Some questions about Problems and Symptoms

questions
#1

  1. Does the MC have to actively think that his problem is the Symptom (ex. MC is aware that he’s a coward for Avoiding his fears and decides to Pursue those things to desensitize himself), or can it be a reaction to the Problem (ex. because the MC has a Problem of Disbelieving in the loyalty of others, MC wants to Avoid rejection, so he Pursues a loner lifestyle)? I’ve gotten the impression from differing explanations that it could be either.

  2. Can the IC come out and tell the MC what MC’s problem is (not that MC will necessarily believe or act on it), or does the MC have to remain unconscious of the problem until the end? Does it make a difference whether the Change is a Leap of Faith or gradual?

  3. Could the MC suspect the Problem? In my last example, I’d imagine that the MC would be aware that he Disbelieves in the loyalty of others, but may just consider it a fact rather than an opinion to be changed, or maybe he’d rather focus on taking the easy way out by Avoiding rejection.

  4. Would an IC trying to help the MC focus on helping to alleviate the MC’s Symptom or Problem? It looks like if I set the Relationship and MC Problems as the same thing, the Story Outcome is set to Failure. If the MC Symptom and R Problems match, then the outcome is Success.

  5. If a Steadfast IC tries to help the MC face fears instead of Avoiding them, can the IC ironically/hypocritically be running away from some fears too? I’m guessing if the MC points that out and the IC fixes that, IC would still remain Steadfast, having only wavered rather than changed opinion.

EDIT: added some numbers to make it easier to respond to.

#2

I think, in the end, that comes down to how you want to write it. You could have the character be completely blind to the Problem; you could have them think that the Problem and the Symptom are the same thing; you could have them know that their problem is the Problem but reject it; you could have them be incapable of facing the Problem until they’ve grown in some way; the list goes on.

Again, depends on how explicit you want the story to be. You could have the Impact Character outright say, “You need to stop thinking about $Symptom and start focusing on $Problem instead,” or they could just prod the Main Character in the right (or wrong) direction. As to whether it’s a Leap of Faith or not, yeah, it depends on how aware of the Problem the Main Character is and how much of it they’ve accepted so far.

Actually, I’d argue the Impact Character doesn’t care about the Main Character’s Problem or Symptom. You know what they care about? Their own Problem (if Steadfast, their drive). They affect the Main Character in some way, but other than trying to change them from Problem to Solution, it all depends on writing again. Remember, it’s possible to write a story where the Impact Character doesn’t even know or meet the Main Character.

The Impact Character can be… complicated, perhaps, but I think having them Pursue in some cases and Avoid in other cases would be confounding. Now, if what appeared to be Avoiding was actually, say, Reaction or Unproven, that would just mean they’re a complex character with traits in both the Protagonistic and Antagonistic domains. But the critical rule of character traits is that one character can’t house both members of a Dynamic Pair.

#3

[quote=“actingpower, post:2, topic:347”]
I think having them Pursue in some cases and Avoid in other cases would be confounding.[/quote]

If a Change MC has a problem with Avoid, must he avoid everything all the time (I fear that such an MC might become annoying to the audience) or something specific that’s causing trouble? If the IC represents the path of Pursuit, must he never once Avoid a fear or whatever in the course of the story, or can a Steadfast character waver and maybe catch himself being hypocritical?

Ex. If an MC has problems in the story from Avoiding social situations, while the IC is fine with them (would he actively Pursue them or merely not Avoid them?), would the IC preferring to Avoid painful reminders of his past disqualify him as an IC even though social situations and reminders are two different things?

Just to be sure, the Steadfast IC advocates the MC’s Solution rather than stances on Issues, right?

I’m having trouble choosing an IC in a partially formed story. I have an MC and another character, each representing a divergent path. MC dealt with anxiety by Avoiding many aspects of life while the other Pursued life, becoming stronger by facing fears. This character may be the IC since MC starts measuring his experience against that of this character, which tanks his self-worth. Another potential IC really likes the MC and helping/making him expand his horizons and get over some fears (might be Test instead of Pursuit) furthers his own agenda. Maybe they’re both ICs. I don’t know yet.

#4

Ah, you’re right. What makes the subjective characters special in the story is that, throughout the story, they’re in that protoplasmic center between the Problem and the Solution. Unlike the other characters, who will remain constant throughout, the Main Character and the Impact Character do have the capacity for change. If, however, they do change, it should be under the influence of their counterpart, not just because they’re wavering. So if your Avoid Main Character is starting to Pursue, it should be because they’re following the model of their Impact Character. Likewise, if your Pursue Impact Character starts Avoiding something, it should be because they’ve lost a bit of ground with the Main Character. That push and pull is what makes the story feel like progress is happening.

I disagree with your assertion that a character maintaining a single trait would become annoying. On the contrary, it’s what makes characters believable and interesting. Some Main Characters hold stubbornly onto their Problems until the last minute, while others dabble into the Solution a little bit before the final Climax. Either way, the non-subjective characters all hold one trait throughout the whole story, and they’re not annoying.

It’s not a great idea to have two characters both represent Pursuit. Your readers will feel like one of them is unnecessary. On the other hand, it sounds like you got it figured out. The second character just wants the character to break out of their shell, but the first one represents whom the Main Character wants to be.

#5

That makes sense. I wouldn’t want my IC to be a perfect cheerleader all the time.

I wanted to be careful with an MC who Avoids, since outside of Dramatica, I’ve read people complaining how they don’t like characters (I think they’re blending Protag and MC) that aren’t proactive enough and merely react all the time. I don’t want an MC who Avoids everything and does nothing-- then there’d be no story! I’m guessing that the Avoid only comes into play if the character sees something as a problem? A school principal who has a fear of public speaking might consider making a speech a problem to Avoid, but has no problem with sky diving, which another character with a fear of heights would see as a problem and Avoid. Does that make sense?

Hmm. If most of the objective characters are after the Story Goal (say, saving a failing business or winning a war), how do you decide who, in the Character Elements, is Pursuit? Aren’t they all (except the antagonistic ones) Pursuing the goal? I’ve been focusing on Problem and Symptom Elements rather than Character Elements (I’m having problems coming up with an objective story), so I’m not totally sure how they’re connected.

Maybe my MC’s Symptom is Avoid and with the encouragement of his friend, he tries to Change his Nature to become braver like the character he envies by Pursuing things. He’ll fail and become discouraged because his real Problem is Disbelief in himself to improve.

#6

I think all stories (or at least, if we look at them through Dramatica’s lens) rely on that uncertainty. Until the very last moment, we’re not sure whether the Main Character will change or the Impact Character will. We might have an idea about what should happen or how we expect the story to go, but at that moment when the Main Character stands on the precipice, some small part of us thrills in anticipation.

Ah, what a shame! You’ve fallen into the same trap as the very same people you thought you were disagreeing with. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes: Don’t you remember that it’s the Protagonist, not the Main Character, that makes the Overall Throughline drive forward? If the Impact Character carries the Pursue trait, then they’re the one making the story in that regard. The Main Character is just trying to Avoid having to make a choice. Perhaps this is your other misstep: Avoid isn’t just “eh, I’d rather not do anything.” It’s, “I will actively, passionately keep anything from happening.” Avoid is the revolutionary destroying the factories, the fearful ex-boyfriend who changes his number and flees the county, the wife who seeks out extra assignments at work so that she doesn’t have to go home and talk to her husband about their incompatibilities. Avoid is as much a fire in the character’s belly as Pursue is.

The Protagonist, Antagonist, Guardian, and Contagonist are all Driver Archetypes, which mean they are the ones most in charge of the plot’s progression. The Antagonist isn’t Pursuing because they’re Avoiding the issue; the Guardian isn’t Pursuing because they can only Help, not tackle the Goal directly; the Contagonist isn’t Pursuing because they’re too busy Hindering everyone else. The other four Archetypes (Reason, Emotion, Sidekick, and Skeptic) are all Passenger Archetypes, so they can’t make any progress at all. They can only advise the other four towards Logic, Emotion, Support, and Oppose respectively.

Also, it’s… inaccurate to think of the Antagonist, Contagonist, Emotion, and Skeptic characters as the “bad guys.” Star Wars is a pretty good example of this. Darth Vader is the Contagonist, but he Hinders the Empire as much as he Hinders Luke and co. Han Solo is the Skeptic, but I certainly wouldn’t call him an “antagonist” because of it!

Maybe. Or maybe the Symptom is Disbelief, with the Response being Faith. The Main Character sees that he has no faith in himself and tries to feel better by strengthening his Faith, but so long as he continues to Avoid the Goal, he’ll never make any progress. Either way is possible; write the story you want to write. :smile: