Writing bad decisions

[BlueB]

Let's get this out of the way: Perfect protags are bland and uninteresting to read and write. Flawed main characters are what drive a story forward and make things way more interesting. But flawed people make flawed decisions, and this can be incredibly frustrating, to both the reader and the writer. The writer has to stay true to a flawed character while still moving the story in the desired direction. It can be tough on a reader to see the character they're supposed to identify with (especially in visual novels) make huge mistakes. It could be trusting someone they shouldn't, making a misinformed decision, or not making a decision at all. My two favorite examples come from Shakespeare.

Hamlet is a very flawed and very frustrating character. He knows everything the audience does; his uncle pretty obviously killed his father and is porking it with his mom but he doesn't do anything about it. He talks about how he should do this and that, but it's not until the end of the play that he finally decides to get a move on. This can be a very frustrating read, and I know many people who dislike Hamlet as a character, but identify with him as a person.

Macbeth, on the other hand, makes a stupid decision from the beginning and tries to deal with said bad decision. He also does little to help himself, and he spends most of the play freaking out about doing something wrong. Every person I talk to about to about Macbeth hates the guys guts. He made a bad decision and then paid the consequences several hours of reading later.

Why do people like Hamlet but hate Macbeth? Both make bad decisions and both were written by the same guy. To authors, how do you balance writing a character's flawed decisions while still making them a likable character (or maybe they're not likable, how do you justify their decisions)? To readers, how do you react to poor decision making on a character's part? Do you cringe and hope things turn out okay? Do you get frustrated and stop liking the character? Or do you think it's a natural part of writing realistic characters? Please discuss.

[Jate]

It really depends on the circumstances for me. Sometimes bad decisions frustrate me and make me abandon a story, which is the case for a lot of dramas (Don't just accept the rumor, go confront them, d*** it!). On the other hand, the entirety of Planescape: Torment, which is one of my all-time favourite games, is about correcting the protagonist's mistakes - and the protagonist himself can be a stand-up guy or horrible, manipulative scum depending on the player's choices.

A few factors that influence how I feel are:
- Consistency/Motivation. Whether the decision makes sense for the character. Out-of-character decisions, good or bad, are always frustrating. I need to accept why the character is doing it. This doesn't have to be a reason that justifies the mistake, but that justifies the character making it. This is especially the case when it's a surprising thing for the character to do. For example, a staunch hero letting a villain commit an evil/get away, and the villain turning out to be someone important to the hero.
- Event vs Development. Is the mistake episodic, just an obstacle to be overcome (or rather, corrected)? Or does it advance the story or develop the character in an important way? If the mistake is a part of the overarching story, or if the mistake causes the character to either mature and grow or start spiraling into an antagonistic role, I'm more open to it.
- Relatability. If I can empathize, I can't really blame them. If I think "well, I'd do the same thing," we're good. When this is the case I can end up liking the character more, especially if it's a character I don't think highly of prior. Such as when Cersei of Game of Thrones, who does some terrible things, does them in the name of her children.
- Likability. The more I like a character, the more I'll excuse their behaviour. This is more of a universal thing than a bad decision thing, though. For characters that regularly make bad decisions, are they the lovable idiot, or just an idiot?
- Frequency. How often does it happen and how many characters are doing it? This influences how I feel about the story as a whole rather than the individual character, so may not be relevant.
- The Mistake. What was it? What does it say about the character? What were the consequences? Do the consequences include hurting a character/characters I like? Is it something I consider forgivable? If the answer to these questions are negative, is the mistake a part of a transformation into an antagonist as mentioned above? If it's a story with limited characters I like, does the mistake remove one or more of them?
- The Aftermath. Do/can they correct the mistake? How does it change them? How does it change the story/setting/other characters? If they can't correct the mistake, do they (attempt to) redeem themselves in some other fashion? If they can neither correct nor redeem, do they dedicate or sacrifice themselves to whatever their right cause is anyway? Does its affect on the story make me want to know what happens next more than my distaste for the mistake?

As a writer, my characters don't make a lot of serious bad decisions. Misakes are made, but almost always resolved quickly. Reason being I write what I like, and I'm rarely into drama or tragedy. So this isn't something I can give much input on from a writing perspective.

[HiddenCreature]

When you start out writing, it's easy to become too much of a fan of your work. And like fans, you don't want anything bad to happen to your favorite characters.

In my experience, you should never concern yourself with writing likeable characters, because it's impossible to know you've succeeded until after the story is finished and sent to the masses. Even then, you can't win, because there will be just as many other people who will find reasons to dislike your characters.

Instead, you should focus on staying true to human nature. That's something you can arguably win at, and people identify with the characters more; you placed a greater emphasis on crafting personality, not likeability. You don't make real friends by being who you think people will like, right? So it is with characters.

To stay true to character, you have to remember why people ever make bad decisions. They were misinformed. Acting on impulse. At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do.

There's only two times a bad decision doesn't make sense. One, is the the motive isn't clear to us, and never explained, so you're left scratching your head. Two, is when the character deliberately makes a bad decision, and again, the motive isn't clear. "I know the path to the left is safer and will take me to my destination. But I'll take the scarier path on the right just because." Things like that.

And those decisions are usually written for convenience of the plot, because the rational alternative either isn't as exciting, or takes longer to write.

[Kailoto]

Part of the problem is that everyone has a different idea of what a likable character is. Some people completely avoid protagonists that are cruel, while others are okay (or even prefer it.) I personally can't stand the "normal person mixed up in abnormal circumstances," but there's plenty of people who like it. So I think the first step is to figure out who your audience is and what it is they're looking for.

Once you know your audience, cater to that specific group of people. You can't please everyone when you write stories, so focus on making your target audience the most satisfied. If they like characters that are flawed and tragic, then run with that.

Poor decision making isn't a plot device, it's a character trait. And as such, writers have to make sure that every time the main character (or even a side character) makes a bad decision, it's motivated by their own desires and personality, not because the plot requires it. I think a lot of times I hate stories with poor decision making because they use it as a way to advance the plot in a certain direction, rather than staying true to the actual character. This connects to what Jate was saying about consistency and motivation: if it's not there, I can easily spot the bad writing and get impatient with the story.

So basically, I would only write bad decisions if there's a character that would actually make them. If you need them to make that decision to advance the plot (which you usually do), then work backwards from there: figure out what the decision is, then what type of person would make that decision, and what kind of situation they'd have to be in to actually go through with it. That way the decision feels real and true to the character's nature, and readers like me won't be turned away by the flaws.

[trooper6]

Why do people like Hamlet but hate Macbeth? Both make bad decisions and both were written by the same guy. To authors, how do you balance writing a character's flawed decisions while still making them a likable character (or maybe they're not likable, how do you justify their decisions)? To readers, how do you react to poor decision making on a character's part? Do you cringe and hope things turn out okay? Do you get frustrated and stop liking the character? Or do you think it's a natural part of writing realistic characters? Please discuss.

Well there is a lot to unpack in this set of questions.
1) I don't like Hamlet. But even worse, I don't find him interesting. The play still works for me because I find Ophelia and Gertrude and Claudius interesting, but the more the production likes Hamlet, the less I like the production. Macbeth and his wife I find interesting. So I prefer the Scottish play to Hamlet any day.
2) I don't think characters have to be likable; they have to be interesting. If I only consumed media with likable characters...I'd miss out on so much! Mad Men, How To Get Away With Murder, The Godfather 2, A Clockwork Orange, Taxi Driver, Mommie Dearest, Damages...so many of the pulp crime books I read...and on and on. So...I don't aim to make people likable...Oh! Side Note!

You know all those guys who complain on the internet that they are Nice Guys and women don't want Nice Guys they only want Jerks?
Have you read the wonderful take downs pointing out that these guys actually aren't nice at all? Well, here is another pushback on that narrative that I think is relevant. Nice is a base expectation of being a decent human being...if you are "nice" and you have no other qualities...that isn't enough. You should be nice, yeah. But you should also be interesting and have things going on in your life that make you someone people want to be around. So...likable characters? Okay...um...but that doesn't mean anything if they aren't interesting and compelling.

3) How do I justify their decisions? I justify their decisions by making those decisions conform to their character. This means that rather than focusing on making a likable character, I focus on making a fully realized character, one whose motivations and psychology I have mapped out so I can know what decisions they'd make good or bad or neutral. They the character justified their actions will be part of their psychology.

4) How do I react, as a reader, to a protagonist making bad decisions? Does it make me frustrated? Does it make me stop liking them? (I'll take these three questions in reverse order) Well, again, I don't have to like a main character to be interested in them. Also, if I do like the character and they make a bad decision it depends on the bad decision, why they made it, if they are aware it was a bad decision...basically, context matters. Does it make me frustrated? Depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But again frustration is not necessarily a bad thing. Art is supposed to make you feel or thing...and frustration is a feeling. There is a difference between being frustrated for a character and being frustrated with the writer of the book. If the writing is good then I am happy to be frustrated for a character. If I'm frustrated with the book/film/tv show, it will be because the choices are out of character, they don't make sense, they come out of nowhere, they are poorly written...then I'll be frustrated with the writer and will probably quit soon. How do I react to the bad decisions? It depends again on how well they are written, same with good decisions. If the character only makes good decisions but done poorly, I'll get irritated. If the character makes bad decisions and they are well written, I'll be interested and excited to read more.

Last note: I love, love, love the Dragon Age series of video games. When did I first know that I loved them? When playing Dragon Age: Origins I found myself making bad decisions that I knew were bad decisions, but I also knew that my character would make those decisions...and so I did. It all revolved around dating Morrigan. I marveled at how well the game was written so that it made sense for me to make this small bad decision here, then that small bad decision there...and then...boom! I was in a tricky space...but I was too far in. That was great! Also Magical Diary had me making some bad decisions during one story line. I knew they were bad decisions, but the writing was so well done...that there I was...doing a think that I really shouldn't have been doing. I learned more from those two pieces of art than I would have from something that didn't challenge me in those ways.

[E-night]

Trooper6 as usual says smart stuff, I am just going to add. (Since this is a forum with a lot of VNs) that with VN's and other player/reader choice driven narratives there is a couple of more questions that needs to be considered.

- Do I allow to the player/reader to make bad decisions. If yes how bad?

- If playing a MC that is not blank slate. Do I allow the player to make bad which is technically out of character for the MC.

(Also personally I prefer Machbeth to Hamlet)

[SundownKid]

I would say: the audience will sympathize more with the character if the decision is something that they might have made under the circumstances. If the character has the idiot ball and makes a dumb decision, then they will sympathize less.

[BlueB]

Thank you everyone for your input, and thank you E-night for going the direction I was headed. If people will understand if its in character, what happens when the character is the self-insert many VN protags are? A lot of VNs have "bad endings" based on a bad decision. How obvious should this bad decision be? School Days comes to mind. One slip and you end up with dead bodies, and some of the decisions are as simple as "Yes" or "No." How willing are you, as a writer, to let the reader make bad decisions? As a reader, how much leeway do you give the options available for you? Where is the balance between "Yes, let the ax murderer into my house./No, call the police." and "Shake the man's hand/Smile at the man." The implications of one are clear, but the other is a bit more subtle. But how subtle can bad decisions be before they're too frustrating to the reader? Inherently, one decision is better than the other, but how many hints do you give the reader before it gets too obvious which decision goes in which direction? Balance is key, but how do you obtain that balance? How can you give your main character flaws when the point for many players is to avoid the bad decisions and get the best end?

To answer my own question, I want to return to my example, "Shake the man's hand/Smile at the man." If we know before hand through reading that the man we're meeting is an intense germaphobe and has a very bad temper but shake his hand anyway, it makes sense when he shows up to murder us later; we were given a hint as to which route to take. If it was written poorly and the hint is easy to miss, then it's probably a half-and-half split between the two options, and half the players get an ax to the face. Letting the player make informed decisions and assuming they're not stupid is important, I think. Give them enough information to let them figure it out, but don't spoon feed them into which option leads to what.

Do you have any better examples? What's your favorite example of a bad "Bad decision" in a VN?

[Jate]

Tone is a big factor. School Days has severe consequences, but you know going in that you'll be dealing with crazy. With horror/thriller games, dangerous options are more a feature than a balancing issue. On the other hand, the same kind of consequences in a light hearted game would seem unfair. There's not one right balance, choices should be balanced to the game.

[Katy133]

I remember writing a thesis essay that compared and contrasted the plays Hamlet and A Man for All Seasons.

In this essay, I basically said that both the main characters from those two plays, Hamlet and Thomas More, respectively, both make arguably poor decisions that eventually lead to their deaths. Hamlet in his indecisiveness--He doesn't know if he should kill his uncle for murdering his (Hamlet's) father. And Thomas More in his stubbornness and constancy --He refuses to agree to the King's divorce because of his (More's) religious beliefs, even when the King threatens More with taking away his job, his house, his family, and, finally, his life.

I came to the conclusion that I disliked Hamlet (meaning I didn't like him as a person or as an interesting character), but I liked Thomas More. And I think the reasons for this was because we, as an audience, dislike characters (especially protagonists--because it's most noticeable with them) who don't try to achieve what they want. The reason why we like underdogs is because they try their best, even in the face of adversity. That's why I disliked Hamlet's lack of action.

With Thomas More, it feels like he's constantly facing an uphill battle. Everyone around him wants him to give up, but he's so faithful to what he believes in that he wants to remain true to himself, even if it costs him his life. I identified with his loyalty, which is remarkable considering we currently live in a society where divorce (the thing he's so against) is considered a pretty common occurrence these days (in Canada, the divorce rate is about 40% of all marriages in the country). It mattered not what he believed in, but rather, that he was loyal to his belief.

Hamlet also pretended to be mad, and in the original play, it's never explained why he did that (though some adaptations try to rationalise it as Hamlet trying to "lull his uncle into a false sense of security"). This lack of understanding of the character's actions furthers the gap of our lack of empathy towards him.

[trooper6]

I don't dislike Hamlet because of indecisiveness, I dislike Hamlet because he's an out of control maniac. He is terrible to women, he murders Polonius and isn't bothered about it in the slightest...and I'm not convinced that he is only "pretending" to be mad. I think he actually loses it. He is too emo, arrogant, immature. I'm also irritated that he is often played by actors who are way too old and play him with way too much ego, secureness, and gravitas. I like a more vulnerable Hamlet.

I'd be interested in a Hamlet that was more about the other characters in the play. But Hamlet the play has the trouble for me that I think Hamlet is a jerk and it doesn't seem the play realizes it.

[Kailoto]

I'm also irritated that he is often played by actors who are way too old and play him with way too much ego, secureness, and gravitas. I like a more vulnerable Hamlet.

You know, that had never occurred to me before, but it's absolutely right. I'd read Hamlet long before I ever saw it performed, live or recorded, and I'd always had the impression that he was more of a whiny kid than a commanding adult. My opinions gradually adapted to conform with the more popular opinion (because that's what you do at that age), but I think that's the real reason right there - the actors always want to impress when they play Hamlet, because Hamlet is a big role, and it manifests in their performance.

The implications of one are clear, but the other is a bit more subtle. But how subtle can bad decisions be before they're too frustrating to the reader? Inherently, one decision is better than the other, but how many hints do you give the reader before it gets too obvious which decision goes in which direction?

I agree with Jate in that tone really decides how subtle you should be. Ace Attorney is a fun and (mostly) lighthearted series that telegraphs things with about as much deft as an idiot with a fire extinguisher, and yet despite the fact that I've only ever been surprised once in the series, they're still some of my favorite visual novels and games in general.

For a VN that had both great and poor bad decisions, Fate/stay night comes to mind. During the combat scenes, occasionally you'd have to make a choice, usually with the intent of preserving your own life. When done well, the information to make the right decision was usually given beforehand during one of the more relaxed training scenes, meaning that as long as you actually paid attention and had the common sense to apply that knowledge, you would be okay. It was really satisfying to pull off, too. There were a few choices though where it was essentially a coin flip, and at that point those should have just been removed.

[trooper6]

- the actors always want to impress when they play Hamlet, because Hamlet is a big role, and it manifests in their performance.

One of my biggest pet peeves ever. I mean, the Mel Gibson Hamlet had this problem...plus it criminally underused Glenn Close as Gertrude.

[BlueB]

I couldn't agree with Kailoto more about the Fate/Stay Night point. Some decisions make sense if you read everything, but others were so out of left field I had no idea which option to pick. And at the risk of getting off topic, I'd like to talk about Hamlet some more.

As I said, it's hard to like Hamlet as a character. He's moody, flippant and a huge jerk (if you haven't yet, read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. One of my favorite absurdest works and gives you plenty of Hamlet slack to laugh at). However, from my experience, people identify with Hamlet. Note that as a summer school teacher, most of my opinions come from high school kids and college students who really need teaching credits. Consistently, there would be a general consensus: nobody liked Hamlet, nobody would want to be Hamlet's friend. But there's something about his decision to not decide that was identifiable and resonated with something internally. I think because people have been in situations where they didn't want to decide. Making decisions is hard, and in between his rants about clouds, Hamlet does think about the repercussions taking revenge on his uncle would have on him. In the end, his cowardly aversion to making the choice is his undoing, but we've all been there. I think that's why people like to hate Hamlet; he's a whiny piss-baby, but we see ourselves in him. That's my theory anyway.

Getting back on topic, does anyone have any tips about dropping hints in a subtle manner? And are there any horrendous examples of poor hint-dropping you can think of in your favorite (or most hated) VN?

[trooper6]

I have to say, I don't identify with Hamlet at all. Why? For me he is the epitome of the hegemony. He is the straight, rich, white guy who has it all and then complains that he's the victim as he is stabbing people. I just don't identify with him or empathize with him.

Also...I don't really read him as that indecisive. So he doesn't immediately fly off the handle and murder his uncle (the King!) immediately on the word of a ghost (who he acknowledges could be a demon)...but why is that a bad thing? That seems reasonable rather than indecisive. He tries to investigate the situation and figure out if the vision he saw was real or fooling him. Why is that a bad thing? And he takes quite a lot of action in the process of his investigation. It always seemed to me that excessive action of the Rambo variety would have been unwise.

As for too subtle. For me, I don't mind subtle. I don't mind really subtle. But where are we talking about? I don't mind not knowing how the world will react to things...but if I'm being told by the game that I am controlling the MC, then I like to know how I am reacting. When I've had bad reactions it has been when games violated the latter.

Let me explain what I mean.

In Knights if the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords, the party member Kreia was really hard to read. I tried to do things to please her and she always criticized me. I'd do something I thought she would like and then she didn't. I'd do something I thought she wouldn't like but then she did. But that was okay, because there are people that are hard to please...and trying to figure her out became an obsession of mine. That uncertainty was good. Additionally, that game had numerous moments where, with no real telegraphing, your actions have unintended consequences in the universe. For example, early upon arriving on this pretty crappy city planet, a beggar asks you for some money. I gave him some...because I'm like that. Kreia, didn't like it. She explained that by giving him money, I made him a target for the rampant criminals on the planet...and I got a cut scene of the beggar being beaten up and the money stolen. Wow. I didn't see that coming and that was messed up. But I liked it. Because it told me something about that planet, and it made sense that that would have happened on that planet...it all fell within the logic of that simulated space...even if I didn't realize it. As long as the universe and the people in it react logically within their context and with internal consistency I don't care how subtle it is. I'll figure it out.

Then there is the example I don't like. If I am controlling the main character's actions, then I don't like it when I'm presented with an one action option and it turns out to be a different action instead. If I am controlling the main character's feelings and attitudes, then I don't like it when I'm presented with one feeling/attitude option and it turns out to be a different feeling/attitude instead. Or if actions/options I would do are not allowed. This has happened numerous little times in RPGs/Adventure titles when the writing has been sloppy. I can't think of a real example...hm..I suppose one would be in Dragon Age Origins, my bad-idea girlfriend Morrigan wanted me to kill her mother, Flemeth, and retrieve her grimoire. When I went to confront Flemeth, she gave me the option of letting her live. She would just give me the grimoire. I didn't want to kill Flemish, so I took Flemeth's deal and returned with the all important grimoire. When I went to report back to Morrigan, and I was not given the option to tell her the truth about what happened. I was forced to lie to Morrigan about killing Flemeth. And my character would not have done that. My character had always been truthful up until that point and I had no pattern of lying up until that point. I did not appreciate being forced into that lie then. I would have preferred to have had the option to tell the truth.

I'd have been okay if the game tracked my behavior in the first half of the game and then started limiting my choices based on that behavior in the second half. For example, if I'd proven myself as a person who tends to lie...then I would have been okay with not having been given the option to tell the truth...because I established the character as a liar. Or, in contrast, if I had established that my character doesn't lie...I'd be okay with not being given a lie option later. But that would be the consequences of my own actions, not something arbitrary.

Also, I understand that telling Morrigan the truth about me not killing Flemish might have been a bad decision (or not, I don't know). Or maybe not killing Flemeth in the first place may have been a bad decision (I don't know). But those were my decisions and I wanted to take responsibility for them because that was who my character was.

Note: I'm okay with playing a game where I don't control the main character's feelings and attitudes. I'm okay with a lot of things...I just like to have a consistent set of ground rules for what I are doing in a game.