Rules to prevent lazy plot devices

Any rules you have to prevent yourself from using lazy plot devices?

I'll start.

Never use any form of magical compulsion when magical pursuasion or magical coercion would work just as well.

If 3 or less people dropping dead solves the plot, add more plot.

edited 8th Feb '12 4:57:30 AM by Natasel

I don't outright rule it out, and it's more because of the risk of plot holes, but I am extremely leery of introducing time travel to any work I write.

I agree, at least for the more unlimited form of time travel. It's like introducing a Reality Warper into your story - you can always ask "why didn't they fix the problem in blah blah blah way?", and you would actually have a valid point, because it takes a pretty nasty lack of creativity to fail or even come close to failing with such an overpowered... power.

edited 7th Feb '12 11:22:11 PM by PDown

I never allow my villains to rely solely on collecting plot coupons or anything related in order to complete their plans. I like my villains to be intelligent and creative because I feel it makes them appear far more dangerous when done right than some kook who can collect all the pieces of the triforce, and I feel like fetch quests are a waste of time when it comes to stories.

edited 7th Feb '12 11:30:32 PM by Winglerfish

Okay, this is pretty much just because I'm pissed of at Unwind...

But don't include plot-vital references to real-life political debates if you don't have a thorough knowledge of what both (hell, either) of the sides actually believe.

edited 8th Feb '12 1:25:40 AM by PDown

^ I didn't think Unwind was that bad . . .

Anyways. No character should like or dislike your protagonist just because it's plot-convenient for them to do so. Come up with at least a token reason for their reaction.

If you find yourself thinking "but how do I get this character to actually do that thing believably", you need to make that character do something different.

Another rule of thumb I try to follow: if I saw through a similar thing when I was eleven, it's not a good idea to use it now. However much I think it'll move the plot along. Find something else.

Deus Ex Machina is the result of bad foreshadowing.

Or so I heard.

This character may only try to kill herself three five three times sincerely and twice as an empty threat five times both sincerely and insincerely, and five times indirectly by throwing herself into the line of fire less than ten times in the course of one book.

Not including flashbacks.

Nicks of times are usually ok, but try and avoid too many coincidences.

No more than one person per story is allowed to be revealed to be a different gender or sexual orientation. It just isn't surprising the second time.

^ Only if it's meant to be a surprise. Otherwise...

-hides-

Well naturally; having a large variety of genders and orientations is good. Just don't pretend they're something else and then have a Big Reveal a bunch of times. (I read a book once that had three of these in one average-length novel.)

That only works Overly Long Gag style.

A few other rules I set for myself:

• If an element (of whatever nature) in the story requires me to use some of the tricks found on How To Stop The Deus Ex Machina, think very, very hard about whether that element really needs to be in the story in the first place.
• Don't have more then one surprise relationship between characters. And again, think carefully about whether you need any.
• Don't write in quickly-developing romance arcs if it's supposed to be a "serious" thing - in other words, no Fourth-Date Marriage, ever.
• Don't use reset buttons - if a change in the status quo would make the overall work worse, then do the change differently (or not at all, but I don't like Status Quo Is God) rather then reverting it.
• Don't have major plot elements justified solely by one of the Rule of Index tropes, unless it's Rule of Funny and the work is mostly comedic anyway.
• If introducing elements into the work that are meant primarily to be wacky or humorous, don't later give them a "serious" explanation if it's at all avoidable.

edited 8th Feb '12 8:09:51 PM by nrjxll

If 1/3rd-2/3rds of the main cast isn't dead by the end of the story, they have too much plot armor, presuming this is the kind of story where people are supposed to die.

Now that just strikes me as unnecessarily bloodthirsty. It risks coming across as doing it for the shock value, and/or devaluing the emotional impact of the later deaths.

Hmm. Well, have some actual problems that come up and don't get resolved for a long time, that aren't directly related to the main plot. Don't pointlessly follow the status quo when it would make better sense to change it. In general change the status quo some; if nothing changes the story feels pointless. Have the characters face some problems that they are not perfectly tuned to handle.

Most of my plots, by logical standards, are extremely high-risk. World War I with steampunk technology? The Christian end of the world with eldritch abomination invasions from heaven?

I don't actively seek out my characters' deaths, but I'm not gonna pull too many strings to save them just to keep the story going. If they should logically and rightly die at some point or another, they're dead, and that's the end of it.

True and granted, if they should die then kill them. It just strikes me that the 1/3-2/3s number could be misinterpreted to be a recommendation of kill more people in the context of a story that is risky but not that high-risk.

Well, think about it this way:

In real life, by the end of the first year of World War I the entire original British army in Europe had been wiped off the face of the Earth.

Realistically, I should be hitting some ridiculous fraction of my cast, in terms of death numbers, for that particular story at least. Of course you shouldn't be killing lots of people in, say, a slice-of-life story... though you could if it were a no-continuity black comedy, I suppose.

Anyhow, point is, my plots involve lots of mean things trying to kill the characters a lot. They should, in fact, be dying a lot, which is only logical given the plot. If I didn't do such plots, then I wouldn't need to worry about it.

Sounds like it works fine for your story, then. Yeah, WWI doesn't need to have steampunkish technologies to get any nastier.

I agree with Flyboy here. Plot armor, at its essence, is letting your characters survive things that would realistically kill them. So if your plot should realistically kill a significant number of characters, and no one is dying, then there's too much plot armor.

I wouldn't give specific numbers like that, though.