What about storybeats that combine 2 Elements like in Subtext I’ve got “The friends relationship has evidence that leads to suspecting something while developing an appreciation for someone.” I assume you develop the 2 justifications for each element, but how do you put them in the same scene (or whatever)? Does one conflict happen after another or does the 1st conflict cause the 2nd? For example, I’ve got:
Evidence: We want to find evidence that we have feelings for each other because we want to start a romantic relationship UNLESS we should dismiss evidence because we want to preserve our friendship.
Suspicion: We want to suspect each other of having romantic feelings in order to feel wanted UNLESS we should be wary of our assumptions in order to prevent heartbreak.
These strike me as being very similar but I don’t know if that’s ok because they’re lumped together in the same storybeat.
Honestly, I haven’t really used the “leads to” terminology. What I’ve been doing, and it works for me, is to write a justification for the signpost, and where needed, write a justification for the four Elements the PSR says are examined under that signpost. Then, I write out my illustration for the signpost level with the justifications of the PSR in mind.
For example, in my current WIP, I haven OS of Mind with OS Signpost #1 in Preconscious explored in terms of State of Being, Situation, Circumstances, and Sense of Self. I only have two justifications for that: One for the Preconsicous, and one for State of Being. That was enough for me to illustrate that entire Signpost.
For my MC, which is in Psychology, I have an MC Signpost #1 of Conceptualizing explored in terms of Fact, Security, Threat, and Fantasy. I needed to write five justifications for this section, since I couldn’t figure it out until I had that much. Here’s what I wrote for Security and Threat, since they would be in a “leads to” beat like you’re asking about.
Security
I should be secure with my exceptional behavior in order to fully engage with my thoughts
UNLESS
I need to hide my secret life from others in order to act normally when I’m with others.
Threat
I should have a feeling of foreboding in order to be able to protect myself from a dangerous situation
UNLESS
I won’t be threatened by bad weather in order to know the answers to my questions about the myths.
Based on these justifications, and my current outline, I strongly suspect these will end up in different scenes entirely. And, the first will only tangentially lead to, but not cause, the second. The reason for suspecting this is that I know something about the storm that my character doesn’t. What I know is a direct result of the structure of the story, but it’s never actually portrayed directly in the story.
I was following Jim’s most recent article, which uses “because” in several examples. I find it’s good to have both “in order to” (justifying based on a goal) and “because” (justifying based on a current state) in your toolbox.
Jim has a fantastic example of “I can fly a plane because I know physics” and I don’t think there’s any way you can get that same concept across with “in order to”.
Just to be funny: “I can fly a plane in order to prove my knowledge of physics.” (True, it doesn’t quite hold the same hilarity that the “because” version does, but it comes close to the concept.)
Even funnier – I had originally written that in my previous post! (Or very close – it was “I can fly a plane in order to demonstrate my knowledge of physics”.) But I removed it thinking I was sort of complicating things.
How different do the justifications have to be in order to be good enough? Like if I have an RS Signpost broken down like this:
SP1 - Understanding: We need to appreciate each other in order to get along UNLESS we want to misunderstand each other’s romantic feelings because we want to protect ourselves.
TRUTH
We can withhold the truth in order to protect ourselves UNLESS we need to tell the truth in order to communicate effectively.
EVIDENCE
We want to find evidence that we have feelings for each other because we want to start a romantic relationship UNLESS we should dismiss evidence because we want to preserve our friendship.
SUSPICION
We want to suspect each other of having romantic feelings in order to feel wanted UNLESS we should be wary of our assumptions in order to prevent heartbreak.
FALSEHOOD
We can be mistaken for lovers because we want to keep looking at each other UNLESS we need to cover up our feelings in order to avoid people thinking badly of us.
Are these too similar (particularly Evidence and Suspicion, and Truth and Suspicion for the idea of protecting something), or is it acceptable because they’re talking about the same signpost? Also, in Subtext, Evidence and Suspicion are blended into one storypoint (I forget why. Similarity?).
Is it ok to use the same context between scenes/Signposts/etc? I imagine “in order to save the relationship” is pretty important to this RS and I keep going back to “in order to protect ourselves” but I don’t want to overdo it.
Is this list of justifications supposed to feel like a story in of itself (or a complete PRCO)? This doesn’t, although when I write out the illustrations, they do form a beginning (attraction), middle (wondering if the attraction is shared but being too afraid to talk about it) and end (someone mistakes them for lovers, so they talk about it and decide to start a relationship).
What do you do when you come up with justifications at the SP level, then the PSR level, but the PSR justifications don’t seem to have much to do with the SP one?
All good. I think the point of the justifications is to strengthen your understanding of the conflict behind each illustration (which often ends up as subtext in the actual story). For example, your last beat there – someone mistakes them for lovers – is cool on its own, but has a lot more narrative drive when you realize that the conflict behind the mistaking has to do with people thinking badly of us.
Regarding repetition, I’d say some repetition is okay at the justification level because so much of it is subtext anyway. However, you want to avoid repeating the same conflict because that’s when it gets repetitive for the reader/audience – you get this feeling like “wait, this was decided already”. If you have a similar conflict you want to make sure the context is different.
Like a scene where A tries to convince B to do X, and fails; you can’t have another scene with A trying to convince B to do X unless something big changes (e.g. maybe B finds out he’s been poisoned and X is the only way to get the antidote).
It’s because of the Z-pattern “slide” in the middle.
For your other questions, I’m not sure of the answers. But I wouldn’t worry about them overmuch – the best test is just to see whether the signpost and PSR sequence are cool and interesting to YOU. You can rely on your own sensibilities as a writer, remembering that it’s your story and above any other concern you get to make it fun for you.
Though, concerning the fact that the idea of protection shows up so much in the justifications @SharkCat wrote, I wonder if that might not be the Problem or Direction of the Throughline being explored. If that’s the case, then it wouldn’t be surprising.
I know that in my justifications, even when I’m not trying to insert it, one of the four elements from the Problem/Focus/Direction/Solution quad often shows up.
But, as said, it’s best to make sure the same conflict isn’t repeated.
That doesn’t feel like a story??? Using the outline of justifications provided, especially given this quoted summary, there’s definitely enough for a short story…
Keep in mind that Dramatica won’t ever write the story. It most directly answers “why” there’s conflict, but it generally won’t answer “how” that conflict plays out in any given scene.
Dramatica provides the seeds, but the Author cultivates the prose.
No. The RS Problem is Hunch and the Direction is Unproven. I don’t think about them much and the only conflict I can make out of Hunch is that they’re acting on assumptions instead of talking things out. Protecting oneself (or the relationship) just seems like a basic easy-to-use motivation like “because they want to be happy.”
Is one allowed to write something like this?: “People want to delay grief because they don’t want to feel bad UNLESS people shouldn’t delay grief because they want to get it over with.” Does using “want” and then “shouldn’t” make it different enough to make using “delay grief” twice ok?
Well, alright then. If it works for you, go with it. Just keep in mind @mlucas’s advice about similar conflict.
It’s perfectly fine to do something like that.
But, the answer to “Does it make it different enough?” is quite literally: “I don’t know; does it?”
(A similar answer exists for “Are they too similar?” – “I don’t know; are they?”)
Personally, I’d have to tinker with what you wrote a little bit and put “in order to” in at least one side so that I, myself, could write to it.
But the $10,000 set of questions is:
Can you write to that conflict?
Is it different enough for you?
(Is it too similar for you?)
Yeah I agree with Hunter, this one is great! Love it.
But try not to think in terms of what you’re allowed to do with this or any technique… You can use it however you want to find what works for you! (And you might not really find that out until you actually write some of the scenes.)
That sounds pretty good! Also if you think in terms of what’s driving the relationship (and thus causing conflict), you might get some mileage out of RS-ifying these Hunch gists:
being apprehensive about how each feels about the other
Since it’s recommended to make a set of story beats for the Protagonist and Antagonist, can OS justifications for a storybeat encompass the Protag and Antag on each side or is that bad?
Ex. People need to figure out where they fit in because they want a sense of belonging (Pro. side) UNLESS people don’t want to imagine a new life because they already feel comfortable. (Ant. side)
I thought I read advice against doing a direct conflict between the two somewhere, but I can’t remember.
How short can one of these conflicts at the PSR level last?
If I have "People want to intercede for someone because they want to be helpful UNLESS people shouldn’t intervene in order to let others learn to stand up for themselves,"
I could sum up the conflict in a couple of sentences about how Alice tells Bob he should stick up for himself when Charles insults him, but Bob doesn’t so Alice intervenes by making a deal with Charles to lay off Bob, so is that really a conflict if there’s no back-and-forth and it’s not even a whole scene? Why not just jump to Alice interceding and leave out the because-Dramatica-said-so filler about her telling Bob to stand up for himself?
It is a possibility. I’d be careful with it, though, otherwise, you have a real possibility of writing something that hits the audience over the head with a baseball bat sporting the words “Here’s the conflict!”.
Keep in mind that justifications are the subtext of the story; the real reason for the conflict. They shouldn’t show at the surface, at least not often, if at all. They are the things Literature teachers want their students to extrapolate. They’re deep.
Another way to look at this idea is to consider what happens when you ask two people why they are arguing. (Why are they in conflict?) If you ask them, you will get a response, but it’s unlikely to be the real reason. You have to dig deeper and figure out what the real source of that argument is.
That’s the level where justifications come into play. The comparison between them is still from the Author’s POV on the matter. The characters may even be unaware of them.
As an example, this is the justification pair for my OS.
“People should commit to their own beliefs in order to preserve their cultural heritage, UNLESS People need to remain politically correct in order to protect their social standing within the group.”
The first is most definitely assigned to my Protagonist.
The second is seen as true in the world I’m building, through social structure and culture.
That said, it is the actions of the Protagonist and the way he talks about preserving a cultural heritage that show his belief of the first. Yet, he was raised in this same culture that prefers a tendency for the second, so he can see its truth, also. Thus, the initial Driver occurs when he takes action that prefers the first over the second.
What makes it interesting, though, is that these justifications and their comparisons are felt behind a foggy veil, rather than shown behind a glass case. All activity in the story happens because of these justifications, but they remain behind the curtain.
As short or as long as is needed to get the point across for your story without slapping someone in the face with the Conflict Fish (unless that’s what you want to do).
What’s a scene? This looks like a scene to me. I’ve decided the word “scene” is obscene. Let’s ban it – it’s far too subjective.
Anyway, the reason there’s no conflict here is because you never show the first justification.
Alice tells Bob to stand up for himself. (People shouldn’t intervene.)
Bob doesn’t stand up for himself.
Alice intervenes for Bob.
You never show that Alice wants to intercede, only that she shouldn’t intervene.
You might be able to, depending on the story and the effect you want. The problem with doing this is that it is possible to leave a plot hole. Sometimes it can be filled in by circumstance.
For example, with Alice and Bob above, there’s no reason given as to why Alice interceded for Bob after telling him to stand up for himself. Did she want to? Did she feel like she had to? Is she doing it for herself, or for Bob? We have no reason to believe, other than what we fill in from our own experience, that she would help in any way other than just telling Bob to do something about it. Until we are shown that want-to justification, that is.
All of those are plot holes that the audience now has to fill in because they are never shown that she wants to intercede in order to be helpful. Once that answer is given, the plot hole disappears. Those questions are all answered.
Well, normally to make a scene out of a PSR element like Interdiction, you would use the quad of elements beneath as PRCO (or just call it 1234 if that’s easier). So you could illustrate something for each of Actuality, Inertia, Change, and Perception (changing the order if necessary to whatever works best). Then, if you really need to, you could do opposing justifications for each of those elements.
The other way to do it is to take your Interdiction illustration / justifications as a guide, and then apply a non-Dramatica scene method. For example the Goal, Conflict, Disaster technique (Dwight Swain), or Holly Lisle’s PACTS (Protagonist vs Antagonist creates Conflict that ends with a Twist, in a Setting that matters).
I used to feel this way, but after a lot of learning and practice I can identify the start and end of scenes quite easily, at least in my own work. Once I got good at it, I was quite surprised to find that what I thought was one scene was often two or three. I also find that at this level, PACTS always lines up with Dramatica’s PRCO. (What Holly Lisle calls “Twist” and Swain calls “Disaster”, is actually the scene Outcome.)
Then where does the plot go? Aren’t story point illustrations supposed to show what happens around
and because of the conflict? How deep is good enough?
EX. "We can withhold the truth in order to protect ourselves UNLESS we need to tell the truth in order to communicate effectively."
Alice fixes her hair and clothes and asks “how do I look”?
“Breathtaking” Bob thinks, but he can’t imagine his affections being returned so he looks away and mumbles, “Ok, I suppose,” in order to avoid raising suspicions by being too complimentary.
Alice crosses her arms and snaps, “Well, you’re not exactly the bastion of taste, Mr. I’ve-Got-Spinach-in-My-Teeth.”
“What I meant is you look decent, uh, fine… as in suitable.”
Alice wants to forgive Bob but doesn’t want to appear to have too much of a soft spot for him. She doesn’t want to get too close since what are the odds that Bob would return her affection?
“Yeah, sure, whatever,” Alice mumbles, lifting her hand dismissively.
“Dammit, now she hates me!” Bob thinks.
Alice intervenes because she wants to be helpful as stated in the justification. Does stating that explicitly make much difference in this example? Is there now conflict where there was none before?
Alice tells Bob to stand up for himself. (People shouldn’t intervene.)
Bob doesn’t stand up for himself.
Alice intervenes for Bob because she wants to be helpful (she’s hoping for a reward later and feels sorry for Bob).
To answer this, first recall that story points are the root of conflict; the reason conflict exists. This suggests that story point illustrations should show what that conflict is; how it plays out. Story points are not the conflict. The conflict is what is seen on the page or screen. Story points are the reason for conflict, the subtext of the story. Actors might call this their motivation. It may show up directly on the screen or page, depending on style, tone, and voice, but it’s more likely to be something groked from what is there, instead.
Story points answer why conflict exists.
Illustrations answer how that conflict manifests.
So, the question then, is what do you mean by plot?
If you mean “what is seen on the screen or page”, then the Dramatica Theory technically doesn’t answer this question (without some help, anyway).
If you mean “what is really going on behind the scenes”, then the Dramatica Theory will give you many answers (though rather obscure at times).
Gists are meant to help bridge this gap by giving a tangible example of a story point, a tangible example of a source of conflict. Justifications go further by both giving the source of conflict, and suggesting ways it might manifest.
The scene your wrote for this is really cool. Personally, I’d remove the phrase “by being too complimentary”, as it feels a little too “authorial” for my tastes. I’d also show a little more angst in Alice’s consideration to forgive Bob, to help sell the point that is a source of trouble for her. But those are all edits due to my personal taste, nothing more. The scene doesn’t really need them at all.
(Story Point) Why are they in conflict?
Because they can’t properly decide how to handle Truth. [Mostly felt as subtext.]
(Story Point Illustration) How is that shown?
By their attempts to protect themselves while communicating effectively. [Definitely shown.]
Perhaps not to the audience that you intend. But, if you intend a broader audience, then, you’d probably rather show it. You’ve kind of accidentally already shown why. But, here’s an expanded explanation:
Because of my background, without being shown that Alice really does mean to be helpful, I would automatically read her actions as manipulative and shallow – some kind of personal gain, rather than being helpful. In fact, the new version you’ve posited is exactly what I would have imagined without the original justifications.
Given the original justifications, I would suggest something like this:
[P] Alice hears Bob being insulted, and is torn about helping.
(People want to intercede for someone because they want to be helpful.)
[R] She tells Bob to stand up for herself, hoping he would do so.
(People shouldn’t intervene in order to let others learn to stand up for themselves.)
[C] Unfortunately, Bob doesn’t.
[P] Alice reluctantly intervenes for Bob, to be helpful.
By the way, that also hits PRCP*, which I’ve marked above. In fact, I’ve just noticed that justifications inherently hold the PRC part of PRCP. One side provides the Potential, the possibility for conflict, since it is taken as truth, though it might not always work. The other side provides the Resistance, showing a case where the first justification would fail. When the two are compared you now have the Current: the interaction between them boils into conflict. The result is the Power of that interaction, what it produces.
*PRCP (Potential, Resistance, Current, Power) is the original terminology for PRCO, and due to these justifications, I now understand why Power makes more sense… So, I use it.
Is this a formula for how I should be doing it? I’ve never figured out PRCO other than a vague concept of something like beginning-middle-end or Goal-Conflict-Disaster.
P: One of the 2 justifications
R: The other justification
C: Comparison (how exactly are they compared? Is it like arguing or weighing options? If so, why bother if the first justification failed? Bob failing to stand up for himself wasn’t a comparison, it was 1 character choosing 1 justification and the other choosing the other)
O: Outcome (choosing 1 justification over the other)
No. Technically each of those should have it’s own “Source of Conflict” justification.
The entire process was meant to give writers an insight into the foundational ingredients of an inequity. The parent Storybeat encompassing the PRCO is an inequity, as is each step - Potential is an inequity, Resistance is an inequity, Current is an inequity, and even Outcome is an inequity (to provide the impetus for the next Potential).
There is no clear 1:1 relationship between the inequity of the parent PRCO and the individual P, R, C, O. If you look for this, you’re not seeing the purpose or point of the exercise - it’s not meant to be a shortcut, but rather, an experience so you can intuit conflict on your own.
I think I stepped in the way in another thread when I made a comment but hadn’t followed the entire thread. Hopefully I’m not doing the same here -I haven’t read everything in this thread just yet, still catching up.
But I think your justifications are ok coming in loud and clear. For example, if I say the Superhero needs to use his powers to save lives unless he needs to blend in to keep from being murdered, that’s a clear set of justifications and the story writes itself.
The superhero uses his powers to save a life.
The bad guy takes notice of the superhero’s powers and makes an attempt on his life. The hero narrowly escapes.
Someone gets in trouble. Only someone with powers can help. The hero tries to help without using powers, but is unable to save the person. Just before it’s too late, the hero decides to use his powers and save a life.
The bad guy is alerted to the heroes presence and makes another attempt on his life.
The hero tries not to use his powers as he tries to escape the bad guy because he needs to blend in and lose the bad guy.
The hero gets put into a place where he can kill the bad guy without using powers. But he doesn’t want to kill. Turns out he can use his powers to stop the bad guy and save the life of not only himself, but of the bad guy as well! He uses his powers to save both lives showing that he can find Good Success by holding onto to one justification over the other.
