Driver and Passenger Quad when using Complex Characters?

Hi.

I was wondering. When using complex characters, to consider which characters are on the Driver Quad and which on the Passenger, should I just consider the Motivation - Action Quad? Or also on the Decision Quad?

An extreme example:

Character 1: Pursue - Faith
Character 2: Hinder - Logic
Character 3: Prevent - Disbelief
Character 4: Help - Feeling

Character 5: Support - Consideration
Character 6: Control - Temptation
Character 7: Oppose - Reconsideration
Character 8: Uncontrolled - Conscience.

This would be the extreme, I’m just wondering how the Driver and Passenger quad part of the theory applies when you have complex characters.

Thanks.

1 Like

Are you worried that a character built out of just decision characteristics won’t be motivated? I’m trying to figure out the basis for your question.

@MWollaeger yes, sort of that. I was wondering what could happen if I assign only one characteristic on the passenger quad to a character that would be as close as it gets to a protagonist. What repercussions would that bring to the story and the characters.

Overall I want to know if when using complex characters I should consider assigning Pursue, Hinder, Prevent or Help to those characters that would be the closest thing to a protagonist instead of Support, Control, Oppose or Uncontrolled.

And the same with the Decision characteristics. Use Faith, Logic, Disbelief and Feeling instead of Consideration, Temptation, Reconsideration and Conscience.

I feel like you are going about this backwards. What makes your character [quote=“Alejandro, post:3, topic:746”]
a character that would be as close as it gets to a protagonist.
[/quote]

He’s obviously doing something. I feel like you are discarding those traits and only focusing on the ones you want to assign, or something.

1 Like

A character can still be motivated having just decision characteristics in the motivation quad. An example of this would be the titular wizard from the Wizard of Oz. He has just the Reconsideration and Temptation characteristics in that quad. As to what impact there would be in assigning just a single characteristic (of all 64) to a character, you can look to Toy Story. The “Claw Machine Zealots” have only one characteristic, Inaction.

Sources: The Dramatica Theory Book and the Dramatica software.

1 Like

Those are good points. I wonder if he’s afraid of losing the feeling of “proaction” from his major characters. An Inactive character is certainly motivated to do nothing, but it would be hard to put that character front and center. (Though, perhaps Ionesco has done this in “Rhinoceros”? Granted, I don’t think it’s a GAS, and he’s the MC, not the Protagonist…)

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I also think Inaction characters can be front and center. It’s probably more difficult, since they’re Passenger-type rather than Driver-type, but I’m confident it can be done. An Inaction MC or Protagonist would be aggressively Inactive, or their Inaction would have a powerful presence in this story. I’m thinking of as an example a character who’s afraid of heights, so when the bad guy is dangling someone they care about over a cliff, they seize up in terror. Or perhaps it might be an agoraphobe who has to solve the mystery without leaving his room. Lastly, I’m reminded of the character in Avatar: The Last Airbender who, without wishing to spoil, when faced with adversity follows the Daoist philosophy of wu-wei, or “doing by non-doing.”

An Inaction Protagonist’s goal would be to show that the key to reaching the Goal is to step back and let things happen as they will. An Inaction MC might learn that neutrality can only go so far; when the chips are down, it’s time to stand up and Protect what you love. (Alternatively, they might use Inaction to convince the IC to Stop being so Accepting of the way things are.) In the right story, Inaction can be as much of a burning drive as Proaction. It just takes a little more flair.

We will have to storyform the life of Buddha to be sure.

He’s not asking – I don’t think – about MCs by the way. He’s asking about the Protagonist (in a pared-down form) and while I get your point, I have trouble imagining a story with a protagonist who is solely inactive.

[Spoilers below for Snowpiercer]

.
.
.
.
.
.
The closest I can come to this is the guy who collects all of the drugs. He is (apparently) inactive, and ultimately sort of wins in that his plan is carried out. This drove me crazy when I watched the movie the first time. I was literally angry. So even if it can be done, there are consequences.

It seems like it could work in a comedy … I could picture an episode of Big Bang Theory where they are all waiting in line or stuck somewhere. Sheldon might be the protagonist, if he is the one who cares the most about the story goal (being among the first to get into the comic convention or movie or whatever). And when bad stuff happens and everyone else wants to try and fix it or give up and go home, Sheldon’s idea is to just stay where he is, not move, bear whatever pain is necessary (including holding his bladder) as he thinks that is the best course. Even when others want to give up he doesn’t really try to convince them to stay or anything, other than saying “you can leave if you want, I’m staying where I am”.

But yeah, you really have to twist the situation the exact right way, and have the right character, to make it work…

1 Like

That’s a good example of how to use Inactive to make a scene that is full of energy.

1 Like

Hey @Alejandro, I let this whole thread sink in a bit more, and I’ve realized that I think you could have a protagonist motivated by Inaction. I think it would be tricky to set up, because you’d have to give people a reason to listen to that character – like, he would have to be a village elder or something – and maybe he would have to have a lot of story that focused on his experience, and maybe his Evaluation & Purpose characteristics.

The reason I throw in the other characteristics, is that the character has to be doing something or you can’t write anything about him/her.

The thing to think about, too, is that his plan has to be tied to bringing the Story Goal about successfully. I’m not sure we addressed that here, yet.

1 Like

@MWollaeger I’ve been thinking about this. Maybe a soldier that doesn’t want to follow orders based on ethical grounds. A bureaucrat in a totalitarian regime that refuses to sign a certain document that could bring dire consequences to someone else.

I could see him/her getting involved with busy work to deflect attention. That would be inaction on the required, with action happening in the puttering around.

The problem I keep running into here is the Protagonist part. It’s easy to dream up a character who is essential who represents inaction. But making them the protagonist?

I think in my Sheldon example he could be the Protagonist … if it was big enough to be a whole story. Which you pointed out, it’s more like one scene. Still, maybe you could make a whole story out of it?

(I wonder how many episodes of Seinfeld might qualify as a complete story?)

Your example could work. It reminds me of the Seinfeld where they are stuck in a parking lot the whole time.

It helps that a sitcom is 22 minutes.

The thing that none of us are doing is tying our example to the Story Goal. The Protagonist (generally speaking) brings about the Story Goal, right? I can think of counter examples, but for the most part?

If Sheldon were espousing the idea that “good things come to those who wait” and it was a Psychology story (Conceiving) and everyone tries and tries to get into a concert or something, and everyone else’s actions cause grief…

Hi Mike, does this part not work? It seemed like it made a reasonable story goal, but maybe I’m missing something.

No, that works. I was thinking mostly of what Prish, Alejandro and I were doing, and I missed your detail when I perused the thread.