Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Plot armour. (1 Viewer)

JJBuchholz

Senior Member
We have all seen this both in movies, as well as books where time and again the main characters or primary protagonist seems
to be insulated from any kind of harm. While I get the fact that some characters are obviously important to make it to the end
for the plot's sake, why make them almost invulnerable?

Some superhero movies are good at showing how the hero can take a beating and almost die, yet make a comeback in the most
agonizing way possible. In my opinion, it makes the character more relatable to ourselves, and we can better empathize with
them and get behind them.

When I create/write for a character, they are no way invulnerable even if they are the hero or protagonist. Examples:

- The protagonist in my 'Urban Sentinel' series (a vigilante) has nearly died on a couple occasions, and this has given
him pause as to how fragile he really is. Both instances served to 'bring him back down to Earth' so to speak and help him
to look at problems he faces from a different direction.
- Darius (my protagonist from 'Darksword') came up against a foe in one installment that he could have killed and ended
the danger. Because he will not do something dishonourable, he chose to take extreme damage, and ended up sacrificing his
own life to save everyone else. (He was later brought back by the Gods for his selfless act)
- I always try to keep the human element as part of the story, so as not to have the reader at some point go, "Oh this. Yup,
the hero will somehow come out unscathed, and bye bye baddie!" I see this as bad writing and too easy an out. Much
character development can come from extreme perils, and a great deal of injury to the hero.

I am interested to know what everyone thinks of 'plot armour' and the tools the rest of you use to keep your characters
relatable, and how they grow in the process.

-JJB
 

vranger

Staff member
Global Moderator
As readers, we all know it's rare for protagonists to get killed off, although some writers create a group of protagonists so they can kill some off without completely deep-sixing the story. Our typical strategy is to put characters in a dangerous situation that only heroics of a surprise nature rescue them from, hopefully without resorting to coincidence or deus ex machina.

My first novel follows a group of characters, but two main ones ... the leader of a mercenary organization based in a haunted castle, and a young man who comes to the castle hoping to join up. The leader of the group, easily the "alpha hero" in the book, leads members of a mission into an ambush and takes a crippling cut across the leg. In the second book, he's still lame, demands a quick fix because of an emergency, is warned it's a bad idea, and winds up even more lame than before. He'll probably stay lame for as long as the series lasts. In the first book, another heroic character gets drugged unconscious, and is only saved by the heroics of his steed. He wakes up to find his deceased enemy with a horseshoe imprint on his face. Another character gets ridden down by a group of enemies, is in a coma for days, saved only by the herbal remedies of his elven partner. In that same battle, a second tier character is killed by a lance, and the "good guys" unit takes heavy casualties.

Early in the first book, an assassin meant for the leader kills one of the mercenaries in a way that emphasizes his expertise, so when he then encounters the leader for a sword fight, hopefully the reader is concerned. This is actually a fairly typical device in books and movies to worry the reader. Kill off a supporting character and then have the hero face that same danger.

My most popular way to "save" my protagonists is to drop hints along in the book that give the reader an idea of things which could happen, then bring those things into play in unexpected ways. In the manuscript I just finished, the hero faces a villain he doesn't have the tools to defeat ... who almost killed him once already. I then use a device I've shown the reader three times before to trap the villain, but (hopefully) in a way the reader doesn't anticipate. In fact, I used it in another unanticipated way just before the climactic encounter so the reader might think that was it's purpose all along, and not expect it again. So I haven't pulled a rabbit out of the hat. If I did it right, the reader is wondering why they didn't think of that themselves. :)

I believe the most important thing is to mix it up. Never use the same "save" twice, and try to avoid "saves" you've seen a lot in books you read. You can't have the cavalry ride over the hill. You can't have the hero suddenly display a hitherto unknown ability. Display the tools, then use them in a surprising way. If the reader is too busy being impressed at how clever the solution is, the last thing they're thinking about is plot armor.

Plus, they don't really want the hero(s) to die, anyway.
 

luckyscars

WF Veterans
We have all seen this both in movies, as well as books where time and again the main characters or primary protagonist seems
to be insulated from any kind of harm. While I get the fact that some characters are obviously important to make it to the end
for the plot's sake, why make them almost invulnerable?

I consider this generally the hallmark of bad writing, or at least lazy/amateurish writing.

It's not the principle that's the problem, though. It makes sense for the protagonist to have some form of 'plot armor'. Otherwise, in a critical, dangerous moment they will die or be maimed and then no story. So obviously this exists. It needs to exist.

The problem is when, like you illustrate, it's detectable by the reader. The whole Rambo/James Bond/Indiana Jones type ridiculousness. And superheroes, sure. Well, I guess in certain types of media this kind of goes with the territory. But I don't think readers like it much.

One reason the Game Of Thrones series and books were so popular is there was a strong sense that ANY of the major characters could die at ANY moment for ANY reason, even an infuriating one. Martin made that sort of his trademark.

It shouldn't be a trademark though. It should be the norm, or at least common enough. I think it would lead to better plotting and certainly better characterization. I don't want to know who lives and dies in the first few pages. I want to feel my character's mortality, even if they are the hero.
 

vranger

Staff member
Global Moderator
I consider this generally the hallmark of bad writing, or at least lazy/amateurish writing.

It's not the principle that's the problem, though. It makes sense for the protagonist to have some form of 'plot armor'. Otherwise, in a critical, dangerous moment they will die or be maimed and then no story. So obviously this exists. It needs to exist.

The problem is when, like you illustrate, it's detectable by the reader. The whole Rambo/James Bond/Indiana Jones type ridiculousness. And superheroes, sure. Well, I guess in certain types of media this kind of goes with the territory. But I don't think readers like it much.

One reason the Game Of Thrones series and books were so popular is there was a strong sense that ANY of the major characters could die at ANY moment for ANY reason, even an infuriating one. Martin made that sort of his trademark.

It shouldn't be a trademark though. It should be the norm, or at least common enough. I think it would lead to better plotting and certainly better characterization. I don't want to know who lives and dies in the first few pages. I want to feel my character's mortality, even if they are the hero.

You know what rolls my eyes even worse? Characters who have plot armor, but the author is so determined to show the reader how dangerous life is, they ignore things the hero can do and make the hero look stupid ... or make themselves look bad. You can't ignore things the reader already knows the character has available. The author has to craft situations which make those tools useless or inadequate, not simply ignore them.
 
Last edited:

JBF

Senior Member
While I get the fact that some characters are obviously important to make it to the end
for the plot's sake, why make them almost invulnerable?

Short answer: lack of confidence or skill as pertains to the writer.

A competent writer can start a character lucky, but they'll understand that anybody who's going to be front and center in dangerous situations is going to be tough, smart, or skilled enough to justify their continued existence.

The more they rely on intangibles for a character's survival, the less likely I am to finish reading.

I am interested to know what everyone thinks of 'plot armour' and the tools the rest of you use to keep your characters
relatable, and how they grow in the process.

I kill my protag. Twice. At the end of the first book.
 

TheMightyAz

Senior Member
The plot armour debate is silly. Do you know what makes most stories fun to read? The protagonist lives, but only after they've gone through a story that entertains. No shit, Sherlock.
 

luckyscars

WF Veterans
The plot armour debate is silly. Do you know what makes most stories fun to read? The protagonist lives, but only after they've gone through a story that entertains. No shit, Sherlock.

I think the contentious part is how obvious it is and what effect, if any, that has on the overall experience.

In a movie like Indiana Jones, we know Indiana Jones is going to get out of the snake-ridden temple. The only really major question --where the creativity lies -- is how.

You can absolutely write that way, plenty of authors do, it just means you're putting all your proverbial eggs into the basket of 'how' the scene happens rather than what it means. In other words, you already know the conclusion, or at least the most important aspect of it -- the hero triumphs. We just want to see him sling the whip and bust through the snake-infested wall. I am watching that scene to see the snake-infested wall.

The real issue arises when the book or movie in question isn't as well-written as Indiana Jones. Then you have not only a lack of mystery about the fate of the characters but not a whole lot of interesting 'journey'.

I call it lazy writing because it isn't usually necessary. It has been proven over and over that a single invincible protagonist who is present, prominent and untouchable from Chapter One through Fifty is not usually necessary. Often, protagonists can change through the narrative. So can antagonists. Compare who the protagonists were at the start of Game Of Thrones versus it's ending and I can't think of many who didn't 'rise and fall'...or vice versa.

I consider that good writing. I consider that good writing because it more closely mirrors real life. There are no consistent heroes in real life. The very existence of 'heroes' and 'villains' has always been a literary conceit. Like 'faster than light' travel or 'love at first sight', the idea of a person who is consistently on the right side of the equation has always been a necessary lie.

But, let's say it was necessary. Even if plot armor must exist (and I allow that it should) the idea that it should be something the reader is well-aware of while reading, to me, indicates some level of failure. It's a failure of suspension of disbelief because I am now considering the book from a meta standpoint. I mean, yeah you can do that for anything, but it shouldn't be a distraction, which is essentially what OP is stating.
 

TheMightyAz

Senior Member
I think the contentious part is how obvious it is and what effect, if any, that has on the overall experience.

In a movie like Indiana Jones, we know Indiana Jones is going to get out of the snake-ridden temple. The only really major question --where the creativity lies -- is how.

You can absolutely write that way, plenty of authors do, it just means you're putting all your proverbial eggs into the basket of 'how' the scene happens rather than what it means. In other words, you already know the conclusion, or at least the most important aspect of it -- the hero triumphs. We just want to see him sling the whip and bust through the snake-infested wall. I am watching that scene to see the snake-infested wall.

The real issue arises when the book or movie in question isn't as well-written as Indiana Jones. Then you have not only a lack of mystery about the fate of the characters but not a whole lot of interesting 'journey'.

I call it lazy writing because it isn't usually necessary. It has been proven over and over that a single invincible protagonist who is present, prominent and untouchable from Chapter One through Fifty is not usually necessary. Often, protagonists can change through the narrative. So can antagonists. Compare who the protagonists were at the start of Game Of Thrones versus it's ending and I can't think of many who didn't 'rise and fall'...or vice versa.

I consider that good writing. I consider that good writing because it more closely mirrors real life. There are no consistent heroes in real life. The very existence of 'heroes' and 'villains' has always been a literary conceit. Like 'faster than light' travel or 'love at first sight', the idea of a person who is consistently on the right side of the equation has always been a necessary lie.

But, let's say it was necessary. Even if plot armor must exist (and I allow that it should) the idea that it should be something the reader is well-aware of while reading, to me, indicates some level of failure. It's a failure of suspension of disbelief because I am now considering the book from a meta standpoint. I mean, yeah you can do that for anything, but it shouldn't be a distraction, which is essentially what OP is stating.

But only one side of the debate has garnered a negative identification. Does killing some of your main characters have a negative label? No. And that's the problem. Debates like this can only lead to thinking what they're doing is wrong in some way, forcing writers to see what they're doing as negative or start adding characters simply so they can kill them off to avoid the 'plot armour' accusations. It's too one sided. Let's imagine eventually all authors decide they're not going to have 'plot armour' due to the pressure of being accused of having 'plot armour'. What do you have then? A new cliche. Everyone guessing who's going to die next. It's the blue shirts in Star Trek but on a monumental scale.

Writing Game Of Thrones is GREAT. Writing James Bond is GREAT. There's nothing wrong with either.

What matters is the journey, the trials and tribulations, how events change the protagonist/antagonist, the twists and turns, the unforeseen.
 

JBF

Senior Member
You could fairly make the argument that plot armor short-circuits the point of storytelling.

It's no sin for readers to know that the protag will still be among the living when the last page rolls around. I know a fair numbers of readers who won't, for whatever reason, pick up a book where they know the main character doesn't make it. Seems odd to me; sometimes the story demands the blood of the hero to be a satisfying journey and all that. In that kind of the book, whether knowing or expecting that the hero does make it...like Lucky says, we're along to see the how.

This is why people love Q's gadgetry in the Bond franchise. We know that the flamethrower ring or the exploding sandwich is going to bear on the plot somehow. Finding out how Bond uses it (whether or not it's the intended use) is part of the appeal. We also know that Bond is certain to face enemies who hold trump cards of their own, and watching him figure a way out when it all goes sideways isn't plot armor even when we know he survives. The threat is assumed (usually by demonstrating on under-performing henchmen, other double-0 agents, or Bond's outside associates) and we watch to see him succeed where another failed.

Having the hero alive at the end because they're sharp, prepared, and able to deal with the unforeseen is what we pay for in that circumstance.

Having the hero alive at the end because they're impervious to hazard and comfortably above danger is why we sometimes throw things.
 

TheMightyAz

Senior Member
You could fairly make the argument that plot armor short-circuits the point of storytelling.

It's no sin for readers to know that the protag will still be among the living when the last page rolls around. I know a fair numbers of readers who won't, for whatever reason, pick up a book where they know the main character doesn't make it. Seems odd to me; sometimes the story demands the blood of the hero to be a satisfying journey and all that. In that kind of the book, whether knowing or expecting that the hero does make it...like Lucky says, we're along to see the how.

This is why people love Q's gadgetry in the Bond franchise. We know that the flamethrower ring or the exploding sandwich is going to bear on the plot somehow. Find out how Bond uses it (whether or not it's the intended use) is part of the appeal. We also know that Bond is certain to face enemies who hold trump cards of their own, and watching him figure a way out when it all goes sideways isn't plot armor even when we know he survives. The threat is assumed (usually by demonstrating on under-performing henchmen, other double-0 agents, or Bond's outside associates) and we watch to see him succeed where another failed.

Having the hero alive at the end because they're sharp, prepared, and able to deal with the unforeseen is what we pay for in that circumstance.
Having the hero alive at the end because they're impervious to hazard and comfortably above danger is why we sometimes throw things.

Well, exactly. My objections to questions like this are there's never an alternative negative spin. We're drawn into a discussion with only one inevitable conclusion, hence the end and locking of 'another' thread recently. Of course you're going to do all you can to make the survival of your main character/s as viable as possible, even if it's sometimes extraordinary and relatively impossible in the real world, such as James Bond. You create that world. You create the rules for your world. If it's consistent, it works, if it's not, it doesn't. That's ALL you need to consider when writing a Game Of Thrones or a James Bond.

If you don't, it ends up being a destructive conversation.
 

JBF

Senior Member
Well, exactly. My objections to questions like this are there's never an alternative negative spin.


I'm intrigued (and maybe mildly sleep-deprived). Can you expand on this? My brain's not following on what this negative option entails.
 

TheMightyAz

Senior Member
I'm intrigued (and maybe mildly sleep-deprived). Can you expand on this? My brain's not following on what this negative option entails.

We have two options: Write a story where the protagonist lives or write a story where the protagonist dies. If your protagonist lives, that can be met with accusations of 'plot armour', but what accusations can be aimed at it if your protagonist lives? There isn't one, so the imbalance persists and grows into something it shouldn't: A trend leading to a new cliche. To have a balanced discussion there needs to be either NO negative spin on either, or a negative spin for both. There isn't. Neither are wrong.
 

Ralph Rotten

Staff member
Mentor
We have all seen this both in movies, as well as books where time and again the main characters or primary protagonist seems
to be insulated from any kind of harm. While I get the fact that some characters are obviously important to make it to the end
for the plot's sake, why make them almost invulnerable?

Some superhero movies are good at showing how the hero can take a beating and almost die, yet make a comeback in the most
agonizing way possible. In my opinion, it makes the character more relatable to ourselves, and we can better empathize with
them and get behind them.

When I create/write for a character, they are no way invulnerable even if they are the hero or protagonist. Examples:

- The protagonist in my 'Urban Sentinel' series (a vigilante) has nearly died on a couple occasions, and this has given
him pause as to how fragile he really is. Both instances served to 'bring him back down to Earth' so to speak and help him
to look at problems he faces from a different direction.
- Darius (my protagonist from 'Darksword') came up against a foe in one installment that he could have killed and ended
the danger. Because he will not do something dishonourable, he chose to take extreme damage, and ended up sacrificing his
own life to save everyone else. (He was later brought back by the Gods for his selfless act)
- I always try to keep the human element as part of the story, so as not to have the reader at some point go, "Oh this. Yup,
the hero will somehow come out unscathed, and bye bye baddie!" I see this as bad writing and too easy an out. Much
character development can come from extreme perils, and a great deal of injury to the hero.

I am interested to know what everyone thinks of 'plot armour' and the tools the rest of you use to keep your characters
relatable, and how they grow in the process.

-JJB


One area where I see lots of new writers fail is that they never really put their characters in true jeopardy.

But how they get out of it is where a character really shines.
 

TheMightyAz

Senior Member
We have all seen this both in movies, as well as books where time and again the main characters or primary protagonist seems
to be insulated from any kind of harm. While I get the fact that some characters are obviously important to make it to the end
for the plot's sake, why make them almost invulnerable?

Some superhero movies are good at showing how the hero can take a beating and almost die, yet make a comeback in the most
agonizing way possible. In my opinion, it makes the character more relatable to ourselves, and we can better empathize with
them and get behind them.

When I create/write for a character, they are no way invulnerable even if they are the hero or protagonist. Examples:

- The protagonist in my 'Urban Sentinel' series (a vigilante) has nearly died on a couple occasions, and this has given
him pause as to how fragile he really is. Both instances served to 'bring him back down to Earth' so to speak and help him
to look at problems he faces from a different direction.
- Darius (my protagonist from 'Darksword') came up against a foe in one installment that he could have killed and ended
the danger. Because he will not do something dishonourable, he chose to take extreme damage, and ended up sacrificing his
own life to save everyone else. (He was later brought back by the Gods for his selfless act)
- I always try to keep the human element as part of the story, so as not to have the reader at some point go, "Oh this. Yup,
the hero will somehow come out unscathed, and bye bye baddie!" I see this as bad writing and too easy an out. Much
character development can come from extreme perils, and a great deal of injury to the hero.

I am interested to know what everyone thinks of 'plot armour' and the tools the rest of you use to keep your characters
relatable, and how they grow in the process.

-JJB

But isn't that the worse sort of 'plot armour'? If you're going to choose a hero that dies or a hero that lives, at least have the balls to stick with your decision. :)

Having characters that unexpectedly die can ONLY work if it's rare. If it becomes anything but rare, it doesn't work. It becomes the norm.
 

JBF

Senior Member
For the sake of debate, let's say there's two kinds of armor.

Character Armor is the sum total of a given character's strengths, abilities, and available tools. Within this framework we have a manageable idea of what they can do and how they may do it. So long as they keep the needle in the green they have a reasonable expectation of success.

Plot Armor is something that the writer pulls out of their ass when they realize their hero is in an unwinnable situation and they're unwilling to either subject their precious to the realistic consequences of failure or adjust the plot accordingly, so they carve out a niche that lets them duck the rules; essentially, they run redline to the point of disaster and the pretend the engine didn't just explode.
 
Last edited:

TheMightyAz

Senior Member
For the sake of debate, let's say there's two kinds of armor.

Character Armor is the sum total of a given character's strengths, abilities, and available tools. Within this framework we have a manageable idea of what they can do and how they may do it. So long as they keep the needle in the green they have a reasonable expectation of success.

Plot Armor is something that the writer pulls out of their ass when they realize their hero is in an unwinnable situation and they're unwilling to either subject their precious to the realistic consequences of failure or adjust the plot accordingly, so they carve out a niche that lets them duck the rules; essentially, they run redline to the point of disaster and the pretend the engine didn't just explode.

Good lord, now you're broadening it! lol. I just look at that as bad writing though. I would imagine pantsers are more prone to it than planners. In the few 'longer' pieces I've written (unfinished novels), if my character suddenly gets faced with something he/she wouldn't ordinarily have to confront, I'd do one of two things: Remove that obstacle OR go back and change the character slightly. If you can't be bothered to do either, the accusation shouldn't be 'plot armour' it should be 'lazy writing', which is more to the point and more effectively discussed.
 

JBF

Senior Member
If you can't be bothered to do either, the accusation shouldn't be 'plot armour' it should be 'lazy writing', which is more to the point and more effectively discussed.

Unless I misread, the concept of plot armor has been laid at the feet of lazy writers for a goodly portion of the thread.
 

TheMightyAz

Senior Member
Unless I misread, the concept of plot armor has been laid at the feet of lazy writers for a goodly portion of the thread.

Yeah, so THAT is the 'real' discussion. It opens it up instead of narrowing it down. We can then discuss the options available. For instance, I would imagine genre writing offers more options than straight fiction writing. Horror (demonic possession etc), Sci-fi (enhancements), Fantasy (magic). In all those instances, even a writer who hasn't planned well with his character can find a solution for what would ordinarily be a road block for their character. It offers a solution for both physical restrictions AND moral/ethical barriers. Even in general fiction, there's no reason a character who starts off a moral crusader can't end up being corrupted by events so much, they do things they wouldn't have done at the start of the story. It's just a matter of making sure the transition is foreshadowed well, otherwise it would be jarring and out of place. Enter the last season of Game Of Thrones.
 

Foxee

Patron
Patron
SPOILERS AHEAD:
If you're one of the 2 remaining people on earth who haven't seen The Princess Bride, go watch it before you read this post.
Thank you.


Of all things what comes to mind is The Princess Bride. Stick with me here, I know the movie has its funny bits but I think he's a good example of how to defeat plot armor.

Wesley/The Dread Pirate Roberts seems to be invulnerable, a Gary Stu. He gets through four tough challenges because he's Just That Good. He gets himself and the princess through the fire swamp and ROUS's mostly on sheer optimism and chutzpah.

He's no match for a princess pushing him into a ravine (love) or fire and rat bites (he's mortal, after all), or betrayal (princess again), or THE MACHINE.

"Nobody withstands the machine"...well, guess who's going to have to go there? Yes, the hero. Because, honestly, why else have the machine in the story otherwise?

And though I hated this and winced and darned near cried when Count Rugen and Prince Humperdink killed Wesley with the machine this was a stripping of the plot armor, wasn't it? Wesley's charmed life was over. His cleverness was over. Love hadn't saved him. His plan was over. He couldn't save the girl.

An ingenious way that the story deals with this is by finding loyalty in men Wesley has bested. He didn't end them (okay, other than Vizzini but he did pick his poison...) because he had respect for them. This meant that he was a force-multiplier and these characters came to find him, returning the respect he'd given. Joining up with his cause.

From that point on this is a team effort because Wesley has been brought back from mostly-dead to life again but he can't enact his plan even so. Probably one of the biggest reasons that this story was a hit had to do with the friendship and loyalty of the characters as they each worked through their own stories and saved the princess together.

Simplistic? Okay, sure, maybe. Even a little hokey. But compelling. A story that is possible to watch over and over again.
 

TheMightyAz

Senior Member
SPOILERS AHEAD:
If you're one of the 2 remaining people on earth who haven't seen The Princess Bride, go watch it before you read this post.
Thank you.


Of all things what comes to mind is The Princess Bride. Stick with me here, I know the movie has its funny bits but I think he's a good example of how to defeat plot armor.

Wesley/The Dread Pirate Roberts seems to be invulnerable, a Gary Stu. He gets through four tough challenges because he's Just That Good. He gets himself and the princess through the fire swamp and ROUS's mostly on sheer optimism and chutzpah.

He's no match for a princess pushing him into a ravine (love) or fire and rat bites (he's mortal, after all), or betrayal (princess again), or THE MACHINE.

"Nobody withstands the machine"...well, guess who's going to have to go there? Yes, the hero. Because, honestly, why else have the machine in the story otherwise?

And though I hated this and winced and darned near cried when Count Rugen and Prince Humperdink killed Wesley with the machine this was a stripping of the plot armor, wasn't it? Wesley's charmed life was over. His cleverness was over. Love hadn't saved him. His plan was over. He couldn't save the girl.

An ingenious way that the story deals with this is by finding loyalty in men Wesley has bested. He didn't end them (okay, other than Vizzini but he did pick his poison...) because he had respect for them. This meant that he was a force-multiplier and these characters came to find him, returning the respect he'd given. Joining up with his cause.

From that point on this is a team effort because Wesley has been brought back from mostly-dead to life again but he can't enact his plan even so. Probably one of the biggest reasons that this story was a hit had to do with the friendship and loyalty of the characters as they each worked through their own stories and saved the princess together.

Simplistic? Okay, sure, maybe. Even a little hokey. But compelling. A story that is possible to watch over and over again.

Yes, I watched that recently actually. It's a fun romp and I liked it for that.

My problem with the phrase 'plot armour' is the fact it insinuates any story that doesn't kill main characters off is flawed and therefore bad writing. It has become a sharp nail to crucify many a good story.

I watch reviews and hear it all the time: 'Yeah it was good but that plot armour', 'If only they hadn't used plot armour', 'I thought it was great, but the plot armour ruined it for me'. It's become a popular phrase since Game Of Thrones. It's what the cool kids say.

It's not a negative to write a story that allows the protagonist to survive, but the phrase suggests it is. The possibilities and methods for writing stories are deep and broad. On a table of tools, killing your protagonists is merely one option. It's not a 'plus' or a 'minus' it's an 'option'.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top