Is plot armor actually that bad?

[John_Owl]

Basically the title. Is plot armor actually as bad as people make it seem? I don't mean trillion-to-one plot armor, but common plot armor. Someone escaping a battle by the skin of his teeth because he's the main character while 95% of the rest of the army died. This sort of thing.

Hacksaw Ridge and Forrest Gump both have decent plot armor - both protags were in war and avoided any lethal injuries, despite every odd saying they SHOULD have died. I don't remember many genuinely bad examples of plot armor except in spoof movies.

 

[Cossimeri]

Plot armor is not bad at all, and is expected.

I believe it is simply a complaint that gained prominence as some authors stretched it too far. Characters we were told were normal people were surviving conflicts even Superman would’ve lost a few fingers to. But all main characters have plot armor in some way or another.

They’re too smart, too mature, too strong, too lucky. Even the weakest protagonists have plot armor. Because no matter how much they suffer, any other weak character would’ve just died.

TL;DR Nope! Not bad! Give your character armor, just don’t make it so obvious.

 

[l8rose]

Well, the story has got to story so no, Plot Armour isn't inherently bad. It's only bad when it's used in such a way that just doesn't make sense with the rest of the story.

The Indiana Jones movies are riddled with the good and bad plot armour. Crystal Skull for example. The good plot armour is that Indiana Jones is a major nerd which helps him in figuring out the clues left behind by his friend. The bad plot armour is surviving a nuclear test in a fridge.

 

[John_Owl]

Plot armor is not bad at all, and is expected.

I believe it is simply a complaint that gained prominence as some authors stretched it too far. Characters we were told were normal people were surviving conflicts even Superman would’ve lost a few fingers to. But all main characters have plot armor in some way or another.

They’re too smart, too mature, too strong, too lucky. Even the weakest protagonists have plot armor. Because no matter how much they suffer, any other weak character would’ve just died.

TL;DR Nope! Not bad! Give your character armor, just don’t make it so obvious.

it's just a complaint i've seen repeatedly. most recently was shortly before I made the post on another site. Like you say, EVERY MC has plot armor. even just by luck, a real person would likely die even mundane dangers that MCs survive. but the story can't go on without them. Imagine if Harry hadn't had plot armor - he would've died in book 1. Though, he had the biggest plot armor - lifelink with the antag.

Well, the story has got to story so no, Plot Armour isn't inherently bad. It's only bad when it's used in such a way that just doesn't make sense with the rest of the story.

The Indiana Jones movies are riddled with the good and bad plot armour. Crystal Skull for example. The good plot armour is that Indiana Jones is a major nerd which helps him in figuring out the clues left behind by his friend. The bad plot armour is surviving a nuclear test in a fridge.

oh, definitely! But I've seen people complain repeatedly about even necessary plot armor that does make sense. "He only survived because plot armor!" Well, yeah. Should the MC die? Great story, bud.

but yes, I agree that the fridge was bad plot armor. would've made for an interesting scene if it hadn't been a nuke.

 

[Deleted member 168599]

Is plot armor actually as bad as people make it seem?

Yes, it is, but we can pretend otherwise.

 

[John_Owl]

Yes, it is, but we can pretend otherwise.

It could actually be an interesting exercise to write a story where the MC doesn't have plot armor. They die when they should, then the story jumps to a different MC... kinda like Piers Anthony's Xanth series, but switching MCs mid book, rather than between books.

 

[Tyranomaster]

The idea of plot armor is an interesting one, and I think I can give a rule of thumb for good versus bad plot armor.

Plots of stories generally follow an understood arc of overcoming adversity. Subversion of that theme can be interesting, but it rarely is as satisfying as actually overcoming the problem at hand. The difference between good and bad plot armor revolves around how the conflict is resolved. If the character doesn't actually overcome the adversity themselves, but instead 'something or someone unexpected' overcomes it on their behalf, it is unsatisfying.

Examples:
Good - A man gets beaten up and bullied. He trains and trains until he's able to beat his bullies. (The man worked hard to overcome his adversity).
Bad - A man gets beaten up and bullied. He suddenly unlocks powers that let him beat his bullies. (The man hasn't changed in any way, his problem is just gone now.)

Good - The hero's party has fallen, and it's just him versus the demon king left. With his last ounce of power, he throws his sword, defeating the demon king. He awakens later, the survivor of the battle, but his comrades have perished, a pyrrhic victory.
Bad - The hero's party has fallen, and it's just him versus the demon king left. Through a power he'd never shown before, he revives his allies and they easily defeat the demon king as they're now immortal.

Good plot armor doesn't mean that the protagonist *could* lose, just that the protagonist has *earned* their victory. It's mostly about the why, not the how. People don't throw around the term Plot Armor in reference to the fact you expect the protagonist to win (it's just expected), even though they also have plot armor. They use the term when the plot itself is forming unbreakable armor around them, and reality itself conspires to make them win, even though they haven't earned it. In all cases of fiction, technically speaking, the author has written to make the hero succeed, so all of them have plot armor, though in some cases, the author has acted as Merlin for the wrong individual.

It could actually be an interesting exercise to write a story where the MC doesn't have plot armor. They die when they should, then the story jumps to a different MC... kinda like Piers Anthony's Xanth series, but switching MCs mid book, rather than between books.

I have an idea for a story like that which I'll almost certainly never get around to writing. I wanted to also change the story genre for each new MC.

 

[HypnoticNovels]

Just based on the other replies, I wanna define 'plot armor' in my own definition because it seems like there's a few different takes on it. What I consider plot armor to be is someone making it out of impossible situations.

I personally feel as though plot armor is only really bad when it has no realistic explanation Factors like luck always play a role, but if someone is hitting a jackpot everytime in every situation, it sort of takes you out of the immersion.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

It is when you have nothing but plot armor going on.

 

[JHarp]

One of my first novels on this site, since I was in a bad mood due to reasons of a previous novel elsewhere, started with the first chapter or two on a character I brutally murdered. In world it had some sense since they weren't technically the main character, but I was completely writing and setting them up to be initially to the audience.

I really should go rewrite it into something actually coherent though when I'm not busy.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Plot Armor is only bad when it's boring...

 

[ikos]

It could actually be an interesting exercise to write a story where the MC doesn't have plot armor. They die when they should, then the story jumps to a different MC... kinda like Piers Anthony's Xanth series, but switching MCs mid book, rather than between books.

I've had a similar idea, but will probably never get around to it.

 

[John_Owl]

The idea of plot armor is an interesting one, and I think I can give a rule of thumb for good versus bad plot armor.

Plots of stories generally follow an understood arc of overcoming adversity. Subversion of that theme can be interesting, but it rarely is as satisfying as actually overcoming the problem at hand. The difference between good and bad plot armor revolves around how the conflict is resolved. If the character doesn't actually overcome the adversity themselves, but instead 'something or someone unexpected' overcomes it on their behalf, it is unsatisfying.

It's not always unsatisfying. LotR, at the end when Frodo is facing the greatest challenge thus far - climbing the mountain, Sam carries him up. It was unexpected but no less heartfelt, despite frodo himself not being the one to overcome it. Or when they're in Shelob's lair and Sam bursts out of seemingly nowhere, slays a bunch of orcs and rescues frodo, despite not really being a fighter and never really showing his apparently skill in battle up to that point. maybe not the best plot armor, but certainly not BAD.

Though, my favorite example of bad plot armor done well is the very end, when Gollum bites Frodo's finger off. Realistically, he should've attacked as soon as the shelob plan failed. but he didn't. He waited and watched and plotted until the very end.

Also (forgot to keep the quoted part in and too lazy to go back and grab it here) People throw whatever terms they want around, unfortunately. I only write original fiction, but people have literally told me "It's not bad, for fanfics." Like, fanfic of WHAT exactly?! of the genre? Fine, sure. My book is just a fanfic of fantasy in general. not a specific fandom. just the whole genre. so yeah, whatever terms they want to use, they will, sadly.

It is when you have nothing but plot armor going on.

I kinda like when the plot is the armor though. Like in Saiki K, he's invincible not because the plot requires him to be, but because the plot IS his struggle with invincibility. He's the MC of his story while actively avoiding becoming the MC in various plots.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I kinda like when the plot is the armor though. Like in Saiki K, he's invincible not because the plot requires him to be, but because the plot IS his struggle with invincibility. He's the MC of his story while actively avoiding becoming the MC in various plots.

That's the thing. If OPM had nothing but Saitama in it, and how he defeats everything in one hit, it wouldn't have been so popular and successful. Same with Saiki K, the story isn't about him only. There is this romance girl, thug-looking guy, etc.

If you have nothing but MC with plot armor, you end up with boring story. There are some people that will like it and read it, but it gets stale rather quickly. Maybe it won't get stale after a few stories, but readers will grow up out of it in a few years. There are exceptions and blah-blah, I'm talking about average, since exceptions exist for every little thing out there.

 

[John_Owl]

That's the thing. If OPM had nothing but Saitama in it, and how he defeats everything in one hit, it wouldn't have been so popular and successful. Same with Saiki K, the story isn't about him only. There is this romance girl, thug-looking guy, etc.

If you have nothing but MC with plot armor, you end up with boring story. There are some people that will like it and read it, but it gets stale rather quickly. Maybe it won't get stale after a few stories, but readers will grow up out of it in a few years. There are exceptions and blah-blah, I'm talking about average, since exceptions exist for every little thing out there.

lol oh for sure. IT's not JUST about the MC. My point was that having a story that's specifically about the plot armor can work, as long as there are other risks.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

lol oh for sure. IT's not JUST about the MC. My point was that having a story that's specifically about the plot armor can work, as long as there are other risks.

Or, we can paraphrase it into. Plot armor is bad

when you have nothing but plot armor going on.

 

[Tyranomaster]

It's not always unsatisfying. LotR, at the end when Frodo is facing the greatest challenge thus far - climbing the mountain, Sam carries him up. It was unexpected but no less heartfelt, despite frodo himself not being the one to overcome it. Or when they're in Shelob's lair and Sam bursts out of seemingly nowhere, slays a bunch of orcs and rescues frodo, despite not really being a fighter and never really showing his apparently skill in battle up to that point. maybe not the best plot armor, but certainly not BAD.

LotR doesn't have a singular main character though. We have a cast of main characters we follow. Frodo's failing emphasizes Sam's strength of character. The fellowship earned their victory, and despite a shaky moment at the end, the rest of the journey showed they earned it. Most people probably also agree that Sam is a better person than Frodo, and is the real hero. Sam also had far more of a heroes journey and showed he earned it.

 

[Indicterra]

It's not bad when Its applied once or twice to my favourite character, but quite frustrating when it's applied to that one fricking annoying character that very much deserve to die.

On a completely unrelated note, fuck Erebus and on the way Fuck Abbadon and his plot armour sword too

 

[ACertainPassingUser]

Plot armor is what make story fun to read.
Plot armor is the bane of the story.

The problem is bad implementation and too obvious plot armor.

Its just "skill issue" and "lack of experience", not any problem with the concept of plot armor itself.

Its about "perceived risk" and "perceived plot armor". There are events in reality that if those happened in a story, the writer would be accused of "plot armor".

And remember,
Realism is not fun.

I go to grocery and have to write list of things, and that may sound realistic. But that's totallly not fun at all. Totally not fun to experience and not fun to read.

 

[John_Owl]

Its about "perceived risk" and "perceived plot armor". There are events in reality that if those happened in a story, the writer would be accused of "plot armor".

I absolutely love this. Events in real life would, if written into a story, seem like plot armor. I've survived 9 different near-death experiences, 7 of those would indeed seem like plot armor if written into a story.

But yeah, I get your point.