Let’s say you pick OS Issue Fate (so RS Issue is Truth) and OS Problem Knowledge.
- If MC Resolve is Change, then MC Problem is also Knowledge;
- - if MC Approach is Do-er → MC Domain is Physics
- - - the Variant above Knowledge in the Physics Domain is Instinct, so MC Issue is Instinct and IC Issue is State of Being
- - if MC Approach is Be-er → MC Domain is Psychology
- - - the Variant above Knowledge in the Psychology Domain is State of Being, so MC Issue is State of Being and IC Issue is Instinct
- If MC Resolve is Steadfast, then MC Symptom is the same as OS Symptom (Chaos/Order)
- - If MC Approach is Do-er → MC Domain is Physics
- - - the Variant above Chaos/Order in the Physics Domain is Interpretation, so MC Issue is Interpretation and IC Issue is Circumstances
- - If MC Approach is Be-er → MC Domain is Psychology
- - - the Variant above Chaos/Order in the Psychology Domain is Situation, so MC Issue is Situation and IC Issue is Senses
Does that make sense?
One thing you should notice is that all throughlines share either problem/solution pairs or symptom/response pairs with another. So choosing Knowledge as your OS Problem means that the RS Problem is either Knowledge (which incidentally also means that Outcome is Failure) or an element that is in the same quad as the OS symptom/response pair in the RS domain. (That’s my interpretation of what goes on behind the scenes.)
Let’s say OS Domain Universe, OS Problem Knowledge. OS Symptom/Response pair is Chaos/Order. Since RS has to be diametrically opposed to OS, RS Domain is Mind. Chaos/Order in the Mind Domain is in the same Quad as Inertia/Change. And Inertia is chosen over Change because Knowledge and Inertia are both on the top of the quad.
RS Problem Inertia would also happen if OS Domain was Mind instead.
RS Problem Projection would happen if OS Domain was Physics or Psychology.
The relation between MC and IC works a bit differently, but I’m not going into that right now.
(One thing to keep in mind is that the story engine only generates a fraction of what would be possible with the Dramatica theory. For example, the engine was apparently built from a Western perspective.)
I’m afraid that this is exactly the case. There is a rather strong link between static story points and the signposts. In the thread about Interactive Fiction and Dramatica, I made a suggestion to “cheat” a bit by leaving the true nature of some story points ambiguous until you reach a certain point in the story.
But as @jhull said, “the storyform is a message of intent.” And it’s called Grand Story Argument after all. Any “wiggle room” you leave, muddles the argument and seems to go against the entire point behind Dramatica. It might be useful to ask why you want to use Dramatica for your purposes.