I’ve been looking into the concept of a storytelling engine recently. Basically, it’s a repeatable sequence of events that creatives or brands can use over and over again without consumers getting tired of it. In fact, consumers actually eat it up. Think Pokemon. It’s the same storyline every time, but each generation sells millions of copies. Niantic and Nintendo didn’t just stumble upon this formula – they built it from scratch.
Intentional Storytelling
Instead of crafting the story directly, outline their intentions for these elements, focusing on what they wish the narrative to encompass. The subsequent conversion of these intentions into a comprehensive story is achieved via an "interpreter", such as the language models used by AI — The Future of Narrative Storytelling
— or have your strong intentions be interpreted and expanded upon from the universe itself (re: simulations).
Obstacle Characters
In every complete story, the Main Character shares a common emotional bond with another principal character (often referred to as the Obstacle Character). The Obstacle Character wouldn't have any impact if they didn't share some commonality. This commonality revolves around the concept that the Obstacle Character explores the same issues as the Main Character, only from the opposite viewpoint. One will be dealing with issues externally, the other internally. In other words, if what the Main Character is dealing with is some internal issue like an empty heart, the Obstacle Character will be dealing with some kind of predicament. Think Scrooge and Marley from A Christmas Carol. Scrooge is heartless and Marley is forced to wear those chains. One is an internal problem, the other external. The reverse is also true. If the Main Character is dealing with external issues, the Obstacle Character will be dealing internal versions of those issues. The Obstacle Character exists because he or she is a catalyst for the Main Character's growth. Take away that connection between the two, and their power and role as that important character disappears as well. — Two Sides of The Same Coin.
The character who has the most to lose (or gain depending on how you look at the Change) is more often than not the one who will resist any notion of similarity between the other. When someone tells you, "You know, you're acting just like so-and-so" and you react with disgust or disbelief, chances are that so-and-so is your own personal Obstacle Character. We hate seeing a part of us that we don't quite understand or even want to accept. This resistance is a resistance to Change and depending on which side of the argument you stand, you're either going to be a proponent for it or you're going to speak out against it. That's one of the main reasons why the Obstacle Character exists: to provide that other side of the argument. So it's comforting to know that with a few simple words ("We're both alike" or "We're nothing alike") you can easily tell which side of the argument this second most important character stands on.
Dramatica
Really, Dramatica is not all that complicated. It sees the central character of a story--the Main Character--entering with a predetermined way of doing things. Along the way they develop a relationship with their polar opposite, someone who challenges their way of thinking. Ultimately, this relationship leads the Main Character towards adopting or rejecting this new way of seeing things. The result of their decision determines whether they were on the right path or the wrong path. That's really it. When it all comes down to it, Dramatica sees story as an argument. To provide the very best argument, you have to make sure you cover all your bases and address all the different perspectives. Dramatica can help with that. — Dramatica
Pretty much everything you read about story structure from anyone else is referenced from the point-of-view of the characters, and/or the Audience. As such it is prone to all manners of subjective perspective: namely, confirmation bias. Audience-based understandings of narrative rely on pattern-matching (i.e., watching a bunch of films, novels, and television shows to find commonalities). An Author-based understanding of narrative instead looks to the intent and purpose of the storyteller. Dramatica is this. Know that everything written is for you, the Author, not your characters. Your purpose as a storyteller is paramount. — James Hull
Meaningful Endings
There are basically four different ways you can end a movie: Happy, Sad, Bittersweet Happy, and Bittersweet Sad. (Did the good guys win, Does the main character go home happy or sad). Afraid that might be a little reductive? Not when you realize that there are a zillion different ways of presenting these endings.Sure, there are times when I succeed in my goals and feel really great about it. Likewise, there are moments when I fail in my efforts and feel really miserable about it (unfortunately more the latter, than the former). But rarely does life ever work out this nicely. More frequently, I find that I achieve my goals at the expense of my own personal life or I find that failing miserably turned out to be the best thing for me. Either way, it seems these outcomes happen more often than all-out triumphs or tragedies.
The only drawback with identifying these kinds of stories is that there isn't a great one-word term to explain them like there is with triumphs or tragedies. In a general sense they can be called "bittersweet," but even this isn't as accurate as it should be. Which is more prevalent, the bitter or the sweet? And to what part of the story does it apply? Bittersweet accurately describes the general feeling these kinds of stories have, but it's not too helpful in the actual creation of a story. There stories where the good guy wins, yet goes home sad. There stories where the good guys loses, and goes home happy.. Because the Main Character is such an integral part of a story's meaning it can sometimes be helpful to use their emotional state as a kind of benchmark by which to evaluate the ending of a story. With this in mind, the "Bittersweet" ending can be divided into two categories: the Personal Triumph story and the Personal Tragedy story. — Meaningful Endings
- Happy Ending - The protagonist achieves the "outer" and "inner" goal. In other words, the hero gets the gold and becomes a better person.
- Bittersweet - The protagonist achieves the "inner" goal, but fails to get the "outer" goal. In Rain Man, Charlie doesn't get "ownership" of his brother, but he does grow from a self-centered narcissist to a more selfless brother.
- Cautionary Tale - The protagonist gets the "outer" goal, but fails to achieve the "inner" transformation. In Citizen Kane, Charles Foster gets the power and wealth (outer), but dies empty and unfulfilled ("Rosebud" represented the innocence and joy of his childhood).
- Tragic - The protagonist achieves neither the "inner" nor the "outer" goal, Leaving Las Vegas was, in my opinion, a tragedy (although, you could argue that the protagonist's goal was to "drink himself to death" -- which he did accomplish).
There are tragic endings, and there are triumphant ones. There are celebrations of personal achievements, and cautionary tales of pushing too far. The meaningful ending is the purpose of a story, it is the essence of what the author is trying to say. Understanding the mechanics of what makes a story a tragedy or a triumph can go a long way towards insuring that every audience member ends their experience both satisfied and emotionally fulfilled
The Dramatica theory of story labels the answer to this question the Story Outcome. Was it a Success (good guys win) or was it a Failure (good guys lose) So when you ask the question, "Did the Main Character go home happy or sad?" what you are really asking is "Did the Main Character resolve their own personal angst?" The audience uses the answer to this question as a baseline for determining the emotional meaning behind a story's conclusion. Dramatica labels the answer to this question the Story Judgment; Judgment because it is the Author's evaluation of the Main Character's efforts to work through his or her issues. Was it Good (main character goes home happy) or was it Bad (main character goes home sad)?
Choosing the answers to these two questions locks in the meaning of a story. A storyteller can only hope for confusion if he or she does not fully appreciate the concept between these two story structures. Audiences reach to stories for an explanation of why things are the way they are. Sure, there is a certain entertainment value that they may be seeking, and sadly, perhaps, even a thoughtless desire for distraction. But overwhelmed by the crushing flood of information and bite-sized video clips available from monitors and phones everywhere, audience members will quickly comment on anything less than purposeful as "Meh." They want more. Giving them a meaningful ending overcomes all that noise.A story provides the audience a welcome respite from the meaningless and a chance to ponder why.
In Dramatica, this growth that a Main Character undergoes, whether they are Changed or Steadfast, appears as the Main Character Growth. Once the Main Character’s Direction, this appreciation describes the course a Main Character will take on their way to their final Resolve. Whether Stop or Start, more detail on this story point lives within the article Applying Pressure to the Main Character.
Solving the problems within the big picture story while failing personally (as in the examples of The Wrestler, Chinatown, and Romeo and Juliet) exemplify the need to differentiate between the Objective Story Throughline (the big picture part) and the Main Character Throughline (the personal part). Success in one end doesn’t necessarily mean a resolution in the other, and vice versa. The combination between the two offers a story’s Meaningful Ending.
Story Throughline: Roles, Characters,
]Typically referred to as the "A" story line (or "outer" story), the Objective Story Throughline is that part of the story that involves everyone. It is labeled Objective because it is looking at the story's central problem from an objectified 3rd person point-of-view. Characters don't have names when taking this perspective, they have roles. It's a good trick because when you stop using character's real names, you tend to focus less on their own personal issues and more on how they function in the story. This is the part of the story where Protagonists, Antagonists, Sidekicks and Guardians reside. Again, function over the personal.
Four Throughlines
I,You,We,They - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th person
Taken together, the four throughlines comprise the author's argument to the audience. They answer the questions: What does it feel like to have this problem? What's the other side of the issue? Which perspective is the most suitable for dealing with that problem? What do things look like in the "big picture?" Only through developing these four simultaneous throughlines can the Story Mind truly reflect our own minds. We pit reason against emotion and immediate advantage against experience in the hope of resolving a problem in the most favorable manner.
Why The Four Throughlines Are Important
In real life, each of us only sees three perspectives clearly within a single context. In our own lives, we know what it's like to stand in our shoes sharing the "I" (Main Character) perspective. We know what it is like to have someone in our face with a contrary position and directly experience the "You" (Impact Character) perspective. We know what it is like to have a relationship with others and directly experience the "We" (Subjective Story) perspective. But we can never stand outside and see ourselves objectively. We cannot directly experience the "They" (Overall Story) perspective when it comes to our own lives. We can only guestimate what it might be based on what we experience, and don't experience, in the other three perspectives. In other people's lives, we can look at them objectively and see how they fit in. We can directly experience the "They" (Overall Story) perspective. We can have a relationship with other people and directly experience the "We" (Subjective Story) perspective. We can hold positions contrary to other people and directly experience the "You" (Impact Character) perspective. But we can never stand in other people's shoes. We can never directly experience what it is like to be another person and share the "I" (Main Character) perspective with them.
Grand argument stories are special. Grand argument stories give us more than we get in real life. Grand argument stories give us all four perspectives within a single context. They provide us experiences we cannot have in real life. This quality of grand argument stories helps explain why audiences can watch some stories over and over, long after the storytelling has gone stale. They give meaning to the ambiguous. They provide possible answers to unanswerable questions. They simply allow us the opportunity to experience more than we can in our day-to-day lives.
Acts (Phases)
The act-by-act transitions that are a natural occurrence within great stories exist because the efforts to solve the problems at hand must adapt to new and ever-changing contexts. This is The Reason for Acts. They signify the end of exploring problem-solving in one area; time to move on to a new one. If the Hero did not grow and adapt to these new circumstances the whole purpose of the story would come into question
Wants vs Needs → New Purpose
When one first approaches story structure, they become introduced to the concept of a Hero’s wants clashing with what he or she truly needs. As useful as this tool can be in analyzing a story after the fact, it is what lies beneath it that is of import to an Author. No matter where you look, the idea of want vs. need persists:
[Heroes] do greater and greater things to get what they want, take more and more extreme measures to achieve this goal, until, perhaps, they turn a corner, and we’re no longer rooting for them – we realize that [to] achieve this WANT, without servicing this NEED would be worse than never having what we wanted in the first place...the hero realizes it too
This particular explanation comes from Million Dollar Screenwriting instructor Chris Soth, but is exemplary of the thinking behind a Hero’s internal struggle towards the end of a story. The Hero wants something, strives for it, but near the end of the 2nd act discovers that what he wants doesn’t match up with what he needs. He ditches his original motivation for this new one, and marches into the 3rd act with a new purpose.
When people speak of a Main Character’s need, what they are describing is the Main Character’s Solution. Both Luke and Will need to start Trusting. From the Audience’s perspective the only way the Main Character succeeds (and this is assuming a Judgment of Good) is when they do what they “need” to in order to overcome their own personal Problem. But this only works smoothly in Changed Main Characters. The reason “need” breaks down in Steadfast Main Characters is that their solution is never employed. Why? Because if they were to make that switch, they would lose all motivation to end the story. Their original drive (a Steadfast Main Character’s Problem) would lose its power.