boxcheck/bio
Que sera, sera
9mo ago#5990239
Edited 9mo ago
spent 0 currency on pings
You should watch LocalScriptMan on YouTube fren
But tbh you're looking at it backwards. One-off characters can become pivotal like Jesse, Mike, and Saul from Breaking Bad. While a simple character might work for a children's story, you want as much depth and nuance as possible. Layered, often contradictory motivations. Inject lots of subtext in dialogue and how they behave. Test the limits of their skills and beliefs.
Make a dilemma--force your character to adapt/get help at risk of dying or losing it all. For some people that's the point. It's fun to see how far someone pushes their luck before getting put in the ground.
Flat characters can maybe work (Geralt, Saitama, James Bond) but unless you've got a truly stellar cast they're imo
Szechenyitrans/lajta
O brave new world! How beauteous mankind is!
box 9mo ago#5990358
spent 0 currency on pings
>Geralt
is not boring, I think, he's like a 90s action anti hero that's secretly a big softie
Else, I think you are right that more complex characters are generally better, all other things being equal. However time in a story is at a premium and sometimes it's not possible to express all of a side character. If that's the case, why spend too much time developing a character that is ultimately a bit player? I once heard a guy say that writing is like engineering, everything that is superfluous should be removed.
boxcheck/bio
Que sera, sera
Szechenyi 9mo ago#5990426Found 54 Coins!
spent 0 currency on pings
eh he's pretty flat. it's not like he gives up being a witcher, he doesn't have any big transformative moments despite literally dying. at the beginning and at the end are the same person for all intensive purposes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You should watch LocalScriptMan on YouTube fren
But tbh you're looking at it backwards. One-off characters can become pivotal like Jesse, Mike, and Saul from Breaking Bad. While a simple character might work for a children's story, you want as much depth and nuance as possible. Layered, often contradictory motivations. Inject lots of subtext in dialogue and how they behave. Test the limits of their skills and beliefs.
Make a dilemma--force your character to adapt/get help at risk of dying or losing it all. For some people that's the point. It's fun to see how far someone pushes their luck before getting put in the ground.
Flat characters can maybe work (Geralt, Saitama, James Bond) but unless you've got a truly stellar cast they're imo
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
is not boring, I think, he's like a 90s action anti hero that's secretly a big softie
Else, I think you are right that more complex characters are generally better, all other things being equal. However time in a story is at a premium and sometimes it's not possible to express all of a side character. If that's the case, why spend too much time developing a character that is ultimately a bit player? I once heard a guy say that writing is like engineering, everything that is superfluous should be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
niqqa I said
that's why he's the exception
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
but I don't think he's flat
maybe my ESL is just tripping me up? I should sleep...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
eh he's pretty flat. it's not like he gives up being a witcher, he doesn't have any big transformative moments despite literally dying. at the beginning and at the end are the same person for all intensive purposes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context