• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

How high are the stakes?

Do you prefer world ending, cataclysmic conflict (Lord of the Rings) or focusing more on personal conflict. A good example i think of personal conflict would be Les Miserables. Jean is turning away from his old self and fighting against the inspector. Even though it was a pivotal point in time, the main focus wasn't the outcome of the French Revolution but finding closure and peace in thec main character.
 
This is kind of a false dilemma cuz even world-ending cataclysmic stakes have to be personal to matter to the reader. The world-ending disaster has to affect the characters personally for us to care. In fact, I think a smaller-scale focus is good for almost any story, because it's the personal stakes that really get us emotionally involved in the story. You can have very large-scale conflict paired with personal conflict and have them work together to be a coherent story.

edit: also a larger scale conflict isn't necessarily higher stakes. A conflict that affects only the MC can have very high stakes due to its implications for the MC, while a conflict that affects the whole world can have lower stakes for the MC personally.

(And sorry if I'm making no sense, im tired and distracted)
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
I think the real question being asked here is more of intimate vs epic in the setting of the personal conflict of the MC. LoTR, SoIaF, are plenty personal but there is a huge world around the characters and far more at stake than one short guy's life... be it Frodo or Tyrion.

Me, when it comes to fantasy or sci-fi, I'm all in on the epic. I don't mean Chicken Little needs to be running around in every book, the sweeping epic doesn't need the world to be at stake, but I'm just not going to be into a "family drama" fantasy/sci-fi like I'm going to be into an epic family drama fantasy sci-fi.

Days of Our Dwarves... an intimate portrait of the Ironhelm family and their relationships, their daily struggles with the miner's union, and... NO! Balrogs! Give me Balrogs! Now!

heh heh.
 
Last edited:

Peat

Sage
DotA nailed it. The stakes always have to be personal, no matter what else lays on the line. You can have someone fight for the fate of the world and to rescue their wife, but you can't have someone fight just for the fate of the world without it feeling off to a great many people.

Having both personal stakes and big world-changing stakes is a good thing though. I'm down with that. Although I'm a bit sour due to all these series that start as nice tight personal stakes and then go "Aha, but the fate of the entire country is on the line! No, the world! No, the ENTiRE UNiVERSSSSSSE! Ahahahahawiriwibblewibblegrmf". Not only does it feel a bit cartoony, it also tends to destroy the personal stakes.
 
This is kind of a false dilemma cuz even world-ending cataclysmic stakes have to be personal to matter to the reader. The world-ending disaster has to affect the characters personally for us to care. In fact, I think a smaller-scale focus is good for almost any story, because it's the personal stakes that really get us emotionally involved in the story. You can have very large-scale conflict paired with personal conflict and have them work together to be a coherent story.

edit: also a larger scale conflict isn't necessarily higher stakes. A conflict that affects only the MC can have very high stakes due to its implications for the MC, while a conflict that affects the whole world can have lower stakes for the MC personally.

(And sorry if I'm making no sense, im tired and distracted)

First thing that came to mind is the Buffyverse...

Both Angel and Buffy are great examples for using both cataclysmic and personal stakes and stacking them up side by side for a maximum effect ... they faced a potential apocalypse at least once a season but it's never just about the end of the world ... it's always tied into something personal like potentially losing a sister, Willow's depression & addiction, boyfriend drama, the periodic return of Darla, Angel losing his soul, Spike trying to get his back etc.

Charmed was similar ... but I think Buffy/Angel might have done it better.

Trying to think of examples in books ... but I'm also tired :)
 

Drakevarg

Troubadour
I've always more begrudgingly accepted epic stakes than ever enjoyed them. As it's my medium of choice, I'm going to use a vidjagame example: Witcher 3. The epic world-ending drama was only something I ever interacted with out of a sense of resigned obligation to continue the story. My favorite parts of the game, by contrast, were the side missions of the main character's day job as a professional monster slayer. It's an engaging blend of the basic drudgery of a blue-collar job complete with finding want ads, learning about your customer's problems, negotiating pay, putting a professional eye on the situation... and the fantastical elements of doing all this to use world-class combat training to kill creatures out of nightmare.

Thing is, saving the day is ALWAYS the Hero's Journey in one form or another. And we've all read, watched and played that story a hundred times and a hundred times again. There's so much to life that you can easily put a fantastical twist to without needing to save the world, the city, or the princess. How come you never see a medieval zombie movie? Or Cloverfield only it's a dragon? Or a sword-and-sandals slasher flick? Or Jason Bourne but he's a literal ninja? These are all pretty stock plotlines but for some reason fantasy stories seem outside of their comfort zone if you can't describe their plots as "like Lord of the Rings, but..."
 

glutton

Inkling
Thing is, saving the day is ALWAYS the Hero's Journey in one form or another.
It doesn't have to be. How much can it deviate from the formula before not being the Hero's Journey? The stuff the hero does to save the day could all be part of the "ordinary world" for them albeit more challenging than their day to day routine (maybe they've saved the world/kingdom before and this is a second, third or fourth outing), they could not have a mentor but instead mentor someone else etc.

My Saint Princess Julianna is trying to decide during her story how much of her political power to pass on to her 17 year old son after dying and coming back to life through sheer willpower (lol), she also has another younger queen who aspires to reach/surpass her level. SHE'S the mentor. XD

The same logic would go for superhero stories where an established hero/group of heroes saves the world, it'd seem weird to label each individual Superman story where he saves the day as its own Hero's Journey for example.
 
Last edited:
I
I'm just not going to be into a "family drama" fantasy/sci-fi like I'm going to be into an epic family drama fantasy sci-fi.

Days of Our Dwarves... an intimate portrait of the Ironhelm family and their relationships, their daily struggles with the miner's union, and...

I would read that! Lol.
 
I always think of the importance, the use of stakes as being something like What reader wants to see happen vs What is actually happening.

In this configuration, the scope of the conflict doesn't matter so much, either way.

So for instance, if you are writing a story that is basically a romance, the first step would be to establish the two main characters in such a way that the reader cares about them both (although the reader may have a greater affinity with only one), and wants to see them come together to form that thing, the romantic union, that the reader wants to see. Then, you throw things at them that might prevent that coming together. These things can be of almost any scope; the only requirement is that these things present a real potential of preventing their coming together. So, examples:

  1. Character B has "serious issues" from his past preventing him from accepting the possibility of love or causing him to act in a way that might destroy Character A's desire for him.
  2. The social environment prevents A & B coming together in a happily-ever-after way. E.g., Romeo & Juliet, Brokeback Mountain, The Age of Innocence.
  3. Some Character C has romantic designs on A or B, and A or B can't help but feeling conflicted. (Romantic triangle.)
  4. Villain Z appears on the scene and may seek to kill either A or B for his own personal reasons before the relationship reaches that happy ever-after state. The two characters have this greater threat to confront, either just one of them or both together, before the romance can come to its natural conclusion. They might actually experience interpersonal tension if they disagree on this matter or on how to go about resolving the situation.
  5. The rest of the world goes to hell. War breaks out, keeping A and B apart. The entire order may be destroyed, let alone either A or B or both. A and B are swept up into this greater conflict, leading to character arcs for each that might threaten the fulfillment of that romantic relationship.

Ok, there are probably many other possibilities. The threat might range from the intimate and personal scope, #1 or #3, to a larger scope, even an epic scope as in #5. The key point here is that the reader wants to see a particular development or outcome, but something is thrown in the way of that outcome.

Imagine a situation that isn't a romance goal. Perhaps we have a character who starts out young, a member of a lower, stigmatized class. If we set this character up to be someone the reader will care deeply about, someone with whom the reader will identify, and then hint that he might have the opportunity to not only escape stigmatization but to become rather successful, for example an extremely powerful wizard or military leader, then we can choose a similar range of obstacles for him. The story could take place on a more intimate, human-to-human level, or it can take place on an epic level. The key is that the reader wants to see something happen and various developments threaten that one thing.

I think that we can run into trouble with something we can't quite control. Different readers will have different triggers or buttons to be pushed. Some readers will more easily identify with a particular character or situation than others will and may more easily be moved to "fear" for the outcome by these smaller scale, intimate obstructions.*

*Edit: And so, in other words, the larger, epic upheaval may sometimes be used as a type of "universalizing" factor. I mean, who wouldn't recognize a giant meteor heading for Earth as the ultimate Obstacle to any imaginable desired outcome? Heh. This explains a lot about the stereotypical Hollywood approach. NOT that we can't make use of universalizing factors, however....
 
Last edited:

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
We don't see much of this sort of story in fantasy, but you could look to Westerns for exemplars. Most of Louis L'Amour's stories were about saving something (a ranch, a herd, a family), with the savior being fantastically brave, good with a gun, better with his fists. It's not much of a stretch to shift the elements around. The point is, you can tell exciting, gripping tales without having to save the world or even the kingdom. But the hero does need to save something.
 
But the hero does need to save something.

Do they? I'm not so sure. Maybe my books are so wildly different from normality that the heroes refuse to act like actual heroes.
 
But the hero does need to save something.

Do they? I'm not so sure. Maybe my books are so wildly different from normality that the heroes refuse to act like actual heroes.

If there is a stake, then something's at stake. Like a bet on the Super Bowl, that something is either going to be lost entirely or it's going to achieve its ultimate fulfillment. If it's not lost, then perhaps we can say that it is saved from the ravages of the story.

I'm not sure we (general "us") have a common understanding of the term hero as it pertains to literature. So I'm not sure we could ever agree on a precise role. I'm tempted to say that a hero is the principle character who sees the story through to its conclusion, whether the conclusion is positive or tragic—and stop there, heh, without adding that a hero must always, through her struggles, be the cause of the outcome.

I addressed something in a roundabout way in my previous comment that I'll try to say simply and directly here. I think that the something that is at stake is something the reader values, desires. The reader has a stake on the line. This means, I don't think of stakes as necessarily being something the characters themselves desire, understand, or even know to exist. The stakes are not necessarily the characters' stakes, relating to the characters' desires—although they may be. (In which case, the reader's affinity with the characters may play a significant role.) So to borrow from Skip's example, it may be the reader will want to see the powerful hero kick some butt and save the ranch, even if the hero doesn't give much of a damn about the ranch but only his own skin. Maybe seeing that lovable family protected by the antihero is what the reader wants. Maybe seeing the efficiency of the antihero's violent tendencies is what the reader wants from the story. Could be different things.
 
Last edited:

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
<agreement emoji for FifthView>
Here's another angle for looking at this. In my book, Goblins at the Gates, the Roman Empire is at stake. If our heroes fail, the Eastern Empire (at least) will be overwhelmed.

Are my readers going to care? Not a bit. The *characters* care, but the Roman Empire is little more than an abstraction for the reader. The reader does care, however, if our heroes survive, and the price they pay to achieve victory. So, what are the heroes saving? The Empire, sure, but for the reader they are saving each other. That's where the emotional stakes are--if I do my job right, of course.
 
What about a reality warping, somewhat manipulative character who is only doing certain things because he wants to reunite with someone important to him, even if it creates paradox upon paradox? Would it be difficult to get the readers to sympathize with him? [Personally I have next to no sympathy for him, but that's just me.]
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
For my novels, I find that my stories tend to boil down to the more intimate, where the key stakes aren't earth-shattering. Though I do sometimes have a backdrop where epic stakes are involved, but just not as the key stake that the reader cares most about.
 

Mythopoet

Auror
I don't think I really have a preference for either. I can enjoy both separately or together as long as I find the story compelling.

Though I confess, I have a sort of visceral hatred for the phrase "high stakes". I'm not really sure why. But as soon as a book's description uses the phrase "high stakes" I immediately want to put it down or may be throw it against a wall. It just feels to me like one of those phrases that when used is often followed by writing that reeks of naked reader manipulation rather than organic storytelling. (I also hate the term "hook" for the same reason.) As soon as someone says a writer should "raise the stakes" I want to beat that person over the head with a book. I guess I tend to think that going right for the "high stakes" story is going for the easy, low hanging fruit. "Oh no, the world is going to end! You can stop reading now!" It works the same way for emotional "high stakes" which is what Lit Fic goes for a lot of the time.
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
I think you can see my preference in, let's look at real world examples and use WW2 as a basis for "epic"... Schindler's List and The Diary of Anne Frank. These are very personal stories with overwhelming settings in the midst of overwhelming and organic stakes: Epic environment. Think movie, and compare those to something like Midway, which is far less personal where the actions of some characters determine world altering events, while also thrusting in personal stories. Then I think there is a somewhere in between even those two ends of the epic story, with something like Band of Brothers, which is danged personal, but still a raucous ride through an epic setting.

If I'm watching a movie, I love all of these. If I'm reading a book and it's not for history (in which case Midway would win, military tactics and such are fascinating) I'm all in for Band of Brothers style... Personal and Epic. Or, Enemy at the Gates, those are the styles I'd prefer to read.
 
Top