Exactly. And since @SharkCat seemed to be so unsure of a form, I figured the best thing was to help pick something close and start working. It’s not fun to start a form and find a bunch of wrinkles to iron out, but it beats not getting started at all.
Anyway, what’s the word @SharkCat? Has this stuff been helpful to you? I know thinking through it has helped me to focus on some areas where I’ve been weak, so it’s helped me!
I didn’t know that Becoming could be related to non-character things.
No, but that’s a great idea! Restaurant was an old idea, but I thought of adding one on to the ranch.
Wouldn’t that be covered by the analysis examples in the program?
That’s good. I’m often worried about “wasting” time.
Yes! Thanks for everyone helping. I’m glad that it was also helpful to you.
It seems kind of hard to sort out an MC’s personal problem into an MC throughline when his part in OS is already related to struggling with a personal problem. Are we allowed to do that in an “objective” throughline? I’ve referred to them by their roles in the illustrations, as suggested in that thread about separating MC from role as Protagonist (in that story’s case), but I’m not sure how it’s going to work.
For MC I get a Concern of Innermost Desires and an Issue of either Hope or Denial. IC is Future and Preconception or… I think it was Delay. If I decide that everyone in OS has a Problem of Temptation, then the MC/IC Issues are Denial/Preconception.
Depends on how you use them, I guess. They have examples of how characters fit into their respective through lines, but not really with an emphasis on how one character fits into multiple through lines, right? I guess you could look at it either way.
I agree it’s hard to sort out the MC’s personal problem from the OS issues, especially when both are internal domains. Can you ask yourself what parts of the MC’s issues are the most like the OS issues, and what parts are the most different? Does it make sense that out of all the characters, even though they may have similar issues, the MC will be the most “stuck in his ways” or with a “made up mind” about something?
Later, you can try MC playground exercises for developing the MC throughline further. (I think you said you’ve done some OS playground exercises before, right? I think MC & IC playgrounds work even better than OS ones; I find the gists are too ‘focused’ for OS, it’s almost like you should use several gists for each OS appreciation.) Of course, you’ll need to have the storyform down better before you can try the playgrounds.
I can totally see your MC with issues of Denial… Denying to himself how much his anxiety is costing him, denying how much it hurts others, denying himself a better life because he’s afraid, etc.
I guess before I can do the exercises, I have to figure out PS Style and Driver to fill in the rest of the blanks. I think it’s an Action Driver-- IC is wandering around and MC sees him, which knocks the first domino of MC thinking about what to do and having to make a decision. Act 1 ends on… I don’t know. An OS character rejecting MC/IC, but arrangements are made, so that sounds like decision.
I don’t know how I’m supposed to choose Linear vs. Holistic.
I’m not sure what the Outcome of a Story Goal of Becoming is. Everyone will be changed by the end, but maybe not in the ways they’d hoped. If it’s a general goal like to become a better person, that’ll succeed. I wonder if I could phrase it as characters trying to fix things.
Can I still use that if other characters are stubborn too?
Driver: Is the MC physically seeing the IC the Driver, or is it the decision the MC makes upon seeing him? Like, I’m imagining a story where a high-school girl MC sees the most popular cheerleader in school and realizes she (the MC) might have a crush on her. The Driver in this scenario isn’t seeing the cheerleader, but the subsequent realization. I know, that seems weird for a Driver, but consider this: if she looked at the cheerleader but didn’t have the realization, would the story start? No. But if she didn’t look at the cheerleader and yet still realized she had the crush, would the story start? Yes. The revelation itself is what drives the story, not the action of looking. (You could imagine an alternate version of this story where, say, the MC stares at the cheerleader and gets teased for it. Rather than the revelation driving the story, it’s the teasing leading to more trouble as all of the other students start to latch on to this idea and spread a rumor.)
Linear vs. Holistic: Is the question that you don’t know the difference between the two, or you don’t know how to decide which one you should pick? The former is pretty complicated, but if you read up on it, you may find some helpful answers. (I’d recommend figuring out which one you predominantly use, then focusing your attention on the one you don’t use.) The latter… you know, I’m not sure. When in doubt, matching it to the gender of your character is usually a safe bet (i.e. Linear->Male, Holistic->Female). Alternatively, if you want your character to seem a little strange or unorthodox, swapping their PSS is a quick and dirty way to do that. (Of course, if your character doesn’t have a traditional gender, you’re out of luck on that front.) Ultimately, so long as you grok the difference between the two and can depict them accurately, it really doesn’t matter what you pick.
Outcome: If the Story Goal is Becoming, and the characters do significantly change, that sounds like a Success to me. It kind of sounds like you want an Outcome of Success and a Judgment of Bad, but I might be wrong in that regard.
Sure! Stubbornness can fit other Dramatica terms too, Preconception especially, and lots of OS Character elements could be expressed through stubborness I’m sure. (stubbornly Opposing someone, staunchly Supporting someone, sticking to your Evaluations, Nonacceptance, etc.)
Plus, I think @MWollaeger put it best when he recently said:
I think we have to be open to characters acting like people. Not everything they do has to be dictated by the storyform. Nor should it be.
As far as the storyform goes, if you’re feeling stuck and want to start some playground exercises, you could start them before knowing the PS Style and Driver, since those will only affect Signpost order and UA/CF/Catalyst/Inhibitor, as far as I know.
But we can definitely try to dig into Driver and PS Style more – maybe you could start a new thread as this one is getting kind of long!
One thing about Action Driver, it’s not so much “an action happens so then they have to deliberate carefully over a big decision”, it’s more like “an action happens and that action forces them to make a choice they wouldn’t otherwise have made”. Like in Star Wars we don’t see Princess Leia deliberating much over whether to send the Death Star plans with the droids, but obviously she would not have done that if the Empire hadn’t attacked. The action of the Empire’s attack forced her to make that difficult choice, something which under normal circumstances she wouldn’t have chosen.
I think there can be a little deliberation to show that the choice is difficult, but with Action Drivers you have to be careful not to have much or it risks making it feel more like a Decision driver. The particular decision/choice that is made has to be FORCED by the Action, not arrived upon through a Decision process. At least that’s my take on it. (This was a misunderstanding of mine that Jim corrected me on – I originally thought “Actions force Decisions” meant “Actions force long Decision Processes where they weigh their options carefully trying to decide which option to take”. In my job, the word Decision usually means a Decision Request process, with a document analysing the pros and cons of each option, several meetings, etc.)
I mostly get the difference, but… I don’t want to sit and fuss over “is my character thinking the right way for what I assigned?” or something. I’m guessing that maybe Holistic is the way to go, but I don’t know. IC is direct. MC worries about all kinds of things that may go wrong-- I don’t know if that’s Holistic. Then he might take those outcomes and think something like “I might do a bad job and screw over my friend, so I’ll make up an excuse and back out.” I’m not sure if that’s Linear since the solution of backing out to avoid an outcome is straightforward, or Holistic since he makes an excuse to balance away some potential tension. Being hyper vigilant of potential harm would mean picking up on details like body language and trying to interpret them- Holistic? Seems easy to mix up Be-er for Holistic if they involve indirect manipulation type stuff.
Is PS style just about MC throughline like the Do-er/Be-er thing?
I guess I probably have a Decision Driver, but if my MC had his realization that he’d wasted his life without IC to help, I’m not sure he’d get out of there and be able to go through the story.
I want a Judgment of Good. When I had Innermost Desires as Goal, I was going to have Outcome of Failure since I wanted to show the characters having gone after the wrong goals, then failing, but things turn out for the best.
Something that might help is imagining what the combinations of Approach and Problem-Solving Style might look like and how they differ. As in, “how is a Holistic Do-er different from a Holistic Be-er?”
It’s easy to match up Linear with Do-er and Holistic with Be-er, it seems kind of intuitive, but examining the opposite pairings could help you sort out the two variables.
Some starting examples:
Also, Problem Solving Style applies to both the MC and the IC (dynamically paired). You could say the same for Approach. It’s more important to illustrate the MC on both counts, but it’s there regardless.
That sounds pretty logical to me. I’d be willing to bet your MC is Linear. Holistic as I understand it would be more like, “I might do a bad job and screw over my friend, so I’d better compose a symphony” or “I might do a bad job and screw over my friend, so I’d better get a present for his cat”. Though I must admit my understanding of Holistic is minimal. We should both (re)watch Princess Mononoke or Moulin Rouge!
I don’t understand what is supposed to go in IC vs OS. If MC is having his anxiety in OS and IC is helping desensitize him, is that IC, RS, or OS? If IC has a goal like becoming famous (sounds more like an Innermost Desires thing, wanting to prove one’s worth and be remembered, but my ensemble Story Goal is Becoming so ~shrug~), does that belong in OS since it does lead him to meddle, or is that IC?
I originally had IC as Activity and since my character was forcing MC to try new things, which influenced him, that made sense, but now I’ve got Situation and Future, so I’m not sure what to do with that unless I bring in some other goal for IC.
If it makes a difference, I figured I could have MC’s OS stuff be about him wanting to pursue a potential quick fix for his anxiety while the MC throughline could be about the Fixed Attitude that causes him to think that he can’t handle just facing things.
The IC throughline doesn’t need a “goal” per se. Sometimes it can help to look at any throughline’s Concern as a “goal” but you might have to sort of twist your perspective to do that.
I thought you had some ideas about the IC being in a bad situation with his house, needing to repair it? Doesn’t something about that influence the MC to try new things?
The goal of becoming famous would be mainly in the OS, but it’s possible that some parts of what he does related to it could be in the IC throughline too… I wouldn’t worry about this now though, you should be able to weave the throughlines together fairly naturally and intuitively once you understand them separately. Like (assuming we’re right about current Domains) you’ll be outlining or first-drafting your IC doing stuff in pursuit of becoming famous… and then you’ll be like, oh geez this one part really influences the MC to change his worldview … and then you’ll realize that part is very much related to some IC story point(s). e.g. maybe in that scene which starts with the IC & MC meeting with an agent (IC trying to become famous), the IC is influencing the MC to confront his Past (IC Signpost X) and there is impact coming from the IC’s biases (IC Issue Preconception) and/or the IC is influence the MC to examine his own biases. Maybe the agent is an old school-mate of the MC whom he never liked.
But my point is, that kind of thing will happen naturally later. For now you don’t need to worry about it because Dramatica will make sure your IC is perfectly setup to impact the MC is just the right way.
I really believe in that “happen naturally” part too. I think that because stories are a model of the human mind (trying to solve a problem), once Dramatica helps with your blind spots and your story starts to fit the right pattern / storyform, things will just start to work together because they will fit the way your mind wants to think about the story.
NOTE: one thing about “becoming famous” is that it could easily verge on Playing a Role (a goal to be famous), so you’d have to make sure it’s really about the Changing of Nature, the transformation that entails, including giving up the parts that aren’t conducive to fame.
It’s not about Changing Nature. It’s about proving something to himself and others (although he pretends not to care), vindication related to past rejection-- Innermost Desires. This isn’t the only instance of the themes of wanting to prove worth to oneself by proving it to others (instead of self-acceptance), maybe worth in general (IC sees the worth and/or potential value in junk and fixes/saves it), and not wanting to be forgotten.
I’ve considered that maybe I should drop the fame thing and focus on how he likes fixing things, which in this case would still be about proving something, but different, but that doesn’t seem to be as strong a motive. Personally, I feel very strongly about themes of worth, fame, and being remembered and I’ve always liked the idea that IC’s got a chip on his shoulder and in the story, maybe develops a conflict about whether or not he’s being selfish in helping/using MC. I don’t know if IC is the correct Protagonist, but he’s definitely the go-get-em type who would have such a goal and bring the necessary energy.
Could OS be Fixed Attitude? That would place MC back in Manipulation, but he’s not the only one who thinks problematically. Then again, he’s not the only character with a problematic belief either so I don’t know how the MC throughline can be about one thing that only they struggle with, at least at a level as broad as domain. They are all trying to Obtain, but if they stopped acting and twiddled their thumbs, they’d still be troubled.
Oh wow, that was a lot of awesome stuff about your IC. Definitely keep the fame thing if that feels better you.
Are you certain the MC Resolve is Change? I don’t remember asking you this before. The fact that you describe the IC as having a chip on his shoulder makes me wonder if it could be a Steadfast/Stop story, since that’s what Armando Saldana Mora once wrote:
In Steadfast/Stop stories, as expected, the Impact Character has a chip on his shoulder.
Also, which do you see as more of a Do-er regarding their personal issues now, the IC or MC? Is the other one definitely a Be-er? I know we asked this before, but just want to confirm that things haven’t changed as you uncover/develop your ideas further.
Could it be he wants fame, so he can fix things?
I see MC in OS as changing from trying to escape fears to facing them (and gaining confidence in himself-- MC throughline), which is why I wanted him to get his opportunity to get that potential quick fix at the end, then reject it.
I see IC as a Do-er. If he wants something, he’ll go for it. His position is that it’s better to face fears and take risks, so when MC calls IC out on avoiding one of his own fears, he tries exposing himself to it repeatedly to figure out how to make it stop, whereas MC would avoid it. I think that’s do-ing… I suppose you could argue for either being an attempt to change behavior or a reaction. I can see IC talking MC into things, using temptation and leaving out information. Isn’t manipulation a Be-er thing?
He wants to provoke an apology/response from someone, which might be hypocritical considering he’s usually for being direct-- not sure if okay irony or bad writing that will undermine his steadfast position of facing things. It’s an indirect way of trying to fix (or close) a relationship. I did imagine that all his fixing things would make him sensitive to the concepts of history and memory and could inspire a general desire to make something that endures. He was once rejected and forgotten, still has a grudge about it and pretends not to care, then discovers forgotten MC, feels camaraderie, tries to fix something about MC’s life, but sees him get rejected by someone else and doesn’t like it, so helping changing the OS character’s mind about rejecting MC was part of his motive. I don’t know if I should focus on that instead of fame or use both to inspire conflict-- does IC try to help MC out of the goodness of his heart, or (potentially) work at cross-purposes to achieve the fame he wants.
‘Chip on their shoulder’ applies generally to Stop MC’s. Personally I would say it’s stronger with Change MC’s, as with Steadfast the focus is on waiting for something external to the MC to stop.
Ok thanks Brant. I thought the analogy only applied to whichever one was the Change character, the MC or IC. Even though the determination of whether it’s “hole in heart” (Start) or “chip on shoulder” (Stop) is always based on MC’s Growth.
Anyway, I think my bringing that up is probably confusing the matter now… since I think @SharkCat is able to view both his MC and IC with a chip on their shoulder depending on how he looks at it.
Hey @SharkCat, I’m wondering what parts you are still having trouble with or might need help on. Everyone wants to help, but we should also try to make sure we don’t unintentionally confuse you more! (I think I might have confused things a bit bringing up the Do-er vs. Be-er thing.)
Anyway, how close are you to finding a storyform that you like? Is the IC vs. OS throughline the thing that’s bugging you the most?
Are you able to summarize your OS in a couple sentences, like a blurb? Could you do the same, 1-2 sentences to summarize your MC’s perspective or worldview, and the IC’s perspective or worldview? Those three summaries might help a lot in figuring out the storyform.
You could also summarize the Story Goal, Outcome, and Limit if you want.
It’s easier to work backwards from IC to MC with Approach and Problem-Solving Style, but not so much with Growth. I think it’s best to focus on the MC and OS with that one.
Growth is a bit esoteric, it’s hard to appreciate even though it runs all through the storyform under the hood. Even theory veterans save the question for later when analyzing.