[MUST READ] snippetanon's analysis of GuardTemp's OC Team

You can get some good advice from this.

Taken From:
http://desustorage.org/co/thread/79361954/#79371313
http://desustorage.org/co/thread/79361954/#79371659
http://desustorage.org/co/thread/79361954/#79371873
http://desustorage.org/co/thread/79361954/#79372032
=======================================================================================================
>I'm only good at the technical aspects of a character

You're right, in a sense.
Looking at it from a quantity-based perspective, you have much more in terms of details about their weapons, names, and battle techniques. Nothing really lacking there. Not too cringey, either.

Your problems come into light once you look at what is NOT there.

>Personal note: Originally Team SLDR (Soldier), the root idea that spawned this team is the use of modern IRL shit in expert antipersonnel warfare. It's like the idea of teaching 40k's Imperial Guard how to git gud.
>Personal note 2: Maybe because I want to see what happens when someone approaches RWBY combat like real life combat.

These two lines give a pretty solid view of your writing process.

You had a vision, a dream for what roles the characters would have served. Yet, as beautiful as the vision may have been, that is not what they should have amounted to. They are unable to stand on their own as people, crumbling like a building without a foundation.

In fact, that is an accurate analogy for what occurred. OPTR was built from the top down. Endless neat little tidbits, vivid details, and intricacies all standing upon, well, ...

>Undecided backstory, thinking of: Sheltered daughter of a weapons manufacturing CEO. Got punted to Atlas as a live test of man-portable high-explosive ordnance platform. Dumb idea? Yes, and it gets dumber when she only has long-distance combat experience.
>Backstory is unconfirmed, plan is that he's a former huntsman/soldier that got discharged and (humiliatingly) thrown back into school because of something stupid.

Keep in mind, writing like that is not necessarily a bad thing.
More often that not, interesting details are what comes to us first rather well-established backgrounds. However, details should not be tacked on. This ties in with other concepts in writing.



One of the oldest, and frankly, most effective tips for writing is the advice to "show, not tell."

There's quite a lot to be said about that particular bit of information, but we'll go with a simpler presentation.
Let's take a look at Ruby.
Well, what do we know about her?

>Ruby Rose uses, in her own words, a "high-caliber sniper scythe."
>It's one of the most dangerous weapons ever designed.
>She built it herself.

All in all, it works to give the sense that she is a weapons expert, and a rather unique one at that.

Those are all details from dialogue. The show never had to directly say, "Hey, look at Ruby! She's a super amazing weapons expert, by the way." In fact, if they did so, it would detract from the storytelling. It would be a detail freely given with no evidence to back it up.

However, that does not mean that you should NEVER directly tell information to the reader.
Another peculiar attribute of hers is her cloak.

>She wears it almost everywhere she goes.
>It's present even in her otherwise rigid school uniform.
>Despite nearly causing her death by trapping her to a Nevermore feather, she keeps it on.
>We are told her mother died.
>Summer Rose wore a similar cloak before her death.
>Ruby visits her grave.

This time, the gap is in the middle.
Summer's death is told.
Something happened.
Now, Ruby wears an almost identical cape everywhere and visits her grave often.
We do not know for sure, but we can figure that Ruby has an attachment to her dead mother. The cape may be a last gift from Summer, or something weaved in her memory. The tell of "her mother died" serves as an anchor to bridge the gap between the show of "she wears a red cloak everywhere."


>She wears a red cape, much like her mother's, in memory of her death.
>She wears a red cape, much like her mother's.

With the proper context, both mean the same. For some, the second may even have more impact because of implications.

Keep in mind, details do not need to be concrete.



What I mean is, the "show" is just the very end product. It's what the readers should get with just pure reading. It's your vision.

For all that it matters, Ruby's sniper scythe could have been a dual-wielded pair of katanas with an assault rifle form, or her cape could have been a crystal rose pendant.

They're almost modular, plug-and-play.

Differences come when you change things closer to the core of the character. Say, what if Summer Rose lived and Ruby still wore the cloak? The relationship changes from one of mourning and remembrance to one of adoration and respect.

So, exactly how essential is it that Sterling Opal "draws his knife in a reverse grip and practices something resembling Sambo?"

Thought that's been the focus, your details aren't all this way.

Tommie Rosomak, for example:
>Her sister (Poirinnah) is TOTALLY dead, she collapsed right in front of Tommie after a tight and protective hug before the latter got dragged into the evacuation vehicle. Tommie's insistence that her sister's still alive (regardless of evidence) is so intense that it's the basis of her semblance — she can "insist" her body to stay alive regardless of whatever "evidence" (i.e. wounds, aura loss, exhaustion) to pummel the motherfucker until he's not getting back up.

That's something you can really work with.
In fact, that's something ALL original characters for RWBY can work with.
A Semblance is an intimate "show" of the character's Aura, their soul, their background.
Whether or not an author chooses to work with that is up to their choice, but it's a great concept to tweak around with.

Trying not to get bogged down in too many of the individual characteristics, but let's look at Sterling Opal since he is the other complete member.

He has bullet time, plays dirty, was part of some secret military project, has trouble adapting to "normal" life, and yet babies his teammates. At his heart, he tries being a hero despite his supposed "failure" in the project.



This point on is mostly just an example of how one might approach it from top-down like you did.

So we have:
Discomfort in normal society
>Finds the dress code oppressing there...because he can't wear his comfy balaclava and tactical helmet all the time.
>He can't drive and isn't prepared to handle non-combat scenarios like preparing a birthday party, he needs instructions.
Outside attempts on conformity
>Simply training and properly equipping versatile commandos in an attempt to replicate the success of some famous war hero.
>isn't prepared to handle non-combat scenarios like preparing a birthday party, he needs instructions.
Care for his team to almost sacrificial extents
>He frequently overextends himself because he's overprotective of his teammates, forgetting that one man can only do so much. He often finds himself exhausted by the end of an encounter, or even in the middle of it.

At this point, they are just sorted.
Find what you can connect, and then create that connection.
He was a failure in "an attempt to replicate the success of some famous war hero."
He is "overprotective of his teammates, forgetting that one man can only do so much."
Those seem be at odds with one another.
He is a failure, yet he tries so hard to be the hero of the team, the sole savior.
Is being a hero just about being successful in some war?

You have something on a deeper level than those details yourself.
>He must learn to put more faith in his teammates especially in critical moments. They can handle themselves and if they screw up, it's not his fault.
Make even deeper connections there, maybe.
Does a hero have to take on every burden by himself?

Working from just details isn't necessarily bad, but remember to have a foundation under all those attributes.

A gilded coin is only worth so much.