Understanding Throughline Configurations in Dramatica

Support
1

In the article The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel: Season One, the relationship story problem is effect.

Based on the throughline configurations the OS, MC, and IC throuhgline, I would have placed the problem in the relationship story throughline as Expectation, Issue, Desire, Concern Being, and Domain as Psychology.

You seem to have placed the problem as effect, solution cause, issue ability, and concern as being.

It seems you placed the issue and problem in the quad diagonal to the issue of desire, and problem of expectation, with the concern of being.

You mentioned in a disuss dramatica post that for the influence character throughline and relationship story throughline, one has the option of choosing to place the issue and problem in the diagonal opposite to the other diagonals when compared to the MC, and OS throughline configurations.

What are the rules of positioning the issues and problems for a throughline. I imagined they would be consistent throughout the entire storyform but that doesn’t always seem to be the case.

In some stories the problem is consistently from the same position, in some stories it’s not.

I hope I’ve made sense.

2

The RS throughline (and often the IC throughline) doesn’t always conform to the same ‘linear’ rules as the OS/MC. One or the other is always slightly out of sync with the quad placement and elements. For example, you might have an RS Issue of Desire but the Problems and Symptoms will be under the Knowledge issue and in a different corner of the quad compared to the other throughlines.

I don’t know why that is, but I don’t think I’ll ever really need to know (and I don’t think I’d understand it anyway). If you have the software, it works all that out for you. Otherwise, it doesn’t really matter.

3

Hi @samuelogeda!

I assume you’re asking me, since I’m the only one who put together a storyform for that great series’ first season.

@jhay is right. If you have the Dramatica application it works it all out for you, so that you can just focus on writing the story. But I can understand the desire to want to know what the relationships are and more importantly–what it means.

The easiest way to remember how all the Throughlines are connected:

  • the Changed Resolve perspective shares the same Problem & Solution as the Overall perspective
  • the Steadfast Resolve perspective shares the same Focus & Direction as the Overall perspective
  • the Relationship perspective shares the same Problem & Solution as the Overall perspective in a story with an Outcome of Failure
  • the Relationship perspective shares the same Focus & Direction as the Overall perspective in a story with an Outcome of Success

Everything else kind of follows those four relationships.

The Model is biased towards the Main Character and Overall Story perspectives such that they are straight drill-downs from top to bottom. The relationships above quite often twist and warp the Influence Character and Relationship Story perspectives such that they seem “off” or wrong. This is an example of subjectivity and attribution error, i.e. things don’t always look the same from different points-of-view.

1 Like
4

thanks a lot, your responses are spot on. I don’t always like to develop a story form with the software.

I use the tables alone.

With the tables I can configure the
Domain
Concern
Issue
Problem
Solution
Focus
Direction
Benchmark

For now I’m doing storyforms with direct drill downs for all the throughlines.

When Building a Story, I always start at elemental level figuring out the problem solution focus direction for the MC

Then I build out the other throughlines with the same consistency.

Today I realized after looking at some analyses on the main dramatica site that sometimes the problem elements can in the counterpoint.

it all depends with the balance in different story points.

For now I leave the catalyst and inhibitor to my intuition when developing my story forms using the tables alone.

Once I get comfortable with that, I’ll move on to using all the story points on the software.

it seems the positioning of concerns is always the same for the throughlines

5

Yes, that is correct. And ESSENTIAL for the story to hold together. When you mix and match Concerns from different locations in the Model, the narrative loses all sense of meaning.

6

so today I’ve learned the placement of issues and problem solution focus direction may differ most especially at the ic and rs throughline.

The mc and or os must be drilled down linearly.

Inside out and the social network have an interesting arrangement of issues and problem quad on the analyses on the dramatica site.

7

For a steadfast resolve, does the IC share the problem and solution of the OS

changed resolve perspective, does the IC share the focus and direction of the OS?

8

The answer to both your questions is yes. But it’s easiest to think of it this way:
The Changed character shares the Problem & Solution with OS.
The Steadfast character shares the Focus & Direction with the OS.

If the MC is Changed, the IC is Steadfast, and vice versa.

9

If the MC Changes, could the MC also Change their Problem-Solving style by the end of the story? Is there any connection?

10

They definitely change their Approach (Do-er to Be-er or vice versa) since that is part and parcel of adopting the alternate perspective.

I don’t think they change Style (Linear vs. Holistic) since it’s not directly tied to their perspective, at least as I understand it. But I’ve never seen anything discussing that.

1 Like
11

thanks for clarifying