i think it’s because it’s not about the characteristics of the mc, it’s about internal vs. external. The issues the MC is dealing with are either internal or external so it’s like asking why can’t we change the law of gravity.
but like i said, i am not an expert and there are people on here much smarter than i to answer your question. I think i just like to hear myself talk. I have Be-er problems to fry.
Haha, I get you. And I do appreciate your input.
I am hoping someone more versed in the theory (than I am) will be able to explain this to me in a way that I can understand.
The idea that a Do-er can’t have an issue and problem under Psychology or Mind just confuses me. Why wouldn’t a Do-er be able to have problems in those arenas? Sure he “prefers” to solve his problems externally… but what a great source of conflict it would be for him to “have to” abandon his preferred method and look inward instead of outward.
If I’m misunderstanding something, I’d really like to know the proper way to understand it so that I don’t feel like something is unnecessarily being withheld from me (if I want to write a GAS, which I do).
You often see this in storyforms with Do-er/Decision or Be-er/Action. That’s often where the discomfort/fish out of water stems from. A character completely out of their depth.
I think the reason you can’t separate the do-er/be-er from those domains is that they represent the external and internal so specifically. You can write one or the other, but not both. Do-er is changing the environment and Be-er is changing oneself. You couldn’t have a Be-er Activity character because, by their nature, Activity characters cannot sit back and not take action.
You answered your own question, Rod! If a character changes, more often than not, they tend to shift from their preferred method to the method of the other character.
Say, we have a Main Character that’s a drag racer (Activity/Doing). His problem is that he has a negative (Effect) whenever he goes out and races. People die, he causes all kinds of carnage, etc. Until he sees himself as the (Cause), there will continue to be problems.
That change will inherently take him from Do-er to Be-er. He has to shift from taking action to considering what he has caused. If, early in this story, there is a scene where the families of the deceased campaign to outlaw drag racing, it would not make sense to have our MC start considering and deliberating on that protest. Sure, that will happen in the story later on, but it’s far too soon to have him change. In that moment, the MC would have to take external action somehow to try and change those minds, rather than internalize it all. But later on, the change would show him stepping away from trying to change his environment and demonstrate him attempting to cope internally with what he’s caused (A real downer ending, I must say).
I hope this has somewhat cleared it up. This is my theory on why they stick to Do-er/Be-er. But the change thing is something I’m 100% certain of.
1 Like
I think Jamie’s right. It’s all about perspective. The MC Throughline domain has to do with how the MC’s problems appear, how the MC sees his or her problems, not necessarily what the problems actually are. An MC who is a Do-er has to be in Situation or Activity because they tend to see their problems as external problems, which is why they prefer to solve problems that way. If they tended to see problems as internal problems (i.e. a Be-er) then they couldn’t have their domain as Situation or Activity, because their issues would not be seen by them as external issues.
This quote from Jim’s (@jhull’s) recent Zootopia analysis is related to this (and also backs up Jamie’s stuff about Change):
…
Main Character Resolve. Hopps grows out of herResolve, moving her from the Domain ofActivityinto the Domain ofWay of Thinking. Instead of seeing her problems as being restricted from doing certain activities, she now sees them more accurately as a deficient way of thinking. This is precisely what happens when a Main CharacterChangestheir Resolve. They move from the Domain they thought the problem was in to a the Domain sheltering the Influence Character’s point-of-view.
Ohhh, now I understand…
Thanks a million, @jamjam1794 Jamie and @mlucas Mike. Your comments have helped immensely.
I get so deep into my story, I sometimes forget that the MC Throughline is how HE sees himself and his problems. So a Do-er CAN have a psychological problem.
Does this mean that when I want a Do-er with (objectively) a psychological problem (in a Change story), I need to look at the variations under the IC throughline to discover his “real” issue, and then one level down to learn his “real” problem?
This does bring up another question, though. If a MC’s problem lies in the IC throughline… what does that say about the MC Symptom and Response? I always thought the MC Symptom is what the MC sees as his problem.
Also, how would all this work for a Steadfast MC?
It’s not necessarily that the MC’s problem is in the IC’s throughline. In fact, they only switch Domains as far as I’m aware. The MC Symptom and Response is what the MC THINKS is the problem/solution, whereas the problem is the MC Problem. All that happens in an MC Change is that by the final act, they have embraced the MC Solution and adopted the IC Domain in some regard – for better or worse.
For a change Main Character, the IC Domain is like an endpoint. A homeless MC (Situation) will end up believing that things will turn around after meeting a friendly stranger (Fixed Attitude). A cocky boxer (Activity) that ends up being driven mad by a deranged fan (Manipulation).
I think it’s basically the same, but reversed. IC adopts the MC Domain. Steadfast MCs aren’t my strongest point of knowledge, I’m afraid. I’m sure someone more experienced will be able to answer that question.
Thanks, Jamie, for your additional comments. I think I understand now. In a Physics MC, his problem is his blind spot, perhaps because he sees his problem as a physical one (which he misidentifies as an external Symptom) when it’s actually a psychological one… so the MC problem element is the right problem, but the MC has to adopt the IC’s Domain and look at the MC problem through THAT lens, rather than the physical one.
All this, in a Change story, by the way.
I think that’s it. I’m sure someone will clarify if I got something wrong, but I think it is all about a shifting perspective – one is better than the other for this specific problem.
Awesome discussion Rod. One other thing I wanted to mention is that a Change MC might actually have been better off not Changing, in terms of resolving their personal problems. i.e. in a Judgement: Bad story, with a Change Do-er MC, their original mode of seeing their problems as being external activities or situation, was actually better for them personally.
What’s really interesting is thinking about Outcome: Success for a Judgement: Bad & Resolve: Change story. It’s like it’s saying, “poor MC you needed to change your perspective in order to help solve everyone’s overall problems, but geez, that change in perspective really didn’t turn out so great for you …”
As a side comment, I think this is where some stories fall flat – when they fail to show that both the overall outcome and the MC’s personal problems depended on their moment-of-truth choice (to Change or remain Steadfast). You end up feeling “it was too easy to win” or “it was totally hopeless, what was the point” if the choice didn’t appear to affect both Outcome and Judgement.
Mike, it’s interesting you should bring up (in your “side comment”) the notion of the MC moment of truth affecting the OS and MC throughlines.
For my story about a scientist with a brilliant discovery, which you and I have discussed before, I worked for a LONG time to get the right storyform. And what I ended up with was a moment of truth for my MC that resolves THREE througlines in the very same moment: the MC, OS, and SS throughlines. That’s why my story ends the moment my MC makes that final, leap of faith Decision.
It’s a change story, so the IC gets to look on with pride as the MC finally takes his advice… so it is really a nice way to wrap up the story. No denouement. Simply Cut to Black, roll credits.
If you look at the original “Table of Scenes” graphic I posted in that thread, you’ll see that the solutions for the MC, OS, and SS throughlines are all Control. This enabled me to line the action up so Jack’s (my MC) final decision solves the problem by virtue of Jack assuming complete control of his discovery in an irreversible way.
I do apologize again for always being so vague about my story… I just worry about putting my ideas on the internet, especially on an open forum where anyone could come along and “borrow” my idea. I really think I’ve got a blockbuster on my hands, so I’m just extremely careful.
I wouldn’t mind discussing my story in more detail in private correspondence, however, so long as there is the assurance that such discussions (and ideas) will remain private. I’ve actually been dying to discuss my story with someone, with respect to Dramatica, but none of my real-world friends use Dramatica and they’re totally unfamiliar with it.
Edit: Just to be clear, I don’t think any of the regulars here would steal someone else’s ideas. I just mean that since this forum is public, some unscrupulous non-member could come along and think, “Wow, what a fantastic idea,” and then run with it before the originator of the idea can get out of the gate.
You’re losing sight of your original insight here: the storylines are about perspective.
Let’s take a smaller example: Ability/Desire
Fact: I want to do something I cannot.
Okay, so… where is my problem?
Maybe I can get better – improve my ability. Ah, so that was my problem. Not enough ability.
Or, maybe, I can want it less – decrease my desire. So that was my problem. Wanting too much.
It was a trick question. You can’t tell from my fact where my problem lies. So you can’t tell by saying something like, “Man, he really has problems with his father,” if the problem is “He hates his father” (Fixed Attitude) or “His father is forcing him into a job he doesn’t like,” (Situation) or “His father has undermined his confidence” (Manipulation) or “His father takes him on a humiliating adventure every year.” (Activity or Manipulation, depending.)
Storyforms are a web of interconnected issues. You can conveniently look at individual story points, but that that doesn’t disconnect them from the system they are in.
Look at your Situation/Activity people the other direction. If you are in a situation you don’t like (you lost a leg) and you try to solve it through be-ing then you’ve actually cast the problem – not as an issue with missing a leg – but as an issue of not liking that you are missing a leg. Either way, you still can’t get up the stairs the same as you used to, but your approach to that problem will be different: learn a new method, or accept the change – one is do-ing, one is be-ing.
Does that help?
2 Likes
Yeah, I suppose my misunderstanding goes back to my original question.
Say I have a Do-er MC, but I want his “real” problem to be a psychological one… How do I arrange all the aspects of story to get that across to the audience, since (in a GAS) his personal throughline can’t be in Psychology if he’s a Do-er.
Certainly Do-ers can have psychological problems as their personal problem… so how do I dial that in to Dramatica?
I think you’re overthinking this one. You make him a do-er and you have all of his attempts to solve his problem not work very well. That will give the audience a clue he’s looking in the wrong places. Then, give him a girlfriend who says, “I don’t think you’re going about this the right way.” You give him an IC to learn from, so at the end, when he finally tries to solve his problem internally, it’s not out of the blue.
Also, in this case, you have to have it be a Change/Success story.
Of course, none of this precludes him from trying out be-ing solutions that don’t work along the way. Likewise, none of his failures should give it away that he will never solve his problem externally.
I appreciate your input @MWollaeger Mike. That does help. What I’m wondering, specifically… The Psychology domain has specific issues within it. With respect to the Dramatica software in particular, how would one give his doer an issue of State of Being, for example… with a problem underneath that issue, such as Inertia?
Would it simply be a matter of mapping State of Being to the most similar Issue under Physics? and how would one ensure that the right choice is made so that the story actually explores what the author wants to explore? Or would such an exploration simply require that the story not be a GAS, but instead a tale?
I’m truly not trying to be obstinate. My mind just keeps asking me “If Do-er/Be-er is truly just a preference, why can’t a Do-er have a problem in Psychology?” If there’s a way to map everything to it’s proper location within the model, so that such a thing can be explored within a GAS, I just hope to find some guidance. 
The software is going to prohibit you from doing this directly. So, if you want to, it’s not going to be a GAS… except that I strongly suspect you are going to find that your character is not really acting like a do-er if you take this route. You’ll end up writing a be-er most likely, possibly not even being aware that you are doing it. (I once made a very concerted effort to write a character in Fixed Attitude, but the end result was that I wrote him in Situation and all the other appreciations changed as well.)
But, enough about generalizations. How is your character definitely a do-er? How is he trying to deal with State of Being?
My questions here aren’t really related to a story I’m working with. I was just toying with ideas the other night, playing around in the software, and it dawned on me that I couldn’t have a do-er with Mind or Psychology problems.
I’m thinking (and please correct me if I’m off-base) that the answer could be in which parts of the story an author chooses to emphasize and which parts he chooses to make more obscure. If I want a Do-er with a psychology problem, couldn’t I just make him a Be-er/Psychology MC in the software… and then in the storytelling, downplay a lot of the Be-er stuff, and emphasize all the Do-er stuff?
I know the truth of the matter is not as simple as this, but as I mentioned earlier, it almost seems that Dramatica is suggesting that Do-ers are immune from psychological problems, as the only way to have it that way is to throw something off kilter in the model and end up with an incomplete GAS (a tale).
I suppose all this, all my questions and pondering, is an effort to understand the theory as deeply as possible. I’m the type of person who likes to make informed choices… If I make a choice in the software and that choice causes other changes elsewhere in the Story Model, I want to be able to understand why that additional choice was made.
I’m completely in love with Dramatica, and as such, I just want to know it, backwards and forwards.
A Do-er/Situation has panic attacks any time someone mentions his upcoming marriage (The Future) to Sweatlana (the sadistic Swedish trainer), so he tries to be open (Openness) to the Stoic Philosophy of controlling your thoughts to control your emotions (Faith).
Panic attacks, Openness, Faith… hopefully these are internal enough to demonstrate that Do-ers can have psychological problems.
I think I heard way back when with dram 1.6 that certain decisions were made for the software program, using the most common choices. It was a practical compromise. Anything goes in making a riveting story.
If you want to have a Do-er MC in a Throughline of Mind or Psychology then you don’t have a Do-er MC.
And its not as if Dramatica is preventing you from writing a character like this, it’s telling you that if you want to explore a Main Character who struggles with a Fixed Attitude or a Way of Thinking, then their Approach would be to solve internally first (Be-er).
Stories are completely made up things. They aren’t about real people. They are analogies for how we solve problems in our own minds. This idea that you should write a “3-dimensional” character that is a living breathing human in every sense of the word is probably detrimental to actually writing a good story.
The Do-er Approach is not something that comes before the choice of Throughline; it happens as a result of the Throughlines. They are interconnected and are two of ways of seeing the same thing.
It’s all about problem-solving, right? People who have problems of a Fixed Attitude or Way of Thinking look for the solution there first BECAUSE once you identify the problem you automatically identify the solution as well. Problems don’t exist without solutions.
1 Like
you should read this article by Jim Hull http://narrativefirst.com/articles/when-backstory-is-not-backstory
When you get down about half way to the section titled The Meaningful Character Arc there is a great section on Batman (who is a very Do-er kind of character) from Batman Begins who moves from Be-er to Do-er and then in The Dark Knight he moves from Do-er to Be-er. it’s a good read and in my mind answers this question.