Gists and Problems

I had a pretty obvious thought about how I might be able to make Dramatica easier for me to use today and wanted to share it and see what everyone else thought.

So Gists are storytelling for the source of the inequity, but do not address the actual inequity itself, right? For instance “Gagging at the thought of eating oysters” describes the source of the problem, but not what the problem is. The problem could be “gagging at the thought of eating oysters causes a misunderstanding with the chef” or “gagging at the thought of eating oysters ruins a blind date”.

Now, one of my problems when coming up with story points is forgetting to make them problematic. For instance, when looking at Activity I might think “Escaping the killer” sounds like an Activity. But then, in most stories with a killer escaping the killer is the solution/goal, not the source of the problem. It would be an interesting story indeed in which escaping the killer was the source of the problem.

So then I thought about creating a list of problems to go along with the gists to help make sure I’m including a problem in my story telling. Now, I know that one big problem with that is that it would kind of take the life out of the writing and make Dramatica even more Mad Lib-like, so I’m not suggesting it as a way to always use Dramatica. But would having a list of problems to randomly match up with gists be of any interest or use to anyone else? Are there any problems with this type of thing that I’m not seeing?

Just off the top of my head, a list might look like:
missing a deadline
losing a story
failing a test
forgetting to push the button
calls attention to the dragon

And then you could use it by saying
“gagging at the thought of eating oysters calls attention to the dragon”
or “escaping the killer leads to the journalist losing a story”

Thoughts?

4 Likes

It might work. You could certainly try it.

I’d be worried that it might short-circuit the creative process that would normally tie the various Story Points together, setting them up to be used synergistically. For example, if you had these gists for an MC or IC Throughline:
Domain: Being an Alien (Situation)
Concern: Worrying About Someone’s Future (The Future)
Issue: Prejudging Someone (Preconception)

So you take a holistic view of all these gists and start thinking a high-school girl who looks human but is actually an alien (though maybe she doesn’t know it?). Then when you’re illustrating the “Being an Alien” stuff you might naturally make some physical features that, while still human, cause her trouble because of how they make her stand out. Maybe she has purple eyes, or is incredibly gorgeous, that sort of thing… And then when you get to illustrating Preconception you already have perfect material for it – some religious folks think she’s a devil-spawned Jezebel because of her looks, etc.

All that because you naturally got a sense of how the gists work together and worked it into your picture of the character.

But if you were illustrating “being an alien calls attention to the dragon” and “prejudging someone leads to forgetting to push the button” you might not see those connections as clearly? Not sure.

Hmm… Maybe they would work for plot (signposts) though… I’m getting some neat ideas about how this poor alien girl attracts the unwanted attention of a gang leader nicknamed The Dragon; or about how everyone stepping away from chemistry class to taunt and chase her could lead to a bunsen-burner fire, with no one around to push the fire alarm!

3 Likes

Interesting you should suggest that, because using it for Sign Post material is how it came about and is really all I’ve used it for so far.

But to address using it for throughline material… I’d be more interested in something like this purely for inspiration when I’m stuck on something. For instance, I can agree that prejudging someone as a devil-spawned Jezebel certainly sounds problematic, but I might not know what problems it causes. To steal a question from another thread, what if this girl doesn’t care that she’s being prejudged? But if I get the suggestion that being prejudged calls the attention of (rather than to) the dragon, then I start thinking about how other people prejudging her gets her noticed by some unpleasant figure (a dragon, someone named Dragon, some dragon-y religious authority?, or maybe instead of dragon, it calls the attention of the aliens), and I can start building a story.

My concern would be that forgetting to focus on prejudging, instead focusing on calling attention, and messing up the storypoint. I’d have to be careful with that.

Anyway, it really helped me with some sign posts last night and now I’m going to try it out a few more times. I don’t know how to develop a tool for it, so I guess I can go with the “pick one out of a hat” method.

2 Likes

Such a cool idea. No reason why this can’t be part of a future Brainstorming tool.

I think it’s also a GREAT way to help explain what an Appreciation is in Dramatica. It’s a clear and simple approach to something that many struggle with.

Thanks for sharing!

5 Likes

I think this is a great idea, mostly because anything that calls attention to “…and this causes a problem because…?”

(You probably don’t know this, because you don’t/can’t come to the December story creation events, but Jim has this tattooed on his bicept! Whenever anyone forgets to add this, he sticks out his arm and tugs up his sleeve. It’s a move reminiscent of an anime character with a curse written on his arm, coming to seek revenge.)

Anyway, there is still a problem with your solution.

In the same way that “Avoiding the killer” could be the problem or the solution, so could “calling attention to the dragon” or “losing a story”. It’s not a problem until the author remembers to make it a problem.

Gists themselves are neutral.

The solution is simple (but would take up space on the screen): The gists have to be listed under a “…and this causes problems because…” prompt.

Like this:

6 Likes

Absolutely right. Using a problem list wouldn’t thrust inequity onto the gist (hey, that might be a magic wish-granting dragon and now all my characters can wish to not be grossed out by oysters!) But what I found helpful about a problem list was 1. just like you said, it draws attention to “…and this causes a problem because…”, which forces me to think about why the gist is causing a problem, and 2. it gives an area for the problem to reside. That’s probably not the best way to word what I mean. But basically instead of thinking that gagging at the thought of oysters is a problem because my MC just really doesn’t like gagging, I can see that gagging is a problem because it draws the unwanted attention of the dragon.

Now, I may not want to write about how a town’s disgust with the thought of oysters causes them to get attacked by a dragon. But I might decide that instead of a dragon, it’s the MCs boss who took the gagging as an insult to his wife’s cooking and now the boss is mad and the MC is probably going to lose the Hull-Wollaeger account or whatever. Not a great idea, but way better than “gagging is a problem because no one likes gagging”.

So it was less about coming up with a specific story-telling point and more about remembering to make it a problem and having something to build the problem around that I found helpful.

4 Likes

It’s late and I’m feeling a tad dumb at the moment. Can someone tell me how the heck you make something a problem? Because pretty much no matter what you say

I broke my foot
I accidentally stepped of the top of a 30 foot building
I whispered, “I love you,” to the wrong wo/man
The police/gansters/cia agents are closing in on me.

any of those could be not a problem at all.

even if I extended them/complicated them they could still be not a problem.

I broke my foot the night before my ice skating event at the olympics
I accidentally stepped off a the top of a 30 foot building and I’m plummeting to my death.
I whispered, “I love you,” to the wrong wo/man and now my spouse won’t talk to me
The police/gansters/cia agents are closing in on me and my partner set me up as his patsy

So how exactly do you know when you’ve made something a problem?

2 Likes

My current understanding: X is a problem for Entity E, if X prevents, stops and/or hinders a want or need (or can or should?) S of E. This is even the case if E is not aware of either one or both of X and S.

No idea if this makes sense or is even correct. The same goes for these examples:

  • Breaking my foot the night before my ice skating event at the olympics is a problem, if I want/need to participate/win at the olympics.
  • Accidentally stepping off the top of a 30-foot building and plummeting to my death is a problem, if I want to live / see my children grow up.
  • Whispering “I love you” to the wrong person and my spouse not talking to me is a problem, if I want/need to have a healthy relationship with them.
  • Being illogical about someone and having people think I am drunk is a problem, if I want people to take me seriously / arrest that person.
  • Gagging at the thought of eating oysters and thus calling attention to the dragon is a problem, if I want to get to the other side unharmed / my treasures to not get stolen / steal the dragon’s treasure.
  • Being an alien and thus drawing attention to myself is a problem, if I want to be left alone.
  • Pursuing my dream job and isolating myself from the family I love is a problem, if I want/need to make sure that they’re happy.
  • Being sarcastic and getting beat up for it is a problem, if I want to avoid pain.
3 Likes

Lol! Been there. It’s simple. Whenever your Dramatica chart gets twisted up into a storyform, you have a problem!

2 Likes

Seriously, though, you’re right. Sometimes it seems like there could be an infinite regress of, “Yes, but WHY is that a problem?”. I’ve come across explanations before about problems being imbalances and such, and they always make sense in the moment, but then it doesn’t stick with me when I start working on a storyform.

I haven’t thought of it this way before, but I’ve been thinking this morning that I’m still looking at characters too much as people and not as parts of the story mind. I’m sure if I kept that in mind, it would help. Instead of asking why it’s a problem for Mister Charlie to seek revenge, maybe it would help to ask what it is about the personal perspective of pursuit that upsets the story mind. I feel like I’m on to something here even if I’m not quite there yet.

2 Likes

It’s a problem if their behavior leads to a bad outcome, even if the author is the only one who knows the outcome is bad. Outcomes can be external or internal.

1 Like

Okay, so I’m trying to answer this one again by looking at the Story Mind and not just the characters. This is all going to be pretty basic, and can be found in several articles all over the various Dramatica-related websites, but a lot of my GATHERED INFORMATION is just starting to be UNDERSTOOD in a more practical sense, I think.

From the perspective of a Story Mind, you have a series of elements at rest. When the Story Mind starts to put pressure on one of those elements over another, it creates an inequity. Unequal pressure. Too much of one, not enough of another. Within the story, this looks like a problem for the characters (even if the characters themselves are unaware of it).

Jim’s analysis of Dunkirk provides a good example of this.

British sailors evacuate and situate themselves on top of the floating hull. Safe and sound, they await rescue…until the Heinkel comes around for another pass.

When the British sailors are on top of the floating hull, they are safe and sound, Story Mind at rest. But when the Heinkel comes around, the Story Mind starts putting too much pressure on Potentiality

Driven by the potential of the bomber unleashing another successful volley, the sailors leap into the sea only to discover another, far greater problem: oil leaking from their ship. The British Spitfire swoops in, disables the Heinkel, and sends the burning bomber plunging straight into the oil spill. The sea ignites in a fury of flame, killing many of the sailors who sought the ocean for safety.

The foundation of meaning within this sequence rests on this Problem of Potentiality. The potential of being killed drives the sailors into a far more disastrous situation. Had they remained on the overturned minesweeper and relied on the Certainty that the Spitfire would save the day, they would all be alive.

So the Story Mind putting too much pressure on Potentiality means not enough pressure on Certainty and the Story Mind sees the inequity. Within the story of Dunkirk this looks like the sailors diving into the water rather than staying atop the hull. Too much pressure on Potentiality has upset the Story Mind. This extra pressure causes the players that represent Potentiality to put themselves into a bad position where an equal amount of pressure on Potentiality and Certainty would have had the sailors sitting on the hull and watching as the Heinkel is destroyed and they are saved. Had the Story Mind relied too heavily on Certainty, then the sailors would presumably have stayed on the floating hull only to watch the Spitfire fail to disable the Heinkel and then themselves be attacked.

Looking at it that way, what makes something a problem from the theoretical side (within Dramatica) is when a perspective representing a specific part of the the Story Mind begins to exert too much or too little pressure on one of the traits it represents. From the practical side (within the story) this looks like the characters, or story players, being affected by and reacting to that unequal pressure.

So to make something a problem within a story, you have to show how too much or little pressure is placed on one element such that more or less pressure on it’s dynamic opposite is needed to restore balance. Once you have shown that, you have created a narrative problem.

Something else i notice while looking at problems in the Story Mind and not in the story itself from the characters point of view is that it gets around thinks like “But what if the character didn’t care about this problem?” or “it’s a problem for the character, but they don’t know it, only the author does,” because, whether the character cares or not or whether the characters know there’s a problem or not, the Story Mind does care and does know there’s an inequity. So it’s not a problem because the author knows it is or the characters care about it, but it’s a problem because the Story Mind knows it is and cares about it.

I don’t know if any of that was clear to anyone else (or too basic), but when I thought of it like that it seemed to clear up in my mind.

4 Likes

I’m pretty sure the characters sitting on the hull cared very deeply about whether they’d be (potentially) blown to smithereens or burnt to death. :stuck_out_tongue:

A couple of things, one, you can’t have conflict/a problem without characters, regardless of where the storyform potentially sees trouble. No characters, no problem. That’s why you need the chaps sitting on the hull of the ship watching the Heinkel coming round, going, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit.

And two, this and @bobRaskoph 's thoughts on this are useful.

1 Like

Okay, okay. But i haven’t seen the movie, so when I said “story mind at rest” I’m going by Jim’s description of the scene as “safe and sound”. But yes, the characters do care very deeply about the potential of being blown up. That’s what drives them to jump in the water. My point (by way of Jim’s point within the article) was that if they were concerned about potentially being blown up an amount equal to how certain they were the Heinkle would be destroyed, there’d be no problem because they wouldn’t have jumped in the water. It’s not that solving the problem means not being concerned about potentials, it’s that solving the problem means being as certain as you are worried about potentials(… I think)

I may have misspoke or used some poor word choices. What I was trying to do was look at stories and problems from a single story mind rather than looking at each character as a human with its own individual mind. from that line of thinking, the inequity is between elements within the mind, not between characters. The characters represent those elements but it’s not Character X that has a problem. The story mind has a problem with element 1 as represented by character X.

And finally, cut me some slack! I just started seeing it this way this morning and admitted it was both basic and that I was just beginning to feel like I understand! :wink::joy: I tend to speak on here as though I think I know what I’m talking about, but that’s usually just me trying to talk through my reasoning as I try to come to an understanding.

Well, I hope I was useful. I thought @bobRaskophs advice was good too.

Oh sweetie, I thought for sure the stuck out tongue indicated gentle, playful teasing. Of course, give you slack. I appreciate you trying to help me, more than you could possibly know.

2 Likes

I got it. I even used my own emoji’s!

1 Like

To bring the conversation back to the original post, here’s how I now think that problems work and how a Problem List could be used along with the Gist List.

  1. A problem/drive places an unequal amount of pressure on a given element (unequal to the dynamically opposing element).
  2. This pressure, being unequal to the pressure applied to the dynamically opposing element, creates an imbalance between the elements. An inequity.
  3. This imbalance makes something problematic when it pushes the characters away from the solution element such that it makes it more difficult to apply the proper pressure to the opposing element.

Examples:

  1. The sailors in Dunkirk are driven to look for potential disaster.

  2. This drive creates an imbalance between seeing potential disaster and being certain the Spitfire will save them.

  3. This imbalance pushes them into the water making it more difficult for them to embrace certainty (by staying on the floating hull).

  4. An MC has a problem with gagging at the thought of eating oysters.

  5. This creates an imbalance between gagging at the thought of eating oysters and admiring the treasure.

  6. This imbalance pushes him to call the attention of the dragon (presumably by gagging when he sees the dragon eating oysters) which makes it harder for him to admire the dragons treasure (because the dragon is now chasing him away from the treasure).

*Okay, this one seemed a bit of a stretch. Let’s try one more.

  1. Mister Charles is driven to seek revenge.
  2. This drive creates an imbalance between seeking revenge and avoiding an angry wife.
  3. The imbalance pushes him to forget to push the button (on his phone to call his wife, because he’s tracking down someone he wants revenge on) making it harder for him to avoid an angry wife.

Well, that was fun.

4 Likes

This is a little gem I want to highlight…setting it aside for my own notes :slight_smile:

6 Likes

A lot of times I’ll type out a post in a way that sounds like I know what I’m talking about when in reality what I’m doing is trying to figure something out by talking about how I understand it. You can probably spot it in the way I’ll say something and then repeat it, just in a slightly different way. I’m pretty sure that’s what was going on in that post. And just a tip, the older the post, the wronger I probably was! So be careful taking old advice from me.

That said, if you want a more story friendly way to think about making something problematic, it’s just process (the term on the Dramatica chart) plus conflict (or turmoil, or clash, or dispute, or whatever word might best fit) equals problem.

4 Likes

Following a train of thought can be very helpful. All the logic is on display and if the conclusion matches, it is also useful.

Incidentally, this is a prime example of why the First Amendment is fundamental to a free society. The way people arrive at an understanding is often through thinking out loud about something. To speak one’s thoughts is a prequisite to reaching clarity for themselves.

Viva la Freedom of Speech!

5 Likes