There’s a lot to unpack in that. Let’s start with this: one of my favorite distinctions in Dramatica theory is the difference between the Main Character and the Protagonist. In many traditional stories, the MC–the emotional perspective of the story–is also the Protagonist–the character driving the story towards the Goal–but Dramatica theory doesn’t require that. In a blog post I wrote elsewhere, I coined the term “Ishmael Effect,” where the Main Character is distinct from the Protagonist. You really get this feeling of the MC being a small piece in the larger machinery of the plot. Moby Dick is the clear example, or The Great Gatsby or How to Train Your Dragon. (EDIT: Here’s an example from my own writing. I have this story where a… let’s call it a magic spirit possesses the body of a man who has been killed in order to solve his murder. This is the IC, and the Protagonist. The MC is the dead man’s sister, who helps the spirit with its case and along the way learns a little bit more about her brother and his relationship with the spirit. With a Goal of “Understanding the murder,” the MC is really only a bit part, while the Protagonist leads the charge.)
Second, Dramatica doesn’t demand that the characters “want” what they apply to the OS. The Contagonist doesn’t necessarily Hinder because they “want” things to be hindered–that’s just the result of their actions. They Hinder because, to quote the scorpion, it is their nature. (So in my story, the sister is technically the Antagonist. Would she call herself that? No. She’s just confused about why her brother is acting so strange, and trying to keep him from wandering into police stations and saying he’s dead. I mean, that’s not Prevention, that’s just common sense… right?)
Third, because of this, the “want-need” concept also isn’t necessary to Dramatica theory. I think I’d like to see @jhull and others discuss this in more detail, but basically, instead of want vs. need, we have Problem vs. Symptom. The temptation is to conflate the two, but I think there are multiple ways of displaying the Problem and the Symptom than by “want” and “need.” The Symptom could be a surface-level issue and the Problem the real conflict, or the Symptom could be a necessary prerequisite to solving the Problem. The Main Character could want to solve the Problem but be stuck by their situation fixing the Symptom first, or perhaps the Symptom affects everyone and the Problem just affects them. What I’m saying is, the Symptom doesn’t have to be the thing the MC thinks they want, and the Problem the secret thing they really need. The Solution can be obvious, but the MC can’t do it for whatever reason.