Start with a Function Ledger for Every Candidate Character
| Role | Function |
|---|---|
| Name or role | Choice: Which decision do they cause?; Information: Evidence, access, skill, or false belief; Relationship: Relative, creditor, colleague, opponent, and so on; Later need: Which revelation or result requires them? |
“Provides comic relief” and “has few scenes” are not enough to decide whether someone stays. A person appearing in only two scenes may be the protagonist’s sole route to a permit. Someone with many appearances may merely repeat an explanation already delivered by others. Write the functions before discussing deletion, combination, or a different carrier.
This is an editorial worksheet, not the complete native adaptation-map format. Emotion, voice, companionship, and rhythm are functions too. A character need not supply a new clue to be worth keeping.
Compression Order: Cut Plotlines Before Merging Characters
First ask whether a subplot still belongs to the core promise of this short-drama version. If you remove the entire line, handle its setup, payoff, and orphaned clues together. For each function within it, decide whether it disappears with the line or transfers to a retained one.
Only then merge characters. Otherwise, you may move evidence and relationships onto someone whose entire line is later removed, creating duplicate work. Do not cut a subplot merely because it is slower. Some slow scenes establish trust, secure a means, or create an information gap; remove them and the later fast scenes may remain while losing the conditions that make them work.
Pass Five Checks Before a Merge
- Goal: Can one person coherently want both things, or do the desires contradict each other?
- Knowledge boundary: Does the merge reveal a secret early or give the character a fact with no source?
- Relationship position: If supporter and pressure source become one person, does the original opposition disappear?
- Conditions for action: Can one person perform both crucial actions within the story’s time and space?
- Cost: Does the original betrayal, testimony, refusal, or sacrifice lose weight after the merge?
If only some functions combine, do not force a complete two-into-one merge. Routine tasks can be merged while exclusive evidence moves to another retained character who has a plausible way to obtain it.
Original Example: A Community Gallery Before Closing
The input and candidate here are entirely fictional. Curator Gu Kui wants to preserve community oral-history material before the gallery is handed back the next morning. Four supporting characters perform different functions. Old Ren handles night access and can register entry requests under the gallery's established rule. A property manager handles daytime entry only. Xiao He helps catalog the material and discovers a missing numbered page, but cannot grant access. Sponsor Mr. Zhou has heard the publicly exhibited workplace-injury testimony and demands its removal as a condition of renewal. Old Ren also searches the recordings for a lost comrade.
This adaptation has chosen preservation and the fate of the testimony as its main line, so it proposes dropping the search photographs, inquiries, and reunion. If Old Ren's reunion were the work's core promise, cutting it merely to reduce cast would fail. Removing that line must still preserve the nighttime permission needed by the main plot.
One failed merger puts Old Ren's function into Xiao He and simply declares that “Xiao He, who agreed to catalog, has also approved Gu's entry.” That skips the original choice of seeking permission and concentrates knowledge and approval at the opening. The defect belongs to that proposal, not to an absolute ban on merging a guard and cataloger. A different version can work if it preserves the timing, goals, and reasons for refusing each action.
This candidate retains Xiao He and Zhou, transferring Old Ren's night-entry function to the property manager. The job title alone does not grant night access. The mapping explicitly transfers the night duty and its permission scope while retaining daytime reception; the manager still has not heard the unpublished recordings. Assigning him a night shift is an adaptation choice for the author to accept, not an existing source fact about his schedule.
In the demonstration after that choice is accepted, Gu asks to examine material that night. The manager asks which box; Xiao He supplies its catalog number without approving entry for Gu. The manager actually registers the request and agrees to let both in to check. Taking material away still requires a separate list; entry does not grant unrestricted transfer permission. Gu checks first and must next seek preservation and display arrangements. The morning handover and Zhou's demand remain, without inventing a threat to seal every exhibit for a fire-rule breach.
Four supporting roles become three, but permission, catalog knowledge, and pressure to remove testimony remain distinct. Gu still makes requests, receives conditions, and faces different positions. Changes to the night shift and losses from the removed subplot remain author decisions rather than disappearing behind a claim that compression succeeded.
Repair Every Causal Bridge After Cuts and Merges
Read each important result back through one chain: causal fact → how a character learns it → what choice they make → how the other side counters → what visible consequence follows. After a character is removed, the chain most often breaks at “how they learn it” or “how they obtain it.” “She was prepared all along” cannot bridge the gap.
| Failure | Fix |
|---|---|
| Merging characters because there are too many names | Compare functions, goals, and relationship positions first |
| A witness is merged into the antagonist, yet the secret remains | Reassign the information source so the character is not hiding a fact from themself |
| A slow subplot is removed and the protagonist suddenly has the evidence | Establish a new action and cost through which the evidence is obtained |
| A supporter and opponent merge, erasing conflict | Keep the positions separate or let another relationship carry the pressure |
| Every function is assigned to the protagonist | Retain functions requiring another person’s permission, countermove, or independent choice |
| A character is removed but their setup remains with no payoff | Delete or explicitly transfer every setup at the same time |
Finally, write every change as: “original function → new carrier or deletion → what is preserved → what is lost.” If the loss affects a core relationship, crucial choice, or the ending’s meaning, reverse the merge rather than explaining it through dialogue.
FAQ
Should a short drama always have as few characters as possible?
No. Cast size serves story function and production conditions. If one person supplies the evidence, creates the obstacle, and carries every reaction, relationships may flatten and knowledge boundaries may break.
Can two supporting characters with similar functions always be merged?
You must also check goals, knowledge boundaries, relationship history, time and place, and cost. Two characters may both provide clues, but if one is family and the other a rival, merging them can change why the protagonist believes the clue.
Do it with the skill
In Claude Code, use /short-drama-develop only to create a character-compression plan. From the actual source novel, list each character’s action, information, relationship, and causal functions. Mark removable subplots first, then check knowledge boundaries and costs after each merge, and map every original function to its new carrier. Do not write the script yet. In Codex, use $short-drama-develop.
Read the method: Adaptation functions, mergers, and additions · Development candidates and acceptance