Hi guys. Was wondering how possible it is to have two influence characters who are trying to force the main character to change but with different outcomes. So lets say for one, the outcome is positive and the other , the outcome is negative. Now in my mind, one can structurally be the contagonist, and the other the antagonist, but in terms of the IC perspective. Is it possible to have them both be the IC perspective? Thanks.
The only thing that matters is that they share the same Elements found in the throughline - if they’re both coming from, say an Avoid mentality, then one could be influencing the Main Character to run away, while the other could be influencing the Main Character to stand their ground and prevent others from running roughshod all over them.
They don’t have to share the same storytelling material–just the same storyform material
4 Likes
Thanks so much Jim. You’ve just solved a major problem in my WIP. Now I know I’m on track. Have some interesting things to share with the community soon. Thanks again Jim.
4 Likes
I love the flexibility of the Influence Character throughline. The IC might consciously be trying to get the MC to change. Or the IC might not give a rat’s ass whether the MC changes, but involves the MC in their issues or struggles and influences the MC that way. Or the IC might completely ignore the MC but still end up influencing him somehow… the possibilities are endless!
4 Likes
I think this is a key component of what can make an IC Handoff so compelling. For example, in Gurren Lagann, the brash, idealistic Kamina is replaced with the more quiet, supportive Nia–but both characters represent the push that convinces Simon to leave his burrow and live out in the real world. I don’t have a good example of this, but an idea I’ve always had is for a story where the Influence Character is like a kind, mentorly type, and when they (inevitably) die, they’re replaced with this more drill sergeant-y, fire-and-fury-type IC. (…Is it weird that the closest example I can think of that is Banjo-Kazooie? 
) Both characters who exist to Influence the MC to change, but with very different methods.
1 Like
It’s amazing @mlucas and @actingpower . Really these answers have solved a BIG problem for me.
2 Likes
This makes me think of those old cartoons where a character might have an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. Maybe one says to pursue a good thing, the other to pursue a bad thing. I don’t know if that would technically work since they would both be present at the same time. Maybe as long as they are always illustrating the same elements?
2 Likes
I’d argue that the Guardian and the Contagonist are broad categories that contain the devil and angel trope. They also represent the Super-ego and the Id (in Freudian lingo) or Conscience vs Temptation (now the terms are starting to look familiar).
You could say that the Guardian is the Super-ego, the Contagonist is the Id and the Protagonist is the Ego. Since Dramatica describes a story as Mind, it is reasonable that there is overlap with other psychological theory. Archetypes exist in storytelling as a tool to understand human nature. They also exist in Psychology and Philosophy.
I have a similar trope in my current outline, but with a twist that makes it fresh (hopefully). I plan on reading about Mental Relativity because I feel like it can shed some light on some ideas that I had instinctually.
I’d like to point out that they are each on one shoulder. This requires – from a subjective POV – that the Protagonist / MC (if there is a combination) has to focus on one or the other. In a sense, they aren’t there together. Maybe that helps with your concern?
1 Like
This worries me a little because a MC has the best or worst answer. Thus, an IC has the best or worst answer. These are absolutes. I suppose we could have three answers and one is good (bad), one is better, and one is the best in a particular scale (scope). Sometimes, there is no great answer but there is always a best answer in the given circumstances.
Looking at the definition of IC…
If we look at the definition Every Main Character has a single Influence Character that forces him to face his personal problems.
In law, it is dangerous to only look at the statute. Many times Case Law makes a clarification of statutes that weren’t clear legally or that didn’t take into account subtleties. Statues are necessarily broad. This allows maneuvering in the future via Case Law.
But, if I also look at another part of the definition of IC:
In every act, a story problem is introduced that requires the Main Character to expose his personal problem in order to solve the story problem.
I read this as saying that each Act has a single manifestation of the MC’s overall problem.
Artistically, I could see each Act allowing for a different IC.
Artistically, I could also see a group representing an IC. For example, I could see three characters representing the IC if they represent Mind, Body, and Spirit. Or four if the ICs represent the different Classes.
I’m planning something similar in my novel. As long as one aspect isn’t redundant, I don’t see a problem with making a group of characters an IC as a whole. Dramatica seems to be (IMHO) about finding balance – as in a balanced argument.
I feel more comfortable with having two or more ICs if they form a greater whole or they are the Change characters. If the MC is steadfast, then you view him as the IC in their (partially told or implied) stories. In this way, there is only one IC.
If you look at art, there has always been a clash (a good thing) between form (structure) and content. I think that this is part of the fun in the fields of music, poetry, etc. Yes, we follow structure, but the Greats aren’t afraid to bend and break the rules whenever necessary to achieve their goals as artists? What do we fundamentally try to do? We try to create an emotional response.
I think, as an audience, we can intellectually get into our own way when we are dealing with emotions. As artists, we many times want to create visceral responses rather than intellectual ones. But we have to deal with intellectual responses. We have to clear the road for the audience.
To borrow another term from filmmaking, Dramatica allows the Diegesis of a story to continue by keeping the observer, reader, or consumer from being pulled out of the narrative. In other words, it removes the potential for disbelief or rejection of a story due to objections over redundancy, logic, realism, etc.
What is the base function of storytelling? To create emotional responses that aren’t fettered by intellectual shackles. That’s not to say that intellectual shackles are bad. They aren’t. We have a term in storytelling (suspension of disbelief). I feel Dramatica allows for and encourages this suspension of disbelief. It helps to eliminate the “but what about…” syndrome unless we want the audience to ask that question.
Caveat Emptor: I am less experienced than you in regards to Dramatica. As always, these are just musings on my part.
We’re all learning here. 
Since multiple players (people) can represent one character (a perspective), a group could represent any kind of character. Fischer’s subconscious agents in “Inception” are a group Antagonist (an OS character). The men in barracks 4 in “Stalag 17” are a group MC. The people in the city of Paterson, New Jersey, in “Paterson” are a group IC.
Sources:
http://dramatica.com/questions/can-there-be-more-than-one-influence-character
https://narrativefirst.com/blog/2016/08/the-throughlines-of-stalag-17
I’ve flirted with so many theories of story. Dramatica is the only one that is still air tight. No leakage of meaning or anything. The outcomes come in 4 Flavors. Happy ending, Tragedy, Personal triumph, Personal tragedy. It’s Fractal in everything. Now there are a few new theories getting knowledge of Narrative nature. One in particular was very intriguing. Called “Into the woods”. But I still hate those funny names such as “into the belly of the beast” blah blah… Dramatica is 100yrs before its time. I think we’re somewhat fortunate to catch the bug early. The hand-off understanding was one thing, but that the hand offs could have different motives just opened a can of worms in my head! Possibilities!
2 Likes
@khodu I had a similar (but not exactly the same) question a few months ago in case you hadn’t seen it. Agree - so many interesting possibilities for storytelling by getting away from the idea that change has to become the “changed” point of view of the steadfast character (in a limited sense), including having IC handoffs to players with differing motivations.
Correction: The subconscious agents provide the Avoid/Prevent element, but Ariadne provides the Reconsider element. Since an antagonist illustrates both of these elements, the agents aren’t a group Antagonist.
Source: https://narrativefirst.com/articles/the-antagonists-of-inception
1 Like