"Most problems, are problems (with/of) language." ~ Wittgenstein
That said, I think this continues to drift off topic, but I don't wish to be rude via unresponsiveness.
I think that there is one irrelevancy that you've at least skirted, that more generally applies here and elsewhere, as expressed in the following excerpt:
- Easy come, easy go; easy isn't the same as more comprehensive and thoroughgoing. Does one need a grounding in Philosophy to write? Business-wise at least, this is contraindicated, though I would argue that argumentation is argumentation. You're going be capable of making more coherent and consistent (philosophic) arguments if you're trained for it.
Simplicity is a virtue; the simplistic is a Trojan horse containing inter-fertile complexities, which necessarily end in catastrophic failure.
If you're crossing a river once, a simple line/rope will suffice; keep doing it and entropy will kill you.
- Better for whom? We're all wired differently, to some degree, and we each have our own purposes.
Those writ, this suggests a course of action, namely to adjust the settings to the older terms for some, in order to see if that peg fits the whole more effectively.
In other words, out of the box, Dramatica seems more geared towards holistic thinkers, and to be authored by such; this would seem to follow, and may indeed be a collective strength, if not an individual one.
Even then, as this is the realm of fiction, encouraging an adjustment, a ballast shift to the "right side of the brain" seems more a design and business choice, than a flaw per se.
Also, to be as fair as possible, Dramatica doesn't just attempt to define, but to also describe; this mitigates some of the terminological differences.
Thanks for that, and for your reply; I'm going to excise the irrelevancies now, in order to preempt further "mission creep".