That’s just the nature of it, but it can still manifest itself in a (somewhat) external way – it just stems from an internal problem.
I had a character that was a complete and total fraud, she was a ‘chameleon’ (manipulation). She would disguise her house to pass as different people, and would adapt and change herself to suit the situation. You could argue they were ‘do-er’ actions, but I think they were just external representations of a ‘Playing a Role’ Be-er concern.
The emphasis (as I understand it) isn’t on the actual things that the MC does, but the internal purpose and problem – that’s what the MC throughline is about. The Be-er/Do-er thing is just clarification on their preferred ways.
“Adapting” makes it sound like they aren’t trying to solve the problem, which isn’t always the case. Solving an inequity as a be-er isn’t necessarily equivalent to “learning to accept how things are.”
Maybe a different search you can do in the database is for Do-er/Change/Success stories. These are do-ers who opt to become be-ers and effect a successful outcome in the OS. Doing wasn’t cutting it, and the Success implies that they fixed a problem.
I think part of the problem here comes from thinking of one thing to the exclusion of others. That never works well in Dramatica.
We all exist within the internal and external worlds. A be-er is not devoid or unaware of the external world. A do-er is not devoid or unaware of the internal world.
Within the SPECIFIC CONTEXT of the story’s inequity as seen from the MC’s perspective, however, there exists a PREFERENCE to try to resolve inequities FIRST by applying effort internally (be-er) or externally (do-er). If that approach does not resolve the inequity, the MC may (reluctantly or insecurely) attempt to resolve the inequity using the alternative approach. This MC APPROACH is independent of the overall story functions assigned to the player that is also the MC.
I prefer assertive and passive over active and passive when describing approaches. Think of it as the amount of energy applied. An assertive BE-ER uses a high level of energy. A passive BE-ER uses a low level of energy. An assertive DO-ER uses a high level of energy and a passive DO-ER uses a low level of energy. This “energy level” appears to impact the MC’s effort, though not necessarily the effectiveness (which is context specific).
Be-ers seek meaning, Doers find purpose. Meaning is abstract and subjective. Purpose is concrete and objective.
I think a good example of a Be-er action series is Cobra Kai. The conflict is over with the two styles of teaching, to be a bully or to be bullied / resist being bullied. Neither is a purpose with concrete end goals, it’s about finding meaning in your approach to life.
Meaning being subjective doesn’t mean it has to be in the Subjective Throughline, though in the case of Cobra Kai i think it is.
Notice the conflict is set up in the first season with a Purpose, to compete and settle differences in the All-Valley Tournament. Yet the major plot developments during the climax is about the relationships – who is standing in who’s corner? Who wins doesn’t matter, it is how they win that lands to biggest emotional kicks.
I would be careful not to confuse Be-ers and Do-ers with Holistic and Linear. Holistics looks at motivations (what i assume you mean by meaning). Linear looks at purposes.
Holistics may often feel more internal, while Linears feel more external… but that is not the case.
A Holistic Be-er is like Mitch in City Slickers…
A Holistic Do-er is like Neo in The Matrix…
Both MC’s are focused on achieving balance and motivation, rather than purpose.
versus…
A Linear Be-er is like Deckard in Blade Runner…
A Linear Do-er is like Luke in Star Wars…
Both MC’s are focused on the Goal, and finding purpose, rather than motivation and balance.