What makes a good Plot?

[Kadaeux]

So, how about this as a side question? What do you think really creates a suspension of disbelief? And i'm not talking necessarily about just in terms of characters and their development, but what about in terms of the world, events, settings and so forth? Especially in fantasy and sci-fi worlds that are, by definition, unrealistic.

Actually, modern, fantasy or scifi the answer doesn't change. What creates a suspension of disbelief is internal consistency. Lets say you're doing a trilogy of books. By the end of the first book you should have the fundamentals of the world down, if relevant how magic works, how FTL works (with or without technobabble), and then to stick to it.


Eg: Person A from Literature A is capable of magic, this magic is gathered from praying to a goddess. Throughout the books there is no deviation from that that doesn't make sense (Person A discovers that they are in fact travelling with said Goddess and just asks that goddess to do things from time to time instead of casting a long intricate spell.)

Person B from Literature B is also capable of magic, this magic is gathered from reading a book. Halfway through the book the character loses their book and starts pulling magic out of his or her ass. You no longer have suspension of disbelief if you've worked to establish that character as absolutely requiring the book.

[Brovo]

You want to know what makes a good plot?

Logical, believable conflict.

Explanation: A has [dispute] with B. A desires [object/entity/concept/etc (C)], but B's perspective is in opposition to A and would deny A [object/entity/concept/etc (C)]. Therefore, A and B are now in conflict over C. C must be valuable enough to justify the level of conflict involved between A and B. Notable, this can be changed by A and B as well. For example: It wouldn't be very hard to believe that an obsessive, greedy, lecherous madman (A) would easily fight to the death with B (heroes/faction/etc) over C (damsel, magical macguffin, etc).

There. You're done. That's a good plot.

No, seriously, look no further.

Good, solid, stable, simple plot + good, flowing, interesting characters = winning combination. Examples range from Castle to Babylon 5. In fact, most successful RP's on this site ironically end up using this simplistic formula for it.

Hell, here's one.

Romeo & Juliet (A) want to get married and live happily ever after together (C) but they cannot due to their families (B) who are in constant, deadly feuding (conflict).

Done. I just took Romeo & Juliet's premise and plot and put it in one line. *Shrugs*

You can add complexity, and twist the formula however you like to fit your own desires and tastes. Like maybe you want A and B to be in high tension to create drama, but they're both attempting to avoid/survive/defeat C, perhaps by accomplishing D. There's an example of twisting the base formula.

However, in the end, no matter how you twist the formula, you need a conflict, and you need it to be logical and believable.

Hope that helps.

EDIT

Simply put: Most plots in RP's here fail horrible because the conflict is lost. Or the conflict is there, but it's not remotely logical or believable. When something is boring, it's not fun to play. When something breaks suspension of disbelief, it's hard to take seriously. A conflict must be present in the plot for the plot to have point and purpose. On top of this, at least specifically for RPing, the conflict must be shaped and changed and affected directly by the players. If you have a conflict going on in the background and don't let the players resolve it, you're hand waving the purpose to having players.

If you have more specific questions feel free to ask.

[Silux]

I have heard of the legendary answers that you give to questions such as his, Brovo. Seems they were not wrong as that is indeed the kind of answer I was looking for.
Though what do you think the possibilities are for subverting the formula? I know you already gave an example of one way to twist the formula, but i'm rather interested in the different ways that plots have been worked to maintain this technique but still have an element of originality.

[Brovo]

I have heard of the legendary answers that you give to questions such as his, Brovo. Seems they were not wrong as that is indeed the kind of answer I was looking for.
Though what do you think the possibilities are for subverting the formula? I know you already gave an example of one way to twist the formula, but i'm rather interested in the different ways that plots have been worked to maintain this technique but still have an element of originality.

I'm fairly passionate about writing, role playing, and I'm starting to become passionate about films. (Movies. So many good movies. So little time. o.o) So, that being said...

First: To define "originality", you need to first realize that nothing in the world is truly original and that the most culturally defining works (Romeo & Juliet, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc) defined their genres by being fairly unoriginal collections of mythos, concepts, emotions, and more, done well and/or subverted.

That's not to say that you can't have unique works, which is the word most people often mean when they say original. Just that true, 100% originality would be so alien as to be impossible to understand, and that originality is just another tool one can use to flavour a plot or world or characters, like garlic salt on steaks.

An example of originality is Mass Effects' "Mass Effect" fields. It's something to flavour the universe, which is a motley collection of tropes from the arbitrary "warrior race" (x2, one more Japanese and one more barbarian) to the "protagonist is a brick".

Second: If we define originality in this case as the "uniqueness" factor of a work, we can simply head on over to TVTropes and figure out what tropes specifically are omnipresent in our writings. The moment you understand a stereotype or a trope, its strengths and weaknesses, what it does, and who it appeals to, you can utilize it in the future as a tool, rather than an accidental byproduct of a creative mind.

Third: With the first two out of the way, you can start on subverting plots. The first point is to make you realize that originality is not what you're seeking. Uniqueness is. Something to identify you from the swathes and crowds of other would-be GM's ruling over various worlds ranging from sci-fi to fantasy to supernatural to stuff you can't even categorize. The second point is to help you identify your strengths and weaknesses, and what tools you tend to use more than others so that you can end up subverting your own works if you want to. IE: Knowledge = power, that never changes.

Plot subversion can come at several points. It can come to the base level, where you can add as many letters as you want to represent additional parties over the conflict. Like a nations conflict might be built up as such: Players (A, B, C, D, etc) fight over limited resource/magical macguffin Z, in order to accomplish goal Y (power, glory, good, evil, etc). The beautiful part about this is that the limited resource can then be later subverted to turn out to be useless, unusable, or even simply never having existed and everyone having fought and murdered one another over legends.

It can come at a more "personal" level. Maybe the magical macguffin to defeat [insert evil here] is a magical princess... Only, halfway through the story, you do the unexpected and you axe off the princess. HOWEVER, you instead make it clear that only her blood was needed. Then you provide a couple alternatives, like trying to hide or seeking someone else who can defeat [insert evil here], a place where they can bring the princess' ashes to bring her back to life, etc. Then you have what is called a branching plot. This is something that some video game developers (cough Bioware cough) became (in)famous for: Providing choices, and allowing the players to take only one. This is when a plot starts to develop and evolve and become more complex all by itself. You don't have to do much, the players will do it for you.

Essentially speaking: A plot is merely a tool to do with as you please. You may subvert it any way you wish. The only requirements for a good plot are that the plot has conflict so that individual or collective parties can have a reason to do things to try and "win" the conflict in their favour, and that the plot is coherently logical and is believable enough to suspend disbelief. You can have a plot with ten opposing factions/characters/parties and only one conflict, or a plot with two opposing factions and a mind numbing ten conflicts if you like.

In role playing, you add another tenant onto that plot: That it's changeable, flexible, intractable. The players must be able to resolve the conflict, abandon the conflict, change the conflict, improve or damage the conflict, and otherwise simply be directly involved in the conflict. If they aren't, the conflict has hand waved the purpose for having players, and the players will get lost, feel like they have nothing to contribute (because they won't), and will leave.

If you want to "study" and disseminate good plots, try watching Star Wars again. (I mean the real Star Wars, the original trilogy, not the new trilogy... Tumour... Thing...) See how many tropes get used. See how the conflict rises and falls. See what tools George Lucas and the co-directors and writers used. See the visual cues that the artists and cinematographers used to display the scenes and paint the characters. Analyze it. Don't be afraid to repeat scenes. Hell, don't be afraid to ask others questions about why X was used, or why Z was used in the manner that it was used. (Even ask me if you like.)

I could go into further detail about typical plot structuring (introduction, start point, rising action, climax, detenté, resolution) but that's less "good plot" and more "how does plot work?" So if you want to know, you may ask, but otherwise I won't include it.

At this point in time on RPG, if you want to make a good plot, that is unique and stands out, all you have to do is make it a good plot. Because right now, the vast majority of RPG's plots fail the basic litmus test for functionality, leave alone being "good" in having a believable, logical conflict. That's not insulting RPG by the way, that simply is. It's a fact. My plots were crap for a while. I can't blame the majority high schoolers here for not knowing how a plot works, leave alone how to make a good one.

EDIT

To Clarify: For a good plot, you need two or more sides that have reasonable investment and interest in the conflict.
EG: A, B, and C are three kingdoms fighting over the land to declare WHO WILL RULE ALL OF CHINA!
You also need a conflict that makes sense and is believable. The bigger the conflict, the easier it will be to make sense. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not.
EG: A, B, and C are three kingdoms fighting over the land to declare WHO WILL RULE ALL OF CHINA! Because China is big and full of resources, and each of the rulers is descendent from the ancient emperors of old and each lay claim to the entire land!
Then, specifically for role plays, you need the interactive element.
EG: A, B, and C are three kingdoms fighting over the land to declare WHO WILL RULE ALL OF CHINA! Because China is big and full of resources, and each of the rulers is descendent from the ancient emperors of old and each lay claim to the entire land! The conflict raged for years without end, and then, one day, some heroes and villains rose up to FIGHT AWAY CHAOS AND RESTORE THE ANCIENT ORDER OF OLD USING THEIR POWERS AND PROWESS WITH MARTIAL WEAPONS!

Done.

[Shon Harris]

What makes a good PLOT? Plot only.
What makes a story more interesting than your cookie-cutter adventure before you even take into account players and their potential impacts on the world? How do you make a story enthral from the onset and invoke emotion in players (or readers, if you were writing a novel). What aspects make a story great, what tropes and ideas. What themes interest you, and what, when changed from stereotypical stories, will make a story one for the history books. What kind of narrative voice is more powerful than an indiscriminate omniscient narrator, what techniques keep you coming back to a story?

Great way to get a few, long winded, and somewhat hostile attempts at answering this is to look up any overlap between Brovo and my posting pre-2012. Fortunately, I don't expect you'll see any of the hostility this time around -- the rest, no guarantees.

I am a sucker for characters. It's way I am so taken by Quentin Tarantino and Chuck Palahniuk, or even Brent Weeks and Philip Dick. People talk about these creators like they're genre tied, and that is how they won their places as prominent storytellers. Not so. Each one of them focuses heavily on the character. They do this in a way that hits us at the core, you know, the human condition. When someone comes at us from that perspective it's inherently compelling. And why not? People care about people. We care about the roles we play, the power we have or could have, about our struggles, and about what we could have or may still face. But the key point in all of this is the human element. I'll be as brief with this as I can: Human Condition, in my posts, means the archetypes we create for ourselves. We all face large, overarching challenges that usually threaten our livelihoods in ways everyone can relate (i.e. our family, home, nutrition, health, etc.). This where I believe Brovo is coming from when talking about having some conflict.

When I go to write, or to create an image, I consider how I am engaging with the human condition. I use what I'm passionate about and apply it through the use of archetypes (ex. the Herald, Hero, the Savior, the Prodigal Child, etc.). Now thoughtlessly using archetypes can quickly become cliche, but the best way to avoid this is to be bold and knowledgeable. Read. Write. Draw. Really get into the practice of communicating narrative creatively, because the only way to communicate something new to is to learn the universal language. George Lucas applied several obvious, overused tropes and archetypes (for plot, and his characters), yet because through imagining these in new light, it became a fresh and living product. The fact is if you produce Romeo & Juliet and don't bring a thing to it, you'll just be making the same, dusty old story we already know. Another thing to remember too is that just because you're using a plot similar to an older story does not mean you're destined to fail in creating something new. Archetypes, don't forget -- the characters, they will bring a breath of fresh air into your story if you use them honestly.

Honesty and the human condition inform a plot more than anything else. What I mean is, if you produce a set of living, breathing characters who have rich personalities and backgrounds, then all you have to do is be honest. Do not be afraid to live as the character. Allow them to do as they really would, whether that means risking life and limb, failing, or even more horrific -- doing something truly immoral. I do not mean to say your characters must perpetually suffer. However, many people are afraid to have their characters do bad things for bad reasons, to actually fail acting as ethical creatures. The fact is most people really do struggle with morality and ethics. Most of us have stolen. Most have lied, some very large lies in fact. Many have cheated on their significant other, and a number of us have even suffered permanent, physical injuries. If you include these decisions and the paths to them for your characters then your plot is going to follow and reflect their decisions. It automatically goes from a stale, step-by-step process of plotting out life, to rolling with the ebb and flow of joy and sorrow. By including the honesty of life and character, your plot can become extremely rich and compelling. People yearn to see what they often won't admit exists within them.

Shorter Version: 1: Characters can make or break any plot. 2: Tropes are tools, use them, but add your personal flare. 3: Let your Characters live and breathe. Be honest with them, and let their path build from their choices.

I'm fairly passionate about writing, role playing, and I'm starting to become passionate about films. (Movies. So many good movies. So little time. o.o) So, that being said...

First: To define "originality", you need to first realize that nothing in the world is truly original and that the most culturally defining works (Romeo & Juliet, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc) defined their genres by being fairly unoriginal collections of mythos, concepts, emotions, and more, done well and/or subverted.

That's not to say that you can't have unique works, which is the word most people often mean when they say original. Just that true, 100% originality would be so alien as to be impossible to understand, and that originality is just another tool one can use to flavour a plot or world or characters, like garlic salt on steaks.

An example of originality is Mass Effects' "Mass Effect" fields. It's something to flavour the universe, which is a motley collection of tropes from the arbitrary "warrior race" (x2, one more Japanese and one more barbarian) to the "protagonist is a brick".

Second: If we define originality in this case as the "uniqueness" factor of a work, we can simply head on over to TVTropes and figure out what tropes specifically are omnipresent in our writings. The moment you understand a stereotype or a trope, its strengths and weaknesses, what it does, and who it appeals to, you can utilize it in the future as a tool, rather than an accidental byproduct of a creative mind.

Third: With the first two out of the way, you can start on subverting plots. The first point is to make you realize that originality is not what you're seeking. Uniqueness is. Something to identify you from the swathes and crowds of other would-be GM's ruling over various worlds ranging from sci-fi to fantasy to supernatural to stuff you can't even categorize. The second point is to help you identify your strengths and weaknesses, and what tools you tend to use more than others so that you can end up subverting your own works if you want to. IE: Knowledge = power, that never changes.

Plot subversion can come at several points. It can come to the base level, where you can add as many letters as you want to represent additional parties over the conflict. Like a nations conflict might be built up as such: Players (A, B, C, D, etc) fight over limited resource/magical macguffin Z, in order to accomplish goal Y (power, glory, good, evil, etc). The beautiful part about this is that the limited resource can then be later subverted to turn out to be useless, unusable, or even simply never having existed and everyone having fought and murdered one another over legends.

It can come at a more "personal" level. Maybe the magical macguffin to defeat [insert evil here] is a magical princess... Only, halfway through the story, you do the unexpected and you axe off the princess. HOWEVER, you instead make it clear that only her blood was needed. Then you provide a couple alternatives, like trying to hide or seeking someone else who can defeat [insert evil here], a place where they can bring the princess' ashes to bring her back to life, etc. Then you have what is called a branching plot. This is something that some video game developers (cough Bioware cough) became (in)famous for: Providing choices, and allowing the players to take only one. This is when a plot starts to develop and evolve and become more complex all by itself. You don't have to do much, the players will do it for you.

Essentially speaking: A plot is merely a tool to do with as you please. You may subvert it any way you wish. The only requirements for a good plot are that the plot has conflict so that individual or collective parties can have a reason to do things to try and "win" the conflict in their favour, and that the plot is coherently logical and is believable enough to suspend disbelief. You can have a plot with ten opposing factions/characters/parties and only one conflict, or a plot with two opposing factions and a mind numbing ten conflicts if you like.

In role playing, you add another tenant onto that plot: That it's changeable, flexible, intractable. The players must be able to resolve the conflict, abandon the conflict, change the conflict, improve or damage the conflict, and otherwise simply be directly involved in the conflict. If they aren't, the conflict has hand waved the purpose for having players, and the players will get lost, feel like they have nothing to contribute (because they won't), and will leave.

If you want to "study" and disseminate good plots, try watching Star Wars again. (I mean the real Star Wars, the original trilogy, not the new trilogy... Tumour... Thing...) See how many tropes get used. See how the conflict rises and falls. See what tools George Lucas and the co-directors and writers used. See the visual cues that the artists and cinematographers used to display the scenes and paint the characters. Analyze it. Don't be afraid to repeat scenes. Hell, don't be afraid to ask others questions about why X was used, or why Z was used in the manner that it was used. (Even ask me if you like.)

I could go into further detail about typical plot structuring (introduction, start point, rising action, climax, detenté, resolution) but that's less "good plot" and more "how does plot work?" So if you want to know, you may ask, but otherwise I won't include it.

At this point in time on RPG, if you want to make a good plot, that is unique and stands out, all you have to do is make it a good plot. Because right now, the vast majority of RPG's plots fail the basic litmus test for functionality, leave alone being "good" in having a believable, logical conflict. That's not insulting RPG by the way, that simply is. It's a fact. My plots were crap for a while. I can't blame the majority high schoolers here for not knowing how a plot works, leave alone how to make a good one.

EDIT

To Clarify: For a good plot, you need two or more sides that have reasonable investment and interest in the conflict.
EG: A, B, and C are three kingdoms fighting over the land to declare WHO WILL RULE ALL OF CHINA!
You also need a conflict that makes sense and is believable. The bigger the conflict, the easier it will be to make sense. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not.
EG: A, B, and C are three kingdoms fighting over the land to declare WHO WILL RULE ALL OF CHINA! Because China is big and full of resources, and each of the rulers is descendent from the ancient emperors of old and each lay claim to the entire land!
Then, specifically for role plays, you need the interactive element.
EG: A, B, and C are three kingdoms fighting over the land to declare WHO WILL RULE ALL OF CHINA! Because China is big and full of resources, and each of the rulers is descendent from the ancient emperors of old and each lay claim to the entire land! The conflict raged for years without end, and then, one day, some heroes and villains rose up to FIGHT AWAY CHAOS AND RESTORE THE ANCIENT ORDER OF OLD USING THEIR POWERS AND PROWESS WITH MARTIAL WEAPONS!

Done.

No disrespect Brovo, about the hider, I just wanted to make my inherently lengthy posts long by only my doing. Hope you understand. Oh, and in reading your post (after writing my own, intentionally first) I must say: holy shit we actually are starting to line up. We both used Star Wars... Oh gawd.

On that note, dear friend, I found this link not long ago and I figure you'd be interested. To anyone not interested in reading the article, it's basically speaking about the Western world's constant use of Conflict as a 'necessary' piece to storytelling. The fact is that it's not. Other plots do exist without it which build differently, still offering a satisfying progression. My argument here is not that either is better or worse, I really do just think it's fascinating to consider that there are culturally flabbergasting ways of redefining what storytelling can be. Imagine writing a book or RP that was not entirely centered around conflict (not to say it was completely devoid either) in the US. How original would this be?

Digressing back the topic at hand, I agree with you in a lot of areas Brov. One should be educated about existing symbolism in both textual and visual language. We can call them tropes, archetypes, allegories, or whatever else, but the fact is these are Symbols representing an experience humanity finds particularly compelling and insightful. These do not exist because nothing new can be created, but because these our needs have not really changed so much that these archetypes are no longer useful. I'd point out how one might read the Torah compared to a modern narrative. All religious debates aside, the symbolism between these texts largely deal with the same concerns -- health, success, growth, and the struggle with chaos. So if these symbols have hit people at their core for thousands of years, shouldn't we pay attention to them? Now if anyone is doubting my point here, I'd urge you to try a little test: Remove a basic concern, then look at how compelling plots are. Or maybe even add a new basic concern, and imagine a symbol that would deal with that.

I think a challenge that might give Brovo and I both pause would be how to create a successful Sandbox RP. There's a certain challenge to creating a plot that everyone can have stock in, while also giving people absolute freedom to roam and create. When it comes to RP we have to realize that too much freedom can actually be extremely stifling to creativity. If there are no boundaries, then interaction can disappear entirely. Now that's actually okay. But it isn't going to produce a healthy RP on RPG unless every member knows this is coming when they join up. Expanding on this challenge, I'd like to offer an example: Apocalyptica. It is a roleplay that has been recreated for a forth time now (maybe third?). It's been one I've joined every time, and even Brovo experienced it. What kills it quickly each time, however, is the massive distance between starting characters. People came expecting immediate interaction, not that it was necessary, but because everyone approached the RP as a massive world, they all created characters in their own corners of it. No boundaries except for the US border. Under Prometheus, and with a great team, we now have most characters in the same place, or very quickly converging. We are experiencing an enjoyable level of success. I believe a big part of this is that players are being extremely free with their characters. The decisions, situations, and repercussions are very real, sometimes brutal, and always felt. Much of the plot has been loosely established a few steps ahead, but people are constantly pulling seeing where they can push and how we all could react. It's a unique mix of freedom, Sandbox worthy, yet still structured enough to give people a sense of progression and place. Have we solved the SandBox dilemma-- No. But we're learning fantastic lessons here about characters, interaction, and compelling plot-lines.

Hope this is a worthwhile read! Thanks Brovo for bringing this thread to my attention.

[Silux]

Well first let me thank you for the bed-time reading. I re-read both your posts at least 3 times to get my head around it. I appreciate the advice, i'm sure you both have more writing experience than I.
So it seems to me that creating good plot is irrespective of genre or style, and that a universal set of rules applies (for most stories and plots, anyway; I read the article about the kishōtenketsu plots. Couldn't resist. ) that contains a strong conflict between multiple entities and a believable set of characters.

So if I may pick your collective brains a little further I would really appreciate it and love you forevermore!

Shon: You mentioned that a realistic character who acts immorally and morally within realistic boundaries should be written as a natural flow of events rather than a necessarily pre-structured plot. In terms of writing beyond roleplays and into the realms of novels and short stories, how does this method of writing affect the outcome of your plot? I imagine that few 'real' people who act as 'real' humans would, would actually take it upon themselves to go to Mount Doom and destroy the Ring, or be brave enough to fight against the Evil Galactic Empire. If you write characters to act realistically does this not render the necessary 'heroic' element of a plot moot? And how do you control the general flow of events if the characters are all written in this natural style?

Brovo: So conflict is definitely a centrepiece to building a good plot, I can see this in early every story that I recall now. Even with the subversions and personal twists, you are indeed correct. Though I now must ask, as a antural progression from the opening question, what separates a good conflict from a bad one? And I know such a question is highly subjective, but what really changes a standard conflict (e.g Hero loves Ms. X, evil man captures Ms. X. hero must kill evil guy to win Ms. X) that is fairly uninteresting in it's design to something that is really quite captivating. And I know this question may be answered via characters described in Shon's post, but what if we were armed with a pre-set host of basic characters and were required to build a story around a conflict, but keep it from being overly clichèd. What kind of subversions can the formula take on to make things more original?

[Yaden]

I read this posting series, and learned something.
My own opinion on what makes a decent plot is the freedom to explore what you, personally, would do in the hero's situation. The comparison between yourself and the hero, how we idolize and learn from the heroes of stories, this is valuable to decisions that we make when in real times of danger. It is a conditioning, and that exploration of the story by putting yourself in the hero's shoes shows what kind of person you are trying to be. It allows you to grow and adapt any story by imagining that you are the hero, and can be useful for development of your own storyline modifications.

Another thing on exploration is the ability to explore the time line of the plot. Some stories have rich and abundant history, even though it may only be mentioned in brief. You can look into the past of that story's world and see what happened to it, and why the dragon king has risen again to take the throne of the holy king, or some such. If you leave a space in the story to give people freedom to explore it from their own perspective, and have a time line that makes it fun and interesting to explore possibility, then you get creative nourishment and stimulate characters through that exploration and comparison.

It is basically our freedom to participate in the story, to visualize the scenes, the details involved in the description that arrange our minds to come to a collective agreement on what a certain character would look like holding the sword of aeons, or some such. When we have freedom to think about and assist the development of the plot, it gives us new ideas, and keeps us interested to see 'if we were right'.

[Shon Harris]

So it seems to me that creating good plot is irrespective of genre or style, and that a universal set of rules applies (for most stories and plots, anyway; I read the article about the kishōtenketsu plots. Couldn't resist. ) that contains a strong conflict between multiple entities and a believable set of characters.

So if I may pick your collective brains a little further I would really appreciate it and love you forevermore!

Shon: You mentioned that a realistic character who acts immorally and morally within realistic boundaries should be written as a natural flow of events rather than a necessarily pre-structured plot. In terms of writing beyond roleplays and into the realms of novels and short stories, how does this method of writing affect the outcome of your plot? I imagine that few 'real' people who act as 'real' humans would, would actually take it upon themselves to go to Mount Doom and destroy the Ring, or be brave enough to fight against the Evil Galactic Empire. If you write characters to act realistically does this not render the necessary 'heroic' element of a plot moot? And how do you control the general flow of events if the characters are all written in this natural style?

Fiction within or without roleplay can use a 'natural flow'. My point was more that a plot can and will construct itself if you give it something in return. Some honest, natural characters meeting and interacting can satisfy that need. In fact, even if you have a plot you've established already, without natural characters, the plot may become hollow and stagnant. It might become more about the GM or author guiding things than the character or the character's world. Let me put it this way: the writer should follow their world, not their world following the writer. This is a creative endeavor and what you put down is made up of how you see. If you're not invested into this world and able to be in those shoes then you'll just be throwing in random obstacles. If you are invested, and you do find yourself in the character's place within this world, you'll be able to feel what might come next. As the author you can take that feeling to decide if it should happen, or if something with more contrast should. You can weigh what would hold more value, and ultimately, how you want this story to go.

I'll use a real example, again, from Apocalyptica. I wrote a post about my character and his buddy holding off a siege by an extremely large group of bandits. They were held up in a building. Well, this building was falling apart from all the automatic fire, grenades, and so on. Ammo was running low, their vests had already saved their lives, and both had already come to terms that they'd die here. By the end of the battle things took a turn. Other people had turned the tide and pushed the siege back. They saved my character and his comrade. As the author, I actually wrote my character's death. In my eyes it simply felt right that he would fight in this massive firefight, where so many people do lose their lives. I weighed two extremes: Simon dies during the fight, in which I'd probably take up one of my secondary characters, OR, Simon survives, beaten and bruised, even more a fugitive to the bandit group that laid siege upon him. I considered all the possibilities and hardships he might experience if he did survive, especially how he'd change as a person. Ultimately, I chose this path, struck my original plan. I didn't choose this because my character was too much to let go. Actually, Simon would have been an example that such was not the case. He survived because it was more challenging to have him keep going, for him and for the other characters. That challenge enriches the story more than the few minutes it might take to have Simon's death sink in.

The point is to learn how to project and weigh your options. In reality this idea you've conceived has at least vaguely constructed itself within you already. It's like a multiverse in that there are infinite ways your life could go, has gone, and will go. All you have is to live the way that builds in front of you. To walk that path as it appears, and to do as you feel is best. You are not succeeding or failing. You doing nothing but walking a road the only way you feel is best. In your life I suspect you have an idea of what the next five minutes might hold. The next day, week, so on. But we all know that despite what you know there could be some unexpected obstacle. But I bet you can predict a few realistic, foreseeable ones. Then there are the chaotic ones too, the car accidents, bombings, sudden illnesses, deaths, storms... Now you've got all these situations you know could and may (not) likely happen. You can probably pretend an accident has happened and imagine how devastated you might be. Knowing that you can do all this, believe me, you can do all of this from your character's perspective too. You can project about what they expect and how they'd react, then you can choose if there is a challenge you could add that makes sense in the world.

I realize in this response I've rambled and spread out a bit. Hopefully my point isn't lost. As a writer you can always add plot points, if you please. But if you want them to go smoothly and feel real, you should create them with insight from the character's experiences in mind. You'll be able to step in and outside of them that way. You could introduce an absolutely radical turn by stepping totally outside of the character, or something the character has long feared from within their shoes. It is your decision.

Answering the question about heroism is a bit easier for me. Do you remember what Frodo found when he returned home, or even, when he left home? Danger chased him away. He didn't have much of a chance to say no, really, his life might end if he stay, and leaving gave him a fighting chance. A similar thing happened for Luke Skywalker. Both their homes burned. It meant that heroism was no real choice. The choice is really what and how they do as they walk this path. Heroism is a principle more than an archetype with a criteria. What makes a hero and bold/courageous action is more up to you. How does this come upon us, are we forced into them, do you step up when no one else will, or what? That's really a point you can decide. The 'heroic gene' is created and never moot. It exists because some people see challenges and rise to them, I'd say many do, but not all our heroes come out as pretty as we might expect. So many stories give them a hard drive to do that. Think on that.

I might edit this a bit later. It's been a lot of brainstorming and pouring out. Maybe this will inspire some prodding.

[JerkChicken]

Something fun and engaging.

Now what qualifies as such and how do you do it is better sorted for another topic thread.

And really part of that is also subjective although you might have a few general guidelines but those are more associated with good writing techniques