Aristotle said that the basis of interesting writing is conflict, and writers have been copying him ever since.
A plausible character with believable internal conflict is more interesting than a plausible character with external conflict - although ideally you want plenty of both.
Audiences like a certain amount of ambiguity, especially if they sympathise with the challenges a character faces.
But the old formulaic plot books are largely nonsense. I have a version from the late 19th century which predates silent movies by a few decades, but still claims to reduce drama to the same tropes.
It doesn't work - except maybe as light entertainment. The book is full of references to plays that have been almost entirely forgotten now.
Really good writing - Shakespeare, ancient Greek comedy/tragedy, a few more modern examples - works on a much deeper level than a trivial plot taxonomy.
A plausible character with believable internal conflict is more interesting than a plausible character with external conflict - although ideally you want plenty of both.
Audiences like a certain amount of ambiguity, especially if they sympathise with the challenges a character faces.
But the old formulaic plot books are largely nonsense. I have a version from the late 19th century which predates silent movies by a few decades, but still claims to reduce drama to the same tropes.
It doesn't work - except maybe as light entertainment. The book is full of references to plays that have been almost entirely forgotten now.
Really good writing - Shakespeare, ancient Greek comedy/tragedy, a few more modern examples - works on a much deeper level than a trivial plot taxonomy.