I’m having difficulty understanding how the SS story manifests itself if the problem is the same as the OS problem. Mainly, I find it difficult to distinguish when the MC and OC are arguing over their subjective problem and when they are involved in the OS problem as OS characters. It’s easier to draw a distinction when the problems are different, but when they are the same it almost feels like reiterating the same point.
Do you have the Dramatica Story Expert software (which contains the Gist feature)?
If you do, you can pick any matching problem for both those throughlines, and still get dozens of gists (even 100-plus gists for each) to illustrate that same problem in either throughline —with neither throughline addressing that thematic value in exactly the same way.
For example, if you choose Effects as the Problem in both the OS and SS, the Gist feature will offer you 82 different gists for that identical problem, each Gist with a different emphasis.
Similarly, if you make Temptation the Problem in both the OS and SS, the Gist feature will give you 78 different gists for that identical problem, each Gist with a different emphasis.
And so on. Also, when you’re in the StoryGuide section of either software version, you can click on the “Context” and “Story” Help buttons and see numerous examples of how the very same thematic value can be illustrated quite differently from Grand Argument Story to Grand Argument Story.
And you don’t have to have Dramatica Story Expert to have gists: As MWollaeger has explained elsewhere on this dicussion board, you can easily learn to make up your own gists to use with Dramatica Pro for the PC.
Also remember that there is a significant perspective difference between the OS and the SS. The OS is about “they,” and involves several more characters than just the MC and IC, while the RS is about “we,” and is specifically about how their conjoined perspective differs from their individual or Overall-Story perspectives.
Simply, I find the Gist, Story and Context tools to be enormously helpful in sussing out ways to illustrate practicable differences — and similarities — between the four throughlines. Even when any two of those throughlines have the same “label” on any particular line of the Story Engine.
What do you mean when you say that the problem is the same?
If you mean that they share the same element – they are both faith or inaction – then you simply distinguish them by having them be about different topics. (The elements are not topics.)
OS problem of Faith: The citizens of a country believe their government is acting in their best interest
SS problem of Faith: A father has to deal with his child’s discovery that Santa is not real.
Now if they are the same:
OS problem of Faith: The citizens of a country believe their government is acting in their best interest
SS problem of Faith: A father has to deal with his child’s belief that the government is acting in their best interest
Then, yes, I think you’ll find these are too similar. But, even so: an OS in Activity should revolve around something like “The President tries to destroy evidence of environmental destruction” and the SS should revolve around “The Father/Son relationship matures into an adult/adult relationship where they accept they have differing views” – I think you’ll find these can be quite different.
Nope, I only have Dramatica Pro.
Yeah, I mean when they are the same element. The shared problem is Potentiality: in the OS, mankind sees the Potential in a certain special group of people; the MC, one of the ordinary people, agrees, although as a change character, he also has his personal problem of Potentiality; the OC, one of the special people, has become convinced of the Certainty of the ordinary folks and sees it as the better way to solve the story problem.
Now, when Potentiality doubles as the SS Problem, I find myself having a very similar SS struggle – a problem very tightly intertwined with what’s going on in the OS. And I’m wondering if it’s too tight, and if I should come up with a clearly distinct topic for only the MC and OC to tackle. I guess I just have to brainstorm.
Before brainstorming: what is the specific relationship they have?
Right now, I’m zeroing in on two scientist in different fields with conflicting mindsets about the nature of consciousness. Guess the Domain and Concern 
I’m not asking about their Domain and Concern. I’m asking about their relationship. Are they rivals? Lovers? Mentor/Mentee?
Um, I know? Hence, “guess”.
I’m yet to flesh out what their relationship is, although I have an intuition about it being centered around consciousness and the fact that they are both scientists of sorts. The initial idea for the story began with plot, specifically how the MC and OC meet, which is a bit rare for me since usually I come up with theme before plot.
What? You told me to guess the Domain and Concern an answer to my previous question, and I’m telling you that Domain and Concern are not relevant.
Are you telling me that you don’t have any idea what relationship your two characters have?
Anyone else wanna chime in? I’d like to discuss this with anyone open to discussing it as opposed to compensating for whatever personal issue with implicitly snide comments. Thank you!
He asked you to define the relationship in everyday terms because it will help you separate out SS from OS when they’re the same element. “Potentiality” as a source of conflict looks very different if they’re lovers as opposed to rivals as opposed to every other pairing. And working through such questions might take you completely away from an SS in Mind / Conscious, which is okay if that’s what your story needs.
I would tread lightly. When you repeatedly respond to questions with obfuscations, you shouldn’t be surprised when others get incredulous.
Repeatedly respond with obfuscations? To me, “repeatedly” is more than two times. I’d be genuinely interested in hearing which of my responses have been too obscure to bare with.
I assumed “guess…” in another paragraph was a pretty obvious hint I wasn’t answering to the question there, since answering “guess” to someone’s question when looking for info would be quite counterproductive to the goal at hand.
I do understand the point of wanting the SS in everyday terms, but since the whole topic is about separating the two throughlines so that I can flesh it out in isolation, I don’t understand how it’s suddenly a surprise I don’t have the relationship set in stone. Like I said, the initial thought process behind this story was inspired with plot involving how the MC and OC meet – and some other connecting storyform points. I’m familiar enough with Dramatica to know when what I have is one storyforn even when there are missing pieces. I guess “Are you telling me that you don’t have any idea…” translates to “Why are you talking about elements when you haven’t figured out the broader strokes?” Am I correct?
I don’t know anyone else’s process of arriving at stories, but I personally don’t have to have every single answer cleanly from the top down, but for example, knowing pieces of the plot and what makes the MC tick + Resolve, I know there are broader answers buried between the dots. Maybe for some, this is unorthodox and the “correct” approach is to somehow mechanically encode your story starting form the broad strokes and work yourself down to the elements. This is not my approach. I’m highly intuitive in every area of life and that includes writing stories. When I build, sculpt, or shoot something, I tend to “know” without knowing; I grab a hold of things without knowing how they connect but still knowing they connect.
Some of the contributors here have to break things down linearly. It’s the way its done in the video analysis that occurs every month and so I think they’ve been accustomed to it. So they ask questions in that manner (top-down) to better understand how to help you.
But I believe your instinct is correct. You will have to brainstorm an entirely different topic for the SS but one which has the same problematic nature of Potentiality. Such as the potential for them romantically or the potential one has academically or metaphysically (since one is “special” I imagined super powers or something).
1 Like
Hey @VIlle, I was genuinely trying to help you and wasn’t being snide in any way. I was trying to coax any detail out of you. From my end, I’m asking about the relationship two people have, and you are coming back to me using dry Dramatica terms – “mindset” “Domain” “Concern.” I’m trying to get you away from that with anything, and you gave no indication that you had a hunch or feeling you could share.
The fact that I was asking about their relationship, I thought, would have been an indication that I wasn’t asking about elements in any way. So, no, your interpretation was not correct.
I’m not even going top down. You could have simply shared how they met and said their relationship grew out of that.
Despite what @Dan310 said about being accustomed to breaking things down linearly, and going top down, he’s making a mistake thinking that analysis and creation are the same thing. He’s also forgetting that I taught a class last year exclusively to Dramatica users about how to find characters and relationships intuitively, away from the software and the theory.