessary skill to write effectively and evocatively. But, you say, I make up for it by finally making sure that protagonist gets a kiss from the female sidekick. 


There's something to be said for having that tension and not paying it off. Tension aside, if you're taking characters and exploring space just as an exercise to write sexual words and images (I had no idea that so many characters from my beloved TV shows were into intense BDSM, by the way), then go masturbate or have some sex or something - you don't need to express YOUR urges through someone else's characters. 


As for creating backstory, again, I point to the very large truth that "Those aren't your characters" and "Sometimes, you're better off not knowing." Yes I get it, you feel this insatiable drive to know what happened during The Great Hiatus, or in the years before the Battle of Yavin, or just after the Verse finds out about Reavers....but that's not your sandbox. You have literally your choice of any other sandbox of your own design, you don't need to play it so safe by rocking out with that other guy's shovel and bucket. 

Okay, maybe yes, you can tell a better story than the prequels. But that's for another day. I've said my thing, let's talk how this gets done.

Gamers, you're going first.

Tables Are Freedom

Look, I don't know if you know this, but for the most part, we're not all gathered around your game table with your group whenever it is you play. You don't have to justify, rationalize or explain why you've elected to hack the Care Bears into Pathfinder or why you've bodged Operation Dumbo Drop with Risk Legacy and Settlers of Cattan.You did that, some of us won't get it, but you did it for your group for your reasons. Awesome. If people have a good time, more power to you.

To hack a game, you have to declare the constants, and give yourself a framework of what you're going to operate within. Maybe you'll take the time period from this game, the character creation system of that game and add the.....combat system from that third game. The beauty of this is that so long as you don't get the lofty idea that you can sell this idea and don't want to contend with the legal headaches, you're free and clear to do so.

There's just something about games that lends them to deconstruction for the sake of enjoyment. I think that's a conceit that writing doesn't have.

Now writers, let's get more critical.

The 4-Hack

Writers, here's my quick and dirty hacking trick. There are four main things you can change in a story:
* Characters
* Location
* Plot
* Time

Characters' traits can be changed. Where the story takes place can be changed. How the story proceeds can be changed. When the story occurs can be changed.

Here's the trick - if you change 1, the other 3 remain the same. If you change 2, the other 2 not only remain the same, but become reinforced. Don't change more than 2 if you want to consider keeping to whatever source material you have.

Let's look at some examples:

Hound of the Baskervilles (it's on my shelf)
Characters -- Holmes and Watson
Location -- The Moors
Plot -- There's a ghost dog and dead bodies
Time -- The Victorian Era

If we change the time and plot, we get the BBC's Sherlock. If we change the Location and the Time, it's practically indistinguishable from any other mystery pastiche.


Hamlet
Characters - Hamlet, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern
Location - Danish Castle
Plot - Hamlet's dad is dead, his mother's a tart and he's a sad panda
Time - Ye Olde Times

Most often the Time gets changed, usually to something more modern. Occasionally this also means the location changes, often to a city like Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles or New York.

Now Jeremy's question though asks not about using existing characters, but creating his own within someone else's canon.

Character creation in fiction, Jeremy, happens the same way whether we're dropping that character into a world of our own design, or a world you snagged from someone else, but there are red flags.

1. If your character is better defined than the native characters, you're going to encounter dissonance and static from within the world, and the character is going to feel out of place and limited. -- Imagine Han Solo in....GI Joe. Or Indiana Jones in....the Teletubbies. Yes, I'm using extremist examples, but I'm hoping that it makes the point clear -- if one character is more/better defined than those around them, the others either feel flat or the defined character feels ostracized, put off and out of place (if you're going for a one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other vibe, then this might be the best road to take)

2. If you character's motivations exists outside the scope of the world's offerings, that character is going to feel out of place. Remember the Transformers cartoon, how they all wanted Energon cubes, and everybody knew it? Remember the Transformers movie where they...didn't want that, but suddenly everyone was just cool with sentient vehicle-aliens (who happen to look like Earth vehicles, which no one questioned)? For a character to pursue something that a world might not offer, you get a fish out of water (see....the most recent Thor or Captain America). The challenge there is to reconcile that desire and modify the character accordingly.

3. If the character is too insular, or too internally motivated, there's not as much room for growth as you think. Let's imagine you're making a miser.......Scrooge, for instance. If you look at Scrooge, and you identify the flaw "greed", then his only logical arc (the only way to grow the character) is along that 'greed' track. It would make very little sense for Scrooge to suddenly develop a need for thrills or crime-solving while he was being altruistic. Wrapping a character too tightly around one idea means that before you can introduce other concepts, you have to get loose from that first tether.

With canon as a timeline, you're hemming yourself into a chronology. If I want to tell a story about what occurs between Temple of Doom and Raiders of the Lost Ark, I am held to operating within those years.

And, on a side note, operating within that world and that time as well. It's the mid-1930s, Indy isn't about to Google up the info on some lost city, nor is he going to make dinner reservations via Open Table....

The Rules

Rule 1 - Understand that accepting a chronology may also mean you accept a location and all the mechanics/knowledge of that era (see above)
Rule 2- Understand that accepting a chronology and canon gives you fixed points (don't get all snippy with me Doctor Who fans, you know what I'm trying to say here), between which you operate. - So that story of what happens to Greg Smith, Harry Potter's unmentioned friend, can't too radically intersect with the events of Goblet of Fire...because Greg Smith isn't in Goblet of Fire.
Rule 3 - Understand that because of those fixed points, it is unrealistic and impractical to make radical changes to existing characters - let's say you want to give Luke Skywalker more lightsabers before Empire Strikes Back: Is he going to just lose them when the movie starts, or worse, forget that he even had them?

So Jeremy, your short answer is - it depends on how closely you want to hold onto canon and how much respect you want to pay it. If it's just a template, something to put a flavor in your mouth so you can create something new, that's okay, but at that point, you might as well develop your own thing entirely. If you hoist it up on the pedestal, then treat it with care, because someone worked really hard on it (unless you're going to redo the Star Wars prequels, at which point, go nuts) and they deserve some kudos.

Hope that helps.

Happy writing.

Writing/Gaming - Roles!

So somewhere on the internet right now, a lot of people are very very upset about the loss of "roles" as a component to the next edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

Oh right....yeah...disclaimer time....


DISCLAIMER! This post is going to start off a little nerdy, but I promise you, it'll get back on track shortly, just ride the dork-wave back to shore. 

Now in the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, there are these things called "roles", which were card-based pieces of organizational material that helped players figure out what their characters could and couldn't do. (Yes, gamers, I'm way simplifying that for the reading audience, but today's post isn't ALL about gaming.)

And that is a terrible idea.

Your Character Is Not A Note Card
Let's try an experiment. Go get your favorite book and go get a note card. If you really want to, go get the HUGE note card that your grandmother used to keep track of what pies she had to make for which social event, you know, those big huge ones that are practically half a page unto themselves.

Now, label the note card with the name of the book's protagonist, or your favorite character or the antagonist or whatever - just write down a character's name. And then all over that note card, I want you to write down all the relevant NOT-BIOGRAPHICAL facts about the character. This isn't a space for a history of their life, this is where you can write down a list of their attributes and qualities, write down their skills and what makes them awesome, write down any relevant story actions (like "saved a cat out of a tree" or "totally defeated the bad guy in Book 2").

It doesn't have to be pretty, it just has to be a list. Here, I'll do one too with the first thing I grab off the shelf -- The Complete Third Season of Night Court (what, you guys don't have DVDs on a shelf in your office?) And from that cast of characters (which I own strictly for research purposes, I swear), let's look at Harry Anderson's character of Judge Harry Stone.

Judge Harry Stone

He's a Judge

Comedic

Caring

Tall

Likes magic

Only child, broken family

Unlucky in love

That list has left my indie-gaming-senses tingling, because from that list (which I know is totally incomplete), I can generate a lot of Aspects (FATE), points (GUMSHOE) and verbs (Technoir).

But by no means did that list of seven lines sum up the character that is Harry Stone. And at no time should anyone think that a well-defined character can be completed summarized by half a note card. Yes, sure, we can do our best to find the right words that cover the most real estate of who the character is and what they stand for, but at some point, we cross a threshold of who they are and what they do.

You Are Not Your Khaki Pants
One of my great peeves in writing and gaming is that people have characters and define them by what they do. "Oh, he's a wizard, so he's some sort of Gandalf clone with a great sagely beard and staff." or "He's a detective, so he has to be a boozy, plodding womanizer."

This is where roles are more harm than good.

There's nothing wrong in summing up what a character CAN do in a few words or sentences - it's nice and helps other characters know how best to coordinate and collaborate. But there is a difference between "can" and "only".

If you've got a character with one particular skill, let's say they're the best chef in the county, are you only going to put them in situations where cooking is what gives them an edge? How many times are you going to imperil them with a mega-dangerous chili cook-off?

Just because a character has a go-to skill, it doesn't mean they have ONLY that skill. Come back a minute to the best chef in the county. Sure, they make a mean lunch, but cooking also means they know how to boil water, work a knife and prepare lots of different dishes. "Cooking" is a broad term for a whole suite of skills.

So too must the role of the character be bigger than their best or strongest skill and attribute. It's that fixed thinking that they're all one-trick ponies that developed the great cliches and tropes of our time:

Barbarians are stupid, fur-wearing, berserker thugs.
Blondes are stupid.
Women are secondary citizens, good only for birthing babies
Librarians are dotty old ladies.
No McFly ever amounted to anything in the history of Hill Valley.
Clerics are just walking first aid kits.
All detectives need to have a drinking problem
Brown-skinned people are property and inferior.
Every cop is either on the take, or they're the only good cop in a world gone bad.
Wearing a hoodie makes you a criminal.
To work in a cafeteria, you must have at least three moles with hair on them.
Bad guys will always tell you their plan just before leaving you cornered in an easily-escaped trap

When crafting a character, it is paramount that you get away from these thoughts and craft a character that exists OUTSIDE of these structures, not in defiance of them (because a defiance-built character is just a one-trick pony in the opposite direction).

So What Is My Role?
Gamers, your role is to participate at the table. Gamers, your character's role is to make the game enjoyable for the people to your left and right.

Writers, your role is to produce the best story possible and practice your craft to the best of your ability.

That's it. No pigeon-holing. No limitations. No restrictions based on personality, preference, or philosophy.

Gamers: Don't let your characters be pigeon-holed by anyone, anything or any arbitrary or capricious sentiment. Note: This is NOT permission to act bat-squeak insane all the time, but this is a permission slip and big thumbs-up to acting how the character would, based on philosophy, desires and interests.

Writers: Don't let the characters lapse from your creations into the commonplace templates of your literary forebears. Let them stand out, in their own ways, as you intended.

And with that definition of 'role' in use, that can never be taken out of a game. (Just like it never should have been adjudicated in the first place.)

Happy writing.

Writing/Gaming - Plot, Choice, & Characters

Over the weekend, I read a rather disappointing book about how to plot stories (I'm always looking for new theory and new ideas to incorporate into meetings, workshops, seminars and client opportunities), which I'm about to go give a one-star review to on Amazon, because not only did it take three chapters for the book to actually talk about HOW to plot something, but it's basic premise is one I completely disagree with:

"Plot is how the events in a story directly impact the main character."

Danger Will Robinson, danger. This way lies madness. Don't buy it. 

Here's what Plot is:
Plot is conflict.
Plot is the problem that causes the character to change (positively or negatively). 
Plot is the evolution of a premise (and premise is the thing that brought people to the story in the first place)

Here's what Plot isn't:
Plot IS NOT a series of impacts on a single character. (Plot has consequences far and wide, even if you're writing about a single character adrift in space)
Plot IS NOT the result of events happening (Plot is far too contiguous, interconnected and interdependent to just be a hodge-podge of "Oh by the way this happened")
Plot IS NOT passive. (Plot is a very active response to a changing (or possibly changing) environment)

What Plot boils down to is a choice in the face of a test. 


Plot answers the question -- "When this problem (we'll call it X) occurs in a created world, how does the world respond, in ways large and small?"

To this thinking, plot could be on the small scale: the bully in the classroom or it could go large scale: the appearance of malevolent aliens coming to enslave mankind through smartphone apps....or something.

But there's a problem, and like the song says, yo, I'll solve it. The "I" in this case are the characters, not just the singular (or possibly titular) protagonist but the whole cast of characters - everyone from the sidekick to the doubters to the assistants to the random people who inject realism in flavor-text paragraphs.

Gamers, I'm looking at you here - Plot is why you've got people around your table. What are they doing? How will they respond? Why are they compelled to act in this way or that? How loosely or closely you play potentiality, that is to say how much leeway you give your players, directly ties to the strength of your plot and the potential of that plot.

If it's a closed loop, or you're working on a small scale, then the plot's pretty linear -- the party assembles and puts a righteous hurting on the badguy of the week. A wider view shows the problem isn't just held to one instance of a certain badguy, or that taking out this baddie reveals a power vacuum that other nasties will rush to fill. The point here is -- think of the plot's consequences, both good and bad, and then see if the plot needs tweaks. And try for narrative options, rather than narrative solutions -- the players should be the ones patching the holes, not the NPCs.


Writers, this one's for you -- The resolution of the plot WILL/CAN/SHOULD change characters, for better of worse. The problem might be one of internal struggle, or physical injury or whatever (I am loathe to name options here, lest I suggest there can only be certain kinds of plots).

Yes the above quote that started this rant has implications that suggest we're going to find out what the consequences of decisions are, but that's not the plot. The plot is a freight train that intersects all the paths of all the characters - the injuries and damage of collisions isn't the plot, that's the consequence of plot.

The plot IS the decision AND the reactions, not just the impact. The proverbial explosion had to get there somehow, and that's part of the story.

When in doubt, give the characters/players/actors/participants choice, and trust their decisions (which is made easier if you've given them a core philosophy) to let them show you how they're responding (yes, it's an active process) to the challenge of the plot.

Note: I feel like this post got away from me, I may revisit this idea later in the week.

Happy writing.

Writing Theory - The Circle

Today, we focus on some writing theory. You may have seen this elsewhere, or seen it in pieces, but I rather like this method (it is not my own), and thought some of you could benefit from it.

For this, you'll need:

• 1 legal pad (or blank piece of paper)
• 1 pen
• 1 name for a character 

Now, draw a circle on the paper.

Now draw a plus sign in the circle, to create four quarters. (Divide the circle in half vertically then in half again horizontally)

Now number the ends of the plus with 1, 3, 5, and 7

In the middle of the quarters, number 2, 4, 6, and 8

It should, basically, look like this:

This is a cycle, and we're going to go through the numbers clockwise. By the time we're done, you're going to have a  good idea about the development of your story.

Note: This applies to all kinds of fiction - from screenplays to novels to big epics to cave paintings - anything where you have a character and a mission to do something.  

Let's get started.

1.CHARACTER

 You're going to start this off with a character. I like to use protagonists for this, but it's also possible you use an antagonist for this, depending on your tone or your objective. You want to stay away from using secondary characters here, because they don't really need so much attention. 

The character starts at the top of this chart as we find them at the beginning of the story. Understand that the state we have the character at Position 1 is NOT going to be the state we find them in after Position 8. 

Also understand that if you go through this wheel several times (say it's one character over a series of books), that each Position 1 is relative to the start of the respective book, and it's not always going to be the stripped down Book-1 version. 

2.NEED (AS EXPRESSED IN PLOT)

This is the conflict or problem the story has put forth to challenge the character. This isn't so much their internal desire, this is more like the plot of the book. For those people writing series, try and keep this to one book at a time -- being too broad here really waters down the efficacy of the subsequent numbers. 

If your story has twists or big reveals in it, then Position 2 is where you document the most complete and most knowledgeable plot of the book -- after all the twists, after all the misdirects, whatever the challenge is, goes here.

So, for something like The Usual Suspects, the plot isn't so much "To let Kevin Spacey get away with it", it's to "have the detective/audience understand what happened" 

For something more linear, like Donkey Kong, it's "To have Mario rescue his girlfriend (Who wasn't Peach) from a gorilla."

3.GO (TO THE UNFAMILIAR) 

It doesn't have to be literal, this isn't quite Campbell's overdone Hero's Journey, but the idea here is that you take the character and put them in an environment/situation that they're not used to. An environment/situation different than what they're used to from Position 1, and as we learned about in Character 101, this should be  filled with challenges big and small for the character. 

The comedic route is to make this an issue of extremes - the milquetoast suburbanite in the ghetto, the rugged outdoorsman in the big city, the disconnected pair of lovers in the wilderness, that sort of fish-out-of-water element plays well comically provided you stretch it far. 

In more serious work, this represents a larger context for the character - the character leaving their familiar confines for new and larger surroundings. It provides a sense of expansion and intimidation, while also offering hope that along with the challenges come rewards. 

4.SEARCH 

Here, the character is going to struggle. Not to their lowest point of their progression, hope isn't entirely vacant here, but they will be tested. They will have to adapt to the new environment, and initially that process won't be comfortable. Over time though, they'll become more comfortable and more accustomed to the new environment so that they can expand their comfort level and possibly develop satisfaction in themselves for obtaining new skills.  

Position 4 is about the act of the quest, the progression from starting-point to further-along-point and the improvement of the character along the way. This is NOT about the specific item or knowledge that will make them better, because...

5.FIND/DISCOVER 

Position 5 is all about the item or knowledge they need to improve. For the stranded castaway, it's the making of fire. For the nervous lawyer in court, it's the discovery of the witness or a legal precedent that will change the tide in their favor. 

Critical here though is the idea this: In Position 4, they didn't know the "thing" existed, in Position 5 they find out it exists and....

6.TAKE 

In position 6, the hero goes and gets it. He makes fire, she finds the legal precedent, the boy pulls the sword out of the rock. Ideally, Position 6 is made possible because of the confidence gained in Position 4 and the character benefits from the knowledge or awareness in Position 5. This is a pretty "hooray" moment for the character, and can very easily be the climax of the whole story if you wanted it to be, but often this can just be a moment of hooray on the path of the story. 

In RPGs, this is the item gained in a dungeon crawl, or the loot from a boss fight. 

7.RETURN 

The character is confident (Position 4), aware (Position 5) and armed (Position 6), and now they can go back to the environment (Position 3) and complete the plot (Position 2).

Like Orpheus, this is the character's emergence from the trials thus far back to the environment he calls home. In some stories, this means they'll go all the way to the village he was kicked out of or they'll just go back to their "newer" home because they've matured/grown/developed independence from their old ways, and possibly can't go back (either metaphorically or literally).

This can be a whole part of the story, like a return to areas previously thought dangerous now made easier because of equipment and experience gained, or it can be as simple as transitioning the story back to the bigger world. 

8.CHANGE. 

Lastly, the character is able to take on the plot, and (depending on how you want it to play out) possibly succeed. To reach this point, you had to go through all the preparation of previous positions (alliteration!). Without the equipment/knowledge acquired in Position 6, without the struggles and adaptation to a tougher environment of Position 4, they wouldn't be as ready to take on the plot as they first heard about it back in Position 2.

How would Harry defeat Voldemort without any of the knowledge from the middle of the series? (Sure you can argue that all he needed was 'Expelliarmus' and Horcrux knowledge, but he had to gain those at some point.)

How would Indiana Jones be able to find the Grail without going through the harsh lessons of his youth? 

How would James Bond be able to defeat...whoever he defeated if he didn't have the invisible car? (Seriously, dude had an invisible car...and fought someone on a glacier or something. I kinda blanked on some of the Brosnan films)

The point here is that the character has come full circle in some senses, but is on a whole new circle as well. Yes, there's the plot to contend with still, but there's also a visible set of benefits and consequences gained from previous actions. The character has matured, our understanding and appreciation of them has deepened and the story can move forward, through the plot and into resolution. Or even into subsequent stories, if you want to repeat the cycle with a whole new plot, and build forward. 

If ANY of this is unclear, let me know. Leave a comment, write me an email, catch me on Twitter.

Happy writing.

Party Balance, Narrative Weight - Gaming/Writing

Today I'm going to try and explain a gaming concept that closely mirrors a writing concept. I can't say they're synonymous, but they're pretty close. Game designers and players, this one's mostly for you.

There's a sense, I think due in part to more recent editions of products as well as a great deal of MMO-play, that an adventure/episode/campaign/game should be forever balanced or scaled to the party, that is to say a 4th level party should almost always encounter things within the range of 3rd to 5th level (3rd level presenting no obstacle, 5th level to challenge them), because that's what a party can "handle".

I completely disagree and find this a cowardly way to create play opportunities. I say this quite strongly because I'm a player in a group that is currently at odds with the idea that a party of more-or-less 4th level characters is having trouble with essentially an apex predator in its natural habitat. Because we're not able to kill it quickly and celebrate gloriously then boo-hoo the game must be broken, or our GM must be an idiot.

This all smacks of selfish, spoiled play. And to go further and lob accusations that a GM is engaged in a game of "anything you can do, I can always do one better" is entirely the wrong attitude to take when your character struggled in a fight moments previously.

My opinion: It is the role of the GM and the players to work together to tell a story. The GM presents the plot, and the players offer characters and actions (hopefully) in line with the plot. The game, whether a single session or a campaign is a result of BOTH these things coming together. When one side believes they're carrying all the weight (a GM who has to pull teeth to get things moving, or players who just roll dice and deal damage, giving no interest in story), then play stops. And when play stops, it's a good chance to evaluate why and what can be done to make the process better.

Note: I didn't say 'empower' the players, because no one side of the table is subordinate or superior to the other. The whole table is in this together.

'Balance' is a tricky concept to handle in a game. Mechanically, you have to appropriately seed the possibilities of actions and reactions so that things work with almost a Newtonian elementary precision. Narratively, the story has to offer challenge and incentive for future challenge so that rewards may be had.

But, if you're looking to create either a realistic or immersive world, you have to chuck balance out several windows. The world is not balanced. Balance is not the focus of worlds that present great danger or texture. There will be times when players are out of their element. A game should seldom be locked into zones where low-level creatures cluster, then they may head down a road to where there are tougher creatures, and the further still live the stronger beasts. This is the legacy of MMOs, creating pockets of gameplay that emphasize a need for mechanics over story. It is unlikely that a low-level character will ever have a reason to wander to the dragon's lair, because they'll know they'll not survive - so they just won't do it. Although still an option, the game restricts the likelihood of it occurring by incentivizing alternatives - closer zones offer more immediate rewards without the problems of character death.

However, looking at fiction, the opposite is true. The "low-level" character embarks upon a huge quest where failure exists and seems likely, but through the application of skills and equipment, succeeds in the face of great danger: The peasant kills the giant, the squire eliminates the dragon, the farm boy blows up the planet-exploding superweapon.

At the heart of fiction lies something called "narrative weight", which is the idea that some portion of the character-pool (a single protagonist, a group of heroes, etc) is doing whatever is necessary to move the story forward from plot-point to plot-point, while the rest of the world keeps turning or while other characters go about their day/lives. The 'weight' refers to the decisions/reactions/consequences made at Point A that drive the character(s) to Point B. Often this can be traced down to a single character's action or decision (the one party member who needs rescuing, the one who commits the rest of the party, the one who charges into battle, etc), and it can be said that this one character carries the bulk of the weight.

What's funny is that when a single character carries more weight than others in fiction is that no one ever stops to question the balance. It's only in gaming, where egos bubble up, that people worry about balance, because there exists the chance that they're not getting heard or rewarded.

Example: You can argue that Lord of the Rings is as much Frodo and Sam's story as it is Aragorn's.The other characters serve a function, but it's usually to assist one of those two branches in the narrative. Were this a game, this would be unbalanced, since the the mechanically disadvantaged characters (the hobbits with no combat skills) are 'superior' to the wizard, the ranger and the fighters (the combat-capable characters).

This is the danger of 'balance' - it requires that the game be about who has mechanical rather than narrative advantage, because the party only moves forward when the mechanics make it reasonable, rather than possible.

And gameplay should exist more in the possible rather than the reasonable (since it's a subjective assessment), because that's ROLEplay rather than ROLLplay.

If the goal of playing is to create a collaborative story, then there needs to be a synthesis of mechanical potential and narrative merit. Sure, the party can stroll through the fields until they reach the dragon's lair on day 1. They have that option. If it makes for a good story, let them do it. If however the point of playing is to roll dice, feel superior to imagined scenario and gain stuff, then they should probably be dissuaded from moving forward and instead roam the fields and kill a billion mice until they gain the strength and prowess needed to make the dragon less of a foe, right? Which one sounds more fun?

I play a lot of level-less games, because without the emphasis on accruing improvements, it's a chance to focus on story and let that build and reflexively shape the character. My characters are not a pile of numbers that translate into which-die-do-I-roll-to-beat-the-imaginary-beast, there are feelings and ideas I'm trying to express beyond hitting things with sticks.

So what's a designer/GM/ST/DM to do? Take another note from writers. Just tell the story. If the party keeps hitting first and asking questions later, then perhaps its time there are consequences for those actions. A group of adventurers roaming the land killing creatures / endangering the peasantry is just a different flavor of danger to a nobleman's land, right? Will the players balk? Possibly. But if you're trying to reduce rollplay and insert even a smidge of roleplay, there aren't many easy balk-less solutions.

I appreciate you reading this long rant. We'll go back to more proper writing theory next post.

Writing/Gaming - Character 101 - Part 5 - The Path

Good afternoon everyone, I hope you're enjoying the post-Super Bowl glut of breakdowns of commercials and the halftime show. And for the record, I don't know why they did that thing with the thing on that commercial. Yeah, it was unbelievable.

Shall we do some writing today? We're continuing Character 101, you can catch up with Part 4 here.
This is more a "Writing" post. The "Gaming" version will go up later, I'm still putting it together.


Today we're going to look at "The Path", which is the course for the character is on before, during, and after this particular plot of this particular book.

The rule can be expressed like this:


A path, that when started, will lead through the designated plot and result in change (either positive or negative) from his starting state


Characters need to do things. Without actions, characters are formless humps, full of potential, but without the ambition, focus or interest to do anything. Often, people draw up wonderful concepts of characters and fail to deliver on that potential, chiefly because they either set the bar too high (making the character into a superhero, without elevating the plot) or they ignore the plot’s linear motion in an effort to show just how flawed the character is.

There has to be a progression for these characters that starts either on page 1 or even before page 1, and lead them until the last word on the last page, or even beyond. (You can imply or infer that people either began or will continue something when appropriate). I am not suggesting you place the character “on rails”, narrowly limiting the scope of the character growth to a particular strain – a character that only grows through the specific actions you shows is boring, no matter what those actions are, and is also unrealistic.

This path is NOT the plot, as in; it is NOT ONLY the specific actions of the plot (it’s not about ONLY defusing the bomb, saving the woman from the burning building or discovering that he loves babies) but the path of the character must at times join with the plot.

Key words there? “AT TIMES”.

If you rigidly and inflexibly adhere to the plot as the only tool that gives a character growth, then your book is going to be lean, because if you only need a main plot, then absent are the character arcs (which are the native tool for growth) and the sub or secondary plots (which are the native tool for connection between characters and the world). Also, without any deviation or wiggle-room, this main plot better be absolutely riveting, and can NEVER let me go. That’s a great deal of pressure to put on one set of actions. Don’t do it.

Characters in any story are not only limited to the plot, we (the reader) are only meeting/seeing/interacting with the character when they MEET this plot. It’s a snapshot of their life, and we get to tag along for however long or crazy this ride is. This idea that a character is on a particular path greater than the plot is critical for firming up the idea that the character is INDEPENDENT of the plot, and exists, fully-formed in dimension and detail large and small.

Where the character and plot intersect, there has to be an impact, like two items colliding. The plot has to have an effect on the character; otherwise the character has no reason to be invested in it (and neither will the audience). The plot, for all the twists and turns and new scenes it brings to the character is going to change the character. And maybe yes, the plot is going to change that already-started path (redemption is good for this, for example) but for the most part, the plot and this particular book is just a slice or section of the character’s overall path.

Now, to speak more pointedly of the plot, the plot has to matter to the character, because the two form a cycle:

Character Acts to Impact the Plot -->> The Plot Evolves and Presents New Challenges -->> And the Character Acts to Impact the Plot Anew 

And the character has to matter to the plot, because if the plot is beyond the scope of the character, then there can be no investment or hope to make a difference. Without the help of the plot, remember, it is just a snapshot of the overall growth, then the character’s growth is stunted.

The path is never fixed, and no end result is guaranteed. But the path contains the plot, and a limitless number of similar conflicts (in terms of emotional or psychological weight, not necessarily the physical events – how many times can terrorists threaten the globe?) If we were to chart it, it would be this:


|| Character at start of the story >> Actions that define who/what the character is based on experiences seen and unseen to date >> Plots that challenge and expand definition >> Continued maturity and resolution of problems >> Character Conclusion ||

The acts that define the character are not necessarily those given at an early age, or through flashback. This is where the developed philosophy of the character is interwoven with the character description and the boundaries of the world to create a character-in-context.  Events transpire some large (like the possible plot of this story) and some small (plot of another story) that lead to the evolution of the character in philosophy, action and description. Eventually, the character reaches a point of maturity, having been presented with all manner of challenge and overcome all level of odds. It is at this point, the writer may move on from the character, retiring or killing it off as warranted.

Remember: The path does not have to be positive. Negative traits are as compelling as positive traits (or moreso) depending on how they’re told.

Remember: The path is NOT ONLY the plot.

Remember: All elements of Character 101 work together and regularly intersect. So yes, the Path can be shaped by Morality, Abilities, Description and the character's Sandbox.

How have you found your experience with Character 101 to be? I'd love to hear about it. Leave me a comment or find me online. 

Happy writing. 

Writing/Gaming - Character 101 - Part 4 - Morality

Good morning everyone. We're continuing Character 101 today, so if you need to catch up on the previous posts, go here and here and here.

Today's a little crunchy, so you might want to get a glass of water and read this a few times.

We've so far looked at what can best be described as external qualities. We've talked about the world, some character description and some character abilities. Let's get into this though, let's be serious about our craft and our characters and make these creations live and breathe. I mean, you don't have to, but I think it'll help you out.

Today's Character 101 rule can be expressed like this:

A clear and distinct morality, set of principles and philosophy that an audience can see tested and explained throughout the story

Keywords:

• clear and distinct morality
• set of principles and philosophy
• audience sees it tested and explained THROUGHOUT the story

When I was a young writer, I was mentored and taught by a great man, fiercely brilliant, absolutely not governed at all by anything other than his own rules and one of the most encouraging teachers I've ever experienced. He's long dead now, but this lesson, and most of Character 101 is my homage to him.


We start with a quote of his.
"Characters have beliefs; even if they are not expressed by the author or conceived of in great detail there exists within each character a philosophy, even if that character is built with a single purpose or for a single instance. "


What I didn't understand about that quote, where the magic trick is in that quote is the idea that characters have beliefs even if I (the guy who wrote the character) didn't flesh them out.

Hearing that as a punk kid, that sounded stupid. Characters are things I made up, right? They occupy the spaces I give them, do what I tell them? Sure, they can do that. They can be puppets who follow scripts and linear actions like stiff automatons. And when you're a bit of a control freak, or scared to do anything other than express control, that's great for characters.

Move your chess pieces. Watch them dance on your strings.

Over time, with practice, with experience, with heartache, with passion, you don't have to control them. They're more than just extensions of a single part of your personality or just creations who follow some simple program. They are partly fueled by your imagination, and when you take that off the leash, you'll be amazed by what you can discover characters do.

I didn't get that when I younger. It sounded florid and spacy and I probably said it was "kinda gay". And then I grew up and learned that there's more to writing than sitting in place and typing for six hours, but also that there's nothing less than that too.

That quote clicked for me when I was reading a comic book. I was upset, I was alone, I was pissed off, and I was reading Batman. And for whatever reason, perhaps because it was a visual medium, there was more said in a look between characters than you can ever do in a block of text.

It was like the story was occurring even when I wasn't reading the comics. Like the characters had things happening while I was reading Superman, watching TV or wishing I was anywhere other than where I was.

Big click.

When that quote says“explained” it certainly does NOT mean that the simple statement of beliefs is given in exposition, although there are times when it can be advantageous, depending on style or nuance -- But you don't have to have some big block of text saying "THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE IN" because you're supposed to be better than that.

Leave it for dialogue; leave it for the emotions and subtext. Making it too clear, too visible, when the story by nature does not support it, cheapens it. It turns characters, who you create to be as close or better than humans you co-exist with, into caricatures and parody. And in gaming for example, it makes you sound like one of those bad RPGs where people only can say things like "It is nice day here yes in City?" and other Engrish.

No genre is spared the necessity of characters with morals. Not even in the most lowbrow crude comedy is there a character devoid of ambition based on a belief, even if that belief is something as small and finite as “I’m going to lose my virginity before the end of the school year.”



Everyone believes in something. Figure out what, and you'll also discover how to express that belief to the audience.

So, the question then becomes, how do you create that morality? How do we develop philosophies for characters?

Here are two methods, described below:

Actions -> Reasons for Actions -> Philosophy

(What)      (Why Do The What)      (What Gets Believed)

&

Stated belief > Action in defense of position

(Say It)             (Do Something About It)

First we have an action-oriented approach, something that works best for characters of  small purpose or minimal import. By looking at their actions, we can develop reasons for the actions, and from those reasons, create a philosophy.

The guy/NPC/background mook who cheers on the heroes during a fight, does it because it shows that the heroes have support. The random person who tells the detective something in passing that resonates seven chapters later. That's an action provoked by a reason that in turn becomes a philosophy. 



This is a clear, causal relationship that we can understand especially when not all characters have more than one or two things to do or say.

However, as we add complexity and depth to the characters and situations those characters find themselves in, we must shift from the clear A to B progression and try the reverse: that a stated belief leads to an action.

While this is more complex in a writing capacity, it is more intuitive as people, because we interact with people based on their statements and pursuant to their actions.


You go out with the guy because he makes you laugh because he does what he says he does. You married your spouse because she made you feel something positive on a consistent basis. You hang out with those people because you all share a hobby or believe in the same principles. You think that librarian is great because they helped you when no one else would even give you ten seconds of attention.

You decide what you believe in, then you go do something about it. (Here again, we see Rule #1 - Writing Is The Act of Making Decisions) If you do it, the character(s) can do it.

To reach these decisions, you must BE the character, giving them full faculties and capabilities independent of the story and the context of the story. Yes, you can argue that it is the story that shapes them, therefore you must put them into context, HOWEVER you must divorce the character from the story and the plot when you create the character. The proximity to the current story, and the temptation to use current-story material is too great a risk for the writer: how easily our characters become malleable when viewed only in the current plot.

Because our characters are our reflections, shadows and desires put into text, we must make all efforts to see them as living breathing beings that only happen to exist in our minds. I am not advocating schizophrenia, but rather a full-fledged imaginative experience, creating an idea so complex and rich with detail that it exists for more reasons than a single plot warrants.

Remember: This is a cooperative process, a great contract you’ve entered into with your reader, so please, do your part and make your end as interesting and exciting as possible.


Gamers embody this in the most obvious of ways, assuming to even ACT as the characters to drive the interactions. I do think writers would be well-served to try a little role-play now and then...and if not, at least go talk to people who excite you about whatever you love. It's a lot easier to do this when you're fired up than when you're dreading it.


So what can you do about it? Have you ever tried writing down what you believe in? Get that legal pad, get to writing. Do the same thing for the big characters. Try to do it for the small characters, even if it's just one line (the politician wants to win the election at all costs, the grocer wants to retire happy) related to the plot. The more you can list, the richer that character becomes and the less 'like a character' they are.


I end today with another quote (Sid had great quotes)

"Characters, John, are what we have when we're not thinking about what WE can do but what WE want to make happen."


Happy writing. Enjoy your weekends.

Writing/Gaming - Character 101 Part 2 - Character Description

This is part two of the Character 101 series. The first part is available here.

Earlier this week, we talked about the importance of defining a world and having limitations within that world so that a particular character can be tested, and hopefully overcome those challenges.

While that's great advice, I'm sure many of you have said (and judging by my inbox, some did) "That's great but what about the character? How can the first step in character building be about anything other than characters?"

I point here, as I did to those who asked that for better defined characters, their world is as much a part of them as their clothes or eye color. Batman has Gotham and the Batcave. Superman has Metropolis and Krypton, Harry Dresden has Chicago, Coburn has his apocalypse.

If you can find me a well-crafted character where their world is not a part of them in an intrinsic way, please let me know, I'm curious.

Today, we look at something very concrete and very directly tethered to character.

The rule for part 2 can be summarized like this:

A description that contains audience-relatable elements of either a physical or emotional/mental nature

Your keywords here:

• audience-relatable
• physical
• emotional
• mental

We have all read poor character descriptions. I don't mean descriptions that are intentionally undone (where the author chooses not to give details so that the audience can paint their own pictures), I mean descriptions where they give all the components poorly.

Like here:

Terry worked long hours at the dock. He was a blond, although dirty in both hair and skin. He was tall, but no bigger than the others he worked with. He was strong but not weighed down with muscle.

Yes, I made those sentences up, and yes, they're really bad, but they're bad on purpose. Notice how the description starts with Terry's occupation...an all too-common notion is that if we (readers) know what a person does, we can pigeonhole them. (We make blanket statements that someone of X job looks a certain way, or that by describing someone by their profession, we eliminate a lot of other allegedly relevant descriptors -- and by extension, when you mash a profession onto a set of descriptors that seems inappropriate, you create dissonance and a disconnect for readers)

From there, we move into a messy attempt at double-meanings, trying to tie 'dirty blonde' with dirty-from-work. We end with two ruinous sentences where the respective second halves cancel out the first halves. If a character is no taller than others, then they're not tall. 'Tall' is only capable if you have something not-'Tall' for comparison.

When describing something, the majority of the words used can create perspective. And the use of that word creates a proposition that an opposite concept also occurs. (You cannot understand up if you don't know down, or wet without dry). The character doesn't need to exist in both states, but they do need to exist in whatever states you say they do, and consistency is key. If Terry is tall, then he's tall compared to something-to-be-named-later that is "short". Don't trust that the reader will intuit their own perspectives (I'm talking to you game people -- there are mechanics and dice to resolve these issues) and come to the same ideas you have. 

If you want the character to be a certain way, be decisive and clear about it. Game people, if you want the players to act a certain way, then you need to be a little obvious that the particular situation you're putting players into has clear options (even if there are many many options, make that clear).

Returning to the specifics of description, readers look for 3 types of description. These don't need to be successive, they're not hierarchical and you don't need to do them all at once, but you do need to do them at some point before you get too far into your work.

I. Physical - This is everything tangible and directly observable about the character. The goal is not to drown the reader in  broad information too quickly (then statements get lost and it detracts from importance) but rather provide for them multiple concepts for them to attach to (this is a variation of Velcro theory - you supply them concrete details that they affix their edduced aspirations onto).

II. Emotional - This is a subcutaneous level of description, wherein you describe how the character feels at whatever moment they're being witnessed. If we're on page 30, and the character has just discovered their best friend's wife murdered (hours after sleeping with her), then you can provide us the sum total of emotions up to and including page 30. Yes, this whole story might be resolved by page 340, but here on page 30, we can only work with what we have to date. 

Gamers, do not overlook this level of detail - as your NPC emotions are most often impacted by interaction with PCs and all manner of circumstances around pre-existing agendas. (The megalomaniac going to blow up the city is going to have an emotional reaction to the players diffusing his bomb, for example)

III. Mental - This is a harder nut to crack, unless you're writing in the first-person and can use your exposition to develop this. Mental description is a sense of how more than what specifically a character is thinking. Yes, in the immediate sense, the what should be apparent (it's relevant to the scene/moment), but because sometimes characters aren't actually powered with cogs and drive-belts, you only get a secondhand sense of "gears turning". 

Mental description is a chance to see the character's planning skills, their intelligence and their understanding of motivations and consequences in action. This is commonly expressed in mysteries as the moment when the sleuth gathers all the suspects together and explains who the killer is. Or the final moments of a heist when the mastermind reveals the plot has been on-going since page one, sentence one. 

The composite of these three factors builds a full character. To get you started, here are some questions to fire up your character forges:

I. Physical

1. Aside from the obvious details of what the character looks like, what traits are they proud of? Ashamed of? Effort to hide? Effort to show off? 
2. What things would this character change about their appearance if the circumstances allowed it?
3. How important to the character are the aspects of his physical description? Does he value his height? Does he identify himself by his physique? Does she draw pride from her eyes?

II. Emotional

1. What gets this character out of bed in the morning? What would send them running back beneath the blankets for a do-over?
2. Can you identify your character's three most frequent emotional states? What causes each one?
3. Imagine a fight between this character and their nemesis. What buttons are getting pressed, and whose doing the pressing? Now imagine this same fight between this character and someone they loved.

III. Mental

1. Is this the sort of character others go to for help and guidance, or is this a character who seeks out others? (Or are they only seeking others out for approval of their own plans?)
2. How far ahead does this character plan? Does that plan include contingencies? If you had to sum up the character's planning ability in a word, what word would you use?
3. Does this character overthink? Does this character fly by the seat of their pants?

I hope these questions help you, I have others if you're curious. 

Next week we'll add more to characters, and I'll revisit our sample character Timmy. Enjoy your weekend.

Happy writing.

Writing/Gaming: Making Your Characters Not Awful

I don't know if you've been outside lately, but it's the worst time of year. Everything is gray and soggy and looks like Mordor. Also, it's the only time of year I get sick. So do please imagine this blog post punctuated with sniffles and occasional sneezes and coughs.

Let's get to it.

For today's lesson, you're going to need a piece of paper and a pen. It's much easier to do this by hand than in something like Word or Google Docs, since there's time spent/lost in making the formatting work, rather than just getting to heart of the issue. Of course, I'll always tell you to use a legal pad, because it's got the real estate to spare and because they're pretty cheap in bulk. So go get something to write on (and write with), and we'll proceed.

There are loads of ways to develop characters, I teach three or four different methods in workshops and seminars, depending on my audience. And those methods can get complex and even a little deep (there is a difference), but more and more I get feedback saying that people want a faster plunge into rich development.

Now part of that is laziness on their part - expecting and wanting a formula that will spit out masterfully crafted characters so that they can just put the pieces into play. And part of that is because for all the teaching I can provide, the truest and most natural 'spark' of life comes not from the recipe of creation, but from what the author invests in each character.

Said another way: I can teach you how to build characters, but YOU breathe life into them. Without that investiture of imagination and passion, all I'm giving you is a new way to sort words on paper. And while they may be very awesome words, if your goal is to make those words mean something and stick into the heads and hearts of readers/consumers/game players/humans/etc, then you're going to need to pour out a little mind-juice into these stacks of words and concepts to make them zip along.

What I'm showing you here today is another level, a deeper level, of creation. Being deeper, it does require a base of something. You're going to need to have done some manner of development already for this to work for you. It doesn't matter what you've done - hell it could just be a name and a description, but the goal here is to add depth and velcro to your creation, so they fit into the composite of the world you've built.

Note: My next series will be Character 101, exploring different foundational elements in characters and how to craft good ones. Consider this your glimpse towards new territory.

Our goal today is make your characters better, so today, here's what we do.

1. Divide the paper into quarters.
2. Label them: Occupation, Possession, Name, Intention

Into these boxes you're going to write down sentences, phrases and words that describe, detail and develop what the particular quadrant is about. (Game people may recognize some of these things as 'Aspects', Novel people will see 'traits'). But this is NOT just a simple laundry list, this is designed to get you thinking about the arc your character is on when readers/players/people meet them, and how that arc progresses over the course of whatever material you're creating.

Let's look at each box in detail and I think you'll see what I mean.

I. Occupation - This is what the character does. In it's most basic form, it's a job title, but you can extrapolate out to describe why or how it gets done (the specifics of "why" go into Intention - you can be broad in box 1) Since no one else is going to see this, feel free to make heavy use of cliches and tropes if they help paint the picture. 2) This is the realistic side of the coin, so if this box is a little on the dry side, you're on the right track.


II. Possession - These are the things the character has that helps make the character who and what they are (in box 1). (If you didn't qualify it, this would just be inventory) We want specificity here, as possessions define and give context to a character (Batman's utility belt, Lone Ranger's mask, Superman's S on his chest). Yes, socialists, buddhists and hippies, we are totally shaped by the stuff we own. And while I really want to spiral us off into a discussion about how we leave as large an impression on what we own as it leaves on us, this isn't the place for that. Ideally in this box you've listed not just the item, but what it stands for or how it specifically aids the character's nature/skill/abilities/presence. (Batman's utility belt provides him access to supplies that make him prepared. The Doctor's sonic screwdriver is the physical surrogate for his intellect, etc)


Note: Yes, you can prioritize the items in Box 2 by frequency of use or importance or whatever figure you like, but it's not critical. It is, however, a great idea.


III. Name - This is not so much a rote entry of Dr/Mr/Mrs NAME HERE, this is how the character wants/has their name viewed by their peers. Optionally, divide this box in half and do half friends and half foes. For 'friends' this is how the character wants the specific other person (NPC, secondary character, love interest, etc) to view them. For 'foes' this is how the character sees the foe. 


Yes you can work this backwards and do a whole sheet (2 columns, friend and foe) of how these other people view the character, and we may well explore that exercise later this week.#notsosubtlehint


Intention - This is WHY the character does whatever they do, and only that. The specifics of how got answered up in Occupation, so here we effort to ascribe a reason to the action. And I cannot stress the importance of individual clarity enough. Boil it down as core as you like, concentrate it (tether it to a backstory event for maximum jaw droppage) but this intention is a tint on ALL things the character has done and will do.  


This should in theory start earlier than Page 1, but the audience/people/players is only meeting this at Page 1...which may or may not early in this Intention's existence. That's up to you, authors, to figure out how time relates to intention (here's a hint - more time equals more opportunity for intention)


If you find that some boxes are more packed with material than others, or that you've entirely neglected some facets of creation in light of others, I strongly encourage you to figure out why. Ask yourself why you didn't think in these terms at some point and why you've possibly resisted doing it. (Maybe you're still resisting it...)

Sort through the feast and famine first before you tackle the material in terms of 'boring' or 'I don't agree with it anymore, I'm changing it'. Remember, writing is the act of making decisions, and if you're unhappy with what you wrote, decide to do something different.

The goal here is to expand your character-icebergs so that they'll sink (astound) reader-Titanics. I use icebergs here deliberately, as there should be so much beneath the surface, so much unseen but felt/feared/craved/desired that we're propelled forward into inescapable collision and beyond (minus any freezing DiCaprio we have laying around)

Some notes of interest:

1. Yes I'm aware that in the most recent episode of Leverage, this was a prominent story concept.
2. Yes I'm aware that I talk a lot about characters, because characters make plot matter.
3. Yes I realize you can do this chart for any character (a villain) perhaps, and reverse-engineer a way for a hero to undo the badguy.
4. Yes, some characters won't warrant this detail - but I tend now to say that if you can do this for even a minor character (and not use it) then the characters where this is important become all the more spectacular

Okay, I'm going to get some lunch, then take a nap. If you're looking for me, find me on Twitter today.


Last minute addition - A lot of you have emailed me asking about my rates, and more specifically why they're not posted on this blog. There are a few reasons:


a) I'm not sure where I'd host the pdf.
b) My rates aren't as simple as a single list of tasks with numbers - they're not a wine list.
c) I have a whole multi-page kit of rates and explanations that don't format well here in this blog space.


So, if you want the pdf, email me or find me online (here or here or here) and let me know.

Happy writing.