Originally Posted by
Jim Kelly
They are different, because they engage your imagination in very different ways. Plot armour is a figurative kind of thing--you have to think about it as a convention of fiction, so you're using a different thought process when you're into a story. Of course, this could take you out of the story, but hopefully you can suspend your disbelief while you're in the story. Real armour is a literal kind of thing--it's providing a serviceable reason why the character survives and it avoids the suspension of disbelief question by lampshading some explanation for you. The problem with real armour is it lessens the sense of jeopardy. When you're into a story, while you might intellectually know that the characters are bound to survive, another part of your brain understands that, when characters are exposed to attack, they can get hurt (maybe die) if one of those bullets hits them--but if you know they have protection against bullets, you're not bothered.
This seems to be where the rubber hits the road with readers. Some need everything to have a realistic explanation, while others can suspend their disbelief and just go with the story. For me, the only time I was annoyed by plot armour was when I was in my teens. As a kid, I didn't care and now as an adult I understand the reason for it and I can laugh at it and not stress over it. But for some folks, these kinds of conventions in fiction drive them up the proverbial wall.