Selecting Signpost Paths

#1

Using a storyform reports provided by Dramatica software, I’ve put together an image of scenes per signpost overlaid on the standard Dramatica chart.

x7Ywkj4.png1339×1329 1.37 MB

One sees Z, and Butterfly forms present at the Element level, which is what’s charted. The same can be found at the Type level, just count up say OSS1, S2, S3, S4 and you’ll see a U shape.

Here’s my question: How do I control this in the software? Suppose I want to select the paths followed and then have it answer fundamental questions to match this outcome? Sort of working the software backwards. It should be possible, no? Or, at least, the theory book doesn’t seem to require specific path forms in relation to story form selection (the way the software does).

Right? Wrong?

#2

I think you mean Sequences, not “scenes” per Signpost. And no, you can’t currently choose the path you want through the Plot Sequence and have that backtrack to a storyform.

Why would you want to be able to choose this? I can’t imagine knowing the order in which things happen but not knowing what I want the story to actually mean, i.e. the big pieces (like the Character Dynamics and the Plot Dynamics).

#3

Assuming the software has a reason to selecting the order it does, I’m thinking that if one were to try to reverse the process, there’s a strong likelihood that some patterns would require contradictory settings in the software. I wouldn’t think you could use this approach with the current version. In fact, if you were to try, you’d have to reverse engineer the logic at which point you wouldn’t really need the software.

However I am fascinated by the logic of how the selections change the storyform so if you do figure out the logic behind it, please share. I’d love to know why.

#4

I think you would find that understanding the logic would have no benefit to your storytelling. What is important is understanding the things in the equation – linear thinking, holistic thinking, etc.

1 Like
#5

JAPartridge,

Working with the same story (a project I’ve been stuck on for some time), I used the Story Engine to select “Successful Outcome, Good Judgment”; “Successful Outcome; Bad Judgment”; “Failure Outcome; Good Judgment”; and “Failure Outcome; Bad Judgment”. I then compared the scene traversal paths for each throughline across storyforms. All of these had Activity set as the OS and Fixed Attitude as the MC.

The story form presented above in that chart is “Failure; Good” - the one I’ve chosen for this story.

“Failure; Bad” presents as:

OS: S1: Obtaining -> Gathering information; S2: Gathering Information -> Understanding; S3: Understanding -> Doing
RS: S1: Developing a Plan -> Playing a Role; S2: Playing a Role -> Changing One’s Nature; S3: Changing One’s Nature -> Conceiving an Idea
MC: S1: Impulse Responses->Contemplation; S2: Contemplation -> Innermost Desires; S3: Innermost Desires -> Memories
IC: S1: How Things are Changing -> The Future; S2: The Future -> The Past; S3: The Past -> The Present

“Success; Bad” presents as:

OS: S1: Gathering Information -> Doing; S2: Doing -> Obtaining; S3: Obtaining -> Understanding
RS: S1: Playing a Role -> Changing One’s Nature; S2: Changing One’s Nature -> Developing a Plan; S3: Developing a Plan -> Conceiving an Idea
MC: S1: Impulse Responses -> Innermost Desires; S2: Innermost Desires -> Contemplation; S3: Contemplation -> Memories
IC: S1: The Past -> How Things are Changing; S2: How Things are Changing -> The Future; S3: The Future -> The Present

“Failure; Good” Presents as:

OS: S1: Gathering Information -> Understanding; S2: Understanding -> Doing; S3: Doing -> Obtaining
RS: S1: Playing a Role -> Changing One’s Nature; S2: Changing One’s Nature -> Conceiving an Idea; S3: Conceiving an Idea -> Developing a Plan
MC: S1: Memories -> Impulse Responses; S2: Impulse Responses -> Contemplation; S3: Contemplation -> Innermost Desires
IC: S1: The Present -> How Things are Changing; S2: How Things are Changing -> The Future; S3: The Future -> The Past

You’ll notice that the order of each throughline from left to right is the same. What changes is that this order is shifted right or left by one segment or more, much like the rolling wheels of a slot machine. So it’s predictable. But the question is: What does this mean?

For example, why in a Good Judgment are “Innermost Desires” the final signpost for the MC, where in a Bad Judgment “Memories” are? Does this mean, “innermost desires realized” versus “memories of what once had been but now lost” are left as final images?

I don’t know.

jhull: as to why I want to explore this in reverse order, two reasons.

First: My character starts at a certain point. I NEEDED her to start with Impulse Responses because of how the opening works. And I wanted to know how that might affect the ending. Because…

Second: I already know how this will end. So… I need a story form that matches the beginning and ending I’ve already chosen. As is pointed out in the theory book, it’s easier to take an ending and work backwards. Because that way all your dependent plot points fit the ending going backward through all dependencies. Change and dependencies change with it.

#6

It has been my experience that no matter what you think the Signposts should be, you’re almost guaranteed to be disappointed when you set the Character Dynamics and Plot Dynamics.

When the theory book talks about how it is easier knowing your ending they’re not referring to the signpost they’re referring to the combination of the Outcome and Judgment. If you don’t know these two then you don’t know your ending. Doesn’t matter if it ends in Conscious, Future, or Becoming. You should really know those–and the signposts will be set by them.

You believe your characters first Signpost has to be Impulsive Responses. Who’s to say the Concern isn’t Impulsive Responses and the first Signpost is the Subconscious? It’s like saying I know what letters are going to go into this sentence one by one, but I don’t know what I’m actually trying to say with this sentence. The purpose the storyform is to communicate meaning. If you don’t know what it is you’re arguing, why would you start with the first steps of the argument?

The connection between the ending signpost and the judgment doesn’t matter. Unless you’re trying to create your own version of Dramatica–which really isn’t a topic of conversation allowed here. Reverse engineering the model won’t help you write a better narrative or a more comprehensive meaningful narrative.

#7

Jhull,

that’s a curious argument. How can the definition and ordering of signposts have no relevance to story encoding, considering the software clearly assigns an order that’s not documented in the theory book? If these terms have no fixed and clear definition, they are of no relevance to crafting a story. Or they are relevant. In which case, their order is of relevance to story encoding and final story weaving as well. No?

Clearly I know where my story starts and ends. Along with many scenes in between. The question is: How can I use Dramatica software so that it generates reliable and predictable output relevant to a story I want to create? Since the theory book does not document these matters, I experimented.

And no, I do not want to ‘re-implement’ the software. I just want to know how to best use it. For my stories. And my projects. I spent the money on this thing. I expect it to be a useful and viable investment.

#8

I have found the $150 I spent twenty years ago a useful and viable investment. I’m sure you will too. There is a tendency to understand the engine as if that is somehow going to make you a better writer. It won’t. From my experience you would be better off using that time to take the storyform Dramatica gives you–based on the choices you made in regards to your ending and the thematic issues you want to tackle–and simply write.

If you know where your story starts and end then you should already know the Outcome and Judgment. You wouldn’t need to juxtapose a matrix of the different endings in order to somehow divine which one is correct.

Story encoding is not StoryForming. The order of signposts is a part of StoryForming and helps support the argument you’re trying to make in regards to your Resolve, Outcome, and Judgment. If you know these you don’t need to know how the order of signposts plays out–Dramatica will give it to you.

This is what saves you time in the writing process. Knowing what it is you want to say, Dramatica helps you organize the order in which you oresent that information.

That is the best way to use the software.

2 Likes
#9

OK. Thank you for your suggestion.

1 Like
#10

I find this question fascinating. I am definitely going to have to spend some time thinking about this.

#11

Not sure if this applies to Story Expert, but in the PC version, you actually can tinker with Signposts a bit. With a new, blank storyform, open the Plot Progression" window, click on any of the “unchosen item” boxes (click the words, not just inside the box) and a drop-menu appears with the various concerns.

It doesn’t take too many choices before the rest automatically fill out, and it definitely limits your options within the story engine itself. But if you’re absolutely certain about MC S1 - Preconscious, you can at least plug that in, then see how it narrows the storyform.

#12

@maynard, I applaud your desire to know how to best use the software, and to understand what it all means. And how it means what it means.

However, having been around for a while, I want to share what I’ve learned both from doing it and by watching others do it: many many people get attracted to understanding the engine, and the specifics of the engine. I did.

I think it happens for two reasons. One, the people who are more naturally attracted to Dramatica tend to like its machine-like nature, and so they want to understand it more. Two, it becomes a distraction from writing, and most writers welcome the excuse to procrastinate and are super good at justifying it.

While it may benefit your writing to go down this path, I think there are faster ways to better, deeper writing. So, while I won’t argue that your curiosity and where it takes you are a waste, I will argue that they should not be prioritized.

I even think you’ll be better off writing the story you are going to write, and then seeing how it lines up with all the details Dramatica provides. Trying to go the other direction tends to strangulate writers – they want to get everything to fit perfectly and the muses don’t tend to stick around.

If you know how the story starts and ends and you have a lot of scenes in between, then I would say it’s time to get writing. Using Dramatica after a draft is done is hugely beneficial.

2 Likes
#13

Amen to that, Mike! Write first, use Dramatica as a story analyst later.

#14

I have no doubt that you are correct. It probably is a distraction, but have one of those brains that automatically looks for patterns and I’m fascinated by things that look like they should make sense but that sense eludes me.

Ah, well. I had promised I’d actually spend the rest of tonight actually writing…

#15

That is awesome! I don’t know how I missed that. I must play with this. :smile:

#16

It may require some 4-dimensional math. :slight_smile: It just happened that I stumbled upon some interesting posts by Melanie Anne Phillips on the subject. One interesting quote:

But predicting which pattern would show up for any given quad, which element it would start on and which direction it would go – well, that drove us crazy. We couldn’t make head or tail of it.

Then, we realized the plotting the sequence on the fixed Table of Story Elements was the problem. We realized that the Table was more like a Rubik’s Cube as I mentioned earlier. And what we discovered was the you could twist and turn the elements within each quad, like wheels within wheels, in such a way that these mixed up patterns all suddenly became straight lines. And when we hit that arrangement of forces, we were able to create the algorithm that describes how outside forces work on a story (or mind) to wind it up, wheel by wheel, creating tension and thereby motivation, and directly tying sequence into the creation and existence of potential, resistance, current and power – how time is related to space.

Narrative Dynamics 3 – The Dramatica Model

I also ran into this post which suggested there might be other patterns.
Dramatica Domain Placement in Story Structure
http://storymindmedia.com/wsk/tips/105.htm

And this one as well which hints a fourth type of relationship that, from her description, might better fit what I’m trying to do with my story. I fear I’m probably not smart enough to reproduce the logic. I’m pretty certain I don’t have the time to devote to it. But it’s a fun exercise.

The Quad:Dramatica’s Steering Wheel?
http://storymind.com/content/113.htm

#17

I’ll just post this here:

http://forums.screenplay.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=4465

#18

What is a bummer about this kind of brain is that it only looks for logical patterns, which are certainly there, but it overlooks emotional patterns, which are also there. The end result is that you strengthen one necessary skill while atrophying another. But the strong one can’t compensate for the weak one.

#19

Emotional preferences, like attraction and repulsion, certainly. Influence of emotions on behaviors, or emotional logic…isn’t that what Dramatica is all about?

#20

I don’t really mean the emotional elements, but yes, that too. I really meant that three of the four throughlines are subjective and movement through them is usually guided by emotion. Lots of dramatica folk are inclined to see everything as objective. Not all of them certainly.

This is balanced out on the other side by people are so intuitive that they refuse to believe that stories need a structure at all. I’ve never met someone like this who would consider Dramatica.

1 Like