That’s basically my question. I have a change MC with a problem of disbelief (he doesn’t believe he can handle what life throws at him) and a symptom of avoidance (because of disbelief, he avoids his fears, which causes problems that he plans on solving by pursuing the easy way out), and the M/I problem I select determines whether the Outcome is success or failure, but I don’t know why. Choosing avoidance (MC’s symptom) for M/I results in success Outcome. Choosing disbelief (MC’s Problem) results in failure. I don’t know why, especially since they disagree on both subjects and IC forces MC to do scary things (pursuit), which likely involves saying stuff like “you can do it” (faith).
Since your Main Character changes, the MC Problem is the same as the OS Problem.
The M/I Problem can be either (1) the same as the OS Problem or (2) an element in a quad that contains the OS Symptom and Response. Either way, the OS story and M/I story are tied together on the Element level.
If (and only if) the M/I Problem is the same as the OS Problem, then the Outcome is Failure. Why? I don’t know, but maybe dealing with the problem in the relationship takes up so much time and effort, that there isn’t any left for the overall story.
What is at the heart of the conflict between your MC and IC? Is the basis for friction the existence or lack of Avoidance? Or is Disbelief the central problem that causes difficulties between MC and IC? Keep in mind that the characters are not necessarily aware of either the Problem or the Solution, but rather focus their attentions on the Symptom. In your case, this would be Oppose (if M/I Problem is Avoidance) or Reconsider (if M/I Problem is Disbelief). What suits the idea of your story more?
1 Like
This
He doesn’t believes he can handle what life throws at him, but thinks his real problem is that he is avoiding his fears. Important that the MC thinks this is his problem, not that he is engaging in the symptom because of the Problem. The Symptom in a Changed Main Character masks the real problem.
Also pursuing the easy way out sounds more like temptation. In fact the way you write the Symptom sounds like Conscience - holding back in anticipation of negative consequences. With Avoid and Pursuit, you want it to be about thinking running away is wrong, so he pursues that which he avoids.
The pattern you point out is a result of Dramatica-magic. It hasn’t been explained as of yet, but it does work in every case so there is something behind it.
Lastly - the Solution is usually what happens at the end of a story. In other words, he wouldn’t be able to say “you can do it” until the end, after he has gone through all that growth with the Influence Character. There can be schimdgens of it here and there, but you probably want to hold off until the very end.
Temptation and Conscience could work, with Uncontrolled as Problem (his anxiety is out of control then he learns to control his reactions more appropriately). I could also say that the Symptom is Uncontrolled, as he sees the world being out of control with potential danger or that his anxiety is out of control, which he then tries (and fails) to Control (stop) by hiding or engaging in compulsions (both of which reinforce anxiety) instead of letting the anxiety be there until he becomes desensitized.
I suppose if I knew exactly what I was saying overall, I’d be able to choose with more confidence. I’ve mostly been concentrating on the Main Character and how if you want to get rid of fears, you have to face them, but I’m not sure if that has to be the lesson of the OS too, or if the MC Problem is Disbelief, then the OS Problem just needs to be about Disbelief. I’ve considered that the OS characters should learn that it’s better to live in the present instead of fearing the future or waiting on Dreams, but I’ve got no idea what kind of Problem/Solution that would be.
Is this specific to my story or all stories using Avoid? The analysis for Charlotte’s Web, which has Wilbur as a change character, had a Symptom of Avoid and says that he’s focused on trying to avoid death, not that he thinks avoiding is bad.
[quote=“jhull, post:3, topic:485”]
In other words, he wouldn’t be able to say “you can do it” until the end, after he has gone through all that growth with the Influence Character. [/quote]
It’s actually the IC saying “you can do it” to MC not the other way around. Is that okay?
Many of the examples that come with the program were written over 20 years ago and are in need of updating. The specific definition of the Main Character Story Point is as I described. It is what the Main Characters thinks is their problem. In a rewrite of your Charlotte’s Web example you can imagine Wilbur focusing on how hard it is to avoid death–that would be a more accurate interpretation of it.
In answer to your second, sure that is fine.
That makes sense. Sort of related, but can my Steadfast IC be aware of his Problem?
Yes. In Steadfast characters, the ‘Problem’ is better understood as the source of the characters’ motivations than as the source of the characters’ conflicts. (NOTE: Like all things Dramatica, this is a generalization and exceptions are expected.)