Looking to complete a NaNoWriMo outline. But Dramatica maths have me stumped

questions
#1

I’ve been studying up on Dramatica and playing around with Dramatica Story Expert for a few years now. Sometimes, I think I have it. But then I bump up against something new and it seems my understanding of Dramatica completely unravels.

For instance right now, I’m pulling together an outline for a first time go at NaNoWriMo next month—in fact, its my first go at a novel at all— and I have some questions regarding my Dramatica setup, as it’s the first long form writing I’m doing using the theory.

So far, I’ve generated a single storyform using Dramatica Story Expert. I’m continuing to fill-out the storyform encodings and embroideries within the DSE structure/outline. And I’ve generated a Plot Sequence Report that breaks down the 16 Signposts into four variations each that will be explored within each Signpost. This creates 68 scenes. (I’ve played with the PSR tool before, and found the variations to be provocative and well-focused prompts to write scenes from. So I’m looking forward to a thorough go at this technique.)

Sooooo… the PSR creates 68 scenes within 4 Acts to develop your plot from. Until now I thought that was all the scenes one needed. I figured the remaining story elements would get sprinkled in where they could into the 68 scenes. However, it was mentioned in the PSR introduction that 24 scenes need to be added to these 68. So that’s 68+24=92. But I keep hearing other scene numbers bandied about for well-structured Dramatica stories. Besides the 68 and the 24 and the 92, there’s the Magic 28. And I’ve also read that a fully rendered Dramatica story has 96 events (scenes?) in it. So, I’m more confused than ever. How does one get to 96 scenes through the use of Dramatica Theory? How does that fit in with the PSR scene list? What are the extra scenes (beyond the 68) comprised of?

I haven’t even mentioned the number 60 yet. 60 scenes are what come in the scene list of DSE’s Novel Template. Now, I’m not using the Novel Template’s scene list because, while it is evocative too, nowhere in the Dramatica writings or teachings do I see what the Novel template progression is based on, or how it was arrived at. So, I wonder how valid it would be to follow it over something more documented and demonstrated like the PSRs (that Armando demonstrated more thoroughly in Dramatica for Screenwriters.)

So, while I’m leaning toward using the PSR’s 68 scene list as a basis to start with, I’m lost as to how to add the additional 24 scenes to fully render it. And what are the 24 scenes? Are these 24 new scenes? Or are they seasoned (merged) into the 68 scenes already in the PSR?

Are these 24 scenes related to the Magic 28 scenes I’ve heard about? I’ve never gotten clear on the distinction between the 24 scenes and 28 scenes and when one is used versus the other. Is it related to 3 or 4 Acts? But doesn’t 4 Throughlines X 4 Signposts + 12 Journeys (3Js X 4TLs) = 28. So how does one arrive at 24?
If one is using the 24/28 scenes structure, does one encode them with the theme elements (i.e. the “issue” element and other surrounding elements in that issue’s quad?) Or are there other choices, beside theme, on how to encode these 24 scenes into additional scenes?

Also, if you have the 68 PSR scenes and the additional mysterious 24 (or is it 28?), mentioned in the PSR intro, then what about Journeys? Does one still need a journey if you have signposts? I thought you didn’t. I thought you could write using either Signposts or Journeys. But then I re-listened to the Magic 28 videos that Melanie Ann did and I see she has both signposts and journeys in the plot progression. So, would there be 12 additional scenes generated from the journeys, thus giving us 68+24+12 = 104 scenes? But nothing is written about 104. Or are the journey scenes from the thematically added 24 scenes all you need to describe the journeys? But wait, 24 scenes? That’s for 3 Act structure. I have 4 Acts. Does that mean I need 28 additional scenes instead of 24? I’m so confused. Calgon, take me away!

Sigh…. I know there are a lot of questions here. It’s like I said. I thought I had it. But I seem to have lost the structural understanding now that I’m moving past writing short works and on the verge of using Dramatica for long form works. And now London Bridge is falling down.

I understand that much of these are recommendations, and that one can create as many or as few scenes one likes. Nonetheless, I, as I know many look to Dramatica, with its scientific basis, to offer a clear prescription to start with these elements. It just seems that the math of it is so confusing.

Anyone who can shed light on these issues/questions for me before November, will be greatly appreciated and lauded.

I’d love to get the structure nailed down as clear as possible before November and NaNoWriMo, so I can just chug along with the writing.

Cheers,
Brendan

P.S. As you can see, Dramatica math has me stumped. Is there one place where all these maths are delineated explicitly, once and for all?

#2

I really really really think you need to stop worrying about the math.

For one thing, a scene is generally thought of as something like “a person enters a room and talks to so and so and then does something and then … next scene.” This is not my understanding of what a scene in Dramatica is, which is something like a complete revolution (Z, N or hairpin) through the elements.

But even that is not really relevant to writing even though it may be true.

In the same way that throughlines are perspectives on a story, most of the numbers you are finding are “the numbers you get if you look at it from a certain perspective.” Looking at the PSR, you get X scenes. Looking at the theme you get 4 phases. Or six, depending on how you look at theme.

Okay, I hope I’ve talked you out of worrying too much about the math.

For me, what is relevant is choosing the correct narrative strategy to get all of this onto the page, and that (sadly) isn’t really what Dramatica is about anyway. But you can do it really well if you know Dramatica!

Narrative Strategy = what you do to keep people reading.

2 Likes
#3

The 24 extra scenes are the Journey’s. What is explored is each Throughlines’s thematic argument. 4 Throughlines x 3 journeys x 2 sides of the argument to be contrasted (Morality vs Self Interest then, later, Self Interest vs Morality, for example). The 68 are only the Signposts explored in terms of the Variations.

As a side note, I also side with @MWollaeger when it comes to the technicalities. I’ve been aware of Dramatica for about 2 years now and the most I can wrap my head around at this stage is the Static Plot Points, distinguishing the 4 throughlines as clear as possible and then do my best to get the Issue, Problem/Solution and Symptom/Response weaved into the narrative. If I’m feeling lucky, I try to incorporate the Critical Flaw and Unique Ability if possible. Anyways hope this helps. Good luck in November! After this post alone I’d say you only got 25,000 more words to go ;P.

#4

No. There is no place where you’ll find the “math” delineated because it isn’t important. You’re way over-thinking everything. To be perfectly honest, you’ll kill any spontaneity and/or joy in your writing if you focus on the amount of scenes you think Dramatica requires. There is no set number and the Plot Sequence Report is overkill.

You already have more than you need. Just start writing and enjoy the ride. Your novel will have just the amount of scenes it needs, and it will meet that requirement because of you. Not because of Dramatica.

#5

Here’s my two cents on the subject. Dramatica is a reductionist model, in that it seeks to take the complex workings of story and argument and boil them down into their smallest components. The deeper you go, the more components there are, and the more entangled they get. We newbies simply don’t have the skills to effectively use the deepest levels of the system. For us, it’s kind of like attempting to measure how long it’ll take something to fall to the ground by measuring all of the quarks. Theoretically, you could do it, but it’s so advanced that it’s beyond our current skill range.

So my recommendation is, use what you know and eyeball the rest. If all you can do is use the Four Throughlines and the 12 Questions, then do that and do your best with that. That’s your Newtonian model, no friction, no air resistance, no frills. The more you know, the more you can add to your model, and the more accurate your model will be. I’m totally with you on that: I find the system of Sequences, Scenes, and Events fascinating, but I just don’t know how best to use it. So my (inexpert) opinion is, don’t. Do your best with what you do know, and do what you can with the rest.

#6

I thought Dramatica was a reductionist model for a long time too. After a while, you’ll start to see that it is not – that’s a perspective too!

#7

I went through that phase for about a year. I’d meticulously craft a story with dramatica, trying to carefully fill in every gap with every scene number and events and what have you. It was miserable, I hated it. It may have been good, but it was abandoned almost immediately. Everyone’s pretty much given the same advice, and they’re right – don’t think about it, just use it.

My process now is much more beneficial and fun for me. I create a storyform, filling in the very broad basics (12 questions and identifying throughlines mostly) that I know. I go and write. Then I come back, re-read the storyform and edit in dramatica more specifically to make sure I can see that my story fits. And then rewrite to accommodate the plot points some more.

I know that @jhull said somewhere (I think in one of his NarrativeFirst posts) that he finds filling in every throughline can kill the creativity and I think that’s totally right. Don’t stick too rigidly to what you think you “should” do – just go and write. Dramatica is one of the most helpful writing tools you can find (probably the MOST helpful), but the more you think about the logistics and the maths of it, the less writing you’ll do. There’s no formula with Dramatica.

1 Like
#8

Hi There–sorry for this long reply (it’s my first here) and if it’s at all drifting off-topic, somebody delete it!

Like a lot of people, I’ve fooled around with Dramatica for years now and until I spent time talking with @jhull it never really clicked for me. Since then it’s become vastly easier to work with. I’m still no where near mastering the software or, really, fully comprehending the model, but I am a novelist by trade and since you’re talking about NaNoWriMo, maybe that perspective can be of some use. I’ll start by saying that I completely understand the desirability of functioning story math when you’re trying to write an outline. It’s just not viable at the scene level.

Most story models we encounter tend to be about the what of the story. Save The Cat, Contour…etc are all designed to give you a sort of step-by-step progression that your reader (or audience in the case of screenplays) will experience. I know most of those models aren’t very popular around here but I don’t find anything inherently terrible about them. They do what they’re intended to do: carry the story from open to close and hit dramatic milestones. The problem (for me, anyway) with is that they never tell me why those events are going to occur. Sure, they’ll talk about “the hero’s inner conflict” or “the hero needs to have an emotional death”–and those can be useful–but they just don’t give me any real reason to choose one possible dramatic choice over another. They are structures without themes, asking the writer to come up with those broader concerns on demand.

Dramatica is all about the why for me. It forces me to see the various implications of every dramatic choice. When you decide you want to write about a character in a terrible situation, it demands that you address a related fixed mental state in another part of the story. So when you’re trying to figure out why you should select one possible dramatic choice over another, the model nudges you towards one that connects with the other choices you’ve made, even if (at first) it feels like it makes no sense. Why is character x going to have some “emotional death”? Because he/she still things the problem is [symptom] when in fact it’s [problem] and they’re a change character. That tends to be what I go back to when I feel stuck–those weird little terms in the story engine that half the time don’t make sense except when you need them most and then suddenly they give you a couple of options that turn into ideas.

What Dramatica doesn’t do well for me as a novelist is tell me how many scenes I should have. It’s just not possible. My first published novel was 117,000 words. My second was 187,000. They can’t have the same number of scenes. Not only that–some things which Dramatica will expect to be in the workings of the story may be best never shown directly on the page because doing so might slow down dramatic pacing that is (for the reader) often far more important than absolute “completeness.” Sometimes those story points need to come up as a single line of dialogue or the twist of someone’s frown. They can’t all be scene blocks because there comes a point where narrative flow has to win. Often I’ll look back in revision (as I’m doing now on a novel) and discover that a story point I hadn’t even thought about is actually there in its own subtle but meaningful way. Probably that’s because, despite the complexity, Dramatica is tapping into some very fundamental concepts of story and those will often come out in our writing even when we’re not doing it explicitly.

Dramatica does give you a bunch of possibilities for looking at overall structure. I personally structure my books around four acts, and so the four signposts x four throughlines works for me. Within those acts I’m always asking how each throughline gets from one state to the next which is the three journeys. But these are as much ‘mental’ processes for the characters as anything else. When characters are in the room (or dungeon, or whatever else) together, I’ll try to look at what they’re all supposed to be dealing with in that signpost of the OS and what signpost the MC, IC, and RS (as applicable) are dealing with at that same time and let those things inform the conflicts. It could be that I’m doing it all wrong, but it helps me get through the pages and write things that feel both meaningful and dramatic to me. At the end of the day, we’re servants of drama, so I’m happy with that.

S.

#9

Great post.

I do (that’s probably obvious). If you ever want to talk about why, let me know. But it’s probably not worth the detour.

#10

Thanks MWollaeger, Dan, Jim, Acting Power, JamJam, decastell—sorry about my delay in replying. I appreciate your kind responses talking me off the ledge. I wasn’t as worked up about it as it probably appeared in my post, but I was feeling daunted by the math and expressed the frustration I was feeling in trying to resolve, what I see now as, multiple views of the model into one view. There is no one way of viewing the storyform—and that’s what’s so beautiful about this model. Thanks for knocking me upside the head.

Mostly, you’ve all reminded me that Dramatica theory is like a Maserati and, as a newbie, I’m still driving with a learners permit. While it’s rip roaring fun to take it for a spin, I can crash and burn if I don’t take my eyes off the gauges and watch the road ahead of me and just enjoy drive.

MWolaeger: Thanks for reminding me that this is one model viewed in various ways. Resolving it all into one singular “perfected” view, as I was trying to do, is not the most powerful way of approaching it.

Dan: Your reply helped to shed light on the signpost/journey portion of my questions and the purposes of both. Thank you.

Jim: Thanks for the practical, down to earth reminders. While I enjoy riffing on the thematic collisions that the PSR report offers, I won’t stress about the math. And you’re right about crushing spontaneity.

Acting Power, fellow newbie, thanks for the practical advice. In my previous experiments with PSRs, I’ve found combining sequences generated from the PSR report with my characters and a basic scene-sequel structure (i.e. Goal, Conflict, Disaster/Hook, Reaction, Dilemma, Decision) scenes grew naturally out that felt thematically correct. So I may play with that here., but I’m not gonna get myself hung up about it.

JamJam: You’ve reminded me that Dramatica’s a powerful story starter. And very powerful, probably most powerful, in the revision. Thanks.

decastell: I’m honored your first post here is in this thread. I see you’ve posted your own NaNoWriMo thread—best of luck to you next month. Maybe we should stay in touch. I don’t see fault with those “other” theories, as I find its personal to a writer. Whatever works to get your words on the page, by all means, use it. To me it seems other story theories are actually encapsulated in Dramatica Theory and it seems Dramatica ultimately offers more richness and variety storyforms. I wonder if the depths of Dramatica Theory, as a creative tool, have been completely plumbed yet.

Cheers to all. This is a great place to hang out and learn.

Brendan