I actually think Dramatica could be quite helpful with designing a branching or otherwise multifaceted story, but you're right, out of the box it's aimed at strictly linear movie-like stories, and no one's written up a tutorial or utility for using it to make a branching story.

I think almost all writers are aware stories have structure; instead I'd guess that the ones who are least interested in studying the structure of fiction are the ones to whom structure comes most naturally, the way most people who have no difficulty speaking their native language have no interest in studying the grammar of that language.

It's a pity that people wouldn't be interested though, I'd have a lot of fun shepherding some newbies through using Dramatica to develop game plot outlines. Oh well.

I do find it interesting that you mention not actually using the program. I don't use it much myself - I often want to do something 'illegal' and there's just no way to do that within the program. On the other hand I love the Instant Dramatica utility Armando made, because you can put any damn terms you want into it. [qrin] The only part of it I don't really agree with is that it assigns symptom/response to act three and problem/solution to act 4, which puts them too late in the story in my opinion.

There are a few things I do use the program for though - looking at its suggestions for UA, CF, and plot progression, and exporting the reports. I tend to work up two or three quite different storyforms for any story idea, then pick the parts that feel right and blend them together.

I use it the same way--just try out different story forms, to see what sticks. I always end up far afield anyway, but it gives me a great place to start!

Interesting that you think it could be used for branching plot. You know the software better than I--how would you go about using it for that?

Well, I was thinking each branch/ending would have a different storyform, but they would all overlap for the first act/signpost. The first act could be the player's actions determining whether the character was a do-er or a be-er, logical or intuitive, maybe narrowing down to a quad of UAs and CFs. Then the second act could further narrow down, and establish the symptom and response, and the IC (could be antagonist, best friend, or love interest) could be developed to be opposite the player's choices for the MC. Third act would reveal the true problem, and the player's actions to try to fix it could be measured to be in agreement with or contradictory to what has been established in the first two acts (steadfast or change). Then fourth act would be the climax, judgment, etc.

Wow, that would be pretty great! ...but what a ton of work! Like writing 6 screen plays, not to mention producing them. Part of my issue with Kotiro is that I have to fit everything within the mythological and historical frame I've chosen, but still, writing that much material (even with everything wide open) that works seamlessly together would be quite an incredible undertaking.

Makes me want to do it, haha. But not a solo project.

Usually when I make a character I decide on a few principles that absolutely define the character, and I never have him stray. When I need the character to develop or I want internal conflict, I come up with another principle that he holds dear and have it start conflicting with his defining principles near the beginning of the story.

For a simplified example, (from a work of mine thats not a game) I have a character who starts off caring and peaceful, two believable traits that obviously seem to go hand in hand. The conflict soon however forces him to either be violent to protect the people he cares for or to turn his back on them. His two principles contradict, there are internal conflicts, and eventually the one that wins is the one that has defined him all along.

I guess if I were writing a tragedy I'd have his defining principle lose the battle, and have the character lose his very identity (and then I'd probably kill him).

Strong principles in my opinion are the key to a good character. You have to make them run as deep as you can, explain them in the backstory, have them apparent in dialog and minor actions etc. If you do that, in my opinion you've got a good character.

Quote: Original post by Pete Michaud
Wow, that would be pretty great! ...but what a ton of work! Like writing 6 screen plays, not to mention producing them. Part of my issue with Kotiro is that I have to fit everything within the mythological and historical frame I've chosen, but still, writing that much material (even with everything wide open) that works seamlessly together would be quite an incredible undertaking.

Makes me want to do it, haha. But not a solo project.

Yeah, it would be a lot of work. If I was going to do it just to test out the process, I'd try to keep the amount under control by making it more like a short story - each act being only 1-2 scenes. A lot of it would also be in how wide or narrow you chose to make the scope of the player's choices. If act one were something like: "You are on a sinking ship, which method do you use to survive?" That would be quite narrow, and start everyone off in approximately the same position in act 2. But if I were designing an MMO's story I'd pick something as wide as possible for maximum replayability, like "You land unexpectedly in an alien world - what do you do?" or "You hatch out of an egg - what do you do?"

Honestly if I tried to write something very broad by myself I'd be terrible at it, because I'm only really motivated to write the choices I would make, I would have fewer ideas for the other options. I ran into the same issue when trying to write a dating sim - if I tried to design all the characters myself only the narrow range of characters I'd consider attractive would come out.

Quote: Original post by BinaryStorm
Usually when I make a character I decide on a few principles that absolutely define the character, and I never have him stray. When I need the character to develop or I want internal conflict, I come up with another principle that he holds dear and have it start conflicting with his defining principles near the beginning of the story.

For a simplified example, (from a work of mine thats not a game) I have a character who starts off caring and peaceful, two believable traits that obviously seem to go hand in hand. The conflict soon however forces him to either be violent to protect the people he cares for or to turn his back on them. His two principles contradict, there are internal conflicts, and eventually the one that wins is the one that has defined him all along.

That's an interesting way to do it, I bet that results in some good stories. [smile] Personally I tend to go for "have your cake and eat it too" instead - push the character to search for the narrow path or clever loophole which allows him to stay true to both traits. Your method would produce a change character, mine a steadfast character (hope you don't mind the Dramatica terms, I think those are understandable in context anyway). Some people think change characters make inherently more powerful main characters; I think they are equally good if done well.

Quote: I guess if I were writing a tragedy I'd have his defining principle lose the battle, and have the character lose his very identity (and then I'd probably kill him).

Another way to get a tragedy would be to have the character do what was true to themselves but get killed by the ruthless world because that wasn't the best choice for survival.

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow
Another way to get a tragedy would be to have the character do what was true to themselves but get killed by the ruthless world because that wasn't the best choice for survival.

Hmm... I suppose I didn't think of that because even in a tragedy I like some of the blame to be on my character. Your way would be more tragic and depressing but I think my way rings a bit truer since when it boils down to it, most of the time we're all partially at fault for what goes wrong in our own lives (even if we're not quick to admit it).

Then again if sticking to what I think is realistic lessens the emotional impact of my writing maybe I shouldn't bother? ... Internal conflict... I'm becoming one of my characters... nooo!

Binary:

Interesting ideas, I like it. I can also see the attraction of letting a character be his own downfall, but I think I disagree with you: it's a useful mindset to think that you have control over the things that happen to you, but I also think the world does crush some people through no fault of their own.

People have a need to believe in a "just world," but it's not really true.

So you could use either scenario depending on what the theme of the work is, and how desolate you want to make it for the audience.

sun:

It would be a good idea to start small, yeah. I'm curious, you say you can't write any characters who don't make the same choices as you. Have you ever experienced characters becoming independent? That feeling that they are looking up at you from the page and saying, "I'm not going to do that, that's silly, I wouldn't do that."

Like, Kotiro's theme is love, and Kotiro is, like me, a sappy romantic. I began with the idea that that point of view would win the day. But actually it didn't. The characters conspired against me, and love doesn't really win. If I were only writing myself, then I'm not sure that would have happened?

If I started out to write a story where love wins in the end (as I pretty much always do, since I write romance) if my story outline went a direction where love didn't end up winning I'd regard this as a problem, that the design had jumped the shark somewhere and I could either analyze where it went wrong or start over or both. I do have a number of ideas for story beginnings which I haven't developed because they are either for a genre I don't like at all, or I can't figure out how to make the rest of the story get to a satisfying ending with a good moral.

I don't really experience characters as coming alive, it's more that I understand their personality and don't try to make them do anything that doesn't "feel true" for them. But if I have an action I particularly want a character to do, I will rework that character's personality until that is the natural thing for them to do.

I do want to clarify that I don't only write characters who are me. That would be pretty boring. I write characters who are part me, characters who aren't me but I'd like to be friends with, and characters I would be attracted to if I met them. I do have a lot of difficulty writing characters I dislike. I've never been able to "love to hate them" towards either characters or real people, it's just not part of my personality. That works out ok since I don't like intense conflict and action either, so I'm not trying to write stories which require a strong antagonist. I have managed to write a few villains who started out as a bully or a control freak but went off the deep end and deserved to die by the climax of the story. Other than that I like using a 'darkhorse hero' as a false villain, or using characters who are basically good guys who just have the wrong idea as non-villainous antagonists.

But yeah back to the interactive story example. One of the stories I was working on recently started out by introducing two races, a warrior race and a scientist race. It's a little inter-racial romance, with the hero being a warrior and the heroine being a scientist. The setting is a planet that used to be fertile in the past but became a desert due to something that the (egyptian-like) race living there then did. The plot is about a xenoarcheological expedition which the two races are trying to work together to carry out, despite the cultural tension between them.

Now, in my linear version of the story, the true problem is "Obsession with the past (close-mindedness) leads to stagnation and ultimately death." The warriors are the side which is heavily into tradition and the past, so in my version of the story they are the ones who are wrong and need to change, and the antagonists including a major insane one, come from this race. But if this was a branching story, it should be up to the player to decide if the past was the real problem or not. Maybe the player is someone who likes tradition and identifies with the warriors more? Their version of the story might turn out that a scientist of the past caused the disaster, and the scientists of the future almost cause it all over again. The problem in that version of the story might be "Trying to avoid work and do things the clever/easy way has nasty hidden costs." That's not a story I could write, because the moral is kind of repulsive to me. But the xenoarcheology story wouldn't be fully interactive and well rounded without that option.