Let’s say you want to write a story for a specific audience with a real problem. You as the author know that the audience’s problem lies in Psychology. You want the audience to identify with the MC because they have the same problem. You want the audience to identify you with the IC so that they will accept your advice on which path to take to solve the problem. Do you:
A. Give your MC a Psychology throughline because, as the author, you know that’s where the problem is even though the MC changing means they will see the problem from a Physics perspective in the end?
Or B. Give your MC a Physics throughline because, as the IC, you know what the problem is and you need the MC to see it the same way you do to solve it?
I guess another simpler way to ask this would be, do you solve a problem by realizing where the source of the problem is so you can attack it properly(B) or do you solve a problem by moving away from the source of the problem(A)?
I realize the realistic answer is probably C. Abandon this experiment because you clearly don’t know enough about Dramatica and don’t want to cause irreparable damage to your audiences ability to deal with the problem. But since it’s hypothetical, let’s not go with that one.