Worldbuilding: share your tips and tricks!

[StillStunned]

So as not to pollute the "How often...?" thread, I'm beginning a new discussion for all of us sci-fi and fantasy writers to talk about worldbuilding.

Specifically: How much is too much? How much is too little? How do you name your characters and places? Do you have any specific techniques you use to engage your reader?

My preferred technique is to begin with a large picture of a setting and zoom in. I'll admit I stole this from Robert E. Howard. In "The Tower of the Elephant", for example, he gives a vivid description of a slum and its denizens. Then he takes us inside a tavern and we meet Conan for the first time - but it's not Conan's point of view. We don't shift to Conan until the next scene, after he's already established in our minds.

How about you?

 

[StillStunned]

Also: share some of your pet peeves, and some examples that you think really work.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've only written one sci fi story, which was my tentacle sex story a while ago, so I don't have a lot of personal experience actually doing the world building, but I've read a fair amount of sci fi and fantasy. A general thought that comes to mind is, don't over do the explanation. You don't have to explain how everything works. Readers can fill in the blanks if hit the right points.

I just finished Neal Stephenson's 940 page novel Anathem, and I thought it could have been just as good half as long. He makes it way too difficult. Many things are over-explained, while some things are under-explained. He came up with his own extensive vocabulary for his world (Arbre, a kind of parallel Earth), so the book has a very long glossary that the reader has to constantly turn to. I thought it was too much.

I think the rules for world building in Sci Fi are pretty much the same as for any sort of fiction. Pick the right details to describe the scene, but don't feel like you have to describe all of them.

Think about what's central to the plot. Describe those things that are central to the plot, and ignore the rest. A good example of this method was Andy Weir's The Martian, where scientific details are central to explaining and narrating the dilemma that the main character faces in surviving on Mars and in narrating the rescue attempt.

An example of a Literotica story that did a good job with this was Loquisordidaadme's Time To Breathe, which is kind of like The Martian, with sex. There's enough scientific detail to give you a sense of drama and the setting that creates the dilemma the characters face, but not too much.

 

[Erozetta]

My worlds vary as does how built out they are.

One establishes the secluded but beautiful setting while the main characters are introduced. (He is sitting on the side of the mountain overlooking the wall into her estate while she's getting ready to bathe in a hot spring.) The world is further built out through their interactions and you slowly discover neither character is human, both are the children of gods, and one is at risk of being murdered by the god the other has been raised to murder.

Another world is built out visually like a skyline pan of the city in great detail.

I don't set out to build any world in any certain way, I built them out to the degree that made sense for the story without expanding beyond that. No one needs to know the political factions unless it is an important part of the story. No one needs to know there's three moons unless it matters to the story.

90% of my world building ideas never even make it into the story. I have an intricate lore with succubi and incubi being created, but only a few snippets of that lore is ever laid out. Same with a vampire story, very little of what I know about the world is in the story. I need it for consistency, the reader doesn't need to know most of it.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I've only written one sci-fi story, which I admitted was inspired by an old Twilight Zone episode. (Some of the original, but not all of it, is on YouTube.) For some reason, I put it in Celebrities and Fan Fiction..

https://classic.literotica.com/s/penitentiary-planet

I added some details which I hoped added to the story.

1. The convict is indeed guilty, not innocent as in the original.
2. I don't know exactly what Pennsylvania will be like in 2114, but that's where he comes from. The planet he is banned to is actually leased by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("Penn-Doc"), so I was able to get the point across that prisons are still dysfunctional in the 22nd Century. (Not a big surprise, I suppose.)
3. The "woman" (Alicia) he is given as a companion is not a "robot" (sort of like The Terminator, I guess), but an android created from the DNA of a woman who donated her body to science. Unlike the original, she is rather witty from the start. I added details about the corporation that created her (Zola, Inc., based in Long Island City, New York, of all places.) She calls him "Corey," as in the original, but that is is first name, not his last one.

It comes across as a comedy, not a tragedy like Serling's version. I've thought abut writing a sequel, but I haven't done it yet.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

Avoid big info dumps, especially at the beginning.

I know this is easier said than done, but try find ways to sneak information about your world into the story through descriptions, scenes, dialog, etc.

Also, make the culture relavent to the character. Does your MC live in a rigid, militaristic society? How has it shaped how they view/treat other humans? How does it affect how they view them self? Good characters can make fantasy/sci-fi worlds really come to life.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't like information dumps at the beginning of a story, though I did that with First Contact #1: The Strigoi.

On April 12, 1961, Yuri Gagarin was launched into space, and manned exploration began. By Earth’s 36th century, explorers from the Alliance moved through the Milky Way galaxy, expanding known space. These brave people mapped the stars, met previously unknown races, and found new friends and a few foes. But in thousand-plus years of the Alliance’s existence, in all their travels, they’ve never encountered a genuinely evil species.

In the year 2064, the first colony on Mars was established. The year 2125 saw the first FTL engine development by Earth. The first contact with an alien species happened in 2130. The Alliance of Worlds was formed in 2368. Doctor Neculai Dumitru developed the first Wormhole drive in 2858, and space travel became instantaneous.

As stated before, the Alliance has never encountered a purely evil species. Until now!

I prefer introducing little things throughout the story, which I also did in The Strigoi.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The biggest issue with world building is continuity (consistency) and plausibility, and these go hand in hand. This can be a large problem in sci-fi and fantasy where world building is often a means for spectacle. If you build your world specifically for spectacle (or convenience) it can get you into serious trouble.

If your wizard summons a massive lightning bolt to vaporize the dragon at the end of chapter 9, then you don't want the reader wondering why the hell the wizard didn't just summon the lightning against that back alley mugger in chapter 3. There has to be a reason why he would use it against a dragon and not a mugger or not in any other tight spot along the way, and that reason has to make sense to the reader. Likewise, if your wizard whips out the massive lightning bolt in chapter 1 just to hook the reader with spectacle, then you're going to have trouble topping that the rest of the way, or at least have great difficulty explaining why he doesn't just use it all the time.

Star Trek transporter is the greatest example of technology not thought through well enough and it ruins all plausibility in the entire Star Trek universe.

So, we know how it works. The computer records the precise pattern of your molecules, then gathers them up and reassembles them in another place. Good so far, but then we learn that the same technology is used to synthesize anything from replacement parts to food. All the computer needs is a molecular pattern in its database and enough molecules of matter to reassemble a COPY and voila! "Computer, beef stroganoff," boom! - a copy of beef stroganoff. "Computer, one atomic bomb please." boom! a precise copy of an atomic bomb. "Computer, sex dungeon complete with 10-busty woman harem," boom! a copy of 10 busty sluts in a dungeon! (just as easily as 100). You get the picture. This is almighty super powerful technology that can overcome pretty much any obstacle in the universe. Why do the humans have so much trouble with these cro-mag Klingons? And this goes all the way back to the original series. Red Dwarf has better continuity (and they purposely broke continuity).

First, why are there not massive armies of clones in this universe? Starfleet certainly runs into enough unscrupuolous beings and entities out among the final frontier who would abuse this. Heck, some of them are even amongst their own ranks.

Second, why is anyone on the Enterprise the least fearful of death? They can do Evil Kneivel stunts all day and if they fuck themselves up, they get Scotty to reassemble a copy of their last saved body. Every day, wake up, have breakfast and save a copy of yourself down in engineering. Never die.

Sorry if I've just ruined all Star Trek for everyone. If I haven't ruined it for you, you're dumb, heh. : P

So be careful in your world building, especially if you are inventing things for the sake of spectacle or for convenience. Your spectacle could paint your plot into a corner and your convenience could be too convenient for any plausibility whatsoever.

 

[StillStunned]

I don't like information dumps at the beginning of a story, though I did that with First Contact #1: The Strigoi.

There's a fine line between infodumping and setting the mood. I think you did it right in that snippet.

The biggest issue with world building is continuity (consistency) and plausibility, and these go hand in hand. This can be a large problem in sci-fi and fantasy where world building is often a means for spectacle. If you build your world specifically for spectacle (or convenience) it can get you into serious trouble.

*cough* Potterverse *cough*

So be careful in your world building, especially if you are inventing things for the sake of spectacle or for convenience. Your spectacle could paint your plot into a corner and your convenience could be too convenient for any plausibility whatsoever.

I had a moment like this in my newest story: a sorcerer blasts a door with magic. When the warrior with the magic sword comes charging at him, why doesn't he blast again? Answer (added at almost the last read-through): the wand he used is cracked and smouldering.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't think the transporter is quite as flexible as you say. And they certainly have enough instances of malfunctions. If you've paid attention to Star Trek, they didn't have food replicators in the first or the movie series featuring that crew. They didn't ever bring a person back to life with a transporter. However, they did repair an aging defect created by a virus in Doctor Polaski, and yes, they used a stored version of her "pattern." It is implicitly stated they use their shit to make their food. They recycle their waist water to make drinking water. It is also noted the food isn't as good as the real stuff. They must have the right kind of molecules to build whatever they build.

 

[MillieDynamite]

@StillStunned, thank you.

I alternately use the terms teleporter, teleport, transmatter, and transmatt—standard Sci-Fi lingo for what Star Trek called a Teleporter. I haven't addressed food processors because I will not have them in my stories, or they will be viewed as unfavorable. I won't create complex mechanical elements using a transporter, transmatter, or teleporter. Perhaps AI will assist in this.

That's an open question for me right now. AI in the story not written by AI!

 

[gunhilltrain]

Avoid big info dumps, especially at the beginning.

I know this is easier said than done, but try find ways to sneak information about your world into the story through descriptions, scenes, dialog, etc.

Also, make the culture relavent to the character. Does your MC live in a rigid, militaristic society? How has it shaped how they view/treat other humans? How does it affect how they view them self? Good characters can make fantasy/sci-fi worlds really come to life.

I probably do have some info dumps in the beginning of the story, although they may not be are fatal. The score was pretty high (for me anyway) at 4.55. But that was over five years ago. Probably the strongest element is the give and take between the the convict (he doesn't refer to himself as an inmate) and Alicia, who is rather funny. Maybe I should have started with that, but I'm not going to rewrite it at this point. The prison system jargon is also good, I think.

A review of the original episode reveals some unresolved details that I may or may not have dealt with.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

they may not be are fatal

They're not. I don't think there are set rules in writing. More like guidelines.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Sometimes I feel like half of this board's enthusiasm is you, @StillStunned. You are like a furry version of Emily Miller from her more enthusiastic days. Anyway, great topic idea.

As I've always advocated, I'll use examples of well-known works rather than my own or anyone else's here so everyone can chime in. I would truly enjoy someone engaging and even contesting these points.

Too much worldbuilding:

I already mentioned Jordan and Sanderson in the other thread. What I think is important to point out is that worldbuilding should always be in sync with the scope of the story. If you are writing a simple "Prince falls in love with a princess. Evil guy takes her. Prince pursues and defeats the evil guy. They live happily ever after" type of story, then it makes no sense to build up the world beyond some basics. It makes no sense to create huge lands, magical systems, and wonderful creatures if you aren't gonna adjust the scope of your plot to such a world.

Both Jordan and Sanderson wrote great epic stories with a huge scope and thus even if they've overdone the worldbuilding a bit, it somehow still feels okay. Yet it's definitely there. Those who've read Stormlight Archive for example know how impossible it is to keep track of everything, of every faction and group, of magical systems from his other worlds, and so on. You literally need to keep the fandom webpage open to be able to keep up at certain points. Still, Sanderson is head and shoulders above 99% of present-day fantasy writers, in my opinion.

Too little worldbuilding:

Here, I would mention the Farseer trilogy from Robin Hobb and, say, the Gentleman Bastards series from Scott Lynch.
In Hobb's world, there is simply not enough worldbuilding. Too many things are left vague, and fantasy elements are few and underused. There are two types of "magic" - the Skill and the Witt, and what you could say about them could fit into one sentence. It's definitely a book series worth checking out but mostly due to other story elements that were done better.

Scott Lynch's world is different but still lazily built. It's a sort of Renaissance Venice type of world, but very few elements of that world are explained and done to make proper sense. Magic exists but you have absolutely no clue how it works, how it's acquired or learned, and how powerful it is in comparison to physical force and ordinary weapons.
Once again, it's a good book series but mostly due to rich characters and intriguing plot.

Just the right amount of worldbuilding:

I'm going to name Kingkiller Chronicles by Patrick Rothfuss, and to everyone's surprise - Harry Potter.

Rothfuss's world is nowhere near as rich as Sanderson's or Jordan's. Nowhere near. But it's just big enough to feel adequate and alive, and to make it easy for the reader to understand everything. For example, he has two types of magic, and one of them is almost scientific, predictable, and easy to grasp. The reader knows exactly what can be done with it and how powerful it is.
The other type of magic is more powerful but completely abstract. You have no true understanding of how it can be learned or used. But it fits amazingly. The lands and cities in his world, the different people and nations, are once again nowhere near to what Jordan and Sanderson created, but they still fit the scope of the story.
I love and prefer Jordan's and Sanderson's rich worldbuilding but we are here looking at it from a slightly different point of view.

Rowling's world, as inconsistent as it can get at times, is perfectly molded to fit the scope of the story. She kept inventing it as the story progressed, without adding anything spectacularly new or imaginative, but the world works well for the scope of the Harry Potter story.

 

[Otto26]

I am a world-building geek. I've got books on the subject. I've written articles on the subject. I'll build worlds, including languages, societies, customs, ecosystems, and calendars that will never be used. And most of the details shouldn't be used in a story. And they should almost never be explained. And if you're explaining them you should show (via action, conversation, observation) rather than tell. And you should always, always, always be consistent; your readers are already suspending disbelief, don't force them to murder it. The details are there to support the story. If they aren't actively supporting the story LEAVE THEM OUT. I know you want to show off your cool world but there are maybe ten people reading on Literotica that will appreciate it. It will bog down the rest.

 

[Bamagan]

I like world deconstruction more. Forensically, preferably.

 

[MillieDynamite]

The World Set Free, The Shape of Things to Come, The Time Machine, When the Sleeper Wakes, and A Modern Utopia, all by HG Wells, are examples of perfect world-building. The Time Machine featured "The Greys," a chapter initially written by H.G. Wells for The Time Machine but was later removed. The chapter featured a futuristic race of humans with greyish skin, large heads, and weak limbs. The Greys represented humanity's future and captured a generation's imagination, becoming iconic imagery for aliens from other planets. All brain and no brawn.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

Both Jordan and Sanderson wrote great epic stories with a huge scope and thus even if they've overdone the worldbuilding a bit, it somehow still feels okay

I think it works because they are so epic. If a story is going span through multiple books, then I feel more in-depth world building is appropriate.

Magic exists but you have absolutely no clue how it works, how it's acquired or learned, and how powerful it is in comparison to physical force and ordinary weapons.

I this depends on the reader. I don't mind if a writer uses a "soft" magic system opposed to "hard". You need mentioned Hobb. I'd rather read a fantasy story with rich characters than an in-depth magic system or worldbuilding every time.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I don't think the transporter is quite as flexible as you say. And they certainly have enough instances of malfunctions. If you've paid attention to Star Trek, they didn't have food replicators in the first or the movie series featuring that crew. They didn't ever bring a person back to life with a transporter. However, they did repair an aging defect created by a virus in Doctor Polaski, and yes, they used a stored version of her "pattern." It is implicitly stated they use their shit to make their food. They recycle their waist water to make drinking water. It is also noted the food isn't as good as the real stuff. They must have the right kind of molecules to build whatever they build.

Yes it is as flexible as I say, proven by the fact that the replicators work on exactly the same principles as the transporter. That's all one needs to know. Just because they don't abuse this on the Enterprise (non-believable in itself) does not mean that some evil scheming villain in the galaxy can't build his own and abuse the absolute hell out of it.

And of course, in TNG there is the episode where they found Scotty who had stored himself in the pattern buffer of a ruined ship for a century ... as if NO ONE HAD THOUGHT THAT YOU COULD DO THIS BEFORE IN OVER A CENTURY OF THE TECHNOLOGY, yet NO ONE EVER THOUGHT TO CLONE????? Yea, right.

Far too much belief must be suspended to sustain the Star Trek universe over this.

I alternately use the terms teleporter, teleport, transmatter, and transmatt—standard Sci-Fi lingo for what Star Trek called a Teleporter. I haven't addressed food processors because I will not have them in my stories, or they will be viewed as unfavorable. I won't create complex mechanical elements using a transporter, transmatter, or teleporter. Perhaps AI will assist in this.

Now this is fine. I am not against using teleporter technology, but it has to make sense. If it is limited to merely moving objects it's totally doable, absolutely. But the fact that the same technology is used to replicate and copy, nope. I'm out.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Magic exists but you have absolutely no clue how it works, how it's acquired or learned, and how powerful it is in comparison to physical force and ordinary weapons.

Yes, magic and tech must be thought out heavily, especially in longer epic stories. Magic and tech systems are a part of the world being built, and they can be as fantastic and wild as you like, so long as there is solid logic behind it.

I had a moment like this in my newest story: a sorcerer blasts a door with magic. When the warrior with the magic sword comes charging at him, why doesn't he blast again? Answer (added at almost the last read-through): the wand he used is cracked and smouldering.

Yes, you need it to be logical to the reader. Also, it depends on the length of the story. You have much more freedom to create crazy stuff in a one-shot scene story. In a novel, the systems have to stand up all the way through and at every twist and turn.

 

[MillieDynamite]

In the Star Trek episode "Relics," Scotty was trapped in the transporter pattern buffer for 75 years before being freed by the crew of the USS Enterprise, not a century, 3/4 quarters of one, yes. It's a small point but a point. I don't think teleporters, transporters, or the like can create life. The Replicators are an artificial life form, not actual life. There's always some amount of unbelievability to Sci-Fi and Fantasy. I've never seen a magic wand do shit...

Yes it is as flexible as I say, proven by the fact that the replicators work on exactly the same principles as the transporter. That's all one needs to know. Just because they don't abuse this on the Enterprise (non-believable in itself) does not mean that some evil scheming villain in the galaxy can't build his own and abuse the absolute hell out of it.

And of course, in TNG there is the episode where they found Scotty who had stored himself in the pattern buffer of a ruined ship for a century ... as if NO ONE HAD THOUGHT THAT YOU COULD DO THIS BEFORE IN OVER A CENTURY OF THE TECHNOLOGY, yet NO ONE EVER THOUGHT TO CLONE????? Yea, right.

Far too much belief must be suspended to sustain the Star Trek universe over this.



Now this is fine. I am not against using teleporter technology, but it has to make sense. If it is limited to merely moving objects it's totally doable, absolutely. But the fact that the same technology is used to replicate and copy, nope. I'm out.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

As for techniques at building plausible worlds, I would say, write or at least edit vertically. That means that as you dream up scenes and how to get through them plausibly in your magical or high tech world, prepare to go back to earlier scenes/chapters and fix them to be consistent.

Be very careful dreaming up quick fixes to get characters out of jams as you go. If your heroine has a button that she can press on her space ship controls that will instantly escape the bad guy, the bad guy will likely know that these buttons exist and probably is expecting that heroine might have one and use it, and might even have a counter tech for this, or at least a communication to other bad guys to help out.

 

[ElectricBlue]

My standard ploy - anchor your world with a nugget of absolute truth that your readers will see, either consciously or subconsciously, and be willing to suspend a million scintillas of disbelief about all the other bullshit you've dreamed up.

For example, in my Fire and Ice story, set on Titan, there's a female astronaut who gets her entire body shaved in the second scene**, because the Doc has to fix all of the biomed sensors directly to her skin. And a little naked bald woman is basically, hot, right? So there's that immediate suspension.

Then, the alien angel who lives on Titan needs to fly, so obviously, wings. William Blake knew that, and surely we've all seen his paintings of Lucifer falling?

** First scene, in media res, there's a fuck, and it quickly becomes obvious they're on a spaceship of some sort, but by that point the readers are hooked, so you don't need much world building. It's not the world that's important, it's the story.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

In the Star Trek episode "Relics," Scotty was trapped in the transporter pattern buffer for 75 years before being freed by the crew of the USS Enterprise, not a century, 3/4 quarters of one, yes. It's a small point but a point. I don't think teleporters, transporters, or the like can create life. The Replicators are an artificial life form, not actual life. There's always some amount of unbelievability to Sci-Fi and Fantasy. I've never seen a magic wand do shit...

But it is not adequately explained how they cannot create life when they already do everything that they do. They move life, they store life, they copy life. If Scotty was simply a pattern in the buffer, then was he alive in the buffer? If so, the transporter stores life. If he was dead for 75 years in the buffer, then the transporter re-creates life. Either way, life can be saved and cloned by the transporter technology. Absolutely, case closed. If Geordie tells me that the transporter can't clone (and I don't think he - or anyone else - ever did), it does not take a rocket science to NOT believe him after seeing all that the technology does.

Why? Because the world was built recklessly for convenience, not thought through well enough, and that convenience destroyed all plausibility.

 

[StillStunned]

Sometimes I feel like half of this board's enthusiasm is you, @StillStunned. You are like a furry version of Emily Miller from her more enthusiastic days. Anyway, great topic idea.

Thanks! I just love to talk about writing. You lot are something of a captive audience.

Both Jordan and Sanderson wrote great epic stories with a huge scope and thus even if they've overdone the worldbuilding a bit, it somehow still feels okay.

I haven't read much Sanderson, but I agree that Jordan managed to create a world that felt real in its hugeness. My issues with him were that this came at the expense of the story. What I did admire was that it was the first time I'd read a "the End of the World Is Nigh!" story that actually affected the whole world. I always wonder about those other worlds, if the heroes hadn't saved the day: would people be going about their business, and then suddenly the world ceases to be? Just out of the blue?

Here, I would mention the Farseer trilogy from Robin Hobb and, say, the Gentleman Bastards series from Scott Lynch.

I remember enjoying the first three Robin Hobb books, even if they felt a bit contrived. Then they became a bit weepy and melodramatic for my tastes.

Scott Lynch I think gets the balance right. The POV is a group of self-centred conmen. The details you get are the details of the world that impact them. Yes, I'd love to know more about the Eldren (is that what they're called?), but the stories work fine without that information. It remains as much a mystery to the reader as it does to the characters.

I'm going to name Kingkiller Chronicles by Patrick Rothfuss, and to everyone's surprise - Harry Potter.

Kingkiller was amazing, although I've given up on the series ever being completed. But again, the information that's given is based purely on what the narrator-within-the-story knows and shares. Harry Potter - I suppose you're right. Despite the numerous issues with the series, I agree that over-building isn't one of them.

I'll also add a few of my favourites: Earthsea, by Ursula K. Le Guin, and Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy and its successors. The characters in each are so vivid and real, and the action so immediate, that you don't go searching for more detail.