One of my weaknesses in writing is that the characters eventually end up making decisions that go against their character, just so a certain plot turn or plot point can happen. The reason why is, that after reading books about writing, they all say the same thing. They say to come up with your ending first, so you can build into that ending. But in order to build into my endings, the characters have to make illogical decisions just to get there. I decided to take a whole new approach to writing and come up with a premise, and then have the characters in it, make decisions where they are the smartest, most logical decisions they would make without seeming forced or breaking character at all. Then I let their decisions decide outcome of the plot, rather than the other way around and deciding on my ending first. However, I have come up with some outlines for the story with endings based on the characters' decisions. I am not satisfied with any of them. They all come off as anticlimatic or underwhelming. It makes sense that they would since it was the character's decisions that came to the ending, rather than me coming up with the most climatic and dramatic ending I could. Instead the characters determine the ending, not knowing what it's going to be until they get there, and they arrive at more of an anticlimatic, more random ending. Is this new approach the best way to go? Is it possible to come up with the best ending and be totally satisfied without breaking character logic in order to get there? Or is the best way to write to let the character's actions determine the the outcome, and audiences will be satisfied with that. It won't matter what the outcome is so much, as long as audiences respected the characters decisions and motivations in order to get there? One example of a movie that breaks logic to have a certain plot turn is perhaps one of my favorites, Cell 211 (2009). In that movie there is a hostage situation where terrorists have taken over a building, and a negotiator has to deal with them. The hostage negotiator goes up to see the terrorists to meet their demands and goes into the building to speak to the leader, face to face. The leader then takes him hostage, and they kill him. The officers outside cannot intervene out of fear of the other hostages being killed. Their is an illogical character action there, and that is, that the hostage negotiator did not have to go into the building to negotiate. All he had to do was call the leader on the phone. Also the leader, wanted to kill the negotiator intentionally, which is why he asked for that specific person to talk to, cause he has a reason to kill him. But how did the leader know that the negotiator would enter the building, rather than use the phone? That's just one example, and I can either use that writing approach, where it's okay to have some plot holes as long as it builds to a great third act, or I can write it so that there are not plot holes at all, but not everything comes together in the third act perfectly for the audience, because the air tight logic, wouldn't allow for it. What do you think? Should I take the new approach and go with one of my outlines for a story, even if my instincts tell me it's anticlimatic and not everything is wrapped up neatly as a result? Or should I stick to the approach I was using before and try to improve it? I was thinking of writing my first half, before the second half. I have outlined the whole first half up until the 'midpoint climax', and I asked some others, and I think there is enough to agree it's pretty solid. And then when I come up with an outline for a good second half, I will be continue after the midpoint climax and write it. But since I am set on the first half, I do not want to change it. Whatever ending I come up with will be built out that first half, as oppose to coming up with an ending first. I will let the first half and the characters from then on, determine the ending, rather than the other way around. What do you think? Should I write it and stick with it?