Hmm. I’m not sure about that gist. It think it depends on the context. I would be interested to hear from others, but I think it makes sense if it means something like “picturing how to fit in” or even, trying to fit in. I think of Conceptualizing as a problematic process of planning, scheming, visualizing, imagining in detail, telling your story, etc.
That sounds more like Mind to me, but again it probably depends on context.
I think the “fititng in” gist must refer to figuring out how things fit together, i.e. the piecing things together aspect of Conceptualizing. So fitting in, as in fitting in with others (or society etc.), definitely could work if it was about “figuring out how to fit in.” (I guess this is basically what @Lakis said 
.)
EDIT: Not fitting in should work in a similar manner. You can imagine the other people in some group looking at your MC and being unable to figure out how he could fit in.
It’s worth pointing out that Jim defined the Conceptualizing Goal as “integrating into a new environment” in his Knives Out analysis (not sure if this was brought up in the Knives Out thread, I didn’t read that thread as I haven’t seen the movie).
Immigrants integrating into a new environment sounds pretty close to fitting in, I’d say!
Would this count: “MC has opposing conceptualizations of what a happy life looks like: one sheltered from risks and pain, and another made of novelty and adventure. Being afraid to pick either leaves him paralyzed with indecision and unhappy.” or is that just the structure of a Change character?
The way you describe it, the source of conflict here sounds like the MC’s fear and not their Conceptualizing.
Two opposing concepts lead to indecision.
I think it works great. Greg’s right that there’s fear and worry in there for sure, but I think if you keep it focused on the manners of thinking aspect of two opposing concepts, it’ll be perfect.
But it’s only the first step. Now you have to use that to figure out what actually happens in the story, in one or more scenes. (You could also look to the PSR for ideas.)
Okay, so the existence of two opposing concepts is the source of conflict here. But is it just the presence of two opposing concepts? What about there being two opposing concepts makes this an example of Conceptualizing? To get right to the point, how is choosing between two concepts itself an example of visualizing how an existing idea might be implemented?
I got the sense the MC is visualizing how a happy life could be implemented, and is running into trouble because he’s envisioning different things that are at odds with each other. Isn’t that what you were going for @SharkCat?
Anyway I think the reason it’s hard to see how this works is because it needs to go down to the next level of what happens in the story.
Yes.
I thought that part came after the basic PRCO stuff. I’m still stuck on making one thing lead to another without possibly bleeding into OS or RS (wanting to feel useful and to belong to a group despite raging anxiety would involve other people, so I don’t know what belongs in MC or not). It’s a holistic story form, so I don’t know if that’s part of the problem.
But having two different plans or concepts to choose from isn’t Conceptualizing any more than having two different paths to choose from is Conceptualizing, or two different answers, or two different desserts, or two different anything, because making a choice is not Conceptualizing. A concept is not Conceptualizing and two concepts is not Conceptualizing.
Trying to see how two opposing concepts (or plans, or paths, or answers, or anything) fit together is Conceptualizing, as is being unable to see how two opposing concepts fit together. Even holding on to one concept while living the other might be Conceptualizing. Or coming up with too many plans for how to live a happy life might be Conceptualizing. But the way it was worded-
-doesn’t express any of those. IF the idea is that visualizing too many paths to a happy life leads to indecision, then I’m just trying to make sure we’re pointing to that.
It seems to me that Fitting In could be the subject of nearly any domain.
Just thinking out loud:
Situation could be about the need to fit in, how some are fitting in and others are not and how that affects how other people relate to them.
Activity could be about the actual act of fitting in, what one has to do and the complications that arise from trying to fit in.
Manner of Thinking could be about what it means to fit in, figuring out how one would go about it and what type of people would or would not want to fit in.
Fixed Attitude could be about the desire to fit in and why someone would or would not want to.
I think this is absolutely key, and is the reason why it’s probably a mistake to focus too much on one story point without taking the rest into account.
We saw this in the Knives Out analysis. “Being the child of someone undocumented” sounds like a Situation, unless the real problem is one’s Mindset (and the Mindset of others toward you).
Maybe the other approach is get really specific with the illustration to show that it’s the visualizing part that’s creating conflict rather than the fear part (assuming that’s what you want to say @SharkCat)
Yep. Just depends on what you want to say about ‘fitting in’.
Just as long as Conceptualizing is the cause of conflict. Specific or not, having “concept” in the illustration isn’t enough (there’s a thread where CHuntley explains how it works to me, I’ll have to dig it up and post a link), and that’s what I was trying to point out.
Also, looking at the thread title-“Should a signpost be a dilemma or is being a problem enough?”-I’m not sure how “dilemma” is being used, but I think SharkCat is asking if a signpost needs to be a choice between two of whatever the signposts are. (@SharkCat?) if that’s correct, then I would say not to make a signpost a choice between two. You want whatever the process is to be the problem. So a choice between two concepts is not Conceptualizing, but seeing how those concepts fit in (or being unable to see) is.
Nah, just go ahead and go for it, have fun and make those signposts feel real. Be careful not to limit yourself – you should feel free to let loose here and use whatever your imagination comes up with. Don’t worry about bleeding into OS or RS, that happens to me all the time and it just makes it easier to weave the throughlines together later! Obviously don’t try to bring in other throughlines, keep it focused on the MC’s personal issue(s) as much you can, but in a loose sort of guiding way, rather than feeling handcuffed. (Oh, and it’s totally cool to have other characters “in” the MC throughline. There are a lot of stories where certain friends or family members are used for the MC throughline perspective. They can be OS characters too, or just part of MC.)
At this stage it’s okay to make mistakes, you can go back and fix things easily. Once you get to Signpost 4 you may review the whole thing and realize the arc (another word for PRCO) will be stronger if you make changes to earlier ones.
Greg’s right that the process needs to be the problem, but FWIW I definitely felt like you captured that. (MC has an idea, is trying to visualize how to implement it, and it’s that process of visualization that’s specifically causing problems because he’s visualizing two mutually exclusive methods. I didn’t think you were going for a choice between them, but more like the MC is feeling like he needs both to be happy.)
This is going to sound like crazy advice (and maybe it only works for me)… But personally I think Dramatica works WAY better when you’re more accepting/inclusive in terms of what “fits” or “counts” for a particular element. I’m not sure if anyone will agree with this. But I feel like, if you’re working from a storyform, and you have a good sense of your narrative & 4 throughlines, and an illustration inspires you and feels right, it probably is. And if something doesn’t work, I feel like your mind will self-correct and let you know (usually via your gut).
Plus, if it turns out you had the wrong storyform to begin with and you’re actually crafting a different argument, then the looser you allowed yourself to be with the stuff you wrote, the more likely you won’t need to change it!
This is a great reminder @mlucas. I agree 100% – it’s really easy to psych yourself out.
I almost think Dramatica requires two different mindsets – a “rigorous” approach for analysis (so that you can learn/develop an intuition for the story points) and a more free approach when you’re writing.
I’m replying to something in a deleted post, here, but i don’t think you should think of Signpost 4 as a solution, or as something that will solve the problem of the other three Signposts. Think of it as another problem/source of conflict and just let the Solution (or MC Problem in case of a Steadfast MC) be the solution to all levels.
There are articles out there that go into greater depth, but as I understand it, when the mind has a problem, it starts as an irritation at the Element level. Whichever area is feeling the irritation of the problem will get flipped or rotated to another position. So if Pursuit is where the initial irritation is felt, then it might be flipped to Avoid. From there, if the irritation is still felt the mind might move the whole quad out of the way by flipping Self Interest with Morality. And from there it might rotate Obtaining to Understanding or Learning. And then eventually flip Physics with Psychology. (All of the flips and rotates are determined by various dynamic storyform choices).
At this point, when Physics is flipped with Psych, the mind can’t move up any more levels (though it could work it’s way back down through Psychology. I have a guess as to what working back down represents, and I’ve mentioned it before, but that’s for another time). So from here the problem either persists, which I guess would mean Failure, or the switch from Problem to Solution gets rid of the irritation of the problem and the mind unwinds so that Psych flips back to Physics, the Concern rotates back to Obtaining, Morality goes back to Self Interest, and Avoid goes back to Pursuit and the problem is gone and the mind is at rest and once again looks like the DTSE.
I’m going by the MC throughline video on Subtext-- the final Signpost was the thing that would lead the MC to the Solution.
Edit: This is the best I can do right now for this:
S1: Wanting to be useful and belong, MC is so preoccupied with thinking of potential mistakes he might make whenever someone needs help that he doesn’t get things done and lets people down.
S2: When MC’s only friend persuades him to join his musical act, MC’s performance anxiety causes his mind to race with contingency plans that he forgets the song’s words and freezes.
S3: To avoid potentially ruining anything else, he becomes a worse person by refusing to help anyone (maybe that’s not Becoming enough since I can’t see him permanently ridding himself of a helpful nature. Maybe Becoming can be that he lets a bug die rather than interfere and help it), which exacerbates feelings of uselessness.
S4: He has an idea that can only be done spontaneously. When nothing goes wrong despite lack of planning, he changes from Determining that failure is the result of his failing to plan enough to forming more realistic Expectations (planning and success aren’t necessarily linked). Being no longer afraid to help makes him feel more useful.
I might have Determination and Expectation reversed and should have the Problem being Expecting things to go wrong all the time causing him to over-plan and solving it with Determining other factors that might’ve caused failures, or better yet, even Determining ways that failures might lead to improvement.
This is great! I can feel the arc of it – always a good sign.
For the third signpost, I actually like that he becomes someone worse – maybe one of his friends is like “what’s wrong, you used to care enough to help” and he wonders if he’s lost that part of himself forever.
Becoming doesn’t have to be irreversible – it’s permanent “for now” but can be undone by another change. (Though there will also be that period of time where you became or unbecame something.)
Similarly, the becoming could be attributed to something other than the full, actual MC. Like like he might realize that some part of himself has become uncaring, or he imagines that he has become uncaring, and that causes personal strife.
I either haven’t seen it, or haven’t seen it in a long time. Don’t really remember. But I can’t speak to what the video says at the moment. What I would say to that, though, is maybe SP4 leads to a Solution to the Problem, but not a solution to the other SPs, and that it leads to the Solution in that once you work through SP4 as a source of conflict you have fully explored the quad and have all of the information to decide to Change or remain Steadfast.
But you still need SP4 to be a source of conflict. If you take a traditional 3-act structure, then act 3 isn’t just a solution to the first 2 acts, right? It’s usually the part of the story that has the most conflict with the biggest stakes, right? And the Solution comes at the end of act 3. Think of Dramatica’s Sign Post 4 as act 3. This works even better when you keep in mind that a traditional 3 act structure actually has 4 acts (act 1, act 2A, act 2B, and act 3).