Determining success or failure if the overall story is never quite resolved?

How do you determine story success or failure if the overall story is never quite resolved?

In this story, two alien forces are locked in an endless combat in which humans are willing pawns. The aliens supply the weapons and resources while the humans do all the fighting and dying.

The MC works with one of several rival human factions fighting for the good aliens while jockeying for power over the other factions. A human working with the bad aliens creates a technology which kills the MC’s wife and son, leaves his daughter on the edge of death and him dying.

To save his daughter and himself, he goes rogue, abandons his faction to search for the man who created this technology and extract a cure. He ends up forming a loose alliance with agents from rival factions who each seek the technology to win the war and gain an advantage over their rivals.

His IC, a past acquaintance working for a mysterious faction of uncertain loyalties, tries to convince him to abandon the war and find the power within himself to defeat the force that is killing him.

As his allies die off one-by-one he becomes convinced there is little difference between the “bad” and the “good” aliens and that the war itself is the problem. He takes the IC’s advice, finds the power to rid himself both of the bad alien force killing him and his daughter and frees himself from the “good” alien force. In doing so, he demonstrates to those allies that remain how to escape the war.

I don’t know if they find the technology they seek, or find it and abandon it and frankly I don’t think it is important to the story. My problem is that, while I think the story judgment is good, I don’t know if the outcome is success or failure–much less the rest of the story form.

The OS would seem to be in OBTAINING since most of the story is about them trying to track down the guy who created the new technology and obtain it for themselves. (And, because of the rivalry, I could see how the OS issue could be SELF INTEREST vs MORALITY.) But if I look at the issue in terms of Purpose, Motivation, Evaluation and Methodology, I’d say the central problem is that the MC and OS characters have all failed to evaluate the true nature of the war, which would put the OS somewhere in DOING and I don’t see how those issues apply.

The MC is focused on saving himself and his daughter which I guess would be somewhere in SITUATION (Threat? Interdiction? Repel?) and the issue between the MC and IC would probably be about him coming to understand the true nature of the war and his ability to escape it, which would put the RS in the PSYCHOLOGY domain. Yet, I would also say that the IC is largely motivated by OBLIGATION since she is responsible for the MC getting dragged into the war in the first place, except that the IC and RS can’t be in the same domain.

So, though I have a pretty good idea of what happens in this story, the issues and concerns (to say nothing of the elements themselves) are all over the place.

Every time I think I’m beginning to understand Dramatica, I run into these sorts of issues trying to apply it. Anyone have any advice? Opinions?

Success.

Don’t evaluate the issue in terms of Purpose, Motivation, Evaluation, and Methodology. This is a common misunderstanding that many hold onto–where you choose the problem that Type becomes the Motivation for that Throughline. In other words, if your OS Problem is Effect it isn’t that their evaluations based on the effects are what is causing the problems, but rather that they are all motivated by Effect…there is a difference. Searching for the answer through Pur, Mot, Eval, and Meth will only confuse things for you.

Btw, this is something @chuntley has said several times in many different Users Group meetings…

MC is def. in Situation.

You haven’t identified their relationship, well you sort of – that they’re past acquaintances or friends, but beyond that we don’t know the relationship so we really can’t comment on the validity of a Psychology Domain. The Relationship Throughline is NOT about some argument between MC and IC–this is another misunderstanding propagated by the now defunct terminology “MC vs. IC” throughline.

The relationship throughline is about the relationship, not about the MC or IC and what they individually think. So if your Relationship is in Changing One’s Nature, then the Relationship Throughline would be about their relationship changing and how that either pulls them closer together or drives them apart.

In this situation, I would suggest only focusing on the Main Character and Overall Story Throughlines first – what is a combination of Domain/Concern that feels best to you. Espec. Since you don’t have enough info for the other two throughlines.

To me it sounds like Past/Understanding for MC/OS Concerns as he has a problematic past to overcome and because Success in the OS calls for a greater understanding of war.

But it could also be Future/Obtaining IF you actually put in some future concerns for the MC

Ah! I think I finally get the RS now! It’s not about how the MC and IC deal with the OS conflict so much as it is about a flaw in their relationship that is exposed by the OS conflict. This would mean that you could replace the OS conflict with a different one and–as long as it provided the same sort of stress on their relationship–you would still get the same disagreement between the MC and IC.

In my case, the RS is more about them establishing a relationship. In the past, through a random act of kindness, the MC was exposed to the power of the “bad” guys. The IC rescued the MC by using the power of the “good” guys which bestowed to him the same sort of power. She warns him to keep it hidden, but he is discovered and recruited into the war.

Out of guilt and a sense of obligation, the IC shadows him for years, trying to protect him, but when his family is killed she actively thwarts his efforts to obtain the knowledge he seeks in order to protect him. From the MC’s point of view, at least until he learns she is right, she seems a rather enigmatic figure dispensing questionable advice and who becomes almost a contagonist before the end. They end up, however, with a close and intimate relationship.

I could see the MC going with both the Past or the Future since he’s motivated by guilt and grief from losing his family, a sense of betrayal from his faction’s response and fear of what will happen to him and his daughter if he fails to find a cure. His ultimate solution is, essentially, to let all that go and achieve a sort of enlightened awareness of himself and the war. I’m not sure what domain that would be (to say nothing of the MC concern or issue) There are times I wish I could pick from more than one domain…

YES!!! One hundred percent spot on.

I can’t tell you how much I appreciate this. This clarification has definitely been worth the price of admission! :slight_smile:

I like your suggestion about placing the MC/OS in Past/Understanding Instead of Future/Obtaining. It also explains why the outcome had seemed irrelevant. My instincts told me that should never be the case. I know the author can choose to examine the story from a number of directions, and I could have (maybe) made the Future/Obtaining direction work, but since the story Goal of Understanding ties in with the MC’s need to better understand his situation, the outcome seems much more relevant now. As a bonus, Gathering Information (Information was the thing they were trying to obtain) is both the OS benchmark and the story Requirement.

So now it looks like:
OS-Activity, Understanding, Interpretation vs. Senses
MC-Situation, Past, Interdiction vs. Prediction
RS-Manipulation, Developing a Plan, Circumstances vs. Situation
IC-Fixed Attitude, Memories, Suspicion vs. Evidence

I haven’t quite worked everything out yet, but this form looks much more promising.

1 Like