Why is plot armor bad? The answer is generally obvious, because it reduces the capacity for drama in a story. If the reader knows that a character can’t die, it restricts the avenues for the author to provide a credible threat. However, upon closer examination there is some complexity in what exactly plot armor is and how it functions. In reality, there are almost no stories where the main character can die, except right at the end. Why then, do some stories have what feels like stronger plot armor for the protagonist or important supporting characters. I think it’s about the balance of risk and loss.
Risk vs Loss
In any story drama can be created by placing the character in a risky situation, either through their own actions or the actions of the world around them. However, what makes a situation risky? Fundamentally, risk can be considered as an expected value calculation. It is the combination of the probability of loss and the magnitude of that loss, and more generally the distribution over all such outcomes. In a narrative, it’s very rare for the distribution to not include some outcomes where are positive for the character, because a truly hopeless situation is narratively boring. The reader must believe that both failure and success are possible. Additionally, the greater the chance of failure and the greater the reward of success, the greater the suspense felt by the reader. Thus follows the common trope in fiction, epitomized by the phrase in Wuxia novels, “the Heavens always leave a thread of hope”. However, it’s also this balance that can lead to cracks in the reader’s suspension of disbelief. If the protagonist is continually placed in situations where the risk is death and the reward is great, the author will be forced to make them always succeed. The situations may be analogous to real world risky situations, and so the illusion of danger my hold for a while, but eventually the reader will no longer feel any suspense. There is a sort of anthropic bias, where the only world that can exist is one where the main character survives. Thus, any narrative which makes failure result in death is one where failure becomes impossible. In the pursuit of what seems like the maximum risk/loss combination for drama, all drama is lost. To solve this issue, we have to consider the distribution of outcomes more carefully.
Destruction over Death
The simple and somewhat obvious answer to this problem is to provide outcomes where the protagonist or other characters can lose without dying. A good writer should be able to find risk that doesn’t rely solely on character death. Additionally, the author should consider the odds in a somewhat realistic fashion when designing scenarios. It’s fine if the protagonist is luckier and more powerful than the average person, but if they take a risk 10 times, they better have that risk occasionally result in failure. This narrative approach is exemplified by the novel A Practical Guide to Evil. The characters regularly are forced to take great gambles, and though the story rarely resorts to character deaths, characters regularly have to sacrifice parts of themselves, both physically and metaphorically. If a character constantly takes great risk but can’t die because of the anthropic bias of the narrative, we should expect them to eventually lose everything except their life. It’s worth reiterating that a story where a character beats the odds is fine, and is often a necessity for a fun uplifting story. Just remember, if a character keeps winning because of something that feels like luck to the reader, try to let the character also lose because of bad luck. Consider how you construct the distribution of plausible outcomes for the characters, and think about how the survival of the protagonist guides the narrative down certain paths.
