Thanks again for the feedback! This is really helping and quite invigorating!
I haven't continued mapping out the character elements since I threw out my last Storyform and started with this one. But I also feel it would be best to keep Production, Reduction, Probability and Possibility between the MC and IC.
I generally have a problem keeping the OS characters and the players apart. I once read somewhere that all the players are subjective characters and then later I read somewhere that only the MC and the IC are subjective characters and not players.
If all players = subjective characters then the RS could be between all characters, as it would describe the problem that the characters have in their relationships with each other and not just the IC and the MC.
If MC + IC are the only subjective characters then the RS can only be about their relationship.
Which is it? Or is it both? If the IC can be different characters (e.g. the ones who have Production, Acceptance and Possibility or Probability) then the RS throughline becomes a view of the relationship the MC has with different (IC) characters? It's spinning again
Let's see if I can keep this straight:
If my MC had the element of Probability and the IC had Possibility there would be at least one scene where the MC tells the IC how ridiculous it is to base one's decisions on what might be true and the IC counters that basing one's life decisions only on what is likely is a life without imagination and totally pointless. This would be them as OS characters?
In my Storyform (for a novel btw.) the RS throughline's solution is Probability, while Possibility is the problem. The MC (who has the element Probability) is always fretting about what is likely to happen to disrupt his hopes for his relationship with the IC (since it's his character element, he'll be fretting about/ making decisions based on likelihood in all areas of his life). The overproductive and imaginative IC does nothing to alleviate the MC's fear because he believes everything is possible (Possibility). This is also them as OS characters.
Over the course of the story they have their little tiffs while they make a plan of how their relationship may work, start playing a role in order to keep peace, unconsciously start losing and gaining attitudes that change who they are and finally realise they want their relationship to last and will do whatever needs to be done to make it work. They finally stop seeking out what is possible and concentrate on what is probable, thus strengthening their bond and resolving their problem. This is the elements at work as appreciations of the RS.
While all this is happening the MC, who doesn't accept who he is and is constantly being badgered by the IC to start evaluating his Innermost Desires instead of trying to attract what he thinks he wants by being proactive, comes to stop disregarding who he is and begins to accept himself and the situation he is in (Solution MC). While he doesn't stop looking out for what is likely (MC's character element Probability), he stops fretting about it/ opposing his relationship with the IC and is able to embrace it (Solution RS). The IC remains Steadfast in that he doesn't stop his hyped-up imagination, but he settles down and begins to dream up possibilities (IC's character element) for his relationship with the MC that are probable (Solution RS), thus helping to alleviate the MC's initial fears.
On the OS level the MC's best friend Certainty would always have his back and be the bane of the IC's existence, while IC's best friend Potentiality would drive the MC up the walls whenever he heard them discuss their next adventure.
Have I managed to keep the MC and IC as OS characters and subjective characters apart? How would I bring in the elements Potentiality, Certainty, Acceptance and Nonacceptance when discussing the RS thematic counterpoint of Permission without bringing in the characters holding those elements. Would the 4 characters be discussing an issue (say Permission to own a gun) and for once the MC would be of one mind with the IC's best friend Potentiality and the IC would be high-fiving the MC'S best friend Certainty for each argument they made? Or is doing that exactly what one shouldn't do?
This turned out much longer than planned