Is plot armor actually that bad?

[DOOL]

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.

Thing is Saitama is actually more so the plot armor for the other characters, he doesn't have it himself. It's not so much that Saitama has plot armor but that he is quite litteraly a literal deus ex machina turned into a character. So, when using the OPM example, it works better as a term for other oPM characters

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Thing is Saitama is actually more so the plot armor for the other characters, he doesn't have it himself. It's not so much that Saitama has plot armor but that he is quite litteraly a literal deus ex machina turned into a character. So, when using the OPM example, it works better as a term for other oPM characters

Not just character, main character. Saitama is main character.

 

[beast_regards]

Of course you need plot armour. How else could isekai'd John Moderator survive in the fantasy land deadlier than Baltimore than through liberal application of narrative causality?

 

[laccoff_mawning]

OP MCs are not examples of plot armour, guys. That's something entirely different.

And to answer the original question, I think if something's obvious enough that you would consider it plot armour, it's probably bad. It if was good, you'd be too enthralled in the plot to notice.

 

[DOOL]

Not just character, main character. Saitama is main character.

doesn't really change my point

Not just character, main character. Saitama is main character.

Saitama can't have plot armor when the whole point of OPM is that he's the unreachable ceiling of the universe is what I mean. Like, the plot doesn't protect him, like at all ?

 

[John_Owl]

OP MCs are not examples of plot armour, guys. That's something entirely different.

just curious... What would you call it when a character survives (either unscathed or relatively unscathed) solely because the plot needs them to? In situations where countless people get major injuries or killed outright.

I get that Desmond Doss was real and that the movie was his story, so that likely wasn't the best example (I'd just finished watching the movie again).

And this is part of why I posed the question - Plot armor's definition seems to be, more or less, a loose list of criteria that can be flexibly applied. is it when all odds say an individual shouldn't survive, but they do because the plot demands it? is it when an individual suddenly gains an ability they've never shown previously? Is it when their ability would seem useless in the situation, but they use it and somehow it works out?

I've seen all of these from "official" sources as the definition.

 

[Zagaroth]

I'm going to semi-quote Red of "Overly Sarcastic Productions", from her Trope Talks series on YouTube:

"There are no bad tropes, only badly done tropes."

Caveat: she hasn't disassembled every trope *yet*. She might find one in the future. ;)

I may have her exact wording incorrect, I do not remember in which video she made that comment. But it was about a trope she started digging into *expecting* it to be a bad trope. Turns out, it was just a trope that was done badly far more often than it was done well.

Edit: Following up on Trope Talks; while Red does not have a TT on Plot Armor itself (that I can find, I swear I watched one once), she does have a video on "Tone Armor", which is related in that the tone of the story tells you what to expect in the way of protection for everyone who is not the MC.

 

[beast_regards]

The plot armour is not the armour at all. People use it all the time as it was something better not to have.

As with any words on the Internet, it became a buzzword which lost meaning as it is used all the time outside context, but I'll try anyway:

Plot armour is everything that needs to happen in order for the plot to exist.

Without the plot armour, there is no plot at all.

Of course, the protagonist is the most "plot armoured" character as without the protagonist the story wouldn't exist. A side characters need to die for the protagonist to mourn or have enemies to defeat, but the protagonist, he is indispensable. Even in tragedies, he can't die until the story esop kicks in, because plot (the narrative) needs him, only to needing him die moments after. Because that's the plot, the narrative, the message. Everything the plot needs has the plot armour. Everything in the story needs to die, lose it because it needs to die.

Without Saitama, there is no plot of One Punch Man (and no joke). Without plot armour, there is no Saitama.

 

[melchi]

I think the issue isn't really plot armor. Because like others have said, if the protag gets removed then is there still a story?

IMO, the real issue when people are crying plot armor is because the stakes have gotten too high or the danger too great for the story to resolve itself without some kind of plot armor trope. It is a case of a writer painting themselves into a corner.

The real issue is that the stakes are so high. If the bad guy didn't need to have the MC dead, would there even be a need for plot armor? If the MC didn't have to be the hero all the time and could run away when it is impossible would they need to break their limits and dues ex machina?

 

[John_Owl]

IMO, the real issue when people are crying plot armor is because the stakes have gotten too high or the danger too great for the story to resolve itself without some kind of plot armor trope. It is a case of a writer painting themselves into a corner.

I always got that feeling of "He's written into a corner" When tolkien used Tom Bombadil. Always felt like he was Tolkein's in-universe stand-in.

The real issue is that the stakes are so high. If the bad guy didn't need to have the MC dead, would there even be a need for plot armor? If the MC didn't have to be the hero all the time and could run away when it is impossible would they need to break their limits and dues ex machina?

That's the issue with "Destroy the world" stakes. Where do you go from there? You need a slow ramp-up. My Mysthavia trilogy does this fairly well. Lay the Dragon starts it off with a normal warrior and the stakes are freeing a race. DragonBound amps it up a little to a half-dragon warrior with stakes now being ending a reign of tyranny for an entire nation. Not to shill my own stories, but I do feel big names could learn about a slow ramp up in both power and stakes from smaller names.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

just curious... What would you call it when a character survives (either unscathed or relatively unscathed) solely because the plot needs them to? In situations where countless people get major injuries or killed outright.

That sounds like plot armour to me.

But if an MC is OP, they don't survive because "the plot needs them to". They survive because it's in their established character that they have the ability to survive, (or character that's trying to be established, in the case of first introductions to the MC.)

And this is part of why I posed the question - Plot armor's definition seems to be, more or less, a loose list of criteria that can be flexibly applied.

But I do agree with this. For example, you have an MC thats about to die then is suddenly saved by some random hero that's coincidentally passing through? That sounds like plor armour.

Now if you telegraph/foreshadow this hero's appearance beforehand, it suddenly feels like it makes sense why he's arrived. So despite the fact the exact same events happen, the latter doesn't necessarily feel like an example of plot armour, because the events in the story now make more sense without relying on coincidence.

 

[John_Owl]

That sounds like plot armour to me.

But if an MC is OP, they don't survive because "the plot needs them to". They survive because it's in their established character that they have the ability to survive, (or character that's trying to be established, in the case of first introductions to the MC.)

They're OP because the plot needs them to be. If everyone were that powerful, they'd be normal and still in the same situation. But no. The plot requires them to be that much more powerful than others. Ergo, it's still plot armor—which I'm defining as "Intangible armor provided by—and composed of—plot."

But I do agree with this. For example, you have an MC thats about to die then is suddenly saved by some random hero that's coincidentally passing through? That sounds like plor armour.

Tom Bombadil. He's not a hero, he's not a god, he's just some random passerby... but he has every power to do anything and everything.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

They're OP because the plot needs them to be.

I would would make an exception to this rule for the more extravagant cases, like OPM or the instant death isekai.

If it was the plot that requires the character to be OP, that would imply the author makes up the plot first, then after analysing the plot, realises the only way this is doable is if the MC is OP.

However, I would be much more inclined to believe that the author starts with a concept of an OP MC, then constructs the plot around the character of the MC.

In other words, in such situations I believe the character makes demands about the nature of the plot, rather than the plot making demands about the nature of the character.

 

[John_Owl]

I would would make an exception to this rule for the more extravagant cases, like OPM or the instant death isekai.

If it was the plot that requires the character to be OP, that would imply the author makes up the plot first, then after analysing the plot, realises the only way this is doable is if the MC is OP.

However, I would be much more inclined to believe that the author starts with a concept of an OP MC, then constructs the plot around the character of the MC.

In other words, in such situations I believe the character makes demands about the nature of the plot, rather than the plot making demands about the nature of the character.

I get what you're saying, but you're saying that they should build the foundation before the walls, rather than building the walls after the foundation.

In both cases, the plot cannot occur as it does without the OPMC. And I'm saying exactly that. I worded it poorly, but the point remains - The plot is allowed to occur because the MC is OP, and the MC is allowed to be OP because the plot allows it. If either were to change, the other would be forced to as well.

 

[Bartun]

Well, Hacksaw Ridge is based on real life so it doesn't count.

 

[John_Owl]

Well, Hacksaw Ridge is based on real life so it doesn't count.

I'm glad you brought that up! It wasn't a reference to the character in the movie, but to the IRL man! I've survived no less than 9 near-death experiences that, by all rights, should've ended my story. But by some fluke, I'm still here. Nearly been beheaded, crushed, drowned, burned, died of illness, etc. But somehow I'm still here. IRL plot armor ;)

 

[Kenjona]

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.

Actually it is possible, to survive a nuclear test in a fridge, it would depend on distance to blast radius, the type of fridge and so on. But more importantly, a guy who had drunk from the holy grail (Like he did in the movie prior to the crystal skull) might well survive a nuclear blast in a lead lined refrigerator.

Of course you need plot armour. How else could isekai'd John Moderator survive in the fantasy land deadlier than Baltimore than through liberal application of narrative causality?

Hey what do you have against Baltimore. Nice city, even around Druid hill. A white 18 year old kid can walk through it and come out the other end just fine.

 

[beast_regards]

Hey what do you have against Baltimore. Nice city, even around Druid hill. A white 18 year old kid can walk through it and come out the other end just fine.

Universe sent me a sign and suddenly, I felt the need to badmouth entirely different city.

 

[matnun]

Plot armor was fine until the Xianxia nation attacked. Every once in a while Is ok but when the story is pretty much "Things happen -> MC overreacts -> consequences-> plot armor -> repeat" you will get tired.

 

[corruption]

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.

May be confusing, but if it is all centered around the one thing that remains consistent, then it could make sense.

Good plot armor is not easily noticed. It can be very subtle or is built into the story well enough to be expected. For example, a detective might be monitoring a suspect for a while before they make an incriminating phone call, and it's recorded.
Bad plot armor is obvious. The suspect just so happens to make the phone call when the detective who doesn't suspect them just happens to be in a position to overhear them.

One amusing bit of plot armor is when the MC does something so outrageous that none of the antagonists are prepared for it, letting the MC get the edge or even win before they can recover.

Plot armor can be done so badly that in one case it even coined a new word: Serendipity.
It comes from a story called "The princes of Serendib" which is an old name for India. In it the 3 princes went on adventures and things were solved by outragous good luck.

Remember: good plot armor is not very detectable, while bad plot armor can easily be seen.