next »

[Muz]

Someone (another Pixarian) wrote this in response to these rules:
http://static.squarespace.com/static/52675998e4b07faca3f636a5/t/527f0a75e4b012bf9e7361c5/1384057461885/Pixar22RulesAnalyzed_Bugaj.pdf

It was written in 2013, so well worth a necro. It actually breaks down and analyzes everything pretty damn well. The original 'pixar rules' weren't very well explained, especially as they were all written in Twitter. Just about every criticism of those rules have been acknowledged by Bugaj in the PDF.

Some other nice tips I got from that:
 - Begin with the end in mind.
 - Rule 4, as a template, has a lot of flaws, but is a good exercise. It can be too story oriented, whereas you often want to focus on characters.
 - Rule 2 (Keep in mind what’s interesting to you as an audience, not what’s fun to do as a writer. They can be very different) is poorly communicated. It means that what's fun to write doesn't really apply to all mediums. If your audience are game players, your audience finds the gameplay interesting. JRPGs and Visual Novels are an example of what happens when good writing doesn't translate into good gameplay.
 - Rewriting is essential to a good story, especially as the setting is more unique. It's similar to prototyping - the more unique your gameplay, the more prototypes you need. Story writing is similarly iterative.
 - The stakes are very important in making a character people would root for. People won't root for a character who wins easily, they root for a character who struggles and doesn't seem like they can survive. This is probably harder to portray in games because people don't want to lose often either.

My favorite part:

A good pitch strips-away the inessential details, no matter how great those details may be, and refines the entire story down to its compelling essentials:
 
• Title and genre
• Who the story is about (the protagonist)
• Where and when the story takes place (the setting)
• Her want and how it isn't met (the core conflict)
• The plot outcome if the protagonist fails (the external stakes)
• Her need and what will happen if it isn't realized (the internal stakes)
• What about her character and philosophy is being tested (the thematic question or philosophical stakes)
• The most crucial turning points in the story (the inciting incident, the midpoint twist/kicker, and the low point)
• The final resolution (of the plot, character arc, and thematic question)
 
And it does this in about three sentences.

[wccrawford]

The stakes are very important in making a character people would root for. People won't root for a character who wins easily, they root for a character who struggles and doesn't seem like they can survive. This is probably harder to portray in games because people don't want to lose often either.

This is where the acceptance of ludonarrative dissonance is your friend. 

See, you just make a backstory of the person being weak and failing a lot, and then let the play use their own skill to win all the fights.  They feel sympathy for the character's history, and they feel like they're the reason that the character is now succeeding.  If anything, I think this is easier than in more traditional storytelling.

Of course, once people stop having stories that don't match the gameplay, and gamers stop being used to that, it'll be a lot harder to manage.