[Feanaro]

It depends upon your character type. For instance, it would be perfectly acceptable for a ranger or warrior type character to seek danger out for themselves--after all, it's what they do. Of course, not everyone falls into this category. Personally, I don't really have to worry about this problem, because the majority of the characters making up the party are warrior types, or types that don't mind knocking a few baddies over the head every now and then. In this case, the character (I only have one) that doesn't wish to enter the fray, has to come along for the ride regardless, and inevitably gets drawn into the conflict. Is this random bad luck? Yes, but its more realistic. Readers can understand how this wimpy character was thrown into the cold grasp of danger.

As an overall device, using random danger depends on your world. If your world is dark and mysterious, rocked with war that leaves many dark folk roaming around the wilderness--chances are, your characters are going to run into some of them. I use random bad luck more often than not, but I strive to make it believable.

As for the use of stupidity, I have to agree that I find it annoying after awhile. There are other forms of this that I find more tolerable, going along the lines of: stupidity because of _________. Pride is a common filler, or arrogance. I find these to be more tolerable than a mere lack of common sense. I don't use this one very often, but when I do, it is usually based off of pride (but after I use it for a particular character, I never use it again for them). I usually only use this one for the "bosses" so to speak. One character underestimating the strength/power/ability of his opponent, usually costing him his life. I will readily admit that this gets annoying too after the hundreth time, but I suppose the real key to this post is moderation. The balance I would say, is in the careful moderation of the two, using them sparingly, and only when they can be believed.

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Feanaro ]