Skimming through the topic and thinking about the fortune the husband and I spent on dog training just to feel in charge, the question that comes to mind: Would the fact that the dog is a logic character play into anything?
I donât think weâll go that far in this thread, but thatâs a neat idea â you can also use the chart to assign the Elements (lowest level) to the overall story characters. So like Prish says, the dog could be motivated by Logic, for example. Itâs another thing the chart / Table of Elements can be used for.
(But I should mention, despite all you can do with the chart, itâs still worth at least checking out the demo of the software â it can do SO much more.)
After thinking about influence characters more I think Iâve realized some things about making the system fit with my initial ideas. As these ideas using the influence character concept about the dog donât feel right to me.
I did some more reading about what exactly an influence character is. In a lot of stories itâs a buddy or mentor, but in the dark knight rises is was the joker. I initially thought it was kind of a b-story character, but I donât really think thatâs what dramatica meant by influence character. I think it is basically the character that pushes the main character to their internal change at the midpoint. The influence character isnât necessarily a mentor or buddy or love interest etc. But can be.
So in our story I think the police officer may actually be the influence character as he is the one who brings Bill over the hill of realization to change from hurrying to efficiency. He influences him. I think also that what an influence character is can actually move between character âcontainersâ throughout a story along with any type of character in dramatica. So the dog could still have hints of influence on Bill, but how the story was originally pictured in my head I think the dog would have more elements of what dramatica would call a support character.
I think itâs important to see this as itâs important to realize that you are trying to use the system to build the story one has in mind as opposed to letting the system change your story into something else just to make it âcompleteâ even if itâs not what you hand in mind.
Yes, totally! Youâre spot on with everything there, I think. Except that the main characterâs Change can be gradual or a sudden moment-of-truth thing, and doesnât have to occur at the midpoint. (And also, if the main character is Steadfast, then itâs the influence character who Changes. Though keep in mind a Steadfast character can and does still grow.)
Sorry, I didnât realize you had some ideas about this story other than what youâd first proposed, so I thought it was okay to just build it up using the dog as IC. Using the police officer sounds good. So that means we have to describe his Domain & Concern of Fixed Attitude & Innermost Desires â he has his own perspective and issues going on that impact everyone around him.
(Note there is such a thing as Influence Character hand-off where there can be more than one IC in the story, but itâs very tricky so I think we should stay away from it for this exercise.)
I didnât necessarily plan this story itâs just a dumb simple story, but a great exercise. What I mean is when you initially have an idea for any story you get an initial image or concept in your head and when something starts going against that concept it doesnât feel right
The officets inner most desire is finishing his donut, but when Bill speeds by that changes his day. His fixed Attitude would be maintaining order.
Iâd say thatâs partially correct. The influence character is meant to try to influence the main character. But almost every concept in Dramatica has both a positive and negative charge (i.e. OBTAINING could refer to getting something-find the key-or getting rid of something-hide the evidence). This means the Influence character could cause the main character to change, or could end up being changed by the Main Character. Because of this, I generally see both the MC and IC as influence characters and the Main Character is simply the Influence character that we see the story through (although this thinking may be wrong. I havenât seen anything that backs it up on any of the Dramatica websites, so donât take that part to heart).
A skeptic is supposed to tell someone they donât agree/donât think something is a good idea. A sidekick is supposed to agree with someone. A contagonist is supposed to make someones journey more difficult. All of the Dramatica archetypes, I think, could have an influence on another character and how they think or behave. That influence may even be enough to kick the story to the next section (if the MC has a monkeys paw and 3 wishes, the Monkeys Paw may actually be the IC, but when the MC wishes for her son to return from the dead and her son shows up as a zombie, the zombie son pushes the MC to make the next wish-not a great example probably, but first off the top of my head) But itâs the IC whose efforts will influence the way the MC decides to solve the problem. Will the convince the IC to change from Order to Chaos?
So the police officer may actually be the influence character. Or, if the dog has been warning of consequences for hurrying, and the police officer enters the story long enough to give the MC a ticket and tell him to slow down, and the dog says âSee? I told youâ then it could still be that the dog is the influence character. After all, the MC may be about to start speeding even after being pulled over if not for the dogs further efforts. Does the MC decide to slow down as a culmination of the police officers efforts? Or the dogs?
Also consider that the dog, as mlucas pointed out, could be handing off his Influence to the officer momentarily.
You are meant to use Dramatica to tell a Grand Argument Story and to make sure all the holes in your argument are filled in. If what is in your head doesnât match whatâs in Dramatica, then the idea behind Dramatica is that either your argument is broken, or you are using the wrong storyform to make your argument. I think the creators of Dramatica have also suggested that when you come up with an idea, you may come up with several great ideas, but it might be that, while they are all in the same genre, they do not all belong in the same story. Maybe they belong to some other story about the same character, or they may even belong to a second story form within the same film or novel.
Cool, so the police officer is driven by his cravings for donuts and other baked goods, which causes trouble for him, his family, his colleagues, etc. and somehow will also cause trouble for Bill in this story. (IC Concern: Innermost Desires)
âMaintaining orderâ sounds more like an activity but I totally see what youâre getting at, letâs call it hating disorder. He just hates it when people break or even bend rules, heâs not willing to compromise, and this causes trouble for people because, doesnât everyone need to bend the rules sometimes? (IC Domain: Fixed Attitude)
One thing to note is that you can choose more than one âgistâ for each story point, like along with cravings for donuts the police officer is also afflicted with longings or has a huge crush on someone. But for this simple exercise letâs keep it to one thing.
The next part might be tricky to grasp. Basically, because weâve chosen the police officer as the IC, it means that Bill and he are going to have some kind of relationship in this story. Maybe they start off knowing each other already, like the police officer is Billâs brother or cousin or mom, or the guy that in school he looked up to / bullied / was bullied by. (I wouldnât make it the girlfriend as sheâs too much in the MC throughline.) Or they meet for the first time, and somehow influence each other enough that the reader/audience can sort of sense this relationship growing in the space between them, even if itâs a small thing.
With this simple story, it will be easier to make it someone Bill knows already, but Iâll leave it up to you. Anyway, the Relationship Story Domain is Manipulation/Psychology and the Concern is Changing One's Nature / Becoming (I include the old terms because often they fit a lot better). As with the other throughlines, itâs better if you can keep it separate especially from OS, like make up a relationship that doesnât have anything to do with the burger; we can always weave in the burger quest after.
EDIT: before you try to define the Domain/Concern, come up with the type of relationship, like brothers, old friends, rivals, colleagues, mentor/mentee, etc. And let me know if you need help with examples of this Domain/Concern, this is where the Mac version of the software totally shines with all its âgistsâ.
I see the police officer as his concience in this story. Heâs able to put the donut down to slow down Bill, just like you may often tell yourself to slow down when youâre in a hurry. I didnât necessarily see them as knowing each other previously. Since its such a short story, basically just a drive to grab a burger, I donât know if it would be a problem if he didnât know him before.
Not really his mentor in life, but for this particular problem of Bills he can be the mentor of the evening as he pulls him over.
I notice you keep mentioning the premise of hurrying vs. taking the time to be efficient and get things right. (Thatâs fascinating to me because I go about writing the opposite way, not thinking about premise/theme at all until I realize what it is based on the storyâs content, the same way a reader or viewer might. I think both ways are totally valid, probably part of a spectrum actually. And maybe you only did it this way for the exercise?)
Anyway, I think the hurrying and taking your time are best represented by the Variation Approach, which, cool enough, is under our OS Concern of Obtaining making it a valid choice for the Overall Story Issue. Isnât that totally cool how you came up with a quick idea about getting a burger, and even though that limited your choice of story issue to only 4 of the 64 Variations, Approach is one of those 4? (Pause for a moment and feel the magic of Dramatica reading your mind. 
)
Anyway, the reason I mention that, is that if that part of premise is covered by the OS Issue, then the stuff in the story dealing with Approach is more just part of the OS Throughline, and not so much the IC. It can still be part of the police officer character, just not directly part of his perspective that impacts Bill towards changing.
One other thing to note, it may be that if this idea is really just âa short story, basically just a drive to grab a burgerâ then it may not be a full-fledged Grant Argument Story, which is totally fine. I think the Dramatica theory book mentions that short stories may just address a single throughline (probably OS in our case). But, if we want to make this have all 4 throughlines for the purpose of the exercise, we may need to think of it as a broader/deeper story.
Ya, I was originally envisioning just a short, simple, complete story, like a bare bones story, using the minimum to make it complete. As dramatica is asking for more from this point it is departing from how I was imagining this story to begin with, but it will be interesting to see where it goes as it makes it a grand argument story or a complete story by its definition.
As you have more experience using dramatica what would you recommend for the influence character? Iâm okay with what you think works well with dramatica as this is the point where it departs from my process it seems, but Iâd like to see where it goes to see what kind of improvements or feeling of completeness it can add to our story from this point.
Cool. Believe it or not with the selections weâve made already (including OS Issue of Approach) weâve gotten down to just 32 remaining storyforms, out of a possible 32,768. So even though weâre âjust using the chartâ (along with Limit, Outcome, and I threw in a Problem-Solving style of Linear because I think thatâs a safe bet), weâve gone pretty far.
As far as the influence character goes, we can really do anything, it just has to be someone whose perspective and impact can make the main character aware of their personal baggage, and make them question their own perspective. The only real requirements are:
- Someone whose influence can be felt by the main character in some way (generally someone who interacts with them, but it doesnât have to be if their influence can be felt some other way)
- Following the storyformâs story points properly (Domain & Concern in our case, since weâre sticking to top 2 levels)
Dramatica actually does the heavy lifting for us in #2 â a character with a strong Fixed Attitude & Innermost Desires will be primed to influence a main character with a Concern of The Future. Then we just have to light the match and watch the explosion.
So the policeman can definitely work. Iâd imagine that if he had to put down his donut to chase Bill, heâd be pretty pissed about that, and might punish Bill unreasonably when he catches him. So then Bill calls his girlfriend from the car to tell her not only is he going to miss the burger, but she might have to bail him out of jail on some trumped-up charge. The policeman overhears and, maybe he hates women or something (another fixed attitude, goes along with his idea about hating disorder, he thinks women are just crazy and chaotic) and feels sorry for Bill, and decides he needs to teach Bill the âright wayâ to get a burger (since he still wants to maintain order) âŚ
So maybe he takes Bill in his squad car to get the burger, but on the way he learns that the girlfriend is actually trying to organize Billâs life, which might make the policeman question his own perspective a little bit (since hereâs a woman whoâs being orderly). Or they might have a âyou and Iâ moment here.
Do you see how that kind of works on its own? The same thing wouldâve worked with the dog, if weâd made him the IC instead (although a dog would be easier if we allowed them to talk somehow).
Ok, lets go with that for the influence character. Does that leave us with the relationship throughline?
Yes, and I think we should go with your gut about them not knowing each other beforehand. (Gut feelings are almost always right!) And I think I already started to define the Manipulation/Psychology part about âteaching Bill the right way to [do something]â (Note itâs best to leave out stuff specific to other throughlines when working on them individually, so letâs not mention the burger for now.) And that was really riffing of of your earlier ideas about the policeman.
So I think itâs kind of a mentor & reluctant mentee relationship, which you mentioned earlier. Cool!
Now how can their relationship be concerned with, and impacted by, Becoming (embodying, transforming, changing oneâs nature, destroying)? It could be something within them, like say Bill wants to apply to become a police officer â you can see how this would impact their relationship even if left unsaid. Or it could be something external, like say the cityâs devolving into a war zone has a big impact on how they relate to each other and on the mentor/mentee âteachingâ. (Note how here we could bring in the backdrop of the war zone and make it really matter without having to add a separate storyform. Because of its effect on the RS, it becomes more than just storytelling colour.)
I hope those examples donât override your own ideas. At least the war zone thing was your idea in the first place!
Just a quick queston to make sure I understand. When using the idea of becoming to write the relationship it would be the relationship as a whole becoming something as opposed to one of them becoming something since we are dealing with the relationship throughline correct? Or am I misunderstanding?
Great question! Iâm a bit fuzzy on it myself, but I think it can be anything to do with Becoming that truly affects or concerns the relationship, and causes conflict.
So if one of them wants to Become something, but this doesnât really matter much to the relationship, it doesnât work. But if the Becoming of one of them really impacts their relationship, it should work. Thatâs why I thought Billâs becoming a police officer was a reasonable example, since the policeman would care about that, it would take their mentor/mentee relationship to a whole new level. So Billâs becoming sort of reflects onto the relationship, giving the relationship a chance to change its nature.
I find that all the time with Dramatica, this mysterious pattern of conflicts reflecting in the story. So like, if you really made the devolving of the city into a huge concern for their relationship, if you really made that work and cause conflict, somehow you will find that their relationship canât help changing its nature. By focusing on the first part, the second part sort of happens automatically.
Ok, lets go with that then. So we now have covered all the throughlines correct?
One other quick question. Is it possible to have a story where both characters stay steadfast in their own throughlines? I imagine if thatâs possible, there would be something else in the story that would mirror that and change?
Wait, which one did you want to go with, Bill wanting to become a police officer, or the devolving city?
Yes we should have all the throughlines covered now. Maybe you could pick the MC Resolve (Change or Steadfast, it seems like youâre leaning towards Change), and MC Judgment too?
To answer your other question, no, either the MC or IC must change their perspective for a valid story. (Both can be seen to grow, but only one changes)
Letâs go with Bill wanting to become a polive officer and see where that takes us.
For MC resolve I would choose change and for MC judgement I think it should be good.
Maybe Iâm wrong, but in the Dark Knight neither Joker or Batman change from beginning to end. Bruce Wayne breaks down for a moment, but returns to who he was staying steadfast in the end. The Joker even comments on it towards the end of the movie. One is an immovable object and the other is an unstoppable force.
Another movie that Iâve had difficulty seeing the change in is the original Rocky movie. Both him and Adrian seem to be defined by their values and they stand by those values and keep standing back up with those values after each time of getting knocked down. It seems to me that itâs the outside world and their relationship that changes while they both stay steadfast. Maybe Iâm wrong.
One other thing that this brings to mind is a movie like Avengers that is written with a group of main characters. Iâm sure you say that one of them is THE main character of that movie, but Iâm not so sure. Would dramatica handle a story like that or would you say thats a different story form than a grand argument story?
I donât remember Rocky or The Dark Knight enough to really comment (actually I donât even think I saw the Dark Knight). Looking at those analyses though:
- Rocky is Steadfast, so Adrian is the Change character. Looking at his Problem/Solution, Adrian goes from being driven by Non-Accurate to embracing Accurate.
- Batman is Change, and with his Problem/Solution, he goes from being driven by Process to embracing Result.
If that doesnât help, I notice both of those analyses have podcasts; Rocky even has a video one. So definitely check those out, Iâm sure youâll learn how the Change characters changed.
Also keep in mind that a Change characterâs change is all about his/her personal perspective which is related to his/her own issues. My guess is what you see in both Rocky and The Dark Knight is totally on the money, but itâs part of the OS. Someone can keep from backing down and be an immovable object from the overall perspective, but still change from the subjective perspective.
Finally, a group of main characters does happen (see Stalag 17, good write-up on NarrativeFirst.com) but I think itâs fairly rare. Usually a story like you describe with Avengers, if itâs complete, would have a lot of focus and screen time on OS and all the OS characters, but there would be one character who is the one with real personal baggage and a personal viewpoint that the audience naturally embraces. Or like you suggest, it might not be a GAS.
For our chart-driven story development, weâre actually almost as far as the chart can take us. Maybe Iâll take the time to summarize all of our story points so far (maybe tomorrow, itâs late now). Then we can look at that as a roadmap of this story and see how it informs our ideas. But it would be up to the writer to start doing the heavy lifting now, consulting the storyform from time to time to see if heâs on track.
We could also go to the Issue level if you want; to me thatâs where the fun really starts. If we stick with Approach for OS, the RS Issue is set to Rationalization, and for MC Issue we have a choice of either Openness or Choice, while the IC Issue can be either Closure or Dream. (Theyâre related though, we either have to pick Openness & Closure or Choice & Dream.) Believe it or not, weâre down to 8 possible storyforms, and selecting the MC Issue will bring us down to 4.
If we do that we might as well go down to the complete storyform, which will tell you the Act order (Signposts). But in that case you should probably get at least the demo version of the software if you didnât already!