Dramatica Theory and Subtxt
Many familiar with the Dramatica theory of story will notice many similarities between that groundbreaking theory and the Subtxt application. While inspired by Dramatica's original concepts, Subtxt further develops the theory while re-writing and updating some terminology that are incompatible with current advances in technology.
Most of these updates are a result of countless years of practically applying Dramatica to real-world projects (and thanks to the help of many enlightened authors). Others are a necessary step in order to bring the theory into the world of AI and large-language models.
Because of this need to both update and extend the theory, Subtxt refers to its core knowledge as the Subtxt Narrative Framework to distinguish itself from the Dramatica theory of story.
Subtxt and the Evolution Beyond Dramatica
Originally, Subtxt began as a tool intended to help teach and explain the Dramatica theory of story. Developed by a key innovator in that theory and someone who spent seven years teaching its concepts at the California Institute of the Arts, Subtxt once primarily focused on clarifying and delivering Dramatica’s groundbreaking ideas. But as the world of storytelling—and technology—advanced, so too did Subtxt.
Today, Subtxt no longer requires you to learn Dramatica theory in order to make the most of its powerful features. While much of the Subtxt Narrative Framework is rooted in the same objective narrative structure that Dramatica once formalized, the system now leverages sophisticated AI technologies to seamlessly hold that structure intact behind the scenes. This means storytellers can remain fully engaged in their creative process, intuitively guided by a framework that ensures narrative integrity without demanding mastery of theoretical concepts.
In short, Subtxt incorporates the strengths of Dramatica and then goes one step further—delivering a fluid, AI-powered experience that elevates your storytelling without the prerequisite of theoretical study. All you need to do is focus on telling your story.
Plot Progressions
Perhaps the biggest difference you will find between the two are the order of the Plot Progressions found in various Storyforms. This difference in the sequencing of elements is not a bug, it's feature.
Subtxt reverts back to the original concepts of the theory in order to generate its unique set of Storyforms. While different than those found in any other application, the Storyforms generated in Subtxt resonate as "more accurate" to the majority of writers familiar with both.
Obstacle Character for Influence Character
If you're familiar with Dramatica theory, you may wonder why we chose to run with Obstacle Character over Influence Character.
In practice, thinking of this perspective in terms of the obstacle it presents to the Main Character continuing their justification results in a stronger, more deliberate and meaningful story. For more on this, please read the article What is an Obstacle Character?
Story Continuum for Story Limit
The subject of an in-depth and detailed article on Narrative First (Time and Space in Dramatica: Rewriting the Story Limit), the concept of a Story Continuum is a more accurate rendition of what many familiar with Dramatica know as the Story Limit.
Instead of thinking what "limits" or boxes your story in, writers will find the concept easier to manage when they simply consider the relationship between Space and Time in their story. For the most part, you will want to hardwire this to Spacetime anyways as it will result in a story that attracts a broader audience.
For those who wish to experiment with Timespace, Subtxt offers an option for you to reverse the relationship when building a story.
Female Mental Sex Terminology
Throughout Subtxt you will find terminology specifically engineered for a better appreciation of Female Mental Sex. Once a foundational concept in the evolution and development of Dramatica theory, Female Mental Sex has now been watered down with notions of "holistic" mindsets and storytelling that it risks being absorbed yet again into the purvey of the Male Mental Sex crowd. In an effort to once and for all set a line in the sand between Female Mental Sex and conventional ideas of "Linear" or "Holistic" thought, Subtxt reverts back to the original understanding.
Most of these changes reflect the reality that Female Mental Sex minds do not think in terms of fixing things through Problems and Solutions (at a base instinctual level), but rather see life as a process of managing and balancing inequities. Goals and Consequences matter little to Female Mental Sex, as Problem and Solution give way to Conditions and Intentions.
The Female Mental Sex obstacle on the structure of a story reflects the filter of the Female Mental Sex mind--what it looks like even before conscious thought seeps in and makes something that is just something...into a "problem."
The following is a short-list of Female Mental Sex Terminology vs. their Male Mental Sex counterparts:
- Mental Sex for Problem-Solving Style
- Condition for Problem
- Adjustment for Solution
- Resistance for Focus
- Flow for Direction
- Intention for Goal
- Overwhelm for Consequence
- Excitement for Dividends
- Pressure for Costs
- Ennui for Forewarnings
- Habituation for Requirements
- Internalization for Prerequisites
- Socialization for Preconditions
In addition, you'll find that some of these terms sneak their way into the traditional Male Mental Sex Storyform--specifically in the area of the Relationship Story Throughline. This is done to help the writers of these stories start to see that Throughline as less of an "argument" and more an actual relationship between things where conditions and flow and resistance play a larger part in the greater understanding of the narrative.
Methods of Conflict: Updating Dramatica for the Age of AI
In the Subtxt Narrative Framework, the foundational Domains from the Dramatica theory of story—Universe, Physics, Psychology, and Mind—have been re-envisioned to better align with the capabilities and strengths of modern AI systems. These updates transform static concepts into dynamic contributors to conflict, enhancing the quality of narrative generation and analysis while freeing human creators to focus on their strengths.
The Evolution of Terminology
The original Dramatica terminology was designed to help human writers break free of preconceptions about narrative. By framing story elements objectively, it encouraged writers to explore broader possibilities in storytelling. However, with the advent of powerful AI systems that excel at pattern recognition and objective analysis, it becomes necessary to optimize the terminology for these systems. This shift allows human creators to focus on subjective and intuitive aspects of storytelling while AI handles structural objectivity.
New Terminology
- Universe → Contextual Framing: Highlights how the environment actively frames the constraints and opportunities for conflict.
- Mind → Attitudinal Framing: Represents how fixed beliefs and attitudes frame the perception and response to conflict.
- Physics → Physical Processing: Emphasizes external actions and movements as dynamic generators of conflict.
- Psychology → Cognitive Processing: Focuses on internal thought processes that dynamically generate conflict.
Why This Change Matters
The original terminology served its purpose for human writers but is less effective for AI systems, which excel at processing clear, actionable inputs. By reframing the Domains as methods of conflict, the terminology:
- Enhances AI Assistance: Encourages AI to actively generate and explore sources of conflict rather than passively describing them.
- Streamlines Collaboration: Aligns human-AI workflows by clarifying the roles of stable and dynamic contributors to a narrative.
- Improves Output Quality: Produces richer and more nuanced narratives by framing every Domain as an active participant in conflict generation.
Examples in Action
- Contextual Framing (formerly Universe):
Instead of seeing the environment as a static backdrop, AI analyzes how constraints (e.g., societal norms, physical boundaries) create tension.
Example: A dystopian society's rigid rules lead to rebellion and personal stakes for the protagonist. - Attitudinal Framing (formerly Mind):
Fixed attitudes like prejudice or self-doubt serve as lenses that distort perception, leading to conflict.
Example: A character's unwavering belief in their unworthiness sabotages their relationships. - Physical Processing (formerly Physics):
AI explores how external actions (e.g., a daring heist or physical confrontation) escalate conflict.
Example: A botched robbery sets off a chain of events that pits characters against each other. - Cognitive Processing (formerly Psychology):
Internal thought processes, such as rationalizing or overthinking, are sources of tension.
Example: A character's obsessive need to understand a mystery alienates them from others.
How This Benefits Human Writers
By leaning into AI's strengths in pattern recognition and objectivity, the updated terminology allows human writers to:
- Focus on Subjectivity: Explore emotional depth, thematic resonance, and creative intuition without being bogged down by structural details.
- Collaborate Effectively: Trust AI systems to provide objective insights and suggestions grounded in a deeper understanding of conflict.
- Create Richer Narratives: Develop stories that are both structurally sound and emotionally compelling, thanks to the synergy between human creativity and AI precision.
Transits, Progressions, and Events
In an effort to help writers understand a clearer definition of structure vs. storytelling, Subtxt alters the "plot progression" terminology of the original Dramatica applications.
- Transits for Signposts
- Progressions for Sequences
- Events (not present in a Dramatica application)
Many a writer found themselves confused over practically applying what was found in the Plot Sequence Report of Dramatica in terms of what constituted a Scene and what made up a Sequence.
Subtxt attends to this confusion by referring to all temporal plot progression elements as temporal plot progression elements. Instead of Signposts, we use Transits to classify the most important "transitions" of a narrative. Progressions are nested within these Transits as a means to mark the key movements through a Transit. And Events, not even present in any shape or form in the original Dramatica application, mark those moments of interest throughout a specific Progression.
Specific Elements
In the original Dramatica theory, many Elements were presented as "negative" aspects of a Dynamic Pair. "Uncontrolled" was paired with Control, "Non-acceptance" with "Acceptance," and "Unproven" with Proven.
Having run into the same problem over and over again of describing the concept that one is not just the "opposite" or negative of the other, we went ahead and changed these in Subtxt. Theoretically, a lack of Proven is not the same thing as Unproven--yet practically speaking, many would equivocate the two.
The replacements for these help clarify their stance on the other side of a Dynamic Pair.
- Presumption for Unproven
- Deviation for Non-accurate
- Rejection for Non-acceptance
- Abandon for Uncontrolled
- Altruism for Morality
- Continuing for Unending
- Qualifications for Prerequisites
- Stipulations for Preconditions
New Concepts
In addition to rewriting some outdated and underdeveloped areas of the theory, Subtxt coins new terminology to account for certain aspects of a Storyform.
- Main Character Baseline and Evolution: mark the beginning and end of the Main Character's Throughline "Arc"
- Obstacle Character Baseline and Evolution: mark the same for the Obstacle Character's "Arc"
- Premise: a distillation of the Dramatica storyform into a single sentence
- Dramatic Argument: the core of every complete narrative, and the crossroads of character and plot
Duplicating a Dramatica Storyform in Subtxt
While Subtxt has evolved from Dramatica's principles, our platform has introduced updated and improved algorithms to determine the sequencing of events in a storyform. Instead of the traditional "Signposts" used in Dramatica, Subtxt utilizes concepts such as Transits, Progressions, and Events to represent the temporal progressions of a storyform. These advancements aim to provide a more accurate representation of narrative progression than previously available.
Because of these updates, you may find that when you attempt to replicate a Dramatica storyform in Subtxt, the resulting "Signposts" might appear out of order. This is due to the evolved algorithms at play in Subtxt. Consequently, the methodology for composing storyforms in Subtxt is not directly compatible with Dramatica's methods.
However, this does not mean that older methodologies are completely out of reach. For those wishing to work with previous incarnations and versions of storyforms, Subtxt offers the ability to interact directly with our AI, Muse. By building a story strictly through the Muse chat interface, you can still draw on the methodologies from other applications while leveraging the power and intelligence of the AI found in Subtxt.
Inaccurate Storyforms and Model Sophistication
You may occasionally find that Muse's interpretation of a submitted work fails to fit within the basic rules set of the Dramatica theory of story. This is less a bug, and more of feature: Muse is doing its best to analyze the screenplay using its understanding of the narrative, which--dependent upon the quality of the work submitted--may not always align within a "perfect" Storyform (e.g. Muse may indicate an OS Domain of Physics and an MC Domain of Psychology, which is not possible within the Dramatica theory of story). Think of Muse’s first pass as its initial hypothesis on which Domains best match the Throughlines--regardless of proper alignment.
When these preliminary assessments seem off, it’s often an indicator that there may be underlying issues with the screenplay itself. At this point, it’s helpful to prompt Muse to verify the Storyform’s integrity explicitly. This can be done by asking Muse to check or review the Storyform more thoroughly.
What you’re seeing initially is Muse operating in a "System 1" thinking mode, leveraging its intuitive and instinctual intelligence (via GPT-4o). For a more refined analysis, you can prompt Muse to switch to "System 2" thinking (using the new o1 model). In this mode, Muse takes multiple passes at an answer, cross-checking relationships between various Storyform elements. This results in conclusions that not only adhere to the theoretical rules but are also better suited to the specific material you've submitted.
For the highest accuracy, you can access this enhanced level of intelligence within Subtxt’s Develop Workspace by using the Review AI feature.
It’s also crucial to keep in mind that while Muse has been trained on publicly available information—including content from dramatica.com and other sources—these resources may contain incomplete or contradictory understandings of the theory. As a result, introducing Dramatica-specific terms such as "Influence Character" or detailed references to Dramatica theory can lead to confusion in the model’s responses. This is because Muse may draw from conflicting information that dilutes the precision and effectiveness of its analysis.
Instead, focusing on the Subtxt Narrative Framework—which is built to work seamlessly within the Subtxt app—ensures a higher rate of success and accuracy. By staying within Subtxt’s terminology and framework, you enable Muse to provide you with the most consistent and reliable narrative guidance.