67

I'm having a very hard time justifiably spending lots of time building a world of my own.

On one hand-- I express myself very creatively, and even browsing through this site gives me a plethora of ideas.

However, whenever I start to consider what a world might look like, despite my fervent desire to create an intriguing and compelling history, I get lost in the dread that I could be doing something that isn't entirely productive or unique.

I understand that I might be looking for too much out of this experience, or that I could have already answered my question (world-building is used as a creative outlet-- it isn't supposed to be productive etc.), but I have such a strong desire to actively participate in this incredible community I've witnessed that it feels bad either way.

Is there anything that y'all have used to justify the amount of time that could be spent creating something like this?

Am I just looking at the concept wrong?

Note: Please tell me if this question is out of place. I'm very new to this website. Thanks!

Edit:

Thank you so much for all the responses! I believe I originally misconceived the notion of world-building as an all-encompassing creation, not a casually enjoyable, incrementally added upon, pass-time. Specifically, the responses that encouraged how the creation process is just as fulfilling as the finished result helped me decide to work on world-building as a hobby, rather than a full commitment. Perhaps my initial concern was just my inner completionist getting the best of me.

Thanks Again!

Uertmon
  • 609
  • 5
  • 10
  • 7
    Hello and Welcome Uertmon, while I can see this question isn't about an actual world you are building I hope it stays open because its about worldbuilding as a hobby. I personally do it as a hobby because I enjoy it. You don't need a reason to invest time in a hobby. But sometimes a hobby can be pretty consuming with no benefit. Its a matter of self control so you can keep world building and living the life you want. Is there any reason in particular you want to stop world building? – Shadowzee Sep 06 '18 at 04:43
  • 1
    Welcome! Since this seems to be a meta-question, I wonder if it would be better suited for Meta. – L.Dutch Sep 06 '18 at 05:20
  • @Uertmon just to point out (wish this was on the greeting cards) if you want to talk to one user then do what i did at the front – Creed Arcon Sep 06 '18 at 05:21
  • 29
    Justify - to whom? – The Square-Cube Law Sep 06 '18 at 05:43
  • 15
    @L.Dutch: I'd disagree that this is a meta question, as long as the focus is on justifying the time spent in the process of world building, not the act of spending time on this site – Joe Bloggs Sep 06 '18 at 05:53
  • 1
    @Shadowzee I guess I used to see it as a large time commitment that would be extremely fulfilling to create, yet pointless at the same time. After reading some of these comments, however, I feel much better about the process. – Uertmon Sep 06 '18 at 06:13
  • I'm inclined to agree with @JoeBloggs. This is definitely a question about the process of building a world, and we have ample precedent for such questions being on topic on Main. On the other hand, I'm not sure it can be answered objectively, which itself would perhaps make it more appropriate on Meta (or closeworthy as POB). On the third (foot? paw?), it seems likely that a handful of answers would capture a lot of peoples' reasoning. – user Sep 06 '18 at 06:35
  • Uertmon, if there is anything you can add to this question that would help us more objectively judge whether answers are good or bad, then please consider an [Edit] to that effect. – user Sep 06 '18 at 06:35
  • 7
    I think you'd probably get better answers over at the Writing stack exchange. – Jack Aidley Sep 06 '18 at 08:44
  • This is a fundamentally Writers.SE question and it should be moved. – Maciej Sep 06 '18 at 11:17
  • 36
    Only on Stack Exchange could you ask a question that specifically mentions the topic of the site that the question has been asked on and be told it is more on-topic else where. – RyanfaeScotland Sep 06 '18 at 12:06
  • Welcome Uertmon ! My advice is to start small and the grow big. Making a great world takes time AND experience. If it's your ultimate goal, then gather experience by writing small stories, plots. And if you write enough (short) stories, maybe you'll realize that your world is already there and part-written. – Kii Sep 06 '18 at 13:04
  • Well, if you can't make this world better, you can at least build a better one. – Hawker65 Sep 06 '18 at 13:37
  • God reportedly spent six days creating the world (which must be a lot considering how much was done). Apparently, the only justification was "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." So, take pride in your newly created world! – Alexander Sep 06 '18 at 17:55
  • Personally, I use this stack exchange to help with a D&D campaign I'm working on. It's also just really enjoyable to imagine a world very different from our own, especially when I have downtime at work. Nothing wrong with being a little creative! – J0hn Sep 07 '18 at 12:34
  • 1
    @Uertmon I'm not seeing it mentioned specifically... Are you asking about building a world where the world itself is the goal, or are you asking about creating a world to use as a setting for other works (stories, games, etc)? – Mr.Mindor Sep 07 '18 at 18:44
  • "There's only one reason to make art, and that's it." -- Joss Whedon – Wyck Sep 09 '18 at 23:28

13 Answers13

62

World building tends to attract certain types of people

  • People who like the process of world building
  • People who go the extra mile in making sure their story is accurate
  • People who want a single base world so they can have multiple, possibly interwoven, stories with the same setting
  • People who are anal about details

There's nothing wrong with only world building the bare minimum. Plenty of great stories have minimal world building, you just have to choose a balance that works for you.

Clay Deitas
  • 4,262
  • 14
  • 25
  • 8
    It also depends on the type of story you're telling. Philip K. Dick, for example, sometimes appears to have put great effort into worldbuilding (The Man in the High Castle comes to mind) and other times just seems to throw in random world details that don't appear at all plausible or thought out but are instead symbolic or humorous. – tbrookside Sep 06 '18 at 14:51
  • 17
    One bad example: Where were all those wizards from other schools from around the world while Voldemort fucked shit up in the last three books? – Magus Sep 06 '18 at 19:06
  • 1
    @Magus have you considered asking that exact question on scifi SE or has it already been asked there? – Jan Nash Sep 07 '18 at 16:02
  • @JanNash it's already been asked: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/q/58575/59810 – Wildcard Sep 08 '18 at 00:47
  • 2
    The list in this answer missed the important category that fits me most: (x) all of the above. ;) – fgysin Sep 27 '18 at 13:14
28

Here's the way I look at it; when you build a world (for your story / game / amusement / insert purpose here) you're not doing it for yourself per se; you're doing it for the experts in the fields you'll discuss that will also read / play your work.

The whole Skynet thing in the Terminator (for example) bugs the daylights out of me. Why? Because I'm an AI researcher (among the many hats I wear these days) and I know it just can't happen like that, and that if you're going to build machines that wipe out humanity, you don't need to make them smart.

Judging by the number of downvotes I get when I discuss this topic even on this forum, there are a lot of people out there who have a differing view, and that's probably why shows like the Terminator are so popular. But, to me it's not realistic.

So; you can build a world with minimal effort but write in engaging characters and an intriguing plot, and you'll produce something that has every chance of being popular. But, realistic? Well perhaps, but then not to the people who actually know the details of the mechanics behind the world you've created.

Ultimately, the effort you go to in creating a world should be commensurate with the level of expertise in the areas around which your world is created that you wish to engage. If you just want the laypeople, then it's a waste of your time and effort and you can (quite rightly) say that it's unproductive.

For mine however, I prefer the story worlds that go the extra mile to make it realistic to me and to other experts in the chosen fields of discussion. That effort won't be recogniseable to everyone and I have to say that your return on investment may be a lot lower than appealing to the masses, but quality counts, at least to me, so my view is that it's always worth the extra effort because your reward isn't the number of extra people you draw, it's the amount of knowledge you draw by virtue of that effort.

Tim B II
  • 54,100
  • 7
  • 123
  • 214
  • 15
    plausibility and internal coherency are very important to engage the user with the story. You create a framework where the reader can imagine outcomes and discard others. For most fantasy/sci-fi readers this is a MUST. :) – Onoper Sep 06 '18 at 07:42
  • 1
    +1, as a full time research scientist and fellow AI researcher; I agree. And to me, the only way Skynet in The Terminator could come to pass is if some psychopath with AI skills intentionally wanted to exterminate humanity, perhaps leading a cult of such coders and imagining themselves bringing on Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ and The Rapture or some other crazy idea. Then it is less about AI and more about successfully building a doomsday machine. Terminator would be more plausible with that plot, and in the series defeating the secret cult could be extraordinarily difficult. – Amadeus Sep 06 '18 at 10:25
  • 2
    It's a good answer but it's missing Onofre's input. It's not just about realism but about consistency. Star Wars has sound in space everywhere, down to characters hearing a fighter behind them. This breaks realism but if kept consistent you can accept it. If they suddenly remarked there is no sound in space it breaks the consistency and becomes annoying. The consistency of "AI is out to kill you" (or a semi-insane support tool often found in Ancient Tech Is Always Better) is such a trope that people will readily accept it. – Demigan Sep 06 '18 at 12:12
  • 1
    I’ve enjoyed a lot of things that are not realistic. Star Wars, Star Trek, movies where trajectories of thrown objects visibly suggest gravity has changed, high-speed automatic firearms that fail to hit anything in front of them, mysteries where the genius detective figures out who the murderer is when there are only two people left, … – WGroleau Sep 06 '18 at 12:57
  • 1
    It's the difference between suspending disbelief and suspending logic. – John Doe Sep 06 '18 at 19:57
  • @Amadeus and Tim: as a software engineer, and someone who has done a small amount of AI programming, it seems naïve (not only of you; it's a popular claim) to say Skynet is unrealistic. It all depends on how the AI is programmed. Just because it does not seem feasible with whatever algorithms you have used does not mean it is not feasible overall. I have been pleasantly surprised by what has fallen out of my AI work that totally surprised me and surpassed my expectations. Unexpected and defective could make Skynet, or any AI defect eg: robot spends all time sweeping dirt outside. Y'never know. – Loduwijk Sep 06 '18 at 20:57
  • 1
    @Aaron I'm not saying that an AI wiping out humanity is unrealistic; what I'm saying is that an AI wiping out humanity because of a survival instinct is unrealistic. Computers don't have instincts; Skynet would have done what it did because it was (deliberately or inadvertently) programmed to do so. I've seen computers do interesting things because of software bugs all the time, but that doesn't mean they're 'smart'. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. – Tim B II Sep 06 '18 at 21:29
  • @TimBII: I don't know much about the Terminator universe, but I think an advanced AI program could have "instincts" in the same sense that a run-of-the-mill present-day computer program can "think" something, "say" something to another program, experience "split-brain", etc.; such metaphors are incredibly pervasive, and usually more useful than misleading, even though they're not literally accurate. – ruakh Sep 07 '18 at 01:34
  • @ruakh but isn't that the point? What you're describing is an inaccurate metaphor that superimposes our own experience onto a device that isn't conscious, isn't alive and doesn't experience the biological imperatives (survival, hunger, reproduction etc.) that we do. That said, they're programmed by us, which means that some of our thinking can be superimposed upon them, and lead to emergent behaviours that look human, aware, etc. But it's still programming. Computers are deterministic even when they don't appear to react in deterministic ways. Skynet as a programming bug is more believable – Tim B II Sep 07 '18 at 02:42
  • Agree on AI and Terminator view. Reading the questions on here implying that it is simply doable is entertaining. – NuWin Sep 07 '18 at 06:47
  • Skynet was explicitly built to be able to act in an intelligent fashion even before it turned sentient, It's fair to say that the original code included a survival-at-all-costs clause. But yes, As a fellow software dev I have trouble imagining any system not explicitly intended to become sentient or act in a sentient fashion becoming so. What generally strikes me when I watch movies like Terminator or Wargames is the idea that computers were allegedly sophisticated enough in the 80s to do what they were supposed to do even before they trip off the deep-end into Magic AI territory. – Ruadhan Sep 07 '18 at 10:38
  • @TimBII Humans are deterministic even when they don't appear to react in deterministic ways. – Alice Sep 07 '18 at 12:22
  • @Alice well in that case, free will is a lie. That's the secret to AI that a lot of people don't get; if AIs are really capable of the human experience, then the human experience is ALSO deterministic, meaning that all we do has already been decided. The universe can't have the penny and the bun. Either we are capable of making our own choices, OR computers are capable of the kind of awareness that Skynet describes. Me personally, I'm still convinced Skynet was a software bug. It's not like there's a shortage of them to go around, and I'd like to believe in my free will for a little longer. – Tim B II Sep 07 '18 at 13:21
  • @TimBII Ok. And please forgive my previous wording. My use of "naïve" was because I could not think of a better word at the time, but I do not mean to belittle you at all. Back on track: If that is your issue with the sci-fi AI, then all you have to do is say "It is simulated sentience." It's not truly like us, despite some of the "I feel like I'm a human too" stuff from some of it, but it does such a great simulation that it might as well be called sentience. That should help you. And all that is needed is a steering "protect yourself from predators" algorithm to notice from ... – Loduwijk Sep 07 '18 at 16:32
  • ... from human literature the oft-quoted statement that "humans are the most dangerous predators on the planet", and depending on how that interacts with other priorities it very well could lead to Terminator. defend against predators -> avoid if possible else defend combatively -> humans are all around and cannot be avoided -> defend combatively, which could turn into almost the same thing as in the movies. It all depends on the algorithm and the priorities, and it might not be a bug but still accidental. https://xkcd.com/1613/ – Loduwijk Sep 07 '18 at 16:36
  • @TimBII As an example, I once did a video game type of AI simulation where the computer controlled people were programmed to interact with other humans for their mutual benefit and to fight things that were potentially dangerous. That was the plan anyway, but because of an oversight on my part the human controlled virtual people were not considered friendly, but they were considered dangerous. I suppose you could consider it a bug, but it was not a programming bug. The flaw was in the logic, completely irrelevant to the code. AIs were murdering humans and stranger AIs until I fixed them. – Loduwijk Sep 07 '18 at 16:42
  • @TimBII Furthermore, that entire experiment was born from what was supposed to be a game where the AIs did not interact with each other. It was supposed to be a typical game originally with virtual people standing around that you can ask questions buy stuff from etc., and I programmed the AIs to interact with the humans and hadn't even given a thought to them interacting with each other, but I did it generically enough that when I started it up the AIs were doing way more than planned and were taking on lives of their own and working together. Later came the aforementioned murdering... – Loduwijk Sep 07 '18 at 16:46
  • It isn't necessary to claim that humans are deterministic in order to have a similar level intelligence hosted artificially. Modern chips routinely include a hardware random number generator, so any desktop or smartphone can run a non-deterministic algorithm at high speed. Although hardware random number generators may be argued to be biased, they cannot be argued to be deterministic. – trichoplax is on Codidact now Sep 09 '18 at 12:28
  • @trichoplax ah, hardware random number generators - last time I explained the fallacy behind these I ended up in a flame war with the strong AI'ers AND the quantum qiddies, so all I'll say this time is that the programmer still decides when the random number generator is called, and the odd random number being introduced is far from the capacity for free will. – Tim B II Sep 09 '18 at 21:40
20

World Building is Entirely Unnecessary.

What justifies the time is writing with consistency. If you have a map with terrains, towns, plausible climates and climatic cycles, etc, then your writing will be consistent as your characters journey through it; you won't accidentally write in logically impossible distances or trip timing. Using Earth as an example, you won't write that the trip from Las Vegas to New York City took 8 hours to drive. It is 2529 miles, they'd have to drive 317 miles an hour! Of course you wouldn't make that mistake on EARTH, even if you aren't great at division you would immediately sense these are further apart than 8 hours, and consult a map and calculator.

But when you are writing and inventing everything yourself, it can be easy to forget what you told the reader about places W, X, Y, and Z, and accidentally create a physical paradox like the above. It takes one crew a day to walk the path W->X->Y, stopping at X on the way, because that was convenient to your plot at the time. Then later in the book you send them from Z->Y->X for supplies, and it takes them FIVE days to walk from Y to X. WTF? They walked from X->Y in less than ONE day the first time!

You might have character Joe talking about being born in W, and growing up with snow, ice, and bitterly cold winters. Then three months of writing and ten chapters later, you forget about that. Joe and your crew end up in W during winter, and you write it as pretty pleasant and mild. But your reader just read about the winters in W a few hours ago, goes back to read that again, and wonders a) Why Joe and nobody else isn't saying a damn thing about this pleasant winter, and b) Was Joe lying?

In such a case you have broken the reader's immersion, your world doesn't make sense because your writing is glaringly inconsistent.

But I said world building is entirely unnecessary!

You don't have to do this kind of work up front; you can take notes of what you say and build a map as you write along, and if necessary revise your story as you go. If you know some of the elements of world building (what makes deserts, or rain forests, mountain ranges, lakes, etc) then you won't make obvious mistakes, but all you really need to avoid is glaring errors that won't stand up to scrutiny. You don't have to talk about the geology of what makes a seashore cliff; you can just plug in a seashore cliff. Just Google "seashore cliff" and you will find a few dozen of them, pick one that best fits your story as a reference for writing your own. Describe actual nature and you won't create any glaring errors.

Of course world building can also include fantasy religions, cultures, rituals, animals, magic systems, and so on. Some of these are for entertainment value, others are developed in order to maintain consistency, and impose limitations on what can be done. Not only in magic, but perhaps politically and culturally as well. In many fantasy and scifi worlds the culture allows one character to kill another in front of witnesses and walk away, never to be pursued or even charged; there just is no law enforcement in such worlds other than vigilantism.

In other worlds more like our own, like the Mr. Robot series, law enforcement and how it works is central to the story, the hackers are breaking the law and in constant fear and danger of being caught.

World building can be an entertainment in and of itself, but (IMO) it is just a setting, not a story.

To me, I would rather write a story. I am a discovery writer, so I do my world-building on the fly, with a map I sketch as my story demands new places, towns, or features like rivers, oceans, forests, deserts, etc.

I also do several passes through my finished work, and along the way ensure my elements are consistent and there are no glaring errors.

The advantage of world building up front is your story maintains consistency and you don't have to invent settings on the fly. However, you can do these things on the fly without ever sitting down to invent your world. If your story is character-driven, like mine, the settings are not necessarily a big part of the story; and (for me) the main thing to keep straight is distances, travel times, and at times for the physicality (traveling or fighting) and dress of characters, whether it is freezing, sweltering, or fair weather, open terrain or forested, watered or dry, etc.

If setting is a major "character" of your story and often plays the villain (heroes versus nature, or culture, or politics) or has entertainment value (tourism for the reader, by terrain and/or cultures) then it should probably be planned and made consistent.

The time justification is in whether it is more efficient to design the setting and then write a story in it, or to write your story and design the setting on the fly, keeping it consistent with notes and sketches. That all depends on how important the world is in your story; and for many stories that focus on the emotions of characters (a relationship, falling in love, coming of age, dealing with loss, etc) the setting is not terribly important.

Amadeus
  • 34,678
  • 5
  • 52
  • 127
  • 2
    +1 Whether you do it up front or not, world building happens. It is really annoying to have to go a few pages back in a book because you're like didn't they?........ That totally breaks immersion. – Pieter B Sep 06 '18 at 11:48
  • 4
    +1 Worldbuilding is a great way to help maintain consistency for settings-driven story telling. From an efficiency standpoint, I think it largely comes down to individual writing styles. For me, when I write a scene in a novel setting, I constantly find myself stopping to think about how things work in the setting. Thinking through all those details interrupts the flow of my writing, so I'd rather get as much out of the way through worldbuilding background notes. That way, if I decide my scene needs to be in a seedy futuristic dive bar, I already have a good idea what that looks like. – Beofett Sep 06 '18 at 12:34
  • 3
    I'd really rather replace "you would instinctively know these are far apart" with maybe "you would immediately know these are far apart", but it's your answer. It just irks me when people use the word "instinctively", because in the huge majority of cases where humans are involved, it's not about instincts at all. – user Sep 06 '18 at 19:35
7

Think of it like learning the skills so you can build your own house, and then you start building a house that you poke away at when you have the time. It seems like it takes forever. You might never finish the house.

But then, one day, you're visiting a friend and they mention they've got a leak and are going to have to call a plumber. As they describe the problem, you realize you've learned enough doing your own plumbing that it's an easy fix. No need of a plumber, you can show your buddy how to fix it themself.

Never could have done that if you hadn't worked on your own, seemingly never-ending project. Working on your own gives you skills that you can use in other situations.

Keith Morrison
  • 21,416
  • 1
  • 38
  • 76
7

Building a world often leads to more story options.

The first example that comes to mind is the Star Wars universe. Stories have come out of that "world" since 1977: movies, books, TV specials, animated TV series, fan films, board games, card games, etc. (Don't get me started on merchandising!)

Another world that led to story options was mentioned in the answer Caleb Koch offered: J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth. The Hobbit set up the world, and then it was explored in amazing depth in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. (Fans can probably list other LOTR works that I don't know about.)

There are many current examples of worlds spawning stories as well: Game of Thrones, Transformers, Star Trek, Stephen King's Dark Tower world and series, the Marvel and DC Comics universes, and on and on.

So the process of building a world is not frivolous or a waste of time. It can be a "primordial soup" that spawns life and aids your creativity.

BrettFromLA
  • 4,075
  • 18
  • 20
4

Depends on what you are using it for? a book, game, personal. For me anyway, I like detail and realism about my worlds. I like my worlds to feel like they could be lived in, but I do this not for myself but for other people to enjoy, that will change how you build your world. If it’s for yourself then you don't need to get hung up on too much detail because you know the world rules all ready (you built it after all) but if it for others then you need to act like they have no idea what your world is, so you need to show them. Don’t go for too much detail (been there) too much detail can drag your story too long and that will bore your readers. The time is your to spend, build whatever fits YOU and most of all have FUN

Creed Arcon
  • 3,592
  • 2
  • 19
  • 47
4

There are few excellent answers, but there is one point I see missing in them. World building is a real challenge for your creativity. You have to enforce yourself to think of multiple ideas that will make your world interesting in some way. As you have mentioned, one of the things you'll be trying to achieve is to have a world that in some way is unique (that is no-one else came with this idea yet). So it has to be a creative process

This is a benefit that works for you in general. The very same creativity can later work when thinking of finding some real-life problems. And creativity and imagination like every other skill gets better when trained. So even though you might be doing the world building just for your own sake and the world you build is not going to be shown to anyone, you will benefit from it anyway.

That's particularly my reason to participate in WorldBuilding StackExchange. I don't feel a need to build a world as such but I like stretching my creativity answering others' questions.

Ister
  • 1,906
  • 7
  • 14
4

The answers already here are great and valid, but I just wanted to add that when writing a story, having a complete, believable world for your characters to live in helps to make the characters themselves more believable and complete.

Even if the characters never really understand why they can't jump into hyperspace near a large planetary body or what the consequences might be, with a complete and consistent world, you as the author know exactly the reasons why. Those reasons will be ever present in the back of your mind as you write, and will influence the events in the story as well as the characters actions, leading to more well-rounded characters, and makes it that much easier for a reader to lose themselves in the story.

CDspace
  • 140
  • 5
3

You could make it a part of your story building progress.

Every time you come up with new ideas for your world, they're probally joined with a few basic/rough ideas of what could happen in this part of the world. If you write those down you could use that as material for your story.

More prep could create a more stable story, less plotholes and some depth. Even if a reader doesn't really care about all the lore around it, they'll still feel the story being solid.

Martijn
  • 2,106
  • 1
  • 13
  • 23
3

Tolkien, arguably one of history's greatest world builders, seemed to have a similar question. May I direct you towards his work Leaf by Niggle, or at least towards Wikipedia's summary of the work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf_by_Niggle)?

I won't ruin the story for you, but I will say that Niggle's life is essentially an allegory of Tolkien's own life and work. Leaf by Niggle can be interpreted as an "illustration of Tolkien's religious philosophy of creation and sub-creation. In this philosophy, true creation is the exclusive province of God, and those who aspire to creation can only make echoes (good) or mockeries (evil) of truth. The sub-creation of works that echo the true creations of God is one way that mortals honour God." An interesting view indeed, wherever you fall on the God debate.

Caleb Koch
  • 131
  • 2
  • 2
    Can you summarize what is in the link? Your answer doesn't provide an answer; links can change over time so make sure the content of the link is summarized in your post. – kingledion Sep 06 '18 at 13:40
2

I think the real question is, why does it need to be justified? There are a plethora of hobbies that have much less to offer as far as what you have to show for it. If there are things you should be doing instead, do those things and come back to your world when you have more free time.

However if your world is the setting for a story you're writing, then I would consider that a justification in and of itself (assuming this is a legitimate goal and not just a hobby in it's own right). If you find yourself filling out your world more than is necessary for your story, then get to a stopping point, work on what needs to be done for your story, and again, come back to the world when you've got more free time, or need to flush out more of the details.

Source: I have quite a few hobbies and very few have much to show for the time I put in, especially compared to world building and writing. It all comes down to what makes you feel productive.

tuxmachina
  • 21
  • 2
0

What do you do with your world?

  • You might want to tell stories in it, and hope to become the next great SF/F writer. You need good prose, a riveting plot, believable characters, and also a memorable world. Usually two or three out of four is not enough.
  • You might be the game master of a pen-and-paper roleplaying group. You sit around the table all Saturday until 0-dark-30 with a bunch of friends and many gallons of chips and cola. Those pesky players, they get ideas you never had. The best way to improvise along with that and keep it fun for everyone is if you know your world and if they understand your world.

"Does the castle have a rear exit? How is it locked?"

"No rear door." (I want the big fight in the castle yard.)

"How about the garderobe? Can we hack the planks out and rappel down?"

"No garderobe." (I still want the big fight in the castle yard.)

"What!?"

o.m.
  • 114,994
  • 13
  • 170
  • 387
  • Okay, so no garderobe, but how about a wardrobe? – user Sep 06 '18 at 19:38
  • @MichaelKjörling ... If you build your world so that the wardrobe has holes over the moat? Many garderobes did, and would-be fantasy storytellers should be aware of such messy details. – o.m. Sep 07 '18 at 05:17
0

My viewpoint may be a little different in that many people tend to work from the top down. They start with a world and fill in the details. I work the opposite way. I have an idea and then think what I need to know about its world to make it plausible. I may never go on to develop the world more than that.

For me, being challenged by the community to make my ideas clear is a great intellectual exercise that offsets my bubbles of creativity. By researching the subjects and discovering similar previous questions, I improve my knowledge and hope to find myself better at answering the questions of others.

I'm sure you don't have to justify enjoying yourself as long as it doesn't become an obsession that interferes with your real life.

chasly - supports Monica
  • 49,370
  • 15
  • 152
  • 305