Question about Building Greater Sources of Conflict

questions
#63

Maybe:

Martin wants to go along with what the rich kids do because he wants to be known as cool UNLESS Martin needs to stand up for his friends in order to think of himself as honorable.

3 Likes
#64

Awesome. I really like this. Thank you.

2 Likes
#65

Do both justifications have to use the same story point or is it enough that one does? With some of these examples, it’s hard to tell what the storypoint might be.

Also, is there a point to doing this at a larger level (ex. Signposts) if you’re just going to break them down smaller? (PSR) Should I be doing this at Signposts to get an idea of what they’re about or just go straight to the smallest units to avoid getting confused more wondering whether or not my Signpost’s justifications encompass the PSR ones?

When trying to come up with the 2nd justification, if I start with “We need to appreciate each other in order to get along” am I supposed to ask myself “When don’t we need to appreciate each other?” (answer: “if we don’t care about getting along,” which doesn’t form a justification) or “When don’t we need to appreciate each other in order to get along?” (answer: ???)

#66

That you are using the same point to generate two justifications that don’t work at the same time is how you make that point a source of conflict.

Yes

You just need to find a justification of appreciation that can’t be engaged in at the same time as the first.

1 Like
#67

What Greg said. :slight_smile: Also:

Actually, what I find helps the process is to look at the gists for the story point in question and focus on the ones that are a little different. Try to get ideas from them. This isn’t necessary, but it can help if you don’t already have an idea for the second justification.

So, assuming you were using Understanding as your story point, with appreciating someone as the gist, I would stay away from all the appreciating ones, and stuff like groking someone. But something like intentionally creating misunderstandings sure looks interesting! Maybe something like…

We need to appreciate each other in order to get along UNLESS we should create misunderstandings between each other because we crave (desire) revenge

2 Likes
#68

How does the “because” instead of “in order to” thing work?
Could it work like this: “We can be mistaken (falsehood) for lovers because we want to keep looking at each other UNLESS ???” This is something that happens in a scene of mine, but I’ve got no 2nd justification to pair with it and I don’t even know if one is possible because the 1st one is weirdly phrased-- I think I structured it correctly, but it reads like an event instead of a truth.

EDIT: Does this work? “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.”

I’m not sure how “can” fits in with “should” “need” “want” other than I’m guessing they fit the KTAD quad. The latter 3 seem to have imperative to drive them forward-- “I should eat food” “I need to eat food” “I want to eat food” all point a character towards consuming food. “Can” sounds like “eh, I could take it or leave it.”

#69

I suspect that @mlucas is using “because” here to work with a Desire gist. You could probably write it with “in order to”, but it would likley be awkward and clunky. We need to appreciate each other in order to get along UNLESS we should create misunderstandings between each other in order to satisfy a craving for revenge. (It ends up feeling like Ability instead of Desire when you try to do that… Hmm…)

It might be that your scene is only an event – too granular a level to actually have any conflict. There are numerous definitions of the word scene, and some don’t actually include a need for conflict.

It could also be possible that the conflict is at a deeper level than you’re exploring, still buried in subtext. Try asking yourself some other questions. What else is happening around this scene? Why would being mistaken for lovers be a problem? Is it a problem? Or is something else the real issue here? How could they be mistaken for lovers here?

In fact, it looks like you actually did this, as your edit is really good:

  1. We can be mistaken for lovers because we want to keep looking at each other UNLESS
  2. We need to cover up our feelings in order to avoid people thinking badly of us.

The first is a truth that says that “we will endure a falsehood to satisfy our desire.”
The second is a truth that says “we will enforce a falsehood to prevent something we do not desire.”

But, when juxtaposed in this context, they can’t have both. Either they endure the falsehood of people thinking them lovers, so they can look at each other, OR they present a facade so they aren’t scorned, even though it means they can’t look at each other. They can’t have both, even though both are true.

There’s always going to be one that feels out of place. For me, the three that go together are “can”, “need”, and “should”, whereas “want” feels wonky. I find the first three pertain more to provisions, while “want” feels more volitional. Now, to get technical:

Note that “want” isn’t meant to be just a “take it or leave it” kind of desire in Dramatica. It can be this, but it might be something more, since it relates to Deficiency (an appraisal of what is lacking). If it were only the “take it or leave it” kind of desire, then the terminology could have been “*Unneeded”.

However, note that one of the creators of Dramatica (Chris, I think) has said that they generally don’t like the Un- forms. Dynamic pairs aren’t exactly supposed to be opposites. Knowledge and Thought aren’t opposites, but they can work with each other and against each other, and can feel like they are. The same is true of Ability and Desire. Thus, “want” and “need”, in Dramatica follow the same ideas, since they relate to Deficiency and Need, which aren’t exactly opposites, either. Thus, “take it or leave it” is only one aspect of “want” in Dramatica, and goes deeper than that, but that’s one of those aspects that isn’t really easy to explain and makes far more sense once you feel it out to grok in its entirety.

2 Likes
#70

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.

1 Like
#71

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.

1 Like
#72

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”.

1 Like
#73

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.)

1 Like
#74

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.

Haha I guess great minds think alike @Hunter! :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#75

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?

#76

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.

1 Like
#77

I definitely agree with this.

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.

1 Like
#78

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?

2 Likes
#79

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?)

If you can write to it, run with it! :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
#80

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
  • having a feeling about each other
  • having misgivings about getting together
  • suspecting something is true love
  • suspecting something is not true love
3 Likes
#81

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?

#82

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.

Like in @jassnip’s scene in Justification practice.

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. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

Anyway, the reason there’s no conflict here is because you never show the first justification.

  1. Alice tells Bob to stand up for himself. (People shouldn’t intervene.)
  2. Bob doesn’t stand up for himself.
  3. 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.

1 Like