Is there such thing as obstacles being too big in a story, or the bigger, the better? When it comes to writing, especially thrillers, my favorite genre, I often feel that I make the obstacles too big for the characters, that it's the characters would feel that it's not worth reaching their goals, if they have too many unknowns that could go wrong. This can be a good thing, but does it get to the point where it's too much, and thus I should lessen the obstacles and already have the character start out at about 50% close to the goal, rather than zero possibly? One of the challenges are characters who are able to come up with plans where they know how all the pawns in the plan are going to react and know exactly what will happen. The Joker in The Dark Knight for example. So it is best to throw as many obstacles in the way of the plan as possible for drama, or does this make the plans way to unlikely to succeed, if you want them to succeed for the time being, and thus I shouldn't have many obstacles that stand a chance of success, to make it more plausible? If I want a character to strive for a goal, but the obstacles are big enough that you feel that the character would just throw in the towel, and figure the goal is not worth it, if they have to take that much risk and sacrifice, then have I made the obstacles too big then?
I think you have to play around with what's at stake. As creator of your fiction world, you decide why your characters would or wouldn't do certain things and what sort of success or failures they face. But one thing that can really help drive this home is having exactly what's at stake on display. Why would a character do whatever? Or not do whatever? Now, you're the one who has to sell readers on it all being believable. And I don't think that has anything to do with how believable things actually are. What's at stake should be at the center of your story. If you have hopeless characters in a hopeless situation with zero hope of changing, what can actually be at stake? Just something to think about.
Oh okay thanks. Well I guess my concern is how is a character suppose to be successful at the goal, which is what I want, if they take so many risks to reach it that they should have not succeeded. They do so many risky things, but still come out smart in the end. Would that seem like an inconsistency?
The obstacles are always too big for the heroes. That's part of why it's a conflict. But when does it go from big to too big? Well, that's normally when the resolution switches from plausible to absurd. For example, Deus Ex Machina has to be utilized.
In the sequel that will remain unfinished: Marckus willingly gives himself up to the the enemy, knowing full well that they will torture him and try to break him, even though they have his psych reports showing that he isn't one that plays nice with others when they go against his wishes being overridden by those who out-rank him. It pulls thing back a bit, having to rely on hope that someone will bother to search for him and the other captured soldiers in the long run. Point of it all, is that the MC can do the right thing that they think is right, even if it puts them in harms way with no real defense beyond their ability to resist and their wits to twist things in their favor when an opportunity opens up. So it is ok to put your MC in peril as long as there are others willing to come looking for them. That is smart on the part of the party that is taken, since they know that someone will go looking for them with or without permission which also adds to the stakes of the whole affair anyway. Provided they have at least one person that cares about them enough to go and traverse hell to make sure they survive. Sure the enemy thinks they have a key player, but in reality none of them are safe from some for of retribution by a party close to the MC in the long term. Ask yourself if the MC has a person that would do damn near anything to get them back should they be taken captive by less the friendly parties, and then you will have an answer.
Oh okay, thanks . What about the obstacles for the villain? If I want the villain to seem like he is winning for the most of the story, until the climax, should I not give the villain many obstacles then and make it easy for him?
So for my thoughts on this matter, I'd say that an obstacle is only too big when there is no feasible way for the protagonist to succeed and a deus ex machina is required to reach the conclusion. Requiring that the protagonist just gets luckier than is likely should not be a problem. I'd add that the protagonist should also fail at times throughout the story as well (and make it so those failures are partly due to their own flaws), basically I'd say have them fail when it doesn't matter as much, and succeed in those do or die moments. Especially if you can pull off a massive fail in a moment that looks do or die but wasn't really. Though obviously, you know what is best for your story. As for the villain, honestly I don't know if it matters too much. For the most part the antagonist is the obstacle of the protagonist and vice versa (even if the antagonist isn't aware how much the protagonist could ruin their plans). You could give them lots of easy obstacles to show off their talents or barely any to make them off-guard for the climax. Or they could really struggle to reach their goals and lose at the last minute at the hands of the protagonist (though that could run the risk of making them more sympathetic than you'd want).
Oh okay thanks. I don't have any deux ex machinas so far. It's just that if the antagonist comes up with a plan, and that plan has 3 ways of going wrong and 1 way of going right, if it goes right, does it look too lucky for him if there are 3 ways it could have went wrong, yet it went right? Same with the protagonist. If the protagonist comes up with a final plan to win against the antagonist but only has say, a 1 out of 3 chance of that plan working, is that too lucky? I don't have any deux ex machinas, just wonder if the odds are too lucky, if that makes sense?
