I have found it to be a good way to brainstorm
2 Likes
I think youre way off base with how you’re interpreting this. It’s not saying that story structure will give you an out of body experience. It’s saying that authors have a personal connection to their work and Dramatica allows them to also view it for what it actually is. Both perspectives are equally true, equally valid. But you can only take one or the other, not both at the same time.
I’m not saying Dramatica was saying that. I’m saying the author of that article said it. Let me re-quote that for you:
The Dramatica theory of story allows an Author to step outside of himself–immediately and without the reliance of time to separate him from his work. With Dramatica, the Author observes his work from an objective point-of-view. He sees what his story looks like from a dispassionate standpoint.
Can you see it now? He almost literally writes that Dramatica gives the author an out-of-body experience of the work.
If there is only subjectivity and ambiguity, what is one deluded by or about? If personal perspective is all there is, then there is no such thing as delusion, for to be deluded about what ones personal experience is simply is ones personal experience.
What kind of an argument is that? To answer your question, what is one deluded about? One’s own perception. The story you fabricate in order to give meaning to things in life. The realisation that these are merely, synthetically manufactured concepts that do not explain reality accurately. It is the foundation of ideology.
And yet by your own admission you expect the audience to view your story absent of any objectivity, meaning you probably have little confidence that the audience will actually receive your message the way you intend.
Also, it doesn’t seem that you want to write an ambiguous story, but rather that you want to present a message to your audience that something can be perceived to be ambiguous. There is a big difference.
Correct. I’m writing how I perceive it while at the same time urging the audience to question it. The story isn’t ambiguous, but the meaning is.
Regarding ambiguity, here is my take.
Didactic stories are often not satisfying. Dramatica calls these propaganda, and they are usually missing some part of the story (a throughline or something). People say it hits you over the head and has no ambiguity.
By contrast, a complete story makes a unified argument by exploring an otherwise inexpressible inequity from multiple perspectives. These rich multiple perspectives are (I believe) what people refer to when they talk about “ambiguity” in the good sense.
This is not the same as a work in which the author is wishy-washy or refuses to take a stand.
I think that’s a good argument. This is also why I still believe Dramatica is suitable for my needs. At the very least, Dramatica helps to create the meaning from the widest possible way of looking at things from the perspective of a human mind. Even though the end result is still nothing close to the absolute truth, at the very least it makes an effort to look at it from every possible angle.
I personally think that it is important that we question that ultimate meaning at the end of the story as well. Similar to Inception, Stalker, Solaris, A Serious Man, … although those examples are very on the nose.
The whole point of having a spread of characters, with the MC on one end and the IC on the other end, and the rest of the characters identifiable by their location in the Characteristics chart is to show that nobody approaches a problem/inequity in the same way.
MC/IC are not characters. They are perspectives. The actual characters do not show that nobody approaches a problem/inequity in the same way. It illustrates all the different ways a problem/inequity can be approached. And that’s exactly my problem with it. I want to argue that by forcing this level of intellectual precision down to the character level, it’s almost as if you’re creating a mathematical model. Like fabricating a clockwork. I can’t explain this any better, but I feel that it wouldn’t be so bad to leave some room for poetry.
This is not the same as having the same characters bounce around between traits. Do we do this in real life? Sure, because we are trying to figure out in each moment which approach will be the best. Each moment is tied to a different story, for the most part.
My guess is that this is where we fundamentally disagree. To me there is no story. And if there had to be one for the sake of making my argument easier, I will argue with anyone any day over the fact that each moment is part of one, single story. Ask any psychotherapist. I dare you.
As to the consistency of character elements according to the actual characters, why bother? With the aid of the plot sequence report, you already have very precise functions your characters have to execute. As to their motivations and all that stuff, someone with some knowledge about human behaviour should be able to easily weave these things in. And in the case of making a film, there’s also going to be actors and the script will change slightly throughout production and all that good stuff.
When I’m writing characters according to the Dramatica character system, it feels as if I’m writing scripts for machines. I’m no longer thinking about real people, I’m thinking about how to make X do Y. Perhaps for most of you, that way of working works. But for me it feels fake. That’s all I’m saying.
Every atom of one’s being executes the programs running in your subconscious mind. A mere few percents constitutes your conscious awareness. And we all know how difficult it is to change habits. Everything you do in life is part of one overarching story. You choice in friends, partners, lovers, food, activities, ways of thinking, looking at the world, … literally everything is affected by your subconscious programming. That’s not to say that one has no free will and that there isn’t probably a little bit of mysterious, inexplicable randomness to it all but the point is that every moment is more likely part of one bigger story rather than multiple different ones.
Of course, the nature of the mind is such that it divides. Hence why we perceive reality as a bunch of disconnected things bumping into each other. But in truth, from the objective point of view, even science is catching up to the perceived and now measured notion that all of life is inextricably connected.
do you use the characteristics chart or do you write your OS characters by intuition?
I am currently working quite a lot with the archetypes.
Once I have my story form and a subtext treatment written, I work on my characters in more detail. Either I brainstorm them or just use Gists for the elements.
After I have done this for all characters I prep my scenes. The prep is a detailed scene outline as usual and looks like:
- Synopsis,
- Focus Theme (Signpost, Element, Issue, or whatever)
- Action/ PRCO (usually 4 short bullet points)
- and character/ elements which are played in the scene
The effort for doing the outline pays off when I am writing the scene. This way I get a very good feeling for the character. So I might learn how my Sidekick Character is Support-ing actually or I might realise the guy who lures the Protagonist is actually the Contagonist.
2 Likes
Stories are not life. The sooner you get this, the sooner you will start writing stories with meaning—which, btw, will do nothing to hinder your ability to make your stories feel like life, with all it’s weirdness and randomness.
That’s your opinion. I’m not trying to write a commercial product. I’m exploring something. Our needs are different. What applies to you, does not necessarily apply to me.
I’ve read a lot of people who have tried to make their stories just like life. They are generally interesting for a bit and then they meander and then they’re boring.
Your observation does seem correct to me as well but I think the meandering is due to the writer’s immaturity or inability to perceive with a minimum of accuracy. And by accuracy, I mean, free from personal bias to the degree it is possible.
If a writer starts meandering, I think it means that the writer doesn’t know how to perceive. And this is the complete opposite of my case. I’m a bit baffled why a lot of you seem to believe that I’m refusing to take a stand or speak up just because I used the word ambiguity. As if ambiguity is a trigger word for you. Just an observation.
To me, the only stories worthy of telling are the ones about disillusionment. The moment when you realise the story you told yourself or were told by others no longer holds you in its grip. When one is able to see the lie in what was once believed to be the truth.
I think this is very much about the author taking a stand. And this is exactly what I want to teach people. To question everything and take nothing for granted. Sure, at first it feel nice and comfortable to accept an idea, a story. It gives an individual something to hold onto. Like how we create identities for ourselves, so we can act as though we know what we’re doing. So we can be like everyone else. But when those stories comes crashing down (and this happens ALL of the time, ALL over the world) the results are devastating. These are kind of things people commit suicide over. It’s a shock to the entire system to find out what you thought your whole life to be true turns out to be a lie.
I think this is important because right now, what most people do when something like this happens, is they look for a new story. Without realising that it’s just the same story in a different form. Very few people actually manage to wake up. Most people keep repeating themselves, unknowingly.
That’s very interesting @Gernot. I am encouraged – in the past when I’ve tried to go down that road it always seems to take too long, especially if I’m trying to illustrate the relationships the way that Armando recommends. But I do often feel like it could be useful, especially when I can’t get a handle on my characters.
Also interesting that you work from archetypes. I always go for complex characters, but that probably just makes it more unwieldy.
This is a Dramatica forum. You are welcome to have any opinion you want, but there is a framework here we all strive to employ. My opinion conforms to the framework.
I am saying this because you started your question by asking “Do I have to use Character Dynamics?” which have a purpose. Ignore them and you invite meaninglessness. It’s irrelevant to me that said “ambiguity”.
Don’t be baffled. You came into the forum and said, “You all do ____. I don’t want to do ____.” and have not tried to learn from our responses. You have continued to say, in short, “I don’t want to do ____ but I want you all to think I can still achieve the same result.”
I don’t think you realize how little we get out of helping people who come here, once they demonstrate that they are not actually open to learning.
5 Likes
If everything is only subjective, then I’m not sure what good pointing back to the article does. My personal experience doesn’t match yours, so wouldnt I never be able to agree with you?
I’m still pretty sure the language is meant to be metaphorical. FWIW, I would agree that you should not expect Dramatica to allow you to step outside of your own being, only to provide a different perspective.
In order for one to be deluded, there has to be something to be deluded about, something that counters or negates your personal experience of it. Something has to have a nature that doesn’t match your experience. If subjectivity reigns supreme, then nothing can negate your subjective view of it, thus there is no such thing as delusion. It’s an argument that assumes your position to show that your position defeats itself.
A story that presents the message that it’s best to view something as ambiguous in not itself an ambiguous message or meaning. If you want ambiguity, then it’s best not to use Dramatica.
Dramatica does not make the claim that it presents one with absolute truth. In fact, it’s all about looking at various perspectives. It’s all relative. A mental relativity, if you will.
So you do think there’s a non-subjective view that one can take of a story.
You are free to do this. But it’s at the cost of losing some of the strength of the argument.
Because that’s how you keep an argument consistent.
This is one of the drawbacks of Dramatica. The fun of writing is being inside your characters heads. Dramatica forces you out of that position. Dramatica is good for structuring your story, but once you have the structure and know what needs to happen in your story, you need to find a way back into the heads of your characters that also follows that structure. Not always easy to do.
This is true…from a certain point of view. As equally true and valid is the opposite.
This is only one quarter of the picture. It also multiplies. It also views structure and dynamics. See my avatar for the quad.
The type of story you want to write is valid. I don’t think anyone here would deny that. They simply aren’t the type described by Dramatica.
Has anyone actually said this? As far as I can tell, no one has. They’ve merely said that Dramatica is about making a grand argument and ambiguity is not, that if you want to be ambiguous then you don’t need Dramatica. I don’t get the sense that anyone has been triggered, though I do get the sense that it was your intent to come here and try to trigger people.
4 Likes
Obviously, some of the language was figurative. He’s writing about something quite common, not some mystical phenomenon.
Imagine you’re writing a family drama about new immigrants and some other writers are saying, “What’s the goal of your story? Every story should have a goal.” But you can’t see one, you think it’s just a bunch of characters doing stuff. You wrack your brain and think, well maybe the goal is to make the grandfather’s birthday party a success, since there’s a bunch of focus on that. Except the grandfather dies before the last act, and they don’t have his party after all, so that can’t be it.
So then you show it to a Dramatica expert and they read it and tell you, “Oh, the Goal is Conceptualizing – figuring out how to make this family work in America”.
Now, let’s assume this was accurate, and you end up stunned silent for a second because of how well it fits. Suddenly you can see your story in this different, objective way; and you see how everything fits that Goal. And maybe you realize how a couple scenes that were giving you trouble, will work better if you connect them to the goal.
That’s just one story point, but it illustrates what the article was talking about.
2 Likes
You could write the whole story from what you answer in the Plot options and ignore the character questions/options until something interests you.
Someone changed the title of the thread. I don’t mind but I don’t think it reflects the meaning of my intent.
This is a Dramatica forum. You are welcome to have any opinion you want, but there is a framework here we all strive to employ. My opinion conforms to the framework.
Sure, that’s fair in my opinion. But is it wrong to question the model? Isn’t it prone to descend into dogmatism if we don’t?
Ignore them and you invite meaninglessness.
Do you really believe that?
I don’t think you realize how little we get out of helping people who come here, once they demonstrate that they are not actually open to learning.
I am listening though, aren’t I? But I haven’t encountered a valid counter argument as of yet. Besides the “you-have-to-accept-the-model-argument.” But is that even an argument? It pleads conformism.
Again, I want to question Dramatica. I want to question our own minds. Don’t get me wrong, I think Dramatica is as much of an absolute marvel as everyone here, I do. But I also want to question it and see where that leads us. I don’t want to destroy the model. I just wish to seek out its limitations and explore those boundaries. Can we go beyond? How would we do this?
At this point, I wish to turn your words around: are you actually open to learning? I’m challenging you to think outside of the perimeter!
In order for one to be deluded, there has to be something to be deluded about, something that counters or negates your personal experience of it. Something has to have a nature that doesn’t match your experience. If subjectivity reigns supreme, then nothing can negate your subjective view of it, thus there is no such thing as delusion. It’s an argument that assumes your position to show that your position defeats itself.
Exactly. The OS isn’t really an objective view. It is an attempt at objectivity through the eyes of the author. This alone gives me more than enough reason to question the model, because I intend to use the model in a different way.
But your conclusion does not make sense. How can you claim the non-existence of illusion just because human consciousness is unable to experience absolute objectivity? In science there is a name for this… but by God, I can’t seem to remember it. It’s like saying the sun revolves around the earth because you can’t prove otherwise. Or denying the quantum fields theory because you can’t measure it (yet?).
A story that presents the message that it’s best to view something as ambiguous in not itself an ambiguous message or meaning.
Okay, so we finally understand each other, I think?
Dramatica does not make the claim that it presents one with absolute truth. In fact, it’s all about looking at various perspectives. It’s all relative. A mental relativity, if you will.
Yes, I have to agree with that. It’s something that became clear to me after my brief correspondence with James Hull.
But still, I’d like to put the model to the challenge. Right now I feel as though if one would approach inequity based on the model and afterwards question this model itself, would be the closest thing one could get to absolute truth in the eyes of the human mind.
Clear perception for a human being is a mind that is free from bias to the extend possible and the ability to analyse a problem very deeply on an intellectual level. Only to arrive at the conclusion, knowing that one can never be sure, leading one to question the thinking process itself. That’s as close as the mind can get to absolute truth according to what I think.
The problem however, is that most folks find it very discomforting to live in that uncertainty zone. But from my experience, living from this place is the most healthy and balanced way of thinking. Why would we adopt a belief for the sake of feeling better temporarily? Once the belief comes undone, your identity falls apart anyway. Why create an identity in the first place if later on you must suffer its consequences?
So you do think there’s a non-subjective view that one can take of a story.
The very act of questioning one’s own intellectual institution is about the closest one can get to non-subjectivity, like I said above as well. But this kind of non-subjectivity is not objectivity. It is relative objectivity. Or Dramatica objectivity. Zen objectivity?
You are free to do this. But it’s at the cost of losing some of the strength of the argument.
Nothing comes free of charge! 
Because that’s how you keep an argument consistent.
Okay, this looks like an interesting argument. Do you really think the story’s argument suffers from not completely adhering to the character model? I’m talking from a practical point of view. Can viewer actually feel a distinguished difference in the meaning of the grand argument?
This is true…from a certain point of view. As equally true and valid is the opposite.
I used to agree with you. These days, I’m no longer sure. The longer I live, it seems that all the stories in my life tend to simplify. To be more precise, I see how these different stories merge with each other. The stories when looked at in separation, they seem to reflect each other, like repetitions of the same principles or different forms with the same meaning.
This is only one quarter of the picture. It also multiplies. It also views structure and dynamics. See my avatar for the quad.
Well, I suppose it depends on how you define the mind. For example, in yogic culture alone, there are at the very least 8 different, distinguished components that make up the mind. When I talk about mind here, I’m talking about the intellectual part that divides objects.
Another aspect of the mind is memory. And yes, memory makes it possible to view structures, dynamics, patterns and all that good stuff. Like a CPU needs RAM. But mind you, we haven’t even scratched the surface!
Has anyone actually said this? As far as I can tell, no one has. They’ve merely said that Dramatica is about making a grand argument and ambiguity is not, that if you want to be ambiguous then you don’t need Dramatica. I don’t get the sense that anyone has been triggered, though I do get the sense that it was your intent to come here and try to trigger people.
What would be the merit in triggering people for the sake of triggering them? We could conclude that I am indeed triggering you. But you could also say that you allow yourselves to be triggered by me.
All I can tell you, is that it is not my intent to trigger. It is my intent to stress test the model, seek out its very boundaries and explore what lies right outside of its borders.
As for anyone having said this… well, James’ article said it. Someone linked it here and most of you seem really adamant about defending it.
And someone even changed the title of the thread to make it about ambiguity. Even though it was not what the question was about.
The first responder simply brought up the ambiguity article and then this happened
I’m just willing to go along for the ride you guys took me on! Or that’s how I see it. I’m willing to learn but I won’t forfeit my critical thinking in the proces.
Perhaps it could be fair to conclude that we trigger each other and allowed ourselves to get carried away? I personally don’t mind, I find these kind of discussions intellectually stimulating. It’s part of my compulsive behaviour. It’s a work in progress. I do thank you for indulging me so far.
Obviously, some of the language was figurative. He’s writing about something quite common, not some mystical phenomenon.
I just think it shouldn’t be called objectivity. It is relative objectivity. Or maybe, Dramatica objectivity.
Now, let’s assume this was accurate, and you end up stunned silent for a second because of how well it fits. Suddenly you can see your story in this different, objective way; and you see how everything fits that Goal. And maybe you realise how a couple scenes that were giving you trouble, will work better if you connect them to the goal.
Sure, I have some (albeit very a very small) understanding of what Dramatica is but I commend you for the illustration. It’s simple yet highly effective!
I’ll use your illustration to illustrate my intentions. I want to make to audience question if the story even was about “conceptualising”. What if it was not?
Scary thought, isn’t it? Because that could imply that all of your hard, intellectual bull dozing might have been for naught.
You could write the whole story from what you answer in the Plot options and ignore the character questions/options until something interests you.
Yeah that’s exactly how I’m doing it right now. During the writing process I find myself lingering on the archetypes anyway. But sometimes the way I see real people in my mind’s eye does not completely correspond to the character dynamics. The question then becomes… who is right? Dramatica or my mind? Is there even such a thing as ‘right’?
1 Like
The character dynamics have very little to do with real people. They only describe how characters act in relation to a story’s goal. The same character could be the Skeptic in one story and the Sidekick in a sequel. (I once noticed that the Skeptic in one of my stories was actually offering piles of Support which confused me, until I realized his Support was confined to the MC throughline, while in the OS and related to the Goal he was still all Oppose & Disbelief.)
The way you would do this with Dramatica is to write knowing what the real storyform is, but hide all of your appreciations and make them seem like something else, until the end. This has been done in other ways (the IC Domain in The Prestige I think was one example, and the reveal at the end of The Sixth Sense may have been similar). I’m not sure if it’s been done with the OS Concern / Goal but it would be interesting to try!
I’m not sure what you mean about intellectual bull dozing though. The audience naturally senses (appreciates) all of the story points and assimilates them into a subconscious grasp of the story’s meaning, no bull dozing required.
It appears I fail to see how questioning the model falls outside the scope of the rules. I still adhere to the model, even though I’m wondering about leaving out the character dynamics part of the model. But Melanie herself suggested in a video it was okay to use only specific parts of the model in the case of a short story or something like that. If I were to post that video here, would that be against the rules?
I do agree it might confuse people who are still struggling with the theory, but no one forces them to read this thread.
Or Well… maybe I should just shut my trap like a good boy.
I believe pretty much everything in this thread has been in response to the above quote. You asked how vital it is to stick to character dynamics proposed by Dramatica and then stated that it is your intent to provide a story with an ambiguous meaning. The replies were that if you intend to provide a story with an ambiguous meaning, then Dramatica is not the tool for you, which also implies that it is not vital to stick to the character dynamics proposed by Dramatica for your story.
It seems I have a very different sense of this conversation than you. You asked a question, got an answer, and then you began listing ways in which you disagree with Dramatica. Disagreeing is not presenting an argument, so there’s nothing to make a counter argument about. All of the replies have pretty much been along the lines of “if you disagree with what Dramatica says, then it’s best not to use Dramatica because you fundamentally disagree with what Dramatica defines story as.” That’s not saying that you have to accept the model. It’s saying that if you don’t accept it, then don’t use it.
If you want to question it, I think you are both free and right to do so. My opinion is that the model holds up. If you have questions about the model, let’s talk about it. If you have an argument against the model, let’s talk about it. But merely stating that you disagree doesn’t leave a lot of room for discussion.
Dramatica says that a story is an analogy for a human mind. As humans, we are limited in what we can see, so we cannot ever claim to observe a true objective reality. We can never know with certainty, after all, that we are not just brains in vats. However, we can observe something from a perspective of objectivity. We can discuss what that means further, if you desire.
This is not what I was arguing. It was my impression that you were arguing something along the lines of “everything is subjective”. If that is not the case then I have misunderstood and we need follow that path no further.
In theory, yes. But In practice, even the developers of the theory, I believe, have said that below a certain level the audience tends to give the argument to the author because the resolution is so small at that point, and may even not be fully accurate-though I may be misrepresenting what was said. I’d have to look it up again. That said, it would feel strange if your skeptic was suddenly agreeing with everything, or if every time a scene changed the skeptic elements bounced to a new carrier. Not saying it couldn’t work, just that it would be a challenge to both author and audience.
Dramatica’s view is that a story is an analogy for a human mind working through a problem. So a problem could be “I want to eat chips, but I’m on a diet. I guess I shouldn’t eat them.” So that in itself could be called a “story”. I am also of the opinion that stories can last much longer, though I suggest others defer to JHull and MWolleager when my view doesn’t line up with theirs. I
1 Like
What might be helpful is for you to take some time to learn and understand the theory. I think the problem in this discussion is that it’s unclear what aspect of Dramatica you’re questioning, because you don’t have a solid enough grasp on the theory to make that clear. Which is okay – as a beginner, you shouldn’t be expected to.
But it wouldn’t make sense to log on to some quantum theory discussion board and start questioning the Schroedinger equation if you didn’t first try to understand what it was saying.
Try to get to the point where you can watch a movie and have a good guess at the storyform. Then you can check against published analyses (try not to peek first). Your best bet is to try one that was discussed at the users group (youtube videos and/or podcasts exist) or discussed on the boards (like Coco or Black Panther or Cars). Then you can see the process of analysis and some of the wrong turns taken initially, this can be very educational.
Here’s a blog post I wrote about that type of learning:
Post plenty of questions on the forums to help learn. Once you have a better grasp on what it is you’re questioning, this discussion will be a lot more fruitful.
2 Likes
@Greg, let’s leave it at that. Thank you for the discussion but I rather not get myself banned.
@mlucas, I’ve been studying the theory for nearly 6 years. Maybe it appears to you that I am a beginner because I keep questioning everything. Even when I think I know, I still question it. If you allow me to illustrate my understanding with an example:
MC - ACT I - Future
- MC lacks the wisdom to perceive how the avoidance of choice choosing jeopardises her desire for sovereignty in the future.
- MC is made aware of the fact that she is highly skilful when it comes to psychological manipulation although she avoids implementing this skill in fear of future repercussions.
- MC realises she simply lacks the experience of implementing her skill. She hasn’t really tried it yet so she doesn’t know how it would turn out. Will it benefit her goal or hinder her progress?
- MC is forced into a corner, which leads to moment of enlightenment: if she is to secure her future sovereignty she believes she must exercise her manipulation skills.
As you probably would have guessed, the thematic conflict of the throughline is delay - choice.
The goal is obtaining (control over one’s own life)
problem is oppose, solution is support.
The manipulation skills seem to be the primary fuel source of her problem of oppose. Essentially, the way I see it, if you’re manipulating other people, you’re lying to them. And if you’re lying to people, you indirectly detract from their efforts. In my mind that makes sense, but perhaps it’s a bit too much of a stretch. But this is precisely why I keep questioning myself.
So how accurate is my assessment here? Have these past 6 years been any fruitful?
@jhull, how is this? Any better?
1 Like
I think I’ve managed to set up the storyform in such a way that the MC is at one point forced to stop oppose and adopt support. Her deceitful skills end up detracting from her goal of sovereignty. But at the point she starts to practice support, the consequences of oppose strike really hard. And this shocks her out of support. She is confused and believes that her change to support caused the consequence (which is actually partially TRUE). She then refuses to take responsibility for her earlier problem of oppose.
The story continues and she reverts back to oppose and experiences no improvement in terms of obtaining her goal. So in the end she is once again confronted with the question: was it oppose or support that got me into this mess? Or was it both? Or was it neither?
And this is what I mean when I say that I’m exploring what it would be like if one were to question the model, the storyform itself. And communicate this clearly to the audience as well.
It’s like saying: “what if the way in which we experienced/perceived this story is actually no more than a fabrication?”
1 Like
Awesome! Discussion of your actual story!
Everything you’ve described fits well into the concept of a Steadfast character who “wavers” toward Changing but in the end remains Steadfast. I think @MWollaeger coined the phrase “Taste of Change” for these types of stories. The Devil Wears Prada is a good example. All of that questioning and everything is just part of being a main character with personal issues with no clear cut answer; it doesn’t mean you have to question the storyform itself.
Sorry I didn’t mean to step on toes when I assumed you were a beginner. It was only because I hadn’t seen you on the forums before.
Yeah, this doesn’t sound like Oppose to me. It’s possible her personal issues could be described another way, so that the MC Problem could fit Oppose… Like maybe she disagrees with what she’s being asked to do or tries to deny her own abilities, something like that? Anyway, what you described sounds more like Ability (but that’s just a guess at this point).
2 Likes