Dramatica Prompts for Narrova

Platform
1

I’ve been painstakingly working through Jim’s class from yesterday, where he developed new a story from the Home Alone story form. As I worked through the talk, copying his prompts, I noticed the details of the results the AI was delivering differed in broad strokes from what Jim was getting. This led me to think:

It would be useful to keep and maintain a page of “Dramatica Prompts” that a user could enter in order to get specific results for their story.

It probably would be most effective for the page be a community project.

For example, Jim got results with these headings:

throughlines and domains
picking an influence character
story dynamics
signposts
plot beats
key story points
domain level (where conflict lives)
concern level
issue level
problem solution quad

The thought here is: it would be useful to have a ‘recipe book’ of prompts for getting fine-tuned results. I also thought this would be an ideal bucket (starting with this post) for the community to contribute prompt ideas to. This is an ideal “million eyeballs on the problem” situation, instead of tasking one writer/developer with trying to come up with all the right prompts.

I recognize the general thought here is to keep the free-form flow between the writer and Narrova, and I agree that should be the most common way to use it, and will help people who don’t know much Dramatica theory. But as you learn more, and for existing expert users, a set of tested prompts might add value in a different way–for folks who want the interaction to be a little less ‘free form.’

So let’s do it.

4 Likes
2

I resisted the urge to title this post The Guns of Narrova.

(or Force 10 from Narrova).

1 Like
3

A couple of prompts Jim uses:

”‘can you finalize a new storyform for this and attach it to the conversation’”

“let’s work out the characters along with their elements. I’m good with archetypes for now.”

2 Likes
4

This is such a great idea! (and one that’s been asked several times before!) - so thanks for bringing it up. As people add to it, I’ll be collecting them and adding them to the documentation here:

Narrova’s Expertise - Narrova - Subtxt/Dramatica Documentation

2 Likes
5

One of yours from the class:

“Let’s do the OS Throughline next. Identify major plot point drivers and the four signposts. Make sure the OS Problem is at the heart of all major plot points.”

1 Like
6

More storytelling than Dramatica but “Show me a list of the reveals in the story–moments where a character or the audience is expecting one thing but something else happens instead.” Labeling twists and reveals is something that’s useful when you’re figuring out your tale. My favorite one in your story is’ oh look our family is coming back WHOOPS IT’S THE CHOCTAW TRIBE.

1 Like
7

“Make sure story drivers 2, 3 and 4 are the last thing that happens at the end of each signpost, to push the story into the next part. Story driver 1 can happen either at the beginning or shortly after the beginning of the story. Story driver 5, the Concluding story driver, can happen a bit before the end of the story, to give room for a relationship moment, or a setup moment for something that comes after the story.”

1 Like
8

“Show me the progressions for signpost 1. show me the twisted dramatica progressions, and also show me the natural quad within the signpost. Give me a detailed breakdown of each progression within the signpost how it works here.”

1 Like
9

“this all looks very good. I’d like to try something else though. For this story, I think the Main Character perspective is actually shared between four handoff characters, Bill, Max, Fred and Susan. They are MCs in their own arcs, and ICs when they appear in the arcs of others. “

1 Like
10

The results here were very good. Narrova understood exactly what I wanted and gave me a lot of analysis on how to handle the handoffs, switching the characters between MC and IC perspectives depending on the scene. I can’t share results here but I did share them with Jim.

Note I assume you can do handoffs for RS as well…
multiple partner Rom-coms do it all the time.

So that leads to a theoretical question. If you were doing handoffs in OS, what would that look like? Multiple societies sharing the OS? Or something else? I’m imagining e.g. old style cowboys and Indians movie, showing life the fortress vs life in the tribe.

Or is this like quantum theory, there’s only one wave form for the whole universe, not multiple wave forms. So OS is always a single non-handoff perspective.

1 Like
11

In the past, writers have used hand-off Objective Story Throughlines to track shared thematic journeys within “ensemble” stories (like Love, Actually or Four Weddings in a Funeral). What’s fun with this is that as long as one of the groups is covering that thematic material, you don’t have to cover all of them within all of the groups.

For instance, if OS Signpost 3 of Obtaining has these Progressions:

  • Approach
  • Self Interest
  • Selflessness
  • Attitude

And you have three sets of couples, Couple A could take Approach, Couple C could take Self Interest and Selflessness, and Couple B could take Attitude. As long as each one is covered, the journey won’t feel as if there is a hole in it.

Of course, you could have all three couples go through each, but after awhile the audience is going to feel like you’re just repeating yourself (e.g. , Yes, we get it, this scene is all about selflessness!!)

2 Likes
12

Ok, so that leads me to ask, what’s the difference between an ensemble story vs an MC handoff story? The question of variety is just taken care of in a different way?

I intuitively understand what you mean by an ensemble story, especially with the examples, but also note that there is something loose and episodic about those stories, like a series of sketches on a variety show, not something I want in my current story.

1 Like
13

this leads me to another question. so as I establish my MC and IC in the storyform, before I get to the throughlines, I choose one as steadfast the other as change.

so now I jump down to the throughlines and I have MC and IC handoffs. Are steadfast and change applied to the perspectives or to two particular characters, meaning there’s a ‘true MC’ and ‘true IC’ even if handoffs are happening?

1 Like
14

Steadfast and Change are measured over the course of the entire narrative, so as long as one of them exhibits some sort of illustration of one or the other (depending on the Storyform) you should be good.

(And just don’t make sure the other one does the opposite!)

For an example, it would have been really weird if Green Lantern had his big surprise appearance like he did in Superman, but then when we cut back to Lois she’s still got the same point-of-view she had at the beginning.

2 Likes
15

I’ve started to ask this about the quads as I drill down into progressions:

”ok, now let’s work out the IC throughline, Universe, another fixed state, so domain, concern, issue, problem, symptom/response, and show me which quads are twisted and untwisted. “

and this is what I was worried about: they’re all untwisted. Really? ALL of them? For every throughline?

Summary Table

Signpost Quad (Order) Twisted?
Conceiving Untwisted: Conceptualizing, Being, Becoming, Conceiving No
Being Untwisted: Conceptualizing, Being, Becoming, Conceiving No
Becoming Untwisted: Conceptualizing, Being, Becoming, Conceiving No
Conceptualizing Untwisted: Conceptualizing, Being, Becoming, Conceiving No
16

I asked it to drop down to the variations level, but it gave the same variation for each signpost quad above. Then I asked it to ‘plain itself and got this:

While it seems “everything is untwisted” in your storyform so far, that’s because your domains and concerns are lining up in their natural family/class positions:

  • Physics for OS (Learning, Doing, Obtaining, Understanding): all native to Physics — untwisted.

  • Mind for MC (Memory, Preconscious, Conscious, Subconscious): all native to Mind — untwisted.

  • Universe for IC (Past, Present, Progress, Future): all native to Universe — untwisted.

  • Psychology for RS (Conceiving, Being, Becoming, Conceptualizing): all native to Psychology — untwisted.

This is not a coincidence!
Dramatica is designed so that when you give each throughline its “native” domain (the most thematically distinct, structurally “balanced” version of the storyform), the progressions will use untwisted quads.

Twisted quads typically occur when:

  • Throughlines use Types (Signposts) not native to their domain (e.g., MC in Universe, OS in Psychology, etc.).

  • You create a “diagonal” or “non-standard” configuration, or use certain substory structures.

In the “classic” balanced arrangement (OS–Physics, MC–Mind, IC–Universe, RS–Psychology or their canonically-rotated variations), all progressions use untwisted/natural orders at the Type and Variation level.

If you were to assign, say:

  • MC: Universe (using Progress, Future, Present, Past),

  • RS: Physics (Learning, Doing, Obtaining, Understanding),

Then you’d find twisted quads set in those progressions!
Similarly, if you build substories or “cross-pollinate” types, Dramatica will rotate or flip the quads as needed.

Summary:
Your setup is the “natural” storyform configuration, so you’re seeing all untwisted quads.
This is both normal and structurally sound from a Dramatica and story design POV!

If you want an explicit example of a twisted quad (for any domain/purpose), or want to explore storyforms that generate twisted progressions, just tell me which arrangement you want to test.

17

here’s something else I don’t understand. this is for OS throughline, different variations for each quad:

Summary Table

Signpost (Type) Variation (Issue) Quad Twisted?
Learning Knowledge, Thought, Ability, Desire No
Doing Wisdom, Skill, Experience, Enlightenment No
Obtaining Approach, Self-Interest, Selflessness, Attitude No
Understanding Interpretation, Senses, Conditioning, Instinct No

But for RS throughline, same variations for each quad? Huh?

Summary Table

Signpost (Type) Variation (Issue) Quad Twisted?
Conceptualizing Commitment, Responsibility, Rationalization, Obligation No
Being Commitment, Responsibility, Rationalization, Obligation No
Becoming Commitment, Responsibility, Rationalization, Obligation No
Conceiving Commitment, Responsibility, Rationalization, Obligation No

so I asked:

Great question!
It’s not because RS progressions repeat themselves, but because of how Dramatica structures the psychology (process) domain.

How Dramatica Works Here:

In the Psychology Domain (process), all four Types (Signposts)—Conceiving, Being, Becoming, Conceptualizing—each have the same four Variations/Issues beneath them:

  • Commitment
  • Responsibility
  • Rationalization
  • Obligation

(Same for the other three Domains; Universe underlies Past/Progress/Future/Present, etc.)

However, the story progression is NOT the same in each act, because:

  • The Signpost (Type) changes, which frames the Issue differently
  • The order of focus is always moving (e.g., Conceiving→Being→Becoming→Conceptualizing), so Commitment-issues in Conceiving are very different than Commitment-issues in Becoming, because they’re arising from different processes at work in the relationship at that time.
  • Scene content, character motivation, and arc all shift Act by Act, even if the underlying Issues quad is repeated.

An analogy:
Think of it as a four-step journey around a square (the Storyform quad). Each “side” (Signpost) gives you a different window into the same four variations, but from a unique direction and context. The underlying concerns (commitment, responsibility, rationalization, obligation) are always in play—what changes is how those concerns relate to what part of the process your relationship is undergoing (Is it forming? Solidifying? Transforming? Re-conceptualizing?).

Why?

This design ensures continuity and depth: you’re always exploring the core “issues” of a type of conflict (say, Commitment in relationships), but the “flavor” shifts as the process unfolds.

In practice:

  • Act I: The theme is Commitment as it relates to Conceiving (“what kind of bond could we have?”)
  • Act II: Commitment as it relates to Being (“are we really this? Do we mean it, or just play a role?”)
  • Act III: Commitment as it relates to Becoming (“is transformation possible? Do we commit or rationalize?”)
  • Act IV: Commitment as it relates to Conceptualizing (“now that we’ve changed, how do we fit together?”)

…with Responsibility/Rationalization/Obligation shifting their focus similarly.

It’s not repetition—it’s depth and nuance, the same core issues from distinct angles of psychological process.

If you’d like a scene-level map for how the Issues feel different in each act, just say which combination and I’ll show the difference in context!

18

If your narrative has Problem-solving Style set to Holistic then most of the Throughlines will be “untwisted”. This has to do with the Justification process that determines what gets thrown out of position to simulate projection and burying the problem out of sight.

Progressions and Events are calculated at creation time, but are not part of the Storyform that is in your Storyform context. You have to ask for Narrova to break the Signposts down into Progressions and Events if you want that detail.

19

I love this idea. Perhaps we should create a shared document? Just for basic organization of prompts as they get added?

1 Like
20

Great idea - my intent was for this part of the documentation to be a “shared” document of sorts – https://platform.dramatica.test/docs/narrova/expertise.html , but feel free to create another one if you like and share it here!

I’ll be adding to the above docs link weekly or so as more ideas are added here to this thread.