• Character
• Deep Theory
• Getting Started
• History
• Plot
• Storyforming
• Storytelling
• Storyweaving
• Writing Format

Dramatica Frequently Asked Questions

---

Character FAQs

---

QUESTION:

If the Protagonist in an archetypal story is pursuing something bad and the Main Character (who is the Antagonist) is trying to stop him. How does this effect the outcome of a story. Is a Success outcome dependent on whether the Protagonist wins, or whether the Main Character wins?

ANSWER:

The Outcome is always dependent on what is going on in the Objective Story and does not directly relate to the Main Character or the MC's wishes. For instance, the Objective Story might be about an assassination attempt on the President. If the Protagonist was the prime mover toward killing the President, then Outcome would be based on whether or not he succeeded in doing so (Success if he dies, Failure if he lives). Conversely, if the Protagonist was trying to protect the President from assassination, then the Outcome would be based on how effective he was at preventing the murder (Failure if he dies, Success if he lives).

---

QUESTION:

If a main character is also the protagonist of the story should the crucial element always be one of the elements that make up a protagonist archetype (pursuit, consider etc.) or can it be any element you choose?

ANSWER:

The simple answer is that the crucial element can be any element you want. HOWEVER, you bring up some other issues and they warrant a little follow up commentary.

If your Main Character is a FULLY archetypal main character, then the crucial element would be one of the MC's eight elements (pursue, consider, actuality, knowledge, proven, effect, certainty, or proaction). Our "Star Wars" example, on the other hand, is a bit of a cheat. Though the eight principle characters align themselves at the Motivation level into a Dramatica Archetypal Character pattern (and therefore have the "appearance" of truly archetypal characters), the pattern does not hold up as you explore the three other levels of character: Methodology, Purpose, and Means of Evaluation.

Since "Star Wars" emphasis is decidedly NOT on character, the other levels are not nearly as well drawn as the character Motivations. This works reasonably well because the audience is given enough information to infer that the characters are archetypes. Encoding characters this way frees the author from having to illustrate every function of a character because the rest of the functions are implied. The author only needs to be explicit when a character represents a non-archetypal characteristic.

---

QUESTION:

I have a wife as the Antagonist, but I want in the end for the husband and wife to come back together again. Is it possible?

ANSWER:

Certainly. Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" is certainly the Antagonist (though he happens to be the MC as opposed to the OC), and as a result of his change he is now back in the graces of his fellow Londoners, including his nephew, his debtors, and Bob Cratchet and family.

---

QUESTION:

Can the Antagonist change?

ANSWER:

I wouldn't suggest that the Antagonist change so much as the Obstacle Character, who just happens to be the Antagonist as well, change. An Antagonist can change after they have won or been beaten, but they shouldn't do so before that point, otherwise the Objective Story will not have any sense of closure -- providing you want to tell a Grand Argument Story that is, in fact, a closed story, i.e. a complete argument.

---

QUESTION:

Can someone who is tremendously oppositional, be redeemed?

ANSWER:

That's a storytelling and Story Reception issue more so than a storyforming issue. You can certainly have an extremely "bad" or antagonistic person find the err of their ways, BUT modern audiences may not buy into the happy ending business. This goes in and out of fashion. Modern adult American audiences have a jaundiced view toward "easy" changes of heart and tend to distrust them.

QUESTION:

In the Archetypal structure, does the Obstacle Character have to be among the drivers?

ANSWER:

No. The Obstacle Character can be on the sidelines. However, the OC has a tendency to look more active than many of the Objective Characters purely because of the screen time or book space they take up in the exploration of their personal point of view and with their involvement in the Subjective Story.

---

QUESTION:

Once you have assigned a character a role as an archetype, does it matter if you change their motivation? Or must you keep the archetypal motivations that Dramatica assigns?

ANSWER:

The purpose of using archetypal characters in a story is as a storytelling shorthand. The characters appear much more simplistic (less complex) than "real" people, though they still are well rounded (motivations, methodologies, etc.). It doesn't matter to Dramatica if you reassign motivations after you assign an archetype to a character, providing that you understand that you are thereby making the character more complex and "less" archetypal. We use archetypes in the StoryGuide because it is simpler to lead you (and every other writer who follows it) through the process.

QUESTION:

I have been using the Star Wars example as a guide to understand archetype interaction and organization in the "motivation" set. But the objective story problem is listed as "Physics: test vs. trust" which would be found in the evaluation set. Why then are the character interactions limited only to the "motivations" set?"

ANSWER:

The Star Wars characters are actually archetypal only at the motivation level. The other character dimension sets are in completely non-archetypal arrangements. The purpose of using archetypal characters is to show the patterns that exist in the Dramatica model of story. In point of fact, very few stories (other than children's stories) contain lots of Dramatica archetypes. Most stories are populated with complex characters. Remember, the StoryGuide is designed to "guide" writers through the Dramatica process. It still requires that the writer bring their own writing skills and intuitions to bare.

QUESTION:

Is the Emotion Archetype most often the Love Interest and also the Obstacle Character in a story?

ANSWER:

That is perhaps the current convention in action pictures, but has not been the case in the past. In 40s films, for example, the Obstacle/Love interest is often the Guardian, or even the Reason archetype.

Perhaps the one thing that IS rather consistent is that the Love Interest (if there is one) is often the Obstacle, regardless of the objective role, archetypal or complex. Still, in Star Wars, Obi is the obstacle, but Leia is something of the Love Interest.

That is one reason that thinking about Heros, Villians, and Love Interests is much too indelicate to describe what is really happening in stories. Though certain combinations may come in and out of Vogue (such as the anti-heros of the late sixties and early seventies) thinking in conventional terms is contrary to coming up with unique combinations of one's own that elevate a story as being not quite like anything else.

One final note: In "Aliens" the Archetypal role of Guardian is split between the Michael Biehn part and the Paul Burke part, each getting half of the Guardian characteristics and half of the Contagonist characteristics.. Biehn is Help from the Guardian, but Temptation ("Nuke them from orbit" - which will never make Ripley face her fear) from the Contagonist, whereas Burke is Hinder from the Contagonist but Conscience ("You gotta get back on the horse!" - which is just what she really needs to do) from the Guardian.

In short, there are no right or wrong combinations, just commonly used conventions which on the positive side are immediately recognizable by the audience, yet on the negative side are predictable and pedestrian.

QUESTION:

Can a character archetype function (I'm thinking of Contaganist here) be displayed by one character who then drops out of the story about half way through, and then this function be taken up by another character - whether new or not???

ANSWER:

Yes. We call this a "hand-off" and is briefly spoken of in the Dramatica theory book. Unfortunately, there isn't any way to indicate this in the Dramatica software at this time. Hint: Avoid having the hand-off characters in the same place at the same time. It is redundant and can be confusing for the audience.

---

QUESTION:

What does one do when one has so many characters, as in James Clavell's SHOGUN?

ANSWER:

Well, in something like SHOGUN, there are MANY substories intertwined with the main story (a Portuguese pilot stranded in Japan who falls in love with an "off limits" woman and becomes embroiled in local conflicts while trying to get himself and his shipmates back home). Adding substories (which can include sub-plots, sub-characters, sub-themes, and even sub-genres) adds a richness and density to the work, but are not essential to relating the "message" (storyform) of the main story.

QUESTION:

What is Dramatica's definition of the Skeptic?

ANSWER:

Skeptic • An Archetypal Character possessing the qualities of disbelief and oppose • If a Sidekick is a cheer leader, a Skeptic is a heckler. The Skeptic still wants to see its team win, but doesn't think it can and is sure this is because the team members are going about it all wrong. Therefore, the Skeptic exhibits disbelief and opposes all efforts. Of course, when the team really is misguided, the Skeptic is in fact right on track. As with all Objective Archetypes, the Skeptic applies its outlook to hero and villain alike. In other words, the qualities of disbelief and oppose describe the nature of the Skeptic - not just the opinion about a particular issue. So, the Skeptic also doubts the bad guys are as powerful (or bad) as they are said to be, and opposes them as well. One purpose of stories is to illustrate how well different personality types fare in the effort to solve a particular kind of problem. Archetypal Characters represent the most broad categories into which personality types might be categorized. The Skeptic provides the opportunity to explore how well a doubter and naysayer does in resolving the story's troubles.

QUESTION:

I have two main characters. I also have a problem in that another characters seems to be both the protagonist of the objective story and the obstacle character in the main characters' story. How do I insert these distinctions?

ANSWER:

Dramatica does not allow for more than one Main Character in a story. By Main Character, we are referring to the character through whose eyes the audience experiences the story, the very personal, "in the trenches" point of view. This is not the same thing as a Protagonist, nor the same as a principle or primary character, nor the "player" that these characters are played by. Very few stories have multiple Main Characters within a single story. Usually, when there is more than one Main Character, there is more than one story going on. If that is the case in your story, then you will want to create a different storyform for each Main Character. Stories that have multiple Main Characters work because the MC's share exactly the same world view and they "hand off" the role back and forth. This is quite difficult to do -- principally because the audience is unaccustomed to "body hopping" in their normal experiences.

The terms "Antagonist," "Protagonist," Main Character," and "Obstacle Character" have a very specific meaning in Dramatica. The antagonist and protagonists are part of what we call the Objective Characters which represent various approaches to problem solving in the Objective Story throughline (the "big picture"). The Main Character and the Obstacle Character are participants in the Subjective Story throughline and are identified by their points of view, not their functions. These objective and subjective characters are put into "players," be they human or otherwise. For example, the "player" Luke in Star Wars is both the Protagonist and the Main Character. He functions as both the prime mover in the Objective Story throughline (trying to blow up the Death Star) and the personal point of view in the Subjective Story throughline (training to be a Jedi Knight). This is different from the way most story theorists approach story.

QUESTION:

I don't understand why the Main Character and the Obstacle Character can't *both* grow and change in a story, for instance in a story of a marriage. In order for the marriage to be successful, chances are that both characters need to change.

ANSWER:

Both the Main Character and the Obstacle Character do grow over the course of the story. However, character growth is different than fundamentally changing your outlook on an issue. The change/steadfast issue concerns the characters' resolve. The growth issue concerns the direction of the growth: out of something or away from something (stop), or into something or toward something (start). Besides, a "marriage" can have, figuratively speaking, a life of its own complete with its own central issues -- issues that are related to but different from those of the Main Character and Obstacle Character. In Dramatica, we call this relationship between the MC and the OC the Subjective Story throughline.

---

QUESTION:

An example: a man is a good guy and equitable. Now something happened to him that seems like inequitable. Is the MC-problem now equity or inequity? Inequity drives him on so I would choose inequity. Is this OK or not?

ANSWER:

If when you use the terms "Equity" and "Inequity" you are referring to the Dramatica elements of those names, then the answer is YES -- Inequity would be the Main Character's problem because it is the source of his drive. (I think that this is the answer you're looking for). If, however, you are using the terms "Equity" and "Inequity" in a more generalized sense to indicate states of balance and imbalance respectively, then the Dramatica term "Inequity" would only be one of the possible 64 choices for the Main Character's problem.

---

QUESTION:

If the Protagonist in an archetypal story is pursuing something bad and the Main Character (who is the Antagonist) is trying to stop him. How does this effect the outcome of a story. Is a Success outcome dependent on whether the Protagonist wins, or whether the Main Character wins?

ANSWER:

The Outcome is always dependent on what is going on in the Objective Story and does not directly relate to the Main Character or the MC's wishes. For instance, the Objective Story might be about an assassination attempt on the President. If the Protagonist was the prime mover toward killing the President, then Outcome would be based on whether or not he succeeded in doing so (Success if he dies, Failure if he lives). Conversely, if the Protagonist was trying to protect the President from assassination, then the Outcome would be based on how effective he was at preventing the murder (Failure if he dies, Success if he lives).

---

QUESTION:

If a main character is also the protagonist of the story should the crucial element always be one of the elements that make up a protagonist archetype (pursuit, consider etc.) or can it be any element you choose?

ANSWER:

The simple answer is that the crucial element can be any element you want. HOWEVER, you bring up some other issues and they warrant a little follow up commentary.

If your Main Character is a FULLY archetypal main character, then the crucial element would be one of the MC's eight elements (pursue, consider, actuality, knowledge, proven, effect, certainty, or proaction). Our "Star Wars" example, on the other hand, is a bit of a cheat. Though the eight principle characters align themselves at the Motivation level into a Dramatica Archetypal Character pattern (and therefore have the "appearance" of truly archetypal characters), the pattern does not hold up as you explore the three other levels of character: Methodology, Purpose, and Means of Evaluation.

Since "Star Wars" emphasis is decidedly NOT on character, the other levels are not nearly as well drawn as the character Motivations. This works reasonably well because the audience is given enough information to infer that the characters are archetypes. Encoding characters this way frees the author from having to illustrate every function of a character because the rest of the functions are implied. The author only needs to be explicit when a character represents a non-archetypal characteristic.

---

QUESTION:

Can a MC's GOAL change? i.e. a MC who's goal is to be a concert violinist, goes to jail - changes his goal to one of survival.

ANSWER:

An MC can have a personal goal at the outset of the story which can change before the first act of the story is completed. The new goal should be the same through the end of the story (at which point the original one might pop up again to start a different story). Over the course of the story, the MC's personal goal will have its own requirements, prerequisites, preconditions, consequences, etc. that he must address on the way toward achieving his goal. Warning: Do not confuse the MC's personal goal with the Protagonist's efforts to achieve the Objective Story Goal. Though you may design a character that is both the MC and Protagonist, do not make the mistake of combining the MC's Goal and the Objective Story's Goal -- they are different.

---

QUESTION:

What Dramatica term/s is analogous to "obstacles" the Main Character must overcome?

ANSWER:

The nature of the personal "obstacles" that the Main Character needs to overcome are tied to his problem and focus. The Main Character problem is the source of his drive which MAY be severely problematic for him. The Main Character Focus is the primary symptom of the problem and will generally be where the Main Character thinks his problem really is. The Main Character will also be dealing with difficulties arising from the Subjective Story--the relationship between the Main Character and the Obstacle Character. The nature of those conflicts may or may not be thematically linked to each other. Another way to look at it is in terms of the MC Resolve: Change or Steadfast? This describes what the Main Character does (not what he should do). Obstacles from this point of view are generally events or scenarios that challenge the MC's Resolve. These are most frequently associated with the Obstacle Character (hence the name).

---

QUESTION:

If I can't have two main characters in one story, how do I use Dramatica to structure two stories with the same characters but different main characters when the plots depend each on happenings in the other plot?

ANSWER:

Create separate story files for each of the two stories. If you create your character list in one first, you can then use the "Save As..." or "Save A Copy..." commands to create a duplicate with which to work on the second story.

You assign the Main Character and Obstacle Character designations by bringing up the story info window for the character you want. Use the "Special Identification" popup to set the MC or OC designation.

Assign Objective Story characteristics (the items which comprise the Protagonist, Antagonist, etc.) in the Build Characters window or by using the "Type" popup in the character info window. If you use the Type popup, it will make archetypal characteristic assignments. It is unlikely that you will have full-on archetypes so you should futz with adding and removing characteristics until you are comfortable with the settings. Note: even though all of the characteristics must be used in your story, writers frequently assign only the characteristics they feel are clearly represented by a character. Elements that are not clearly represented may not be assigned to a specific character (though still need to be addressed in the body of the story).

Your description of the shorter and longer stories in the novel is a common technique in epics, series TV, and other longer form or complex works. You really should work out each story separately, even if they share the exact same character set. Once you have your two separate stories thought through, you will then need to determine how you plan to weave the separate stories together.

QUESTION:

I have written a novel that has three points of view (POV, i.e., three limited omniscient characters through whom we see the story) as most writing sources describe, i.e., as Al Zuckerman defines them in his book, "How to Write the Blockbuster Novel." Zuckerman recommends multiple points of view and it is a very popular and successful technique (Ken Follett, Clancy). Yet it seems Dramatica is set-up to only deal with one Main Character or one POV. How do I use Dramatica for a story like mine with two main characters/protagonists and one antagonist for both main characters? Each chapter is from the POV of only one of the three characters.

ANSWER:

First of all, there are actually FOUR POVs in Dramatica -- one for each of the throughlines: Main Character, Obstacle Character, Objective Story (where the protagonist and antagonist do their stuff), and the Subjective Story. The Main and Obstacle Character POVs are the most obvious source of at least TWO points of view. The protagonist and/or the antagonist (or any other character in the Objective Story throughline for that matter) can present even more points of view. The big question is, are the multiple points of view truly different from each other, or are some of them the same "paradigm" but shown through the eyes of two or more players? You can have a Main Character point of view that seems to float from one character to another -- the bodies change but their take on the world around them is the same. It's tough, but it is frequently done, particularly in novels. Another approach is to enhance the main story with substories. Each substory will have its own Main Character thereby adding to the multitude of POVs going on in the work. Stephen King uses this approach A LOT.

Getting inside a character's head doesn't necessarily make them the "Main Character." It's a storytelling device that works particularly well in novels and not quite as well in films or television. We can do this with ANY character in the work, but there should be some indication somewhere in your story as to who you want your audience to most identify with. If you don't, you have chosen not to make an argument and the interpretation of the work will be left in the hands of the audience (sometimes this is desired). However, if you ARE trying to make a point and you would like your audience to follow you to its conclusion, then, and only then, should you clearly delineate the four throughlines. Your audience need not be able to identify each throughline from the beginning of the story, but by the end they should be able to reconstitute it in its "true" form.

QUESTION:

I don't understand why the Main Character and the Obstacle Character can't *both* grow and change in a story, for instance in a story of a marriage. In order for the marriage to be successful, chances are that both characters need to change.

ANSWER:

Both the Main Character and the Obstacle Character do grow over the course of the story. However, character growth is different than fundamentally changing your outlook on an issue. The change/steadfast issue concerns the characters' resolve. The growth issue concerns the direction of the growth: out of something or away from something (stop), or into something or toward something (start). Besides, a "marriage" can have, figuratively speaking, a life of its own complete with its own central issues -- issues that are related to but different from those of the Main Character and Obstacle Character. In Dramatica, we call this relationship between the MC and the OC the Subjective Story throughline.

QUESTION:

Can the Obstacle Character be one thing for a time and then hand off to another player in Grand Argument Story? In other words, does OC have to be there from start to finish in the same player?

ANSWER:

The Obstacle Character function can be handed off successfully from one Objective Character to another, but it is tricky. There is a section in the theory book on "hand offs" and it covers this topic pretty well. The idea is that the Obstacle Character function has to be felt throughout the entire story, whether they are actually present or not. The Obstacle Character is a presence whose impact is felt by the Main Character, forcing the Main Character to face their personal problems. This function can be held in one player and then picked up by another, but the same appreciations have to be at work in both players when they are being the Obstacle Character; i.e. the same Concern, Range, Problem, Solution, Critical Flaw, Stipulation, etc.. If two characters in your story carry this function, then they should never meet in the same scene because it will feel like you have two of the same character in there. In a hand off, it is probably best to have the original Obstacle Character drop back to be less important to the story when a new player becomes the Obstacle Character. Maybe the original OC should drop out of the story altogether, it's up to you. But the more they hang around after giving up their original function, the more potential for confusion there will be.

The best hand off I've noticed yet is done in Clint Eastwood's "In the Line of Fire." The Obstacle Character function is first held in Renee Russo's character, the woman agent who eventually becomes Clint's partner. But when Clint's first partner is murdered by John Malkovich's character, then the John Malkovich character takes over the Obstacle Character position. At this point, Renee Russo becomes pretty much an archetypal sidekick. The thrilling storytelling at the time of this switch helps hide what's really happening. The author's also seemed to really have a firm grasp of how they wanted this to work, so they never violated the hand off and successfully had two characters represent the Obstacle Character function.

Your question makes me think of another example of how an Obstacle Character can be woven into a story in an unconventional way. The play "The Glass Menagerie" by Tennessee Williams has an Obstacle Character who doesn't actually appear on stage to say any lines until the last third of the play. The Main Character in this play is Laura, the meek daughter who is kind of hidden in the play by her lack of dialogue and activity. But her devotion to an unrequited love from her old high school is brought up regularly in the play, and this person is coincidentally invited over for dinner toward the end of the play. This gentleman caller is the Obstacle Character, and the final scenes allow Jim O'Conner to continue his role as the Obstacle Character in person. This example illustrates how the Obstacle Character has to be present throughout the whole play in some manner or other (like in Laura's little shrine to Jim), but does NOT have to actually be there in person for every single act.

QUESTION:

Does the Obstacle Character (or any other character for that matter) have to be a person? For instance, if the story is about someone facing the desert alone.

ANSWER:

No. No character must be a person. They may be animals, minerals, or vegetables. HOWEVER, giving an inanimate object like a desert a "point of view" or "alternative paradigm to that of the Main Character" may take some clever storytelling for your audience to understand. Do not confuse normal, every day obstacles (like cacti, snakes, heat, etc.) for the type of personal impact that the Obstacle Character has on the Main Character. The OC helps strip away the MC's justifications or, in some instances, helps to build the MC's justification. The OC's impact is very personalized, whether or not the OC is even aware of the MC.

QUESTION:

How can I identify who my Obstacle Character is when he/she is also involved in the rest of the story as an Objective Character?

ANSWER:

First of all, try thinking about your story only in terms of what is REALLY going on -- not what SEEMS to be going on. This is the viewpoint that most clearly identifies the storyform. After you know what your story is truly about, then you can hide it, hint at it, and otherwise obfuscate it from your audience. The events as they TRULY transpire make up the story's Plot. The events as they are presented to the audience is what we call Storyweaving. In works that rely on mystery and suspense, the storyweaving will present things much differently than the linear progression of the Plot.

The questions you should then ask yourself is this: What is my Main Character's PERSONAL concern? This issue is something that the MC would take with him or her even if the other characters went away. That will help define the MC's point of view. Then ask the question: Who in the story has a fundamentally different and alternative Point of View on the same type of issues. Identifying that individual will help you identify WHO your Obstacle Character is.

The alternative approach is to PICK a character as the Obstacle Character and GIVE him/her an alternative world view to that of the MC. Sometimes that works -- especially if you do not have a clear idea who the Obstacle Character is.

On your point about what the Main Character's personal issue is, if his or her problem is "Disbelief" AND he or she is a character that ultimately changes to resolve his/her personal issues, this would indicate that FOR THIS CHARACTER looking at things in a skeptical manner leads to conflict or errors (or other such problematic behavior). This would imply that the personal solution for this character would be to open his or herself up to belief in order to resolve his/her personal issues. If the character ultimately Remains Steadfast to his/her skeptical approach in an effort to resolve his/her personal issues, then disbelief would be better understood to be the source of his/her drive and not so much as a "problem."

Concerning the teacher as an Obstacle Character, the teacher need not be aware of the MC or his/her impact on the MC for them to act as the OC. Of course, this is more difficult to storytell, but it is very doable. However, the OC must represent an alternative attitude or approach (paradigm) to that of the MC when considering the issue that is key to the MC. Having a different pov is not enough. It must be a different POV on a single issue -- the issue that is pivotal to the story in general and the MC specifically.

Let me reiterate about being "objective" about your own story. For the moment, dismiss the storyweaving from your considerations. Determine what is really going on in your story. Then, and only then, re-look at the Dramatica questions and answer them based on this purely Author's point of view. You should find this process a little easier, and hopefully determine the answers to the questions that are nagging at you.

QUESTION:

What relationship does the Obstacle Character have to the cast of Objective Characters?

ANSWER:

The Obstacle Character (OC) is tied to one of four characteristics in the Objective Story (OS): the OS problem, OS solution, OS focus, or the OS direction. The Main Character (MC) is also tied to this quad of elements. Determining which one is a little beyond the scope of this email, by suffice it to say that these are the ONLY elements that are required to tie the MC and OC to the OS. Traditionally, however, authors tend to make their MC and OC a little more integrated into the "big picture" Objective Story.

QUESTION:

In the Archetypal structure, does the Obstacle Character have to be among the drivers?

ANSWER:

No. The Obstacle Character can be on the sidelines. However, the OC has a tendency to look more active than many of the Objective Characters purely because of the screen time or book space they take up in the exploration of their personal point of view and with their involvement in the Subjective Story.

QUESTION:

Do you know of an example where the Obstacle Character is a mere passenger in the Objective Story?

ANSWER:

Die Hard (#1). John's wife is the Obstacle Character to his Main Character. She is definitely NOT a "mover and shaker" or "driver" in the story sense. Another example is Boo Radley in "To Kill A Mockingbird." Boo is the Obstacle Character to Scout's Main Character.

QUESTION:

Is having your Obstacle Character as a passenger in the Objective Story an acceptable situation, or does it weaken that Objective Story?

ANSWER:

It is quite an acceptable situation and in no way weakens the OS. Typically, the OC is given a stronger role in films/screenplays because of the limited length of the work. It is easier to have the OC do multiple duty (the MC as well) in order to economize on time. That's why Archetypes appear so frequently. They are storytelling short hand for potentially complex relationships. Longer works or novels have the luxury to examine a "passenger" OC to the fullest.

QUESTION:

Can the Obstacle Character be one thing for a time and then hand off to another player in Grand Argument Story? In other words, does OC have to be there from start to finish in the same player?

ANSWER:

The Obstacle Character function can be handed off successfully from one Objective Character to another, but it is tricky. There is a section in the theory book on "hand offs" and it covers this topic pretty well. The idea is that the Obstacle Character function has to be felt throughout the entire story, whether they are actually present or not. The Obstacle Character is a presence whose impact is felt by the Main Character, forcing the Main Character to face their personal problems. This function can be held in one player and then picked up by another, but the same appreciations have to be at work in both players when they are being the Obstacle Character; i.e. the same Concern, Range, Problem, Solution, Critical Flaw, Stipulation, etc.. If two characters in your story carry this function, then they should never meet in the same scene because it will feel like you have two of the same character in there. In a hand off, it is probably best to have the original Obstacle Character drop back to be less important to the story when a new player becomes the Obstacle Character. Maybe the original OC should drop out of the story altogether, it's up to you. But the more they hang around after giving up their original function, the more potential for confusion there will be.

The best hand off I've noticed yet is done in Clint Eastwood's "In the Line of Fire." The Obstacle Character function is first held in Renee Russo's character, the woman agent who eventually becomes Clint's partner. But when Clint's first partner is murdered by John Malkovich's character, then the John Malkovich character takes over the Obstacle Character position. At this point, Renee Russo becomes pretty much an archetypal sidekick. The thrilling storytelling at the time of this switch helps hide what's really happening. The author's also seemed to really have a firm grasp of how they wanted this to work, so they never violated the hand off and successfully had two characters represent the Obstacle Character function.

Your question makes me think of another example of how an Obstacle Character can be woven into a story in an unconventional way. The play "The Glass Menagerie" by Tennessee Williams has an Obstacle Character who doesn't actually appear on stage to say any lines until the last third of the play. The Main Character in this play is Laura, the meek daughter who is kind of hidden in the play by her lack of dialogue and activity. But her devotion to an unrequited love from her old high school is brought up regularly in the play, and this person is coincidentally invited over for dinner toward the end of the play. This gentleman caller is the Obstacle Character, and the final scenes allow Jim O'Conner to continue his role as the Obstacle Character in person. This example illustrates how the Obstacle Character has to be present throughout the whole play in some manner or other (like in Laura's little shrine to Jim), but does NOT have to actually be there in person for every single act.

QUESTION:

I have a handle on most Dramatica terms but I'm having troubles conceptualizing Objective Character. Is Objective Character the same as Obstacle character?

ANSWER:

No, they are quite different.

1. Objective Characters have structural roles and are identified by their functions.

2. The Obstacle character is a SUBJECTIVE character, which are identified by their points of view.

Here's a bit more background on how it all fits together...

A central concept of the Dramatica theory is that every complete story represents a model of a single human mind trying to deal with an inequity.

This occurs because in order to communicate an author must make a copy of what they have in mind and show it to the audience. This model of the author's perspective on his or her subject is called the Story Mind.

The audience examines this Story Mind from four different points of view. They are the Objective view (where we find the Objective Characters), The Main Character view (which is the subjective character who represents the audience position in the story), the Obstacle Character view (which is the subjective character who is trying to change the Main Character's point of view on the issues), and the Subjective view (which describes the growth of the relationship between the Main and Obstacle Characters).

The first view we will examine is from the outside looking in. This is the Objective View. From here, the audience sees characters like soldiers on a field viewed by a general on a hill overlooking the dramatic battle. There are foot soldiers, grenadiers, etc., all identified by their functions in the battle. In stories, we see these as the Protagonist, Antagonist, Sidekick, etc.

The second point of view with which an audience becomes involved with a story is for them to step into the story as if the audience were one of the players. When the audience leaves the general's hill and zooms down to stand in the shoes of one of the soldiers on the field, that soldier becomes the Main Character. The Main Character is simply the name of the player who represents the audience's position in the story.

Because Main Character is a point of view, it can be attached to any of the Objective Characters. So, in one story, the Main Character might be the Protagonist, creating the typical "hero". In another story, however, the Main Character might be the Sidekick, so that the audience observes what the Protagonist is doing without feeling like they are driving the story forward themselves. This is how things are set up in "To Kill A Mockingbird", in which Atticus (the Gregory Peck part in the movie) is the Protagonist (driving the action forward) while his young daughter Scout provides the audience position in the story (which is told through her child's eyes) making her the Main Character.

Now, as the Main Character makes his or her way through the dramatic battle, he or she encounters another "soldier" blocking the path. The other soldier says, "change course!" But is it a friend trying to prevent the Main Character from walking into a mine field or an enemy trying to lure the Main Character into an ambush. This other solder is the Obstacle Character.

The Obstacle Character represents the alternative paradigm to the Main Character's existing opinions about the central issue of the story. It is their dramatic purpose in the story to force the Main Character to reconsider changing his or her long-held views. This provides the other side of the story's argument, making it a full exploration of the topic, not just a one-sided statement.

Sometimes the Obstacle Character is right, and sometimes wrong. And sometimes the Main Character chooses the good path and sometimes the bad one. Also, the Obstacle Character may not even know they have such an influence on the Main Character as to make him or her consider changing attitudes or approaches. The Obstacle Character can be a role model, even one on TV or from the past, whose presence or recorded works argue the alternative paradigm and influence the Main Character.

The fourth perspective is the Subjective view. This is simply a tale of the growth of the relationship between the Main and Obstacle Characters, as the Main Character is progressively influenced to change even while seeking to hold on to the tried and true. It is this view that gives a story its passionate flavor for an audience, as they watch the two "boxers" circling each other in the "ring".

When all four points of view are provided, all the principal ways of looking at a story's issues are built into the Story Mind. The Main Character is the "I" perspective for the audience - first person singular. Obstacle Character is "you" (for we never see things from the Obstacle's point of view, but rather look AT the Obstacle from the Main Character's point of view). The Subjective view is "we" as it describes the relationship between Main and Obstacle. The Objective view provides the "they" perspective, as the audience watches the Objective Characters from the outside looking in.

So, one must develop a complete set of Objective Characters. Then, one of those characters needs to be selected as the audience position in the story (which will affect the whole feel of how the battle unfolds). This will become the Main Character. Next, another Objective Character must be selected as the Obstacle Character. Which one will determine the complex nature of the relationship between Main and Obstacle, as part of their interchange will occur between their Objective Character aspects in the Objective story, and part will occur between the Subjective Character points of view in the Subjective story.

Keep in mind that looking at a character as a doctor, mother, bum, or husband does NOT say anyting about whether they are a Protagonist, Antagonist or any other Objective Character. Objective Characters determine who is for something, who is against it, who acts primarily according to Reason and who with Emotion, and so on. The Mother may be the Protagonist, the Reason character, or even the Sidekick. And choosing her as the Main or Obstacle would add another level of complexity.

So, it is important for consistency and completeness of the argument made through the Story Mind to assign all the Objective Characters a role in your story and to make one a Main Character and one an Obstacle Character. But, the "feel" of your story won't truly develop until you assign the social roles these characters fulfill in your story world as well.

Often an author will wish to start with a Mother character or some other social role. Only then does the process begin of determining who is Main and Obstacle, and then determining what Objective Characters each represents.

How you approach the creation of the full complement of Characters and their roles is up to you. That it must be done is a result of the necessity of creating a Story Mind for the audience to both inspect and possess as the conduit of communication between author and audience.

QUESTION:

In my Storyform reports in Dramatica Pro, ACT I in the Objective Storyline says: "The Past is explored in terms of Rationalization, Obligation, Commitment, and Responsibility." So, here's the question. The Past is a Universe Type. Rationalization, Obligation, etc., are Psychology Variations. Does that mean that I should look at the objective characters' purposes in terms of their motivations with regard to the psychology variations?

ANSWER:

Purposes and Motivations aren't really pertinent to the Objective Story's Thematic arenas. Rather than looking at what the Characters are doing, keep in mind that the Objective Throughline represents a point of view for the audience. From the objective view they will see not only characters, but plot, theme, and genre as well. Of course, this is most clearly seen in the Storyforming stage, and from encoding onward, the view may not be as consistent or clear.

So the point is, forget about characters when using this report and consider the whole point of view. Using the report this way means that the Act itself centers on an exploration of the Past. In other words, when you are exploring the grand scheme of the big picture of your story in an arm's distance sort of way that gives the audience a change to look at the dynamics involved without being personally involved, THEN you will be examining the Past, in Act 1.

Another way to say this is that all four throughlines will have an area around which they center in Act 1. The Past will be one of those four items that serve as the focus of attention for the audience. In your story, in Act 1, the Past will be looked at Objectively (or impersonally, though not necessarily without feeling.)

Now we add in the thematics. What kind of things about the Past will the audience be looking at? Or, turned around a bit, what measuring sticks will be used to judge things that happened in the Past? The answer is: Rationalization, Obligation, Commitment, and Responsibility. These four items describe more specifically than just the notion of "The Past" the areas of interest in the Past that Act 1 will explore most closely from an Objective point of view.

So, look at the wide-ranging plot events, the behaviors that affect or are exhibited by all your characters, the overall genre of your story as it develops in Act 1, and then see that from an Objective sense. Your audience will see these things as all revolving around the Past and being examined in terms of Rationalization, Obligation, Commitment, and Responsibility.

QUESTION:

Is it possible for any character to portray a characteristic as long as the character's characteristic(s) don't conflict?

ANSWER:

This is iffy. Part of the function of the Objective Characters is to provide a certain constancy of approach or attitude in order for the audience to gauge what is what in the story. You can get around this by using "hand-offs," the technique of passing a function from one player to another. If you have a single player representing an OS function in one scene, and then a completely different, and possibly contradictory, function later on, your audience is likely to be confused. Since all of the Objective Characters are part of a single story point of view, the Objective Story point of view, their function is to represent those functions objectively. Your MC and OC, on the other hand, will change over the course of the story. They each contain the entire set of 64 elements -- the same elements that make up the entire "cast" of Objective Characters.

QUESTION:

How do I build my characters using the Storyguide information I have already worked out?

ANSWER:

Well, the StoryGuide is designed to lead you through a PARTICULAR method of creating a story in Dramatica using archetypal characters. It is far from the only way, rather it is a guideline for how a writer MIGHT approach developing a story using Dramatica. Since you are not using archetypal characters, do not follow the specific directions in the StoryGuide. Just keep in mind that each of your complex characters must be introduced, they must interact, and then they must be "dismissed" or be shown where they stand after the interactions. It's best not to think of Dramatica telling you what you HAVE to do, particularly when it concerns objective characters. The only thing that Dramatica is concerned with (re: objective characters) is that the character elements are shown in action. Dramatica doesn't care one whit about the distribution of the character elements into characters -- that's your storytelling choice as an author.

QUESTION:

Am I to understand that I must complete interactions for the entire dimension which contains my crucial problem (evaluation)? The relationship between element quads is clear and the "Rule of Three's " is something I have known for years. But how do I handle the different dimension sets that I am using to describe my characters? Does the theory suggest that if I argue conflicts in motivation, evaluation, and methodology, I have to describe the interactions of all of my characters in each of these sets? That would add up to 72 interactions!

ANSWER:

That's right. An absolutely, air tight, fully developed story will explore are four dimensions fully, but this is an exception rather than a rule in screenplays. Novels have the luxury of storytelling "real estate" in which to explore all of the character elements and their interactions in depth. Films are generally much more limited in the time (and "space") with which they have to spend illustrating the character element interactions. Therefore, exploring one dimension fully acts as a short-hand for exploring all four (much as archetypal characters act as a short hand for complex characters). You need only touch the other dimensions that differ from the "norm" that should be explored explicitly. I should note that more than one interaction can be done at a time, particularly if you have many objective characters present. Try to get as much mileage out of your storyweaving as possible by doubling or tripling up on your interactions, etc.

QUESTION:

I have been using the Star Wars example as a guide to understand archetype interaction and organization in the "motivation" set. But the objective story problem is listed as "Physics: test vs. trust" which would be found in the evaluation set. Why then are the character interactions limited only to the "motivations" set?"

ANSWER:

The Star Wars characters are actually archetypal only at the motivation level. The other character dimension sets are in completely non-archetypal arrangements. The purpose of using archetypal characters is to show the patterns that exist in the Dramatica model of story. In point of fact, very few stories (other than children's stories) contain lots of Dramatica archetypes. Most stories are populated with complex characters. Remember, the StoryGuide is designed to "guide" writers through the Dramatica process. It still requires that the writer bring their own writing skills and intuitions to bare.

QUESTION:

The on-line theory goes so far as to suggest that it can predict the necessary order and appearance of these dynamic elements - On-line Theory Help "What's in a scene" and "Characters and Scenes." I feel like I have missed something very important about the structure of my story and the employment of character. Not only do I not know how to assign the elements effectively, I am beginning to unravel what I do understand about the structure and its relationship to my character formation. Where do I find such a prediction of character dynamics? How does the structure make such predictions?

ANSWER:

That's why it's in the theory section. The program COULD do that type of prediction, but we do not allow it to. To do so, Dramatica begins to micro-manage the story development process which is completely antithetical to the creative process. In other words, don't look for this in Dramatica because you won't find it in any version of the software that has been released.

My recommendation to you is to loosen up a little on your objective characters. Understand that, from Dramatica's point of view, it doesn't matter which character elements each of your objective characters has. That is COMPLETELY a storytelling choice determined by you, the author, and will not have any bearing on the meaning of the STORYFORM. It will, however, have a potentially strong impact on your STORYTELLING (storyencoding and storyweaving). So even though it makes no difference to Dramatica, it will make a difference to you. SO . . . create characters that you want to populate your story. Follow the rule of 3's as a general guideline. Be aware of each character's characteristics when they interact to determine the nature and direction of those interactions. But most importantly, write it the way that FEELS and LOGICS right for you.

QUESTION:

How do I interpret the objective character elements when determining the formations of complex characters who do not respect the traditional archetypes?

ANSWER:

Complex objective character interactions are similar to archetypal character interactions, just a little more . . . well, complex. What I mean is that you must interact the characteristics on a case by case basis using whichever characters they inhabit to make your point. Archetypal characters cluster non-conflicting characteristics together into each archetype, thereby simplifying the interactions. Complex characters might conflict in their methodology (e.g. Proaction vs. Reaction), for instance, yet be completely compatible in the motivations (e.g. Avoidance vs. Oppose -- little direct conflict here).

When using the suggested storyweaving methodologies, try thinking less in terms of the interactions of the "players" (i.e. you cast members), and think more in terms of the characteristics interactions. The players that have the characteristics will interact but potentially in different ways on different levels. Especially when you compare them to the rather simplistic interactions that archetypal characters have.

The bottom line is, the characteristics must be shown how they relate to one another. Characters (and players) are the means by which authors typically express those relationships/interactions. Our storybook worksheets are designed to show you how to work at presenting these interactions, but they favor the more simplified archetypal character relationships (to accommodate a more generalized audience). It may be time for you to use some of the concepts from the worksheets (introduction, interaction, etc.), but expand on them to fit your own needs.