Relationship Character Throughline Report

[SPotter]

Is anyone else confused sometimes by the relationship throughline report? First of all it doesn’t really deal with the relationship throughline but the argument between the MC throughline and the IC throughline.

The question I have right now regards this type of statement in the report, “MC might say, “We must recall because of our Falsehood.” To which IC might respond, "No, we must not focus on what has already happened because of Destiny.” or, “MC might say, “We must not be driven because of our Closure.” To which IC might respond, "No, we must focus on what will happen or be because of Openness.”

Why does one of them have to be a negative? How do you interpret that? or how CAN you interpret that? Can it be, “MC says we must recall because of our Falsehood not Truth and IC argue’s, ‘No, we must not focus on what has already happened because of Destiny but rather Fate.” ?? Is that how it is meant?

[MWollaeger]

I think they are both negative, when looked at from the other perspective.

The MC wants to do X, so the IC saying “No, Do Y” is where the conflict comes from. Likewise, the IC wants to do Y, so the MC saying, “no, Do X” is negative and in conflict.

Without the “No” they are both already in agreement, there is no inequity, and then there is no passionate storyline.

[jhull]

I think the Relationship Story Report is a hack. The Relationship Story is something between people and not something that can be easily parsed out in an automatic fill in the blanks style reporting.

Having one be negative, I believe, is a cheat. It could possibly spawn a new approach for you or something to consider, but if it hampers the development of your story I would toss it out.

[SPotter]

@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)

[jhull]

Exactly. And with that Change/Steadfast approach, also consider the Problem/Solution/Symptom/Response in context of “Resolve” (Change Relationship stories feature Problem and Solution, Steadfast Relationships feature Symptom/Response). It’s a great way of looking at the development of the Relationship Throughline.