Assuming that the player controls some sort of character in an environment (that doesn’t have to be the case after all) then, yeah, it would make sense if that character is the Main Character. When I suggested removing the MC Throughline I didn’t mean that we shouldn’t play the MC, but rather that, Dramatica-wise, their throughline isn’t developed (or not as developed as the other throughlines).
I’m not sure if talking about Multiplayer experiences like D&D helps at this stage at all.
In the project I described, you would actually have a developed MC throughline. As mentioned, the psychologist character and patient character are separated so that we have an in-universe excuse why you can’t just solve the problem from the beginning, and why we can choose between different stories (story forms). It seems as though the major difference between my idea and @SPotter’s is the framing.
I listened to the Susan O’Connor podcast and there wasn’t really anything I haven’t heard before aside from the protagonist issue @SPotter mentions. I don’t necessarily agree with what she’s saying though? I mean, yeah, we wouldn’t feel for Walter White’s family like he would, if you start the game and “BAM! there’s your family! love them!” If we start without a family and learn to love the characters throughout the first part of the game, then maybe we could get something similar to Breaking Bad.
She also speaks of the gamer’s mindset of “I don’t care what I’m doing as long as I’m winning” which is something that you probably shouldn’t support if writing an interactive story is your goal instead of “just” making a fun game (Relevant article by frictional games, in their game Amnesia, they actually tell the player at the beginning that it’s not about beating the game). There are people playing “Papers, Please” without considering ethical issues; they simply look at how to best beat the game. But I would guess that most people do look at what they’re doing to these fictional people. And, I don’t think using something as taxing as Dramatica makes a whole lot of sense if all you’re trying to do is put some decoration to hang of your gameplay.
I was thinking about what would happen if you left certain essential questions unanswered at the beginning, like the Judgment as @SPotter suggested. With Judgment, we leave things like Unique Abilities, Critical Flaws, Inhibitors, Catalysts and the Plot Progression open (at least with Linear Main Characters; for whatever reason, the Holistic ones have further reach). And I wonder if one could show these story points more or less ambiguously for a while until setting them at the end. For example, for the first three acts, the MC’s unique ability seems to be Senses but it could also be Conditioning; their Critical Flaw is either State of Being or Circumstances. During the fourth act, and after the player made certain choices beforehand, we determine that the MC’s unique ability was actually a case of Senses, while their critical flaw has something to do with their Circumstances, ending the story with a Good judgment.
Although if the point of the game is to make a point, then maybe it would be better to have two Resolve/Judgment combinations. E.g. remain steadfast and it ends badly, change and it ends well. Or something like that.
@Tristano , when I was making my project, I used the Star Wars storyform to make the first storymind, simply because I found that one to be the easiest to grasp and the world is kind of video-gamey to begin with. I think that if someone were to take the storyform of “Pride and Prejudice” and turned it into Interactive Fiction, it wouldn’t be all too different from current Visual Novels and/or Dating Sims.
@jhull I wasn’t really trying to make your post look insincere. I was just observing how sarcasm has apparently become my default when it comes to reading people’s positive declarations.