On writing a fight/action story from a tired reader.

[ElijahRyne]

This advice/suggestions is from a tired reader who has read too many pointless action scenes, feel free to ignore. It is for stories that are primarily action.

For every fight scene there needs to be stakes/consequences, if there is no stakes consider cutting out the fight scene. Not doing so causes every fight scene will begin to drag and this will eventually kill your story. Consider that both you and the reader know that the story will continue. Having the stakes just be the MC might lose, is not enough if losses do not affect the characters in the fight.

Let your MC lose, or not win, often. Magnus Carlsen has a win rate of 43% and Shin Jinseo a win rate of 73%, and I doubt your protagonist starts at a comparable amount of skill. Not doing so brakes immersion and/or makes your world feel hollow.

Do not be afraid to allow a fight to permanently effect an important/main character(s). Shallow stakes can work depending on if you are writing a lighter story, but even Hajime no Ippo allows characters to break their hands in a fight. Hell, Johnathan Joestar dies.

Anyways, what are your thoughts and suggestions?

 

[PancakesWitch]

What if its sparring matches to learn each other abilities and improve? A tournament
where friends and rivals fight to show how much they have progressed? Fights have to have a reason to exist, but not necessarily stakes. If fighting and growing stronger is ingrained in the fantasy culture of this world, then i belive its perfectly normal for sparring matches or competitive battles without stakes to happen. People doesnt have to be trying to kill each other or trying to survive for battles to be enjoyable.

 

[Empress_Omnii]

Magnus Carlsen has a win rate of 43%

This is a bit misleading, (and potentially wrong?) Magnus only has around 8% loss rate. Most games he wins or draws, not the best person to use in your example.

 

[ElijahRyne]

This is a bit misleading, (and potentially wrong?) Magnus only has around 8% loss rate. Most games he wins or draws, not the best person to use in your example.

I said “Let your MC lose, or not win.” Not, only let your protag lose.

What if its sparring matches to learn each other abilities and improve? A tournament
where friends and rivals fight to show how much they have progressed? Fights have to have a reason to exist, but not necessarily stakes. If fighting and growing stronger is ingrained in the fantasy culture of this world, then i belive its perfectly normal for sparring matches or competitive battles without stakes to happen. People doesnt have to be trying to kill each other or trying to survive for battles to be enjoyable.

If you are talking about a story that isn’t mainly action why worry about stakes, but I doubt that is where you are coming from. Sparring matches can have stakes, such as I want to prove to myself I can still fight or that I have learned x technique properly. Have you ever lost in a tournament? The loss itself can be soul crushing even if you were having fun, especially if it is from an avoidable mistake. Stakes aren't only death/injury they are consequences. If your mom tells you to take out the trash before you sleep but you don’t, are you killed or injured? Anyways, I never said that the stakes are death, just that stakes need to exist.

 

[Gray_Mann]

Magnus Carlsen

Thought he was a martial artist, considering the title of this thread. Color me surprised when I learn he's a Chess grandmaster. Threw me for a loop there. I myself am a martial artist who's won several state-level (never competed at national level unfortunately) tournaments and I was never considered truly noteworthy even at state-level until my second tournament championship.

Still, 43% victory rate....and he's a grandmaster? Sounds like bullshit to me. Apparently the standards for so-called "champions" have dropped. Though, considering his age, he came around just in time for the "age of participation trophies" so I'm not too surprised.

Edit: I was not aware that chess allowed draws, and that he only had a 8% loss rate, with the rest being wins or draws. My mistake.

 

[ElijahRyne]

Thought he was a martial artist, considering the title of this thread. Color me surprised when I learn he's a Chess grandmaster. Threw me for a loop there. I myself am a martial artist who's won several state-level (never competed at national level unfortunately) tournaments and I was never considered truly noteworthy even at state-level until my second tournament championship.

Still, 43% victory rate....and he's a grandmaster? Sounds like bullshit to me. Apparently the standards for so-called "champions" have dropped. Though, considering his age, he came around just in time for the "age of participation trophies" so I'm not too surprised.

Edit: I was not aware that chess allowed draws, and that he only had a 8% loss rate, with the rest being wins or draws. My mistake.

When I was young, before my asthma started to get bad again, I used to wrestle in a city wide tournament every year. The highest I got was silver, the lowest a participation which was the year it got bad, but I usually got bronze. Granted my weight class was the lowest available at the time.
I have also played in a couple online Go tournaments but never got far.
Nonetheless, I find your reaction abit funny.

 

[Gray_Mann]

Nonetheless, I find your reaction abit funny.

Can't say I agree. But sure.

I've participated in 7 State-wide martial-arts tournaments. I did poorly in the first 2. Made it to the Semi-finals in the 3rd. Was champion in the 4th, 5th, and 6th tournaments, and then finished 3rd in my 7th and final tournament. I competed from the ages of 18 to mid-20's. I was in the Middleweight class initially, and then starting in my 5th tournament appearance, classed in to Light-Heavyweight where I remained until I stopped competing.

 

[Empress_Omnii]

Can't say I agree. But sure.

No, really, it's somewhat hilarious read that. You managed to call the person who is nearly uncontestedly considered the best player ever, unworthy of his title.

Though, I understand that the percentage makes it look worse than he really is.

 

[Gray_Mann]

No, really it's somewhat hilarious read that. You managed to call the person who is nearly uncontestedly considered the best player ever, unworthy of his title.

Though, I understand that the percentage makes it look worse than he really is.

Yeah, because 43% is an abysmal victory rate, UNLESS you factor in the number of draws, which I was not aware of. And I then edited in to correct my statement. I can't think of any far more popular sports that allow draws except in the most extreme of circumstances so I see nothing odd about me being unaware of the ONLY sport I've ever heard to allow THAT many draws.

I mean really? 43% win, 8% loss, which means he has a 49% draw rate? That still doesn't sound all that impressive to me. I can't think of any other sport where that would be considered a good win/loss/draw ratio either except for maybe another type of board-game. Sounds pretty average at best. But I don't claim to understand the in's and out's of chess either.

 

[Empress_Omnii]

Yeah, because 43% is an abysmal victory rate, UNLESS you factor in the number of draws, which I was not aware of. And I then edited in to correct my statement. I can't think of any far more popular sports that allow draws except in the most extreme of circumstances so I see nothing odd about me being unaware of the ONLY sport I've ever heard to allow THAT many draws.

I mean really? 43% win, 8% loss, which means he has a 49% draw rate? That still doesn't sound all that impressive to me. I can't think of any other sport where that would be considered a good win/loss/draw ratio either except for maybe another type of board-game. Sounds pretty average at best. But I don't claim to understand the in's and out's of chess either.

I won't explain the rules of chess. But for example, this year Magnus has gone to eight tournaments (all at the highest skill level). The only lose he had is the worst game he has played in his life.
Additionally, he had a 125 game win streak (this includes draws, I don't think you care for an explanation chess. Unless you do?)

 

[Gray_Mann]

I won't explain the rules of chess. But for example, this year Magnus has gone to eight tournaments (all at the highest skill level). The only lose he had is the worst game he has played in his life.
Additionally, he had a 125 game win streak (this includes draws, I don't think you care for an explanation chess)

I know the general gist of chess. I've played a few games of it, won some, lost most, but we were just kids in a cafeteria playing so I'm a literal amateur. But I reckon it's a philosophical difference from specializations in different game-styles, because to me, 125-game win streak shouldn't include draws.

 

[PancakesWitch]

I said “Let your MC lose, or not win.” Not, only let your protag lose.

If you are talking about a story that isn’t mainly action why worry about stakes, but I doubt that is where you are coming from. Sparring matches can have stakes, such as I want to prove to myself I can still fight or that I have learned x technique properly. Have you ever lost in a tournament? The loss itself can be soul crushing even if you were having fun, especially if it is from an avoidable mistake. Stakes aren't only death/injury they are consequences. If your mom tells you to take out the trash before you sleep but you don’t, are you killed or injured? Anyways, I never said that the stakes are death, just that stakes need to exist.

Unless youre reading a manga I doubt you will find a purely action focused novel that isnt shit though. You have to write a lot more than guys punching each other to make the action compeling. What sort of novels are you even reading?

 

[ElijahRyne]

Unless youre reading a manga I doubt you will find a purely action focused novel that isnt shit though. You have to write a lot more than guys punching each other to make the action compeling. What sort of novels are you even reading?

Most stories here are action/adventure…

 

[Empress_Omnii]

I know the general gist of chess. I've played a few games of it, won some, lost most, but we were just kids in a cafeteria playing so I'm a literal amateur. But I reckon it's a philosophical difference from specializations in different game-styles, because to me, 125-game win streak shouldn't include draws.

So I will explain. Competitive chess differs from casual in both ruling and playing. First of all, chess can draw in so, so many ways. Especially when playing at the highest levels. But even with that, for literally every game Magnus didn't win during that streak it didn't matter if he won or lost. This is because tournament games are multiple rounds long and drawing gives both 0.5 points.
You're not wrong to say it isn't a win streak, as it is more an unbeaten streak, but during that time he came out ahead of everyone else competing and won every tournament.

Even still, Magnus was able to go over two full years at the highest level of tournament (i.e. winning the most prestigious tournaments multiple times) without ever being beaten. This is a 42 win streak ignoring the draws.

As an aside, an example of how prevalent of how common draws are would be the 2018 world championship. Magnus and Fabiano Caruana (the current second strongest player) played 12 games against each other, all of which ending in a draw. (This results in three rapid format tiebreakers, which Magnus won all three of)

 

[ArtBusterBeeze]

I half-way understand but I do not think that it is an absolute to have mc lose often. Something like the winning or losing should be more dependent on story circumstances and each story has different ones for the mc and different developments. You could have a story where mc wins often(Eg. HAS to win due to high stakes, just an example), the thing that makes the difference is if it's just the same thing you've already seen before(and you get tired of seeing) or if it gives you a different feeling each time they win and the theme of the fights.

I do not believe we should limit losing or winning just because you don't think our mc's start at a high level of skill. Mc's can come in categories of 'Weak to strong', Average or be made already strong(Even reaching overpowered in category).

Mc's are different. Other then that, I could agree that you have given some advice which could be considered helpful.

 

[Gray_Mann]

played 12 games against each other, all of which ending in a draw

Wow. 12 draws in a row. Yeah, like I said earlier, it's a philosophical difference on my part, because it sounds abnormal to me to draw that many times. But like you said, competitive chess plays differently and I'd be a hilarious opponent, more like a jester, in a competitive scene.

 

[John_Owl]

This advice/suggestions is from a tired reader who has read too many pointless action scenes, feel free to ignore. It is for stories that are primarily action.

For every fight scene there needs to be stakes/consequences, if there is no stakes consider cutting out the fight scene. Not doing so causes every fight scene will begin to drag and this will eventually kill your story. Consider that both you and the reader know that the story will continue. Having the stakes just be the MC might lose, is not enough if losses do not affect the characters in the fight.

Let your MC lose, or not win, often. Magnus Carlsen has a win rate of 43% and Shin Jinseo a win rate of 73%, and I doubt your protagonist starts at a comparable amount of skill. Not doing so brakes immersion and/or makes your world feel hollow.

Do not be afraid to allow a fight to permanently effect an important/main character(s). Shallow stakes can work depending on if you are writing a lighter story, but even Hajime no Ippo allows characters to break their hands in a fight. Hell, Johnathan Joestar dies.

Anyways, what are your thoughts and suggestions?

I DM for various TTRPG groups. DND, Pathfinder, as well as other, smaller models, like that one final fantasy themed one or the pokemon one.

Using various aspects of this, I incorporate it into my writing. I have no issues with permanent setbacks or failures or consequences, because I can always find another way. So, often times, I roll dice to decide what should happen.

 

[PancakesWitch]

Most stories here are action/adventure…

You should simply learn to accept and like action without stakes, or go read shonen manga.

 

[Gray_Mann]

You should simply learn to accept and like action without stakes, or go read shonen manga.

I can't read shounen anymore. I'm so sick of the "power of friendship," the constant shipping characters that nearly always goes nowhere, evil villains being forgiven for practically anything because "muh forgiveness and mercy" by overly naive protagonists, the endless battles where practically no one dies, and while I don't see this one as often anymore, I still physically cringe when someone says "you should never kill," with absolutely no nuance/context allowed whatsoever.

Naruto Shippuden was the last shounen I ever read. Sasuke being allowed to continue sucking air was the last straw for me. To me, the Boruto show does not exist because Sarada should NEVER have been allowed to exist. Sasuke should NEVER have been allowed enough freedom to even CONSIDER the idea of making Sarada with ANYONE.

Naruto isn't the worst example, but definitely the one that finally broke the camels figurative back for me.

The Second Hokage was right. The Uchiha being allowed to remain a viable group is what caused damn near every ill that befell the Ninja World during the shows lore-run. If Hashirama had killed Madara after the first time he defeated him, like Tobirama told him to, a LOT of the problems the Ninja World suffered later on, would never have happened. Sure, other problems would have occurred, but I don't believe for a second they would have reached the world-altering levels they became in Late-Shippuden.

 

[yinjenxie]

I have read fights and considered them dumb despite the presence of stakes or consequences. It doesn't matter whether an action/fight would result in a world-ending catastrophe or just some street-fight brawl because some young master character hates the MC's face in front of them.

It all comes down to the delivery and flow of the story leading to such fights, and whether it makes sense for the current state of the story or not.

That's what I think about it.