Can the OS Plot turn (Act Driver) occur in the middle of the MC journey?
I’ve found mixed ideas for this on this forum, and some old posts but I’ve noticed with Subtext that some of the theory is being refined.
I do notice that on Subtext the end of the act is the Driver. There was/is a possibility of shifting the Driver to occur before other items in an act, though it locked up the act and caused a loop in the app.
Final answer?
I think the “rule” has always been that all four throughline Signposts have to occur before middle act turn drivers – though it might be different with the first and last drivers (e.g. I think the OS can wind up with the final driver, and then have other throughlines wrap up after that).
You did mention this though:
which sounds like you’re mixing in the Journey concept. I could be wrong, but haven’t seen many people talking about Journeys on these forums at all – I think because it just confuses things and it works just as well (and is more intuitive for most writers) to use only Signposts.
However, if would be interesting to hear from anyone who plots with Journeys (7 act structure).
Well, in my case when I refer to Journey, I mean the set of scenes between signposts that include the
three or four scenes assigned by /represented in the PSR. It’s what it looks like to me on the Progression chart window in Dramatica.
So MC Signposts:
Signpost 1: MEMORY
Signpost 2: SUBCONSCIOUS (value-confidence-worry-worth)
Signpost 3: CONSCIOUS
Signpost 4: PRECONSCIOUS
OS Signposts:
Signpost 1: UNDERSTANDING
Signpost 2: DOING
–Midpoint act–The Arrests
Signpost 3: OBTAINING
Signpost 4: LEARNING
In my story, the Midpoint act driver is the unjust ARREST of someone. It’s life-changing for the MC/Pro, spins her in a completely new direction of Obtaining (as the protagonist) and of Awareness (as the MC).
I initially was thinking, the confidence/worry bit mid-SP2 leads to worth most naturally as a response to the Midpoint Act Driver. This might mean that I need another BIGGER Act Turn and to turn what I was considering the driver into an event in the MC throughline.
Perhaps she can WORRY about the ARREST, predict it, (maybe even warn them to try to stop it-Doing as the Protagonist) and then have her deal with her “worry to worth” before the ARREST comes about as an actuality as the Act Turn. The Arrest then can affect more people when it becomes a reality.
This way the Act Turn is not the shock of the ARREST as much as the conscious efforts she makes because it happens/has happened, warping into Obtaining. The Warning ends the Doing cycle and the Arrest starts the Obtaining cycle.
I think this is one of the cases where passion matters. Theoretically, I think your initial thoughts would work structurally, so long as no Signpost #3 scenes from any of the throughlines happen before you finish out all Signpost #2 scenes.
That said: Whoa, this sounds amazingly powerful, deep, and strong. Thus, structurally, this is probably an excellent interpretation of the theory. To paraphrase Melanie (a co-creator of Dramatica), though, when it’s battles between passion and structure, passion wins.
An aside: Melanie mentioned in an interview at some point that Dramatica doesn’t make writing easier, but harder. What I think she meant by that is that the theory is designed to help find weak or missing scenes in the story and provide thematic ideas about how to correct them. However, it won’t say “Do this thing here”, but instead, it will say, “Think of something along these lines; that’s the kind of scene that will improve this,” or “It might be better to put this there, based on what you’re trying to say.”
Another side note: Generally, when referring to Journeys in Dramatica, the expected reference is to that area between the Signposts, which you can see when you pull up the Plot Progression window. In the Windows version, that’s the window with the four by seven grid. A Journey follows from the space between Signpost #1 and Signpost #2, and is more experiential than structural.
The Plot Sequence Report, when viewed structurally, breaks each Signpost down into four miniature, “thematic signposts”. It’s not necessarily a set of scenes that happens between the larger Signposts, though it may turn out that way when you write. So, using the term Journey with them can be confusing.
What you’re describing is a bug where sometimes the user could drag a Storybeat within an Act after the Story Driver. This is inconsistent with the theory (thus, bug) and has already been fixed.
Technically, the Story Driver is not equivalent to a Storybeat. Storybeats (Signposts, Sequences within a Signpost) are Static Appreciations (they describe themselves) while Story Drivers are a Dynamic Appreciation (they describe the relationship between Storybeats).
I put them in there because, practically speaking, developing the framework, or template, of a story benefits from locking down what most people refer to as Major Plot Points. These would be:
The interior Plot Points are anchored at the end of each Act because they signify a shift in context. Once you hit that Story Driver, you’re shifting context from the previous Signpost to the current one because you’re bringing to the Storymind an appreciation of a dynamic.
You can’t go back.
And you can’t revisit a previous point of consideration because the Mind has moved on.
The exterior Plot Points (Inciting and Concluding) float because they don’t describe a relationship between a previous signpost (Inciting) or a next signpost (Concluding).
The Story Drivers specifically refer to the relationship between Storybeats in the Overall Story. Theoretically, everything happens all at once. Because we’re dealing with a step by step analogy to this process within a novel or a play or a film, the Throughlines can start and end at different times.
Thanks for fixing this. It makes it easier to understand, and to see now that I need to change the story to fit the requirements before moving on to the Driver.
I understand that the PRCO pattern matches the sequences within a scene, meaning the tension happens in the middle (resistence/current) and outcome is the end of the sequence. If this is correct, in the case of an act driver, it would be after all signposts are in the state of Outcome, or release of tension somehow.
Do I understand this correctly? It starts a new inequity just when we thought it was safe to go into the water.
Think of it more like setting the chemistry between Storybeats.
Say for instance the last Storybeat of Signpost One is Conditioning while Being. And the first Storybeat of Signpost Two is Work while Doing. If the Story Driver is Action, then there will be an Action of Conditioning that forces a decision of Work. If the Story Driver is Decision, then there will be a Decision of Conditioning that leads to an action or actions of Work.
Why isn’t this explicitly stated this way?
The Driver is chemistry, and describes a dynamic—which means it could be as explicit as defined above, or it could be a general sense that Actions of Understanding force decisions of Doing and those Actions of Doing force decisions of Obtaining.
That chemistry exists throughout the Storymind and affects the dynamic relationships between all Storybeats. Some writers want a more definite walled-in approach whereas others would rather go with the flow. Subtext sits somewhere in-between.
Speaking of which, Journeys and Signposts don’t work well together within the same context. By trying to use both at the sane time, you’re literally mixing metaphors.
Subtext focuses on Signposts because that has been where I’ve found the greatest payoff in terms of creating meaningful stories. Practically speaking, they just work better in terms of laying out structure as they are very spatial in nature.
Just for clarification for myself, building this order of beats requires considering the whole of the story. That is to say, in this example you are allowing the possibility that an OS beat flows into an MC beat, or similar, correct?
I’m not sure if this fits exactly with what Jim is saying, but it has definitely helped me with my own stories when using Subtext and the PSR…
Each Story Driver / Act Turn isn’t necessarily a single quick event, but can be something like a chain of actions (say, a battle) or a drawn-out decision. And whether it is quick or drawn out, you may find that the last PSR item from the preceding signpost, or the first PSR item from the following signpost, fits really well with the driver scene(s). As though they are the same beat – and this can happen with multiple throughlines.
So I no longer think of the driver as a line in the sand, but more like a section of the story, which can be wide or narrow.
@jhull Jim, can you comment on the connection between PRCO and the PSR sequences in light of this? Re:
What you explained was exactly what I meant.
I just wanted to add something here. In my current WIP, I’ve been having a lot of trouble with exposition – too much, too little, where to put it, how to reveal it?
I finally realized that I needed to re-outline with two beat sheets.
The first is the timeline order of events. This is what I’m putting into Subtext, and at this point it includes a lot of additional beats that won’t be scenes, but will be revealed elsewhere in the narrative–as flashback or even just a snippet of dialogue.
The other is going to be storytelling order. This order is quite mixed up – the story actually opens in the middle of the first plot point (second driver), with flashbacks of Signpost 1 (all throughlines).
Then, in the “storytelling” second act, a handoff IC is introduced. I was having a lot of trouble with this character until I realized that the issues he is bringing to the table are actually from events that happen during his Signpost 1, which, even though they take palace before the second story driver, are revealed at the beginning of Act 2 as part of his introduction.
I think this is all legit structurally, because if you mapped out the chronology, everything would happen in the right places of the timeline.
As I’m writing this it all sounds much more confusing than it is. However, it suggests that it might be useful to separate structural Signpost structure from storytelling “Act” structure.
In other words:
The Dramatica Storyform looks at chronological order of events. Storytelling lets you mix those up.
And you’re implementing that. Is that about right?
Yes. To put it simply. 
Maybe I’m just stating the obvious.
Not completely - and the way you explained it will likely be helpful to others.
It may seem obvious AFTER you grasp it – but I remember trying to figure this out and it was NOT obvious at all. I struggled with it even when things were spelled out clearly, re-read posts and Jim’s article about Memento, until finally getting it. Until you’re willing to shift your thinking, it’s such a radical idea!
So I agree with Jim, it’s great you posted that, because it will surely benefit someone. Plus, beyond the theory, it’s nice to hear about other writers’ methods of doing things.
Yeah, it’s taken me all this time for it to become clear(ish) (in practice–in my own work).
Ironically, this was one of the major structural tricks that appealed to me about Dramatica when I first discovered it. I had read a bunch of other books on story structure and the only one I can think of that addresses the difference between chronological structure and storytelling structure even a little bit is John Truby (and he is not that clear).
It’s not a small oversight. We always talk about Memento because it’s such an extreme example, but I think having control of storytelling time and the order of how you reveal information to the audience is kind of a basic skill for moderately sophisticated storytelling these days.
Actually, I feel the same. I knew it logically, but I hadn’t put it into practice until recently. There’s a whole world of difference between knowing something and actually using it (in my mind, anyway.)
When I read this [quote=“Lakis, post:12, topic:2502”]
the story actually opens in the middle of the first plot point (second driver), with flashbacks of Signpost 1 (all throughlines).
[/quote]
it made me think, he’s writing a mystery…
This reminds me of chapter 22 of Armando’s Dramatica for Screenwriters.
Mystery: A dramatic effect where the characters are aware of something the audience doesn’t know. —Achieving Mystery By Hiding The Plot Progression Of A Whole Throughline
Irony: A dramatic effect where the audience is aware of something the characters don’t know. —Achieving Irony By Changing The Order Of The Story’s Drivers
Suspense: A dramatic effect where both the audience and the characters are unaware of what’s really going on.—Achieving Suspense By Hiding The Static Story Points of A Whole Throughline
Definitely…well, it’s not technically a mystery, but I am trying to combine mystery and suspense, especially in the first Act, and yes, I was thinking of the chapter by Armando!
In my case, the plot progression that’s initially hidden slowly revealed is all four throughlines (which, come to think of it, might be why it’s felt a bit unwieldy…),
I’ve read his example on achieving Dramatic Irony by changing the order of the story drivers a bunch of times and I’m still not sure I get it though (I understand what Dramatic Irony is, just not exactly what he’s doing with the Drivers in that example). Someone remind me the next time he’s active here and I’ll ask him!