What does Outcome tell you about OS Throughline & OS Solution?

questions
#1

For the MC Throughline and IC Throughline, the MC & IC Resolve specifically tells us whether their Solutions are embraced.

For the OS Throughline, I had the idea that Outcome tells us whether the OS Solution is embraced but its actual definition is simpler, it just tells us whether the Story Goal is achieved.

Still, am I wrong to think that an Outcome of Success means the OS Solution was embraced or somehow used to bring about that success? I also think you can extend that to say that Success Outcome means the OS Problem somehow gets resolved by the Solution, i.e. the whole throughline’s inequity is somehow resolved – but I’m not 100% sure on that. (Of course, whether that’s a Good thing or not is represented separately by Judgment.)

And what about for Failure stories? My thinking is that in Failures the overall story characters can make use of the OS Solution, maybe a few characters embrace it fully, others just fall into it some of the time without going all the way toward it … but it does not get used properly to achieve the Story Goal, and in these stories you definitely wouldn’t see all the characters embracing it.

I think my interpretation is supported by the Rain Man analysis:

Although the objective story outcome results in failure, out of control circumstances leads to solving problems within the story. Susanna slips from Charlie’s control and leaves him, causing Charlie to realize he needs her. Raymond is set loose into a uncontrolled world and charms Charlie. (etc.)

To summarize…
I feel like I’m making a mess of this question, but what I’m really asking is what does the Outcome actually tell you about the OS, and what can you infer from it? Certainly, it tells you whether the Goal is achieved. But:

  1. Does Outcome tell you anything about how the OS Solution is used and to what degree?
  2. Does Outcome tell you whether the OS Throughline as a whole gets resolved? e.g. for OS in Situation, does a Success mean they are no longer stuck in the situation, while Failure means they are?
Problem remaining in Start story?
Solution vs Story Goal
#2

An OS Solution of Success means the Goal was achieved, not that the OS Solution was employed – correct!

However, I think this is almost so rare as to be a footnote, and I wonder if it is satisfying as an audience member.

I can imagine using the OS Solution and ending in Failure – if it happens after the Failure or something. (Finding the winning lottery ticket too late.) But I’m not sure I have any specifics to add to it.

2 Likes
#3

An instance of this is in How to Train Your Dragon – the Vikings accept dragons as a community asset (OS Solution: Acceptance), but the goal of training the next generation of dragon fighters fails.

I agree it’s as @MWollaeger says, that the Solution can come in after the goal fails. In this case, Stoick quashes the final training ritual before heading off to kill the dragon queen, so the goal fails before the whole tribe witnesses the kids flying on dragons.

2 Likes
#4

Thanks guys.

Part of the reason I asked is that in the climax the story I’m working on (Failure/Good with an OS Solution of Support), there is a moment where the main character is considering “giving in” and allow herself to be Controlled in the most awful way by the IC-protagonist. If she does give into that Control, the Goal will likely be achieved, i.e. Success. But another OS character talks to her and basically just offers support, and this helps her decide to stick with her free-spirited ways and not allow herself to be controlled (Steadfast MC with Problem Uncontrolled).

I think mostly what’s going on is that the OS character offering support is helping to trigger her Critical Flaw of Self Interest[1] as basically he’s supporting her by telling her to do what’s best for her. Maybe it’s not really the OS Solution at all, or it’s just in a limited enough manner to not help achieve the Goal. (I think that character is the Support character in the OS too, so it makes sense that he’d act in a Support-y manner even without solving the OS.) Anyway, that Self Interest helps override her Unique Ability of Openness – I think the Openness UA explains why she was open to allow something so awful in the first place.

1: What’s funny is that it was only after Jim fixed my storyform (had two things wrong - Decision Driver and Holistic PS, needed to be Action & Linear) that I got the CF of Self Interest. I had that scene already mapped out before he fixed it, so once I realized what was going on there I was excited!

#5

This is such an interesting discussion. Are there examples of this where there is a protagonist MC or IC or complex MC and IC that are not antagonists?

Does the OS Solution being employed have anything to do with the Judgment?

In How to Train Your Dragon, It seems like without that solution being employed, it would have had a tragic ending. I realize the judgment would change a lot of things. But, just wondering if there is a relationship. Similar to how sometimes the Solution is implemented with the IC and sometimes not.

I’m not really sure why I am asking this, but it would be so cool to see inequities in a hierarchy/parallel or in series like a circuit.

I suppose if I really wanted to ask an outlandish question it would be how does aligning the MC with the goal or consequence change the meaning of the storyform and if so how does that work with complex characters?

Anyway, mlucas…awesome thread.

#6

Thanks Brian.

I’m not sure you’ll find answers to your questions. I’m starting to think that Dramatica’s biggest strength is that it only describes the actual requirements for grand argument stories, and leaves you completely free to do whatever else you want to do within those boundaries, knowing that your story is supported by a valid structure.

For example, because OS Solution is not tied to Judgment at all in the theory, I think you are free to do whatever you want in your story, even make it seem like the Judgment was influenced by the same Element as the OS Solution (Support in my story, Acceptance in How To Train Your Dragon) if you want. As long as it makes sense in the story, it’s cool.

Contrast that to a writing podcast I was listening to today about how to structure your NaNoWriMo outline. According to that podcast, the only valid arcs for your main character were what she called positive and negative, basically Change-Good and Steadfast-Bad [1]. If you were an insecure new writer listening to that podcast, and had a story idea that was Steadfast-Good or Change-Bad, you might screw yourself by trying to shoehorn your idea into the wrong structure advice.

1: On other podcasts and articles on her site she has mentioned a “flat arc” which is sort of Steadfast-Good, but the way she describes it, it doesn’t involve any Growth. And in this particular podcast she didn’t mention the so-called flat arc at all!

#7

Are you sure? The ordering of things seems to have a lot to do with whether the inequity remains or moves to equity in the end? It seems like it could be buried in the story engine. It seems like speaking more clearly about how inequities move from inception to resolution would help with writing. Like how is it that the IC and RS are slaves to the MC and OS. Yet, the inequity is between the MC and OS in the engine regardless of the slave choices. Like you might get the solution, but it is too late. Or, the solution is not enough to satisfy things. I realize this maybe uncharted territory for everyone but Chris and Melanie. But, as someone who is used to dealing with undefined terms in models like point, line and plane in geometries. Inequity and equity don’t seem to qualify as undefined in how they work in the model. Like, the two things of what we want and what we get are undefined so that we can choose that in our stories. But, the actual way in which inequity resolves in equity or not seems like it should be a clear and consistent process for linear and holistic problem solvers. A linear problem solver focus on transforming themselves while the holistic one transforms the environment to attempt to solve it. But, what makes it end up Good or Bad? How do we as story tellers know how to make equity or inequity realize? It is as simple as whether what we desire or what we get wins out or not. But, how does that work? Thanks for listening :slight_smile:

#8

She co-opted Dramatica’s concept of the Steadfast character for her idea of the “flat arc.”