The Dramatica theory of story can have some pretty scary terminology. Prerequisities. Preconditions. Costs. Dividends. They sound more like advanced accounting terms than dramatic devices. Wouldn’t it be great if there was some easy chart to help you visualize how these terms relate to story?
When I first started wrapping my head around Dramatica (way back in ‘96), a lot of the terms were very confusing for me. And it wasn’t enough that they were confusing - there were also way too many of them! I was overwhelmed with all I felt I had to learn in order to write a complete story.
To help my understanding out, I came up with some diagrams that helped me to visualize what these terms meant. For some reason (probably because of my background in animation), seeing these terms drawn out really helped me to absorb them more fully into my consciousness.
This past weekend I went into my garage and pulled out my old Dramatica notebooks.
The first one I’ll share with you deals with the Objective Story Points. If you are not familiar with them, they are located at the bottom of the Story Engine Settings report (the storyform that is often presented here in story analysis). For a more precise and detailed explanation of what each term means, be sure to visit the Dramatica Dictionary.
Now, for me, the idea of a Story Goal was an easy one to grasp. And likewise, its counterpart, the Story Consequence, came easily to my understanding. One happens when the Protagonist succeeds (Goal) and the other when he fails (Consequence). The other terms proved to be a problem for me.
So I drew a line from the Consequence to the Goal. This line represented the drive of force that the Protagonist rides along on his path towards a successful conclusion. If he reaches the Goal he comes to the end of his journey. If not, he tumbles back down to the Consequence.
The Story Requirements and Forewarnings were stepping stones to either the Goal or the Consequence, respectively. In order to reach the Goal you first had to cross through the Requirements. If you stepped back through the Forewarnings, you were on your way to the Consequence.
Dividends and Costs were similar but weren’t necessarily necessary for their final destinations. That’s why I put them off to the side - the positive one on top, the negative one on bottom. Just gentle reminders of which direction the objective characters might be heading.
The last two - Prerequisites and Preconditions seemed connected not only to each other, but also to the Story Requirements. It seemed you needed both before you could reach the Requirement, so that’s why I added them to the side there, linked just under their essential ”parent.”
I also have diagrams for all the Character Elements, but I’ll share those at a later time. Hopefully the above diagram will serve to help you better understand the Dramatica theory of story. And, more importantly, I hope it helps guide you to your own personal Goal of writing a great story.
Link to Objective Story Points Diagram (Right-click to download for offline viewing)
Share This
4 responses so far ↓
1 JPh // Apr 4, 2007 at 8:53 pm
This post reminds me of a simple idea I had to generate story plot points for all 4 throughlines based on symmetry considerations.
Some time ago I sent it to a Dramatica mailing list where it was not too well received, in part because it’s wrong from a Dramatica theoretical standpoint and also perhaps because it sounded presumptuous.
But after working out a few examples (below I use Casablanca) one can’t help but noticing how relevant the MC, IC and MC/IC Goals, Consequences, Prerequisites, etc. turn out to be.
I was interested in creating those plot points because they suggest a different succession of events in each throughlines.
I also happen to think that symmetry being at the core of Dramatica, those plot points constructed from a symmetry-based argument can not be totally devoid of meaning.
Here is the idea :
The first 4 Dramatica Plot Points
(Goal, Consequence, Cost, Dividend) connect the 4
domain Concerns, starting with the OS Concern.
Similarly, starting with the OS Benchmark, the same
(hairpin) connectivity pattern links the 4 domain
Benchmarks to give the next 4 Plot Points
(Requirement, Prerequisite, Precondition,
Forewarning).
This observation allows one to derive Plot Points for
all the throughlines, by following the same pattern
(and orientation) but using different starting points.
In “Casablanca†for instance, the OS Plot Points are:
GOAL: Obtaining (OS Concern)
CONSEQUENCE: Changing One’s Nature
COST: The Future
DIVIDEND: Innermost Desires
REQUIREMENT: Understanding (OS Benchmark)
PREREQUISITE: Developing a Plan
PRECONDITION: The Past
FOREWARNINGS: Memories
The MC (Rick) Plot Points would then be:
GOAL: Innermost Desires (MC concern)
CONSEQUENCE: The Future
COST: Obtaining
DIVIDEND: Changing One’s Nature
REQUIREMENT: Memories (MC Benchmark)
PREREQUISITE: The Past
PRECONDITION: Understanding
FOREWARNINGS: Developing a Plan
The IC (Ilsa) Plot Points:
GOAL: The Future
CONSEQUENCE: Innermost Desires
COST: Changing One’s Nature
DIVIDEND: Obtaining
REQUIREMENT: The Past
PREREQUISITE: Memories
PRECONDITION: Developing a Plan
FOREWARNINGS: Understanding
And the MC/IC Plot Points:
GOAL: Changing One’s Nature
CONSEQUENCE: Obtaining
COST: Innermost Desires
DIVIDEND: The Future
REQUIREMENT: Developing a Plan
PREREQUISITE: Understanding
PRECONDITION: Memories
FOREWARNINGS: The Past
Some of it make good sense.
Because of the sequential order of Preconditions,
Prerequisite, Requirement and Goal, those new Plot Points suggest a succession of events which could help propel each throughline in a specific way, with different Forewarning, Cost, etc., in effect creating 4 oriented diagrams similar to the one you show above for the OS throughline.
I’d be interested to read your comments, should you have any.
2 J. Hull // Apr 4, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Interesting. I think I understand what you’re saying. Basically it’s the same sort of idea where each throughline’s Concern is in the same corner of the chart. You’ve just extended it to the rest of the Objective Story Points.
My first impression is if it helps you write your story - in other words, gives you some great ideas on which to direction to go in, or helps you get “unstuck” when you hit that writing wall - I say go for it.
I have heard in the past that the other throughlines might have their own outcomes (i.e., the Subjective Story would have its own outcome separate from the Objective Story), but I don’t think it has been developed enough yet.
My second reaction is that maybe it provides too much information. In other words, I’ve written 5-6 screenplays with Dramatica, and already, with all the story appreciations available to a writer, I’ve always felt like there was more there than I really needed. The more movies I watch and the more I try to analyze them, I’m starting to think that you really don’t need to go into such extreme detail. Maybe too much detail stifles your own creative intuition.
So what I’m saying is that while your idea might have some merit (I’ll have to watch Casablanca again and see how these work out), I’d be afraid that it would just overwhelm me as a writer. I barely use Costs or Dividends in my own writing. I can see where they would fit in perfectly and naturally to the story I’m writing - but I don’t feel like I have to use them they way I feel I need to use other story appreciations.
Have you used this concept in your own writing?
3 JPh // Apr 5, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Thanks for the comments.
No, I haven’t used the concept in a significant way. I was merely intrigued to see how this over simplified model seems to work for some standard stories. It’s interesting to see how the plot points acquire different meanings depending on the context of the throughline.
For new stories, the idea was that, due to the causal relationships that link precondition to prerequisite, prerequisite to requirement, and requirement to goal, the concept could help generate plot lines more intuitive than the Signposts. The forewarnings, consequences, cost and dividend would then be used to modulate the sequence of events.
In Casablanca for instance, the 4 forewarnings (OS Memories, MC Developing a plan, IC Understanding, SS Past) clearly point to portent scenes of the movie.
For the would-be-hitman-snowbound-in-Vegas story you storyformed earlier, for instance, the MC plot points would be :
GOAL: Contemplation
CONSEQUENCE: The Present
COST: Gathering Information
DIVIDEND: Conceiving an Idea
REQUIREMENT: Impulsive Responses PREREQUISITE: How Things are Changing
PRECONDITION: Doing
FOREWARNINGS: Playing a Role
And from that, one could lay out a course of action in stepwise fashion, mixed with development of MC increasing moral dilemmas.
It’s a poor man’s plot device and it throws overboard most of Dramatica, but I find it gripping, in a naive way (I mostly wrote non fiction and am trying to move to fiction).
4 J. Hull // Apr 5, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Again, I say if it sparks creative ideas for your story by all means use it.
And because of that, I wouldn’t necessarily say that it runs contrary to “most of Dramatica.”
I’ve never really seen the theory of Dramatica to be a task-master. I’ve always found it to be an amazing creative partner who just “gets” story. You could very well be on to something - although I assume it would require a much more in-depth study. If it feels right for you, use it.
At any rate, good luck with your move!
Leave a Comment