Screenwriting : Do you build the rules first… or discover them as you go? by Robert Hamilton

Fascinating Process, Robert Hamilton! I start with one core rule that drives everything, expand it into system rules that shape the world and progression, build the character to interact with that system, and then design moments by pushing the rule to its limits so the story unfolds naturally.

Dwayne Williams 2 That’s a great way to approach it.

I like the idea of starting with a single core rule and letting everything grow out from that. That’s pretty close to what I’ve been doing — once that central rule felt right, everything else started forming around it.

What I’ve been trying to figure out is how much to actually show that system early on versus letting the audience just feel it before they understand it.

Do you tend to make those rules clear to the audience upfront, or let them discover them over time?

I don't see the point in making a rod for my back, so I'm not going to hold myself to any rules that might make things more difficult than they need to be later in the story.

I do a bit of both. General rules first before I begin, and then the more specific rules and exceptions, I usually discover while writing.

Robert Hamilton I tend to build the rules early — not as mythology, but as logic. For me the system has to make sense before I start breaking it apart on the page. In The Unmaking and The Last Offering, the rules were clear from the beginning because the horror depended on consistency. Same with my current project, Line of Departure — the recursion, the sensory distortion, the pressure on perception — all of that had to be architected up front so the characters’ reactions stayed grounded.

A lot of that comes from my background. I’m trained to look for patterns, anomalies, and system behavior under stress. MDMP forces you to define the environment, identify constraints, and understand how a system behaves before you start making decisions inside it. That mindset carried over into my writing. I build the world the way I’d build an operational picture: what are the governing pressures, what are the rules of the terrain, and how does the environment respond when pushed.

But once I’m inside the scenes, I’m not precious about the rules. If a moment lands harder because of X, and it doesn’t violate the core logic, I’ll adjust. The system can flex as long as the spine stays intact. Overarching consistency matters more than rigid adherence to a rule I wrote six months earlier.

So I guess my process is:

Build the system with intention, then let the story pressure‑test it.

If the scene is better and the adjustment doesn’t break the architecture, the rule evolves. If it does break the architecture, the scene has to earn its place.

For me, the audience doesn’t need the rulebook — they just need to feel the world behaving consistently, even when the characters don’t understand it yet.

Great question and honestly, both approaches can work, but they create very different kinds of worlds.

For me, I tend to define the governing logic first, even if I don’t fully articulate it on the page. Not rules in a rigid “monster manual” sense, but a deeper operating principle what the world responds to, what it punishes, what it ignores. Once that spine exists, discovery during writing becomes more organic because every strange event still feels internally consistent.

What you’re describing an entity that doesn’t pursue or act with intent, but simply exists and waits is interesting because it shifts horror from action to interpretation. In that kind of system, symbols, patterns, and human attempts to map meaning become the real dramatic engine. The fear isn’t just the unknown. it’s the possibility that the rules are indifferent to us.

In terms of audience access, I’ve found the strongest tension often comes when viewers can sense the pattern before they fully understand it. Too much clarity collapses mystery; too little structure creates emotional distance. Letting them assemble the logic piece by piece can make the world feel older than the story itself.

Would be very curious to hear does the system in your project evolve as characters interact with it, or is it fundamentally unchangeable?

Elara Wright That’s a really interesting way to frame it — especially the idea of shifting horror toward interpretation instead of action. That’s pretty close to what I’ve been trying to lean into.

For me, the core system stays consistent, but the understanding of it evolves as the characters interact with it. Early on it feels undefined, but the more pressure they put on it, the more its edges start to show.

So it’s less that the system changes, and more that the characters’ ability to see it clearly changes over time.

I think it depends on the story Robert Hamilton If it is a game or trial setup, explaining the rules upfront helps build clarity, but otherwise it feels more natural to reveal them progressively so the audience learns through experience.

James Hooker That’s a great way to approach it — especially building out smaller stories to understand how the world behaves before the main narrative.

I’ve been doing something similar with fragments and observations, letting those pieces shape how the system reveals itself over time.

Really appreciate you sharing that.

Dwayne Williams 2 That’s exactly where I’ve been landing, too — letting the audience experience the rules instead of being told them.

What I’m finding interesting is how much tension comes from not fully understanding the system, just feeling that something is off.

Almost like the rules exist… but they’re just out of reach.

I think it is very difficult to build everything all at once before writing, because the story itself helps shape the world. The more the story develops, the more you discover new things, or find yourself forced to decide how everything should function in relation to all aspects of life. That is the approach I have been working with.

Meriem Bouziani That’s exactly what I’ve been finding too.

The story almost forces the rules to reveal themselves over time.

What’s been interesting for me is realizing the system was always there… just not fully understood yet.

Almost like the characters are discovering it at the same time the audience is.

Go For It Give It A Try

Really appreciate the discussion here — this is exactly the kind of approach I’ve been exploring.

Instead of explaining the rules upfront, I’ve been letting them reveal themselves through the experience. It seems to create more tension when something feels off, but you can’t quite understand why.

I actually just finished the full feature version built around this idea and put it up for feedback.

Curious how others balance clarity vs mystery when building a system like this.

Clarity versus mystery is one of the biggest issues I am facing. I wrote my first script as a puzzle-box story: the main storyline moves forward linearly, while the backstory is revealed gradually through fragments. Sometimes those fragments appear only in a few lines of dialogue or a brief glance within the present story.

As I continue polishing the script, I have started to feel that some of those backstory fragments are not clear enough. That is where I feel stuck. Should I make them more explicit, even if that risks damaging the mystery? Or should I leave them as they are and trust the audience’s intelligence, even if that may make the plot feel less cohesive and emotionally less connected?

I am still blocked on this question. Robert Hamilton

I plan most of the rules first, for a new fantasy world, so I have a general, clear & tangible map. As the character’s take action, unexpectedly, I may think of a new rule relevant to their circumstances . I scatter seeds of clues over time, including codes, symbols, or a unique magic system, never heard of before. I let the audience, discover alongside the protagonist, unless a story justifies, we know what the characters don’t.

Debbie Croysdale

I like that approach a lot. That’s pretty close to what I’ve been working toward, especially with building a system that feels real underneath, even if the audience doesn’t see all of it right away.

For me, the structure exists first — rules, limits, consequences — but I try not to explain them directly. I’d rather let people feel that something is consistent before they fully understand it.

That’s where I think tension comes from, when something follows rules you can’t quite see yet.

Gotta build the rules first. Otherwise, you may make character choices or take scenes places that undo those rules and not realize it until you're far down the path!

Pat Alexander That’s a great point. Having that foundation underneath everything keeps the story from drifting, even if the audience isn’t fully aware of it yet. I’ve found it helps keep tension consistent too, because the rules are always there, even when they’re not explained.

I sit in the bath for hours contemplating the soap dish, then occasionally shout: ‘that’s a good idea, I’ll put that in the script’- Then begins the search for the elusive luffa and wishing id bought the one with a handle.

Robert Hamilton Robert Hamilton Really interesting question and I like the idea of the “thing” simply existing rather than acting with intent.

For me, it usually starts somewhere in between. I need a loose understanding of the rules early on just enough to stay consistent but a lot of the deeper logic reveals itself while writing.

What I’ve found is that if you define everything too early, it can feel rigid. But if you discover everything too late, it risks losing cohesion. So I try to let the emotional core guide the rules almost like the world behaves in alignment with what the story is trying to make the audience feel.

In terms of audience understanding, I prefer giving them just enough to sense a pattern, but not enough to fully decode it. That space where they’re unsure but still engaged tends to create a stronger, more lasting tension.

Your approach of building systems and patterns around it sounds really strong it makes the world feel like it exists beyond the story itself.

I love writing horror and through the process have learned a little bit about creature rules, mostly through coverage reports. In my story I have creatures rising from the depths and feeding on the flesh and when I began writing, I thought that was enough but I was mistaken. I learned you have to give them a pattern, a sword and an Achilles heel. The protagonist learns the pattern, how the sword is used and how to cut the Achilles heel. Bonus if you can connect your protagonist's moral needs to the Achilles heel. I'm not saying that is what works for your creature but it helps me when I'm structuring my monster. I only learned this through coverage reports but its been helpful in my writing.

Abhijeet Aade

That’s a really strong way of looking at it. That balance between structure and discovery is exactly where I’ve been landing too. If everything is locked in too early it can feel rigid, but if there’s nothing underneath it, things start to drift.

I usually start with a core rule that everything builds from, then adjust as I write—leaving room to evolve it and even update what the audience understands over time. Sometimes the idea shifts into something entirely different than where it started, and the challenge becomes bringing the story back around so it still fits within that system.

I like what you said about giving the audience just enough to sense a pattern without fully decoding it. That uncertainty feels like where the tension really lives.

John Fife That’s a great way to frame it, especially the idea of giving the creature a pattern, a way to confront it, and a clear weakness. Even if the audience doesn’t fully understand those elements right away, having them built into the system gives everything more weight and consistency.

I’ve been leaning toward a similar approach, where the rules exist underneath the story whether they’re explained or not. I like the idea of the protagonist gradually discovering those patterns rather than being told them directly. It feels more immersive and lets the tension build naturally.

That connection between the protagonist and the weakness is interesting too. It adds another layer beyond just survival and turns it into something more personal.

David Taylor Hey Chris, I get what you’re going for there. I tend to focus more on building the underlying rules and letting the story come out of that structure.

I found my self facing this challenge 2 years ago. I was asked, how do admired filmmakers build such immersive worlds ?

I eventually came up with this model in the image.

It represents that the "story" we are telling would take place in a certain part of the world, where some character interactions will happen, that would be affected by the settings. It is interesting that even if we have written long files detailing our world and settings, the audience will eventually only see what the story allows them to see.

When any one of the settings changes, it is revealed through the interactions, instead of through the "narration".

So, while planning for the story, if you decide to change one factor, you will go back to this graph and ask how it all connects and affect each other

For me, it really depends on the project. But the more complex a story element is—whether it’s magic, mythology, politics, or anything with a lot of moving parts—the more I feel the need to establish at least some rules in advance. Defining the rules of the arena early helps me avoid plot holes and contradictions later, and it gives the characters something solid to push against.

When I wrote my medieval fantasy epic, I had to build the history before I could write a single scene. I mapped out the kingdoms, the major events, even the family tree of the titular queen. I drew a physical map of the realm. Once all of that existed, the characters suddenly had a past, a culture, and a world that felt lived in. The rules weren’t just constraints; they were narrative fuel. Very little of that world‑building ever appears directly on the page, but it gives the story a depth and structure it wouldn’t have had otherwise.

With other projects, I’ve discovered the rules as I go, but I still start with a basic foundation, just enough to keep the world consistent while leaving room for discovery.

I'd say I'm a panster in this way. I write a few rules, then I discover along with my charaters. Great question BTW!