Writing [Tutorial] Plotting: The Murphy's Law Method

[OokamiKasumi]

Plotting: The Murphy's Law Method​

This method of plotting is surprisingly easy. Ask yourself:​

What the worst possible thing that could happen to my characters--right now?​

Do That.​

​

Plotting:
The Murphy's Law Method ​

"What Can go Wrong SHOULD go Wrong."​

This method is extremely effective when plotting out Adventure stories of any kind. In fact, Van Helsing, National Treasure, Inkheart, Pirates of the Caribbean, Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, the James Bond movies, most RP video games, and almost all Horror stories and films follow this pattern.

So how do you Write this method?​

The story begins with a Goal. Our hero goes after said goal which spawns a problem. Once our hero figures out a solution and gains the goal, the worst possible thing (or person) happens to snatch that victory right out of their hands.

This forces our hero to figure out a new solution to regain their goal, and uncovers yet another problem--a worse problem. They find a solution to that problem and achieve said goal only to have Murphy's Law strike again to snatch their victory away, plus present them with a new and even worse problem to solve.

Rinse and Repeat until you reach The End.

In a Nutshell:

You begin with a character and something they desire.​

-- They go after their desire.​

-- This immediately sparks complications AKA: Problems, your character has to solve.​

-- The character applies their chosen Solution to their Problem.​

-- Murphy's Law kicks in: the Solution causes a worse problem.​

​

This pattern continues --Problem > Solution > Problem-- so on, and so forth, until All the problems are solved and your character either reaches their goal, achieves an even better goal, or dies.​

This style of story also known as:​

"Impressive Failure".​

From: Screenwriting Column 08 by Terry Rossio

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

"Consider Raiders of the Lost Ark. Indiana Jones is perhaps the greatest action hero in the history of the movies, and in his debut film he flat-out fails from beginning to end.​

​

• He loses the golden idol.​

• Marian is kidnapped and he's unable to rescue her.​

• He finds the Ark, but it is immediately taken.​

• His bluff to destroy the Ark is called, and he gets recaptured.​

• He can't even look upon the Ark when it is opened.​

• And the government ends up with his long sought-after and much suffered-for prize.​

​

This guy's an action hero?​

​

Yup, because he fails so damn impressively from start to finish. Indy fails so well in fact, the audience is impressed as hell, and hardly aware of the fact that he's failing. The defeats are just setbacks that create more opportunities for heroism. As an added benefit, Indy wins the audience's sympathy -- the poor guy's trying so hard, you can't help but root for him."​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

In the Murphy's Law method, Impressive Failure happens over and over until the very end of the story where our hero is completely out of solutions--except the one thing they really, really don't want to do. This one last thing solves everything--usually with a casualty--and the story ends on an ironic note.

Sound like fun?

​

Murphy's Law Romance​

The Murphy's Law Method is surprisingly effective when plotting out an angsty Romance!

Example: Romeo & Juliet

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Set Up: Once upon a time, a boy and girl fell in love.​

The Goal: Each other.​

​

Problem: Their parents hated each other, and none of their friends liked the others' friends. No one approved--in fact, it was forbidden for them to see each other. (Insert Lover's Angst.)​

​

Solution: Secret marriage.​

​

Problem: Their relationship is discovered and they are forcibly separated. (Insert Separation Angst.)​

​

Solution: They arrange to meet in secret to run away together.​

​

Problem: One lover is late to the meeting. (Insert Abandonment Angst.)​

​

Solution: A sympathetic friend (who happens to be the priest that married them,) is waiting with the other lover (the one that isn't late.) Said friend decides to go out and discover whether or not the late lover is going to show up.​

​

Problem: The waiting lover is "marked for death" should they be found within the city limits, (which they are.) Because the friend is out hunting down the late lover, this "marked" lover is left alone and unprotected. (Insert Unfairness Angst.)​

​

Solution: A potion that fakes death. If they were dead, no one would bother them.​

​

Problem: The late lover misses the searching friend and arrives alone to find their beloved out cold from the potion. They immediately think that their beloved has committed suicide because they were late. (Insert "It's all my fault" Angst.)​

​

Solution: They decide to join their lover in death -- by committing suicide.​

​

Problem: The lover that was out cold wakes up to find their beloved draped across them Dead. (Insert more "It's all my fault" Angst.)​

​

Solution: They commit suicide too.​

​

Conclusion: The parents find the dead kids. (Insert Even MORE "It's all my fault" Angst.) They decide to stop the feud between their families​

​

The End ​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Writing Murphy's Law ​

The key to using this method effectively is ONE Point of View, normally the Hero's. This keeps the reader firmly in the driver's seat and focused on what the Hero is doing. It also allows surprises to pop-up and Suspense to build. "Is he gonna get it this time?"

If the reader has been in the Villain's head, for example, and already knows what's going to happen next--where's the Surprise?

Memorize this:
Suspense can only happen when the Reader
DOESN'T know what will happen next.​

So don't tell them by head-hopping, damn it!

The only real problem that one could face when using this method is the possibility of the author painting themselves into a corner by creating a problem the character Can't solve. This often triggers the heinous Deus Ex Machina--when something or someone comes out of nowhere to save the hero's butt.

The solution of course, is to make a LIST of the problems and their solutions--and STICK TO IT, unless of course, you find a better solution. Just remember to make a better problem to go with it!



~~~~~~~~~~~~
Want to read my other Writing tutorials?

 

[Deleted member 57675]

Welcome back. Watching and nibbling.

 

[Ilikewaterkusa]

The worst thing that could happen to my characters is that they live in end stage capitalism

 

[Armored99]

What about foreshadowing?

In the same manner of how solutions for problems shouldn't come out of no where (Deus Ex Machina). Problems also shouldn't always be unpredictable. Perhaps something like (difficultates ex Deo).

You can have the wheel fall off your wagon if you need a reason for it to come to a stop. However if you want it to happen in a significant area, then some information on the significance of the area should be given before hand.

The worst thing that could happen to my characters is that they live in end stage capitalism

That's just communism with extra steps.

 

[LostLibrarian]

I have to disagree with your take in some points - though mostly (as always) based in semantics.

The question shouldn't be "What is the worst thing that can happen?" all the time. Because while that can work for some stories, it'll also give a much bigger problem: you have to escalate the stakes toward the climax. Adding "the biggest worst" on top of "the bigger worst" on top of "the worst thing possible" can really mess around with both the stakes and the suspension of disbelief. An easy example for that would be the show 24. You can only up the stakes so much from "the worst that can happen". If your second season is atom bombs, your later seasons will get stupidly over the top with their stakes... the same things is true for a lot of long-running action series (especially anime) where we always end with "the fate of the universe".
Especially if we talk about plotting, it can also bring a new problem: the actual climax is a lot less interesting than some of the earlier problems and people leave the story with a "hmm... was alright" feeling.

So to go back to semantics, I'll throw in a description I find a lot more agreeable for most genres: "progressive complications". You should always - and that's the core I absolutely agree with - throw new and unexpected problems at your characters. But for most stories you should start with something smaller and then start to complicate the situation more and more and more until the last problem is the big climax.


Also there is another side to "Suspense can only happen when the Reader DOESN'T know what will happen next." (nothing to disagree, just to add). The reader will also expect bad stuff to happen if it happens all the time which will lessen the impact, forcing the author to create even worse stuff even faster. "Everyone always goes wrong works for short stories (like R&J or movies)" without much room for downtime. But standard length novels have that time and need that time to breathe.
To go with another quote i like: "Zig when they expect you to zag." Don't throw only unexpected problems at the character, but also give them unexpected help (doesn't mean out of nowhere) or a short time of peace when the reader expects things to go wrong. The story need that peace.

Besides that... good stuff as usual. But what is a good tutorial without a discussion about semantics :D

 

[BenJepheneT]

Let me preface by saying this: it's a good guide, Ookami, especially for new writers looking to start somewhere, and I'm sure we all want healthy discussions to be made on the topic of writing good stories.

However, I'm not here for the tips.

I'm here for the disagreements and if God is good today, the heated arguments. Potential chaos, if you will.

I have to disagree with your take in some points - though mostly (as always) based in semantics.

The question shouldn't be "What is the worst thing that can happen?" all the time. Because while that can work for some stories, it'll also give a much bigger problem: you have to escalate the stakes toward the climax. Adding "the biggest worst" on top of "the bigger worst" on top of "the worst thing possible" can really mess around with both the stakes and the suspension of disbelief. An easy example for that would be the show 24. You can only up the stakes so much from "the worst that can happen". If your second season is atom bombs, your later seasons will get stupidly over the top with their stakes... the same things is true for a lot of long-running action series (especially anime) where we always end with "the fate of the universe".
Especially if we talk about plotting, it can also bring a new problem: the actual climax is a lot less interesting than some of the earlier problems and people leave the story with a "hmm... was alright" feeling.

So to go back to semantics, I'll throw in a description I find a lot more agreeable for most genres: "progressive complications". You should always - and that's the core I absolutely agree with - throw new and unexpected problems at your characters. But for most stories you should start with something smaller and then start to complicate the situation more and more and more until the last problem is the big climax.


Also there is another side to "Suspense can only happen when the Reader DOESN'T know what will happen next." (nothing to disagree, just to add). The reader will also expect bad stuff to happen if it happens all the time which will lessen the impact, forcing the author to create even worse stuff even faster. "Everyone always goes wrong works for short stories (like R&J or movies)" without much room for downtime. But standard length novels have that time and need that time to breathe.
To go with another quote i like: "Zig when they expect you to zag." Don't throw only unexpected problems at the character, but also give them unexpected help (doesn't mean out of nowhere) or a short time of peace when the reader expects things to go wrong. The story need that peace.

Besides that... good stuff as usual. But what is a good tutorial without a discussion about semantics :D

oh boy, I'm just in time

 

[Sabruness]

in theory, your points are all right. in practice, they;'d be much harder to pull off without things turning into a masochistic shitshow where all that's done is shitting on the protagonist as the eventual sole plot point

 

[OokamiKasumi]

in theory, your points are all right. in practice, they;'d be much harder to pull off without things turning into a masochistic shitshow where all that's done is shitting on the protagonist as the eventual sole plot point

Sadly far too many of the web novels I am currently reading are either "masochistic shitshows where all that's done is shitting on the protagonist" or where the protagonist shits on everyone -- because they'd previously shit on the protagonist.

 

[Jemini]

Writing Murphy's Law ​

The key to using this method effectively is ONE Point of View, normally the Hero's. This keeps the reader firmly in the driver's seat and focused on what the Hero is doing. It also allows surprises to pop-up and Suspense to build. "Is he gonna get it this time?"

If the reader has been in the Villain's head, for example, and already knows what's going to happen next--where's the Surprise?

Memorize this:
Suspense can only happen when the Reader
DOESN'T know what will happen next.​

So don't tell them by head-hopping, damn it!

The only real problem that one could face when using this method is the possibility of the author painting themselves into a corner by creating a problem the character Can't solve. This often triggers the heinous Deus Ex Machina--when something or someone comes out of nowhere to save the hero's butt.

The solution of course, is to make a LIST of the problems and their solutions--and STICK TO IT, unless of course, you find a better solution. Just remember to make a better problem to go with it!



~~~~~~~~~~~~
Want to read my other Writing tutorials?

While I can see the general wisdom of this approach, and I also agree with the need for suspense and the notion that suspense is only built when you stick to "one point of view," I think on the bigger picture I would have to say that this approach is mostly meant for an older and shorter form of story telling, one that restricts it's word count to numbers below 150K (and even that's considered a crazy high number, with the majority even being less than half of that at around 60-80K.)

In modern long-form story telling, and ESPECIALLY with the new power-fantasy perspective toward story-telling, there is actually some bending of the rules that's not only possible, but in some cases actually REQUIRED in order to get an appropriate level of suspense in the story.

It's been my experience that in long-form story telling, it actually can be interesting to head-jump a little. (Just so long as the head-jumping doesn't give away the threat to the protagonist.) This is most effective when you head-jump over to one of the other supporting characters for maybe just 1 chapter, or even a small segment of the chapter, and preferably someone on the ally side and not jumping over to the villain's head.

A second modification, particularly applicable in power-fantasy stories with an OP protagonist, sometimes there's a different rule that can be followed in order to actually head-jump to the "villain's" perspective.

Thing is, it's not as interesting to see things from the protagonist's POV if you know the protagonist is going to just crush the competition. So, to compensate for this, it's good to occasionally give the POV of the very villain who's about to get stomped.

It's basically re-introducing the murphy's law method from the weaker villain's perspective, pulling an effective role-reversal of the typical model that puts the hero as the under-dog.

The fun thing about this is that the audience is completely wise to this technique by now. If they see you head-jump to the villain's POV, they already know from the moment they notice who's head they're in that the villain is about to get stomped. And they just watch with eager anticipation for the moment the hero's hammer comes down on the arrogant prick who's head they're currently living in.

So, it's still the "Murphy's law method." Just with the villain filling the role that's usually filled by the hero. (and with no victory in the end, but then, the audience basically counts the villain's failure as the hero's victory anyway, so it's fine.)

Point to keep in mind. This can make an OP protagonist story more interesting, but it will only work so many times. Basically, this can't be the only trick in your book to make things interesting. You should be spending at least 80% of the time overall in the protagonist's head, and be using other methods including things going wrong for them socially (even if they can manage things power wise, things can still go wrong for them in the social area,) or by having villains at a range of power levels. Keep the protagonist's POV if the enemy is stronger, but head-jump to the villain's POV only when the villain is weaker and on-route for a smack-down.

(Overlord is particularly well known for this technique, with several entire books from the series taking place over 90% from the POV of the humans and other races that are about to be stomped down by the denizens of Nazarak.)

 

[LostLibrarian]

in practice, they;'d be much harder to pull off without things turning into a masochistic shitshow where all that's done is shitting on the protagonist as the eventual sole plot point

Reminds me of that one CN webnovel which name I can't remember because I dropped it and webnovel killed my account. Started kinda cool with a struggle in a medieval world. Ended with the MC not being able to cross the street without getting into another massive problems with literally none of his plans working out. But somehow I was still meant to think he was clever...

 

[Jemini]

Sadly far too many of the web novels I am currently reading are either "masochistic shitshows where all that's done is shitting on the protagonist" or where the protagonist shits on everyone -- because they'd previously shit on the protagonist.

Have you read Mother of Learning?

I just found it a couple weeks ago. Already finished it. It's shockingly good. It's over 100 chapters long with the older 8K word chapter length as it's standard (closer to 2K now days), and it is written with the plotting techniques of the older short-form story era (just stretched out over this much larger story.)

I would go so far as to call it the English Original web novel competitor to Mushoku Tensei. It is that good.

(FYI: It is a time-loop story. The title, "Mother of Learning," is based on the concept that "repetition is the mother of learning." And it plays up on this concept too. It easily has the single most complex magic system I've ever seen in any piece of fiction anywhere, and yet you never feel out of your depth as it's introduced because you learn about it just a little bit at a time with each repetition through the time-loop, and the reader's understanding of the magic system deepens as the protagonist's skills with it improve little by little.)

 

[Redemit]

 

[ForestDweller]

I tried this and my readers yelled at me for it. 0/10 not recommended.

 

[Jemini]

I tried this and my readers yelled at me for it. 0/10 not recommended.

Of course, you have to moderate it a bit and keep it well paced. Things going wrong have to be in-line with the story and flow naturally from the situation. It can't feel contrived. Throwing difficulties at the characters in a contrived way is only going to piss off your readers.

Actually, your readers are going to be pissed off either way. However, the mark of a good writer is having your readers get pissed off at the villain, while a bad writer gets the readers pissed off at themselves. In order to get the readers pissed off at the villain, you need to put some serious thought into your villain and what motivates them. Make it so the readers can absolutely see the reason why the villain would want to screw over your protagonist(s), trying to avoid there even being the slightest hint of "because the writer wants conflict in the story" from ringing through to the readers.

 

[PancakesWitch]

Have you read Mother of Learning?

I just found it a couple weeks ago. Already finished it. It's shockingly good. It's over 100 chapters long with the older 8K word chapter length as it's standard (closer to 2K now days), and it is written with the plotting techniques of the older short-form story era (just stretched out over this much larger story.)

I would go so far as to call it the English Original web novel competitor to Mushoku Tensei. It is that good.

(FYI: It is a time-loop story. The title, "Mother of Learning," is based on the concept that "repetition is the mother of learning." And it plays up on this concept too. It easily has the single most complex magic system I've ever seen in any piece of fiction anywhere, and yet you never feel out of your depth as it's introduced because you learn about it just a little bit at a time with each repetition through the time-loop, and the reader's understanding of the magic system deepens as the protagonist's skills with it improve little by little.)

Mushoku Tensei is garbage about a pedophile that "redeems" himself (but actually never does), and the worst part is taht the girls he sexually harass falls for his feet at the end with a heavy stockhol syndrome. Please dont compare this hellspawn of degeneracy with Mother of Learning lol

 

[BlackKnightX]

Bad advice! You see, the worst thing that could happen to my character is when they just suddenly ceases to exist without anything left of them—no memory, no history, nothing. They just don’t exist anymore. And once they don‘t exist, there’s no point in writing this story; I’ll lose motivation instantly. And once I lose my motivation, I’ll stop writing it all together, which is the worst thing that could happen to me.

See this chain of events right here? That’s karma, pure karma. You fuck the character up, and they’ll come right back at you. So, bad advice!

 

[Jemini]

Mushoku Tensei is garbage about a pedophile that "redeems" himself (but actually never does), and the worst part is taht the girls he sexually harass falls for his feet at the end with a heavy stockhol syndrome. Please dont compare this hellspawn of degeneracy with Mother of Learning lol

And Mother of Learning is about a craven coward who learns mind magic and goes around stealing everyone's secrets through manipulation and lies, wrecks the minds of hundreds upon hundreds of sentient creatures just for the sake of practicing his mind magic, and basically lies, cheats, and steals his way into power before finally managing to completely avoid all punishment for his multiple grievous sins because he manages to prove himself the best chance they have at solving the severely messed up problems they've all gotten themselves into.

Masterpieces like these two pieces of fiction are good specifically BECAUSE they feature deeply flawed characters and manage to make the reader/viewer identify with them anyway. In the case of MT, it's because the world is actually so messed up that Rudeus, for all his flaws, is actually tame compared to the depths of depravity present otherwise in the world. And, in the case of MoL, it's because the problems they are dealing with are just so completely out of control that you actually need someone with Zorian's way of looking at things to solve this problem. MoL actually manages to kick it up a notch by portraying Zorian in such a way that you really do manage to think of him as an essentially good person despite all the horrible crimes he's committed as I laid out in the first paragraph.

(Actually, I'm really not sure which of Rudeus or Zorian are worse. Rudeus is someone you can clearly tell is messed up. The audience never wants to truly identify with a sex fiend like Rudeus. However, you see him genuinely struggling to work past his failings and just keep his family together and functioning. You can respect that. Meanwhile, Zorian is someone who you can very easily identify with and you don't even realize how truly depraved he actually is unless you take a little bit of distance and really just evaluate him for his actions devoid of the personality you've grown to love. And, when you look at it that way, it actually becomes a little disturbing that you manage to just identify so much with someone who's essentially a total sociopath if you weigh him just on his actions alone.)