@Jhull Thank you. I hear you and it is good to be reminded that I am in charge of my story not the Dramatica reports.
@MWollaeger I hear what you are saying but I was maybe on more of a meta-level. The report was telling me,
“If they were to argue, Main Character might say, ‘We must become because of our Rationalization.’ To which Impact Character might respond, ‘No, we must not obtain because of Approach.’ Definitely apples and oranges. But that is what makes any argument real. Arguments occur not so much because people disagree, but because they simply aren’t really talking about the same things. “
I agree that people really argue about apples and oranges but in my story I have a throughline that works great and my IC is all about obtaining. I don’t think I want him saying, “one must not obtain.” but I suppose there are all sorts of possibilities. He could say, “We must not Obtain because of Approach but rather Attitude.”
Or maybe the report should just say, MC argues that one must focus on Becoming as it relates to Rationalization vs. Obligation and the IC argues that one must focus on Obtaining as it relates to Approach vs Attitude.
anyway, I don’t think it’s awash. It could be reworked so that, as @JHull says, to show the argument “between people” and how it relates to the vector of the Relationship. I really love what I think @chuntley says about the relationship througline. Something about thinking of it more in terms of Steadfast or Change. (I hope I am getting this right. I always seem to mess up when it comes to my memory) The nature of the Relationship could be Steadfast and get stronger or much weaker by the end or the nature of the Relationship could be a Change relationship and completely transform by the end with a good outcome or a bad outcome (or would that be success or failure)