Nature of the MC problem and solution

questions
#1

Can the MC problem and solution depend on what happens to the MC rather than how the MC handles it?

For instance, let’s say we have a Steadfast MC with a problem of Reduction and a Solution of Production. The Gist is something about being reduced, so let’s say the problem is that someone else is trying to reduce the MC in some way and his drive is to not be reduced.

The solution that would sap the MCs drive would be to Produce, or I suppose to cause the ones Reducing him to Produce something that would cause them to stop Reducing him. But as a Steadfast character, he continues to be driven by his desire not to be reduced. Does this only mean that he never attempts to Produce? Or could it mean that he attempts to Produce but fails to get the others to see his way leaving them to continue to Reduce him, which then means he continues to be driven by his desire not to be reduced?

A character who doesn’t try to Produce anything would be a Steadfast character, but if he attempts to Produce, I suppose he’s then a change character that failed to solve the problem?

Or another example might be that the MC finds problems in the chaos surrounding him-not his own chaotic behavior, but the behavior of others-and the solution would be to find some sort of Order. If the MC tries to Order things but the world remains Chaotic leaving the MC to be driven by his reaction to Chaos, is this seen as a Steadfast character or a Change character that failed?

What I’m really looking for is a way that a character can be Steadfast when the Gist is something like Being Fired. Would this mean that when the time comes to Produce, the MC decides not to attempt to get his job back? Or could it mean that he attempts to get his job back, isn’t able to do so, and remains driven by the desire to not be fired?

Sorry if it’s a silly beginner question. I tend to overthink these things until they lose all meaning. LOL.

Writing a Scene with Dramatica/Dramatica Challenge
#2

Hi Greg,
Interesting questions! A bit convoluted, but interesting! :slight_smile:

First, it might help to remember that the MC Resolve of Change or Steadfast is not only about whether they embraced the MC Solution, but more holistically, it’s whether they changed their whole perspective / worldview on their personal issues. And remember it’s a binary thing – you compare them at the beginning of the story and the end. So for this question:

…what really matters is whether he changed his whole worldview in going with Order, and whether he stuck with it. If he just went with Order temporarily without changing his worldview, he’s still a Steadfast character.

So, he’s driven by being reduced – maybe he’s already been fired or maybe he’s just driven by the layoffs happening all around him, worried that he’ll be next. I would actually look to Symptom and Response to figure him out better, and not worry about the “demotivating” Solution so much until you really have Problem, Symptom, Response nailed.

Let’s try Symptom: Probability and Response: Possibility. Maybe he sees the fact that he’ll probably be fired as his biggest problem, so he looks for possible ways to avoid being fired, and so he sleeps with his boss. But afterwards she wants a whole relationship with him and wants him to take her to a fancy restaurant, buy flowers, etc. etc. and the whole big Production of that is just too much for him, it’s not worth it…

You could do a similar scenario if he was already fired – now he’s probably not going to make rent, but then he gets offered a great chance at starting a new career in sales. He’s all excited about it, but in the sales job the need to produce really gets him down and saps his motivation.

That’s how I’d do it anyway – think about Problem, Symptom, and Response first and don’t worry about Solution (Demotivator) until a cool way to fit it in presents itself. Because of the way the quads work dramatically, it’ll probably almost happen on its own.

1 Like
#3

Thanks Mike.

It’s a convoluted question because it’s one of those where I don’t even know enough to know how to ask the question, I think. I was hoping this would be one of those times where typing it out and posting would result in me figuring out what I’m looking for and feeling like an idiot for posting a dumb question. Instead I feel like an idiot and am still struggling with it. Lol.

Anyway, what I’m really looking at, I think, is this. The MC problem is “being reduced” by someone else. So the MC is being driven by what someone else is doing. In order to solve his problem and remain Steadfast, he would need whoever is Reducing him to stop. If they were to stop Reducing him, it would stop driving him. In that way, he is Steadfast because he remains driven by someone else Reducing him.

To change, I guess he would have to stop being driven by someone else’s Reduction of him. Not just get them to stop Reducing him, but to stop being driven by whether or not they are Reducing him.

So in your example of sleeping with the boss and being in a relationship, the Production of the relationship is too much for him. He stops pursuing that possibility of not being fired, but is Steadfast then, in that he is still driven by the possibility of being fired. One way he could change is if he decided that, because the Production of a relationship is too much, he’ll be okay if he does get fired.

Or the next example, he’s been fired, but the push to Produce in his new position is too much for him, so he remains Steadfast in that his motivation is sapped, but he’s still driven by having been fired. Or he could change be deciding that he doesn’t want to put up with the push to sale and will go live off the land or something.

If that sounds right, I think that helped a lot. Thanks again.

#4

It might be better to think of it this way. The MC is someone who hates being reduced – that’s his drive. When people count him out or otherwise reduce him, he’s driven to struggle against that. If people were to stop Reducing him, you’re correct that would end his struggle… but his drive isn’t really gone. As soon as any issues of Reduction appear, he’ll be struggling against them.

Right! If he was a Change character, he would stop caring about being reduced, he would change his worldview about it all and embrace being productive whole-heartedly. “who cares that I got fired or whether people think less of me when I have this wonderful garden to grow!”

Your two examples at the end of your post are pretty good, but just be careful not to consider the Demotivator (Solution) as a permanent thing for a Steadfast character. I would re-write your one sentence as “his motivation is sapped temporarily, but eventually he gets his drive back regarding being fired”.

1 Like
#5

Awesome. I feel like I’ve got it.

To sum it up (and hopefully make it less convoluted) I think I was stuck looking at being reduced and not being reduced as the problem and solution for both a Steadfast and Changed character. I was trying to say a Steadfast MC is sapped of his motivation when others stop Reducing him and that a changed MC solves his problem by changing from being Reduced to not being Reduced.

But a changed MC doesn’t just need to stop being Reduced by others to solve his problem. He needs others to Produce (or he needs to Produce within others, I guess) that he is too valuable to be fired, for instance, or to produce in himself that he doesn’t need the job. Because without that production, nothing has changed in the MC.

#6

This is great - the Main Character is a perspective, not a character. Once you establish his or her point-of-view in regards to the MC Problem and Solution you’ll be able to de-convolute your whole question.

Focusing on what is happening to the Main Character as evidence of their Main Character Throughline elements is one way to actually avoid getting into the personal perspective that should be the Main Character. Sure, Main Characters experience outside influencers or forces of conflict, but the important part is their particular approach of point-of-view, in regards to that conflict.

You also run the risk of confusing Overall Story Throughline elements for Main Character when you look to what others are doing to the Main Character. Imagine them in a different story and see what kind of issues they would drag with them into that narrative – that will help you zero in on their unique perspective.

1 Like
#7

Yes, exactly. This question started when I was looking at a gist of being reduced for the MC and wondering how what felt like an outside force on the character could relate to his personal perspective. If an outside force stops working on the MC (if he stops being reduced) how does that equate to a change in the MC? The answer: it doesn’t unless the MC is able to embrace some form of the Production element. I think when Mike said it should be that the MC “hates being reduced”, he really answered what I was trying to see all along.

Thanks both for the clarity and understanding. You input is, as always, invaluable.

1 Like