I’ve managed writers for a long time, and I read a lot of scripts. When giving notes, something that pops up fairly often in early drafts is a lack of stakes. A storyline in your feature or pilot is basically a goal or objective with a series of complications. Character A wants something, and someone or something else stands in their way, but what happens if character A doesn’t get that thing? If the answer is “not much,” then why would a reader/audience member care?
Part of your job as a writer is to create situations where we care about the outcome of your character’s journey. If that isn’t successful, you’ll have a hard time getting/keeping an audience engaged. You should always ask yourself “so what” when creating those stakes, and see if that “so what” is enough. The stakes will not always be life and death, but they should be enough that we give a damn about that character getting (or not getting) what they want. Without that, what’s the point?
As always, happy to answer any questions.
6 people like this
Listen to Spencer on this! Let the reader know what the stakes are, and what happens if the hero doesn't succeed.
6 people like this
"You should always ask yourself “so what” when creating those stakes, and see if that “so what” is enough." Great advice, @Spencer! I do that in my outlines. I like to come up with stakes for major and minor characters.
5 people like this
thank you for posting this Spencer Robinson It’s something I wish I had learned earlier in my career.
4 people like this
Great question. I think emotional stakes are often just as important as physical ones. In my own fantasy series, the protagonist's goal is to find his best friend after arriving in the afterlife. On the surface, it's a search story, but underneath it's about guilt, grief, and the hope of making peace with a relationship that ended in tragedy. For me, the audience needs to care not just about whether he succeeds, but why it matters to him emotionally.
3 people like this
What's the biggest mistake you see writers make when trying to increase the stakes?
3 people like this
My protagonist has a. pair of stakes: A) to rekindle a romance with her old high school flame, and B)to improve her status by landing a glamorous job, which she believes could be a boon towards A). If she falls A), she fears that at her late thirties, she'll never fulfill her dream of remarrying and having children. Are these sufficient stakes, and how can I best connect the two?
4 people like this
Excellent point, Spencer.
I often find that asking "What happens if the protagonist fails?" is one of the best ways to test whether a story has enough dramatic weight. Strong stakes don't always have to be life or death, but they must matter deeply to the character—and therefore to the audience.
Thank you for sharing this valuable reminder.
3 people like this
What Spencer Robinson points out touches on a crucial aspect of screenwriting, but it can be approached from a very interesting angle. In my view, what the main character wants is the engine of the plot, and the entire universe of the story should revolve around that objective.
If the character fails to get what they want, it generates a sense of frustration in the audience that can be utilized strategically. When a protagonist doesn't achieve their goal for whatever reason, we can use that to open the door to a sequel. That failure or unresolved conflict becomes the perfect catalyst for an alternative solution, generating a new story connected to the first one.
Although this leaves the viewer with a touch of frustration at the end, it is an open ending that, if handled intelligently, is compensated for by the hope of having more story to enjoy, giving continuity and enriching the narrative universe in the long term.
4 people like this
What Spencer Robinson points out touches on a crucial aspect of screenwriting, but it can be approached from a very interesting angle. In my view, what the main character wants is the engine of the plot, and the entire universe of the story should revolve around that objective.If the character fails to get what they want, it generates a sense of frustration in the audience that can be utilized strategically. When a protagonist doesn't achieve their goal for whatever reason, we can use that to open the door to a sequel. That failure or unresolved conflict becomes the perfect catalyst for an alternative solution, generating a new story connected to the first one.
Although this leaves the viewer with a touch of frustration at the end, it is an open ending that, if handled intelligently, is compensated for by the hope of having more story to enjoy, giving continuity and enriching the narrative universe in the long term.
5 people like this
I never build a character around an abstract desire alone. I build them through cause and effect. My protagonists know that every choice carries a consequence, whether large or small, and they act with that awareness. Sometimes the greatest stake is not survival or victory, but emotional integrity. Achieving the goal may cost them the person they believe themselves to be. To me, stakes are not about size. They are about consequence and irreversible cost. Isn’t that how life works?
4 people like this
This was great advice Spencer Robinson - thank you!
5 people like this
I agree Spencer Robinson . However, if the character doesn't get what they want, an interesting story may take us on a journey that's more interesting seeing them not get what they want. What do you think?
5 people like this
Great breakdown, Spencer. I'd add two things about how stakes actually land with an audience:
1. The test is whether the feeling lingers. When a character doesn't get what they wanted, the audience feels it. some form of dissatisfaction. But the real question is: does that feeling stay with them for hours, or days, after the story ends? If it does whether the ending was positive or negative that's proof the story connected and pulled them in. If it doesn't linger, nothing landed. That's the line between a story that hits and one that flops.
2. Stakes work because the audience travels with the character, not just watches them. When it's done right, the audience starts feeling like the character's journey is their own. The character hurts, they hurt. The character laughs, they laugh. The character hits a wall, they feel the tension. And when the character finally wins, the audience feels like they won the same way an entire nation erupts when their football team scores, even though not one of them kicked the ball.
And that's exactly why a smooth, frictionless journey has no kick to it. It's the twists, the setbacks, the problems and the fight for solutions that make a story feel like life not a straight line.
2 people like this
Great point Spencer Robinson. One of the best moves a writer can make early on is answer the simple question: "What does my protagonist want? What bad thing will happen if they don't get it?" And even better when you can tie a personal stake to a bigger stake that affects more people/the world.