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.
