Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.

Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.

Post History

66%

+2 −0

Meta How can Worldbuilding successfully support creative exploration?

We have to understand that a Q&A worldbuilding site isn't going to support all things all worldbuilders want to talk about. We need to focus on what fits well with our Q&A format. One thi...

posted 1mo ago by Olin Lathrop‭ · edited 1mo ago by Olin Lathrop‭

Answer

#3: Post edited by

Olin Lathrop‭ · 2024-09-07T20:50:51Z (about 1 month ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

We have to understand that a Q&A worldbuilding site isn't going to support all things all worldbuilders want to talk about. We need to focus on what fits well with our Q&A format.
One thing that just doesn't fit is a discussion. That means some things will be outright disallowed, and others need to be molded to fit the Q&A format. Your example of "How do I make a fire-breathing dragon?" would be too unfocused and broad to be allowed.
However, that doesn't mean the site is useless to someone that wants to explore fire-breathing dragon designs. This is accomplished by breaking down the broad discussion into more focused individual questions, like:<ul>
<li>What plausible biological processes can produce combustible gas in a dragon?
<li>How much [hydrogen, acetylene, methane, ethane, whatever] would it take to breath enough fire to kill a 12th century knight in armor? Just incapacitate a goat?
<li>What volume would that take in a creature to store that much gas?
<li>How long would it plausibly take for a dragon-size creature to produce the gas?
<li>How many food calories would it take to produce?
</ul>
This technique might not work with really wild brainstorming discussions, but I think it can work with much of the possible content.
The problem will not be the inability to break wild concepts down into manageable more defined chunks, but getting people to actually do it. We can have pages of descriptions and examples, and people won't read them, ignore them, or do what they want anyway (I just want to talk about dragons. This site isn't my problem.). Then there will be endless time-wasting volunteer-dissipating drama about how we're unwelcoming to newbies (it has nothing to do with newbies other than they are less likely to follow the rules), stifling creativity, questions should never be closed, etc. We already get enough of this stuff with the existing more narrowly focused sites.
~~I don't see this working out.~~

We have to understand that a Q&A worldbuilding site isn't going to support all things all worldbuilders want to talk about. We need to focus on what fits well with our Q&A format.
One thing that just doesn't fit is a discussion. That means some things will be outright disallowed, and others need to be molded to fit the Q&A format. Your example of "How do I make a fire-breathing dragon?" would be too unfocused and broad to be allowed.
However, that doesn't mean the site is useless to someone that wants to explore fire-breathing dragon designs. This is accomplished by breaking down the broad discussion into more focused individual questions, like:<ul>
<li>What plausible biological processes can produce combustible gas in a dragon?
<li>How much [hydrogen, acetylene, methane, ethane, whatever] would it take to breath enough fire to kill a 12th century knight in armor? Just incapacitate a goat?
<li>What volume would that take in a creature to store that much gas?
<li>How long would it plausibly take for a dragon-size creature to produce the gas?
<li>How many food calories would it take to produce?
</ul>
This technique might not work with really wild brainstorming discussions, but I think it can work with much of the possible content.
The problem will not be the inability to break wild concepts down into manageable more defined chunks, but getting people to actually do it. We can have pages of descriptions and examples, and people won't read them, ignore them, or do what they want anyway (I just want to talk about dragons. This site isn't my problem.). Then there will be endless time-wasting volunteer-dissipating drama about how we're unwelcoming to newbies (it has nothing to do with newbies other than they are less likely to follow the rules), stifling creativity, questions should never be closed, etc. We already get enough of this stuff with the existing more narrowly focused sites.
I don't see this working out.
<h2>Added</h2>
As was pointed out in a comment, the questions above used as examples of breaking a high level vague concept into smaller more well-defined pieces appropriate for a Q&A site would fit today on the existing Scientific Speculation site.
It think this could be done with most anything someone envisions being asked on the proposed Worldbuilding site. It would be an interesting exercise to see how that works. We could try it with proposed Worldbuilding questions. I think in the end it needs to be done anyway to create questions that result in meaningful answers.
What would answers to "How do I make a fire-breathing dragon?" be anyway? Start with a cow, add wings, and the rest is magic? That doesn't sound useful. I am realizing now that breaking things down is not only to allow utilizing Q&A appropriately, but it is also necessary to get any meaningful results regardless of the rules.

#2: Post edited by

Olin Lathrop‭ · 2024-09-06T21:20:10Z (about 1 month ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

We have to understand that a Q&A worldbuilding site isn't going to support all things all worldbuilders want to talk about. We need to focus on what fits well with our Q&A format.
One thing that just doesn't fit is a discussion. That means some things will be outright disallowed, and others need to be molded to fit the Q&A format. Your example of "How do I make a fire-breathing dragon?" would be too unfocused and broad to be allowed.
However, that doesn't mean the site is useless to someone that wants to explore fire-breathing dragon designs. This is accomplished by breaking down the broad discussion into more focused individual questions, like:<ul>
<li>What plausible biological processes can produce combustible gas in a dragon?
<li>How much [hydrogen, acetylene, methane, ethane, whatever] would it take to breath enough fire to kill a 12th century knight in armor? Just incapacitate a goat?
<li>What volume would that take in a creature to store that much gas?
<li>How long would it plausibly take for a dragon-size creature to produce the gas?
<li>How many food calories would it take to produce?
</ul>
This technique might not work with really wild brainstorming discussions, but I think it can work with much of the possible content.
The problem will not be the inability to break wild concepts down into manageable more defined chunks, but getting people to actually do it. We can have pages of descriptions and examples, and people won't read them, ignore them, or do what they want anyway (I just want to talk about dragons and don't care about this site stuff). Then there will be endless time-wasting volunteer-dissipating drama about how we're unwelcoming to newbies (it has nothing to do with newbies other than they are less likely to follow the rules), stifling creativity, questions should never be closed, etc.
I don't see this working out.

We have to understand that a Q&A worldbuilding site isn't going to support all things all worldbuilders want to talk about. We need to focus on what fits well with our Q&A format.
One thing that just doesn't fit is a discussion. That means some things will be outright disallowed, and others need to be molded to fit the Q&A format. Your example of "How do I make a fire-breathing dragon?" would be too unfocused and broad to be allowed.
However, that doesn't mean the site is useless to someone that wants to explore fire-breathing dragon designs. This is accomplished by breaking down the broad discussion into more focused individual questions, like:<ul>
<li>What plausible biological processes can produce combustible gas in a dragon?
<li>How much [hydrogen, acetylene, methane, ethane, whatever] would it take to breath enough fire to kill a 12th century knight in armor? Just incapacitate a goat?
<li>What volume would that take in a creature to store that much gas?
<li>How long would it plausibly take for a dragon-size creature to produce the gas?
<li>How many food calories would it take to produce?
</ul>
This technique might not work with really wild brainstorming discussions, but I think it can work with much of the possible content.
The problem will not be the inability to break wild concepts down into manageable more defined chunks, but getting people to actually do it. We can have pages of descriptions and examples, and people won't read them, ignore them, or do what they want anyway (I just want to talk about dragons. This site isn't my problem.). Then there will be endless time-wasting volunteer-dissipating drama about how we're unwelcoming to newbies (it has nothing to do with newbies other than they are less likely to follow the rules), stifling creativity, questions should never be closed, etc. We already get enough of this stuff with the existing more narrowly focused sites.
I don't see this working out.

#1: Initial revision by

Olin Lathrop‭ · 2024-09-06T21:16:39Z (about 1 month ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

We have to understand that a Q&A worldbuilding site isn't going to support all things all worldbuilders want to talk about.  We need to focus on what fits well with our Q&A format.

One thing that just doesn't fit is a discussion.  That means some things will be outright disallowed, and others need to be molded to fit the Q&A format.  Your example of <i>"How do I make a fire-breathing dragon?"</i> would be too unfocused and broad to be allowed.

However, that doesn't mean the site is useless to someone that wants to explore fire-breathing dragon designs.  This is accomplished by breaking down the broad discussion into more focused individual questions, like:<ul>

<li>What plausible biological processes can produce combustible gas in a dragon?

<li>How much [hydrogen, acetylene, methane, ethane, whatever] would it take to breath enough fire to kill a 12th century knight in armor?  Just incapacitate a goat?

<li>What volume would that take in a creature to store that much gas?

<li>How long would it plausibly take for a dragon-size creature to produce the gas?

<li>How many food calories would it take to produce?

</ul>

This technique might not work with really wild brainstorming discussions, but I think it can work with much of the possible content.

The problem will not be the inability to break wild concepts down into manageable more defined chunks, but getting people to actually do it.  We can have pages of descriptions and examples, and people won't read them, ignore them, or do what they want anyway (<i>I just want to talk about dragons and don't care about this site stuff</i>).  Then there will be endless time-wasting volunteer-dissipating drama about how we're unwelcoming to newbies (it has nothing to do with newbies other than they are less likely to follow the rules), stifling creativity, questions should never be closed, etc.

I don't see this working out.

Communities

Post History