Hello, new to Dramatica theory. I don't have the software - I'm on a linux machine. I've actually been trying to develop my own theory of story for the past year, and so when I came to Dramatica a few days ago it was eerily familiar! At least on the high levels of it.
Orson Scott Card advises that there are four genre categories of stories - what he calls the MICE quotient. Milieu, Idea, Character and Event.
This lines up well with David Keirsey's identification of four "temperaments" of personality from the Myers-Briggs assessment: Identity, Knowledge, Security and Sensation temperaments.
Thus Identity is related to Milieu stories (social identity, political identity, family identity); Idea related to Knowledge stories; Security to Event stories; and Sensation to Character stories.
These fit well with the concept of genre: Idea stories like mysteries are about gaining knowledge, or Adventure stories are idea stories about testing abilities.
So it seemed to me the 4 Classes ought to be Identity, Knowledge, Security and Sensation.
Furthermore, if you look at Maslow's hierarchy of Needs, you can connect 8 needs to the 4 temperaments. Identity is related to the need for Intimacy (friendship and love and trust) and Esteem (status). Knowledge is related to the need for Truth and Ability (self-knowledge like Am I capable of climbing this mountain or will I chicken out?). Security is related to the needs of justice, morality, and influence. And Sensation is related to the needs for empathy and vision.
If I were to make my own version of Dramatica's Table of Elements, I'd put those 8 needs / motivations (which incidentally correspond to classic personality archetypes Chief, Best Friend, Professor, Swashbuckler, Warrior, Charmer, Lost Soul and Bad Boy) as 8 of the 16 Types. The other eight I have ideas for as well.
So my question is why does Dramatica use the specific Classes, Types, Variations and Elements that it does? I follow the logic of dynamic pairs, and structure and organization of the table, but it seems to me the reasons for the specific content are not explicitly justified as universally applicable in the online theory textbook I read. The original version of the table seems to have a lot of overlap and things in weird groupings at the variation and element level. My groupings are an attempt at basing it on actual psychological categories which show correlation to actual neurological structures in the brain. I'm just wondering if there is a justification I'm not seeing for the groupings in the original table? I'm eager to be enlightened.