Post History
Often characters come up with meticulous, mind-bendingly brilliant plans which predict actions and reactions of other entities, or which somehow circumvent possible problems etc., and then they ...
Answer
#3: Attribution notice added
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48721 License name: CC BY-SA 4.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
#2: Initial revision
> Often characters come up with meticulous, mind-bendingly brilliant plans which predict actions and reactions of other entities, or which somehow circumvent possible problems etc., and then they follow them through to the end to triumph or accomplish something unbelievable. I am unsure of how to write this kind of plot in a way that seems believable. Rule #1 **It's not stupid if it works.** Many of the most brilliant acts of generalship and/or tactics have been "stupid" on the face of things. Bobby Fisher's legendary queen sacrifice is a great example, although it's so well-known that it may no longer seem like such an audacious move. Also, see several of the Confederate campaigns in the American Civil War, where an outnumbered Southern army divided itself further (huge no-no in most tactical books) in order to achieve victory. As a final example, Julius Caesar's plea to the mutinous troops in 47 BC would have been pretty stupid if they'd just killed him. As a general rule, all of these things are only considered brilliant because they _did_ work. A player who sacrifices a queen and loses is a fool. A player who sacrifices a queen and wins is a genius. As the author, you have the power to ensure that their risky gambits work and that their tactics succeed, which will help solidify the idea that these are geniuses making great moves rather than idiots bungling things. Rule #2 **It's what we don't see that matters** If you're dealing with something rather opaque, like most mystery or battle-of-wits situations, then you get to rely heavily on what the characters do outside of your narration. !!! How did he bribe the arch-bishop??!?! How did he break that one henchman out of jail?!?!?! Doesn't matter, and you don't have to explain it. Rule #3 **Reputation is king** Boba Fett is lionized as one of the fiercest, toughest, most awesome characters in the original Star Wars trilogy. But he accomplishes very little on-screen, has his bounty handed to him on a silver platter, and gets eaten by a giant ant lion because a blinded guy accidentally bumps into him. What he does have going for him is a reputation. Everybody who encounters him expresses their belief in his competence and abilities. It's relatively easy to build up minor villains and heroes, and then have them make the claims that you want the reader to believe instead of trying to directly make those claims as the author. Summary **Audience expectations and perceptions are what matter** If your audience thinks that your villain is a genius, then you can get away with almost anything. As Peter Benchley said (talking about Jaws): > I said “Steven, that is completely unbelievable. It can’t happen. A shark does not bite down on a SCUBA tank and explode like an oil refinery.” He said, “I don’t care.” He said, “If I have got them for two hours, they will believe whatever I do for the next three minutes because I’ve got them in my hands, and I want the audience on their feet screaming at the end, ‘Yes, yes! This is what should happen to this animal!’”… Reality may be great and truth may be wonderful, but none of it holds a candle to believability…. His ending brought people to their feet, screaming. The hardest part is not to come up with a believable plan but to prepare your audience so that they want to believe it and can experience it with so that everything makes sense in their mind.