0
$\begingroup$

Background

Recently this question was asked. The OP had created a map and wanted insight into how well he/she had done. This was, of course, VTC:Opinion-Based as the request was for arbitrary input leading to the Help Center's prohibited "all answers have equal value."

@MontyWild retagged the question because, as he commented later, "My take on is that the idea should be presented as complete, for whatever stage of complete it is at. Where's the point in RMI questions if they can't be asked at an early stage in worldbuilding?"

Retagging the question led to my comment:

Many (probably most) fantasy maps have little to nothing to do with reality. They're designed to suit the purposes of the story. Your map is interesting, allowing for a wide variety of adventure, so it's great and meets its purpose. It's also incomplete, which makes it difficult to give a particularly good review. While I understand @MontyWild's shift to using the tag, its wiki explains that the idea under review must be "complete and detailed." Your map isn't and the tag cannot be used to further complete an idea, so I don't know what it is you're expecting from us.

This led to @Elemtilas saying the following:

I get where you're coming from, and agree. Question: can RMIQ1 not be seen as a review of an interim stage of a project? The policy does call for the project to be "complete and detailed", and also seems to be focused on "resolving known weaknesses or fill in missing concepts". I think these two aspects of the RMIQ could be seen as contrary. Or they could be seen as complementary. In other words, how complete is complete enough for a project to pass RMIQ muster? Would the Silmarillion pass? Is that complete enough? Can we not interpret "complete and detailed" to refer to different stages or evolutions of a project? What is "complete and detailed" in my own work is a 700+ page in-world description of the world itself; including numerous maps, numerous illustrations, etc. The accompanying maps are as complete and detailed as many 15th and 16th century maps of the real world. But that only comes after many years of labour and many rewritings and reworkings of the book itself. I would argue that RMIQ could be applied to earlier stages of a WIP2 as well. Perhaps not too early a stage! It's much easier to ask about missing concepts at earlier stages of a project like this. I think as a large project evolves, it might become impossible to even determine what its weaknesses are or what concepts are missing unless we're willing to wade through 199k words of text and comb through a veritable atlas full of maps. (Present size of my current descriptive worldbuilding project.)

This is a new tag

Concerns like this should be expected for a new tag, especially one that sets community policy as this one does. What the tag's wiki currently states is this:

Complete and Detailed: The presented idea must be complete and detailed. This does not mean you may only present your entire world (see Scope:, below). No matter how large or small, if the idea is incomplete or lacking details (especially if the purpose of the review is to resolve known weaknesses or fill in missing concepts), then this tag cannot be used (the question shall be closed as Needs More Details). Worldbuilding constructs needing help resolving weaknesses or missing information must be asked as normal, non-review questions and this tag shall be arbitrarily removed if such is the case.

Please note that @Elemtilas has misread one portion of the wiki. He stated:

...and also seems to be focused on "resolving known weaknesses or fill in missing concepts".

However, what the wiki says is:

No matter how large or small, if the idea is incomplete or lacking details (especially if the purpose of the review is to resolve known weaknesses or fill in missing concepts), then this tag cannot be used (the question shall be closed as Needs More Details). Worldbuilding constructs needing help resolving weaknesses or missing information must be asked as normal, non-review questions and this tag shall be arbitrarily removed if such is the case.

The Issue:

A good point is made as to just how "complete" an idea must be. As written, the wiki requires the idea to not require assistance for any known issues. In other words, it's "complete" from the perspective that the OP doesn't see, themselves, where the idea should or could grow, only that the OP is worried that something may be missing, overlooked or wrong. To oversimplify:

  • I think I'm done, but I want to be sure. I specifically have the following detailed concerns: A, B and C. Please review my idea.

The above would be on-topic due to the following wiki section:

Goals and Conditions Required: The querent is required to explain the goals of the review and any limiting expectations.

However...

  • I've created the following and know that I'm still missing A, B and C, but I'd like your input on what I've done so far.

The above would be off-topic and the question closed as VTC:Needs-More-Details.

My Concern:

I'm not in favor of allowing the RMIQ question type to become (if you'll forgive me) a cheap and easy way to avoid having to ask a well thought out, detailed, and focused question. I'm worried that without a very clear definition of what an incomplete idea might be, this whole policy will devolve into a way to circumvent both the Help Center's prohibition against all answers having equal value and it's discouragement of brainstorming.

The Question:

While I understand the concern of both @Elemtilas and @MontyWild, I cannot see the difference between allowing an incomplete idea to be tagged and brainstorming. Should we permit incomplete ideas to host the tag and, if so, what definition would be use to avoid arbitrarily vague (aka incomplete) ideas?

Insight:

  • It should be noted that the linked question that started all this did not provide goals or conditions for the review. Per my comment, I think that was part of the problem. Without those goals and conditions, it's just another brainstorming question.

  • There's a difference between "an early stage of worldbuilding" and an incomplete idea. For example, the following question is (IMO) an example of an incomplete idea that would be an inappropriate RMIQ: What kind of aliens would live on a molten metal planet?

1 RMIQ: Review My Idea Question.

2 WIP: work in progress.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

I spent a number of days before making this post and answer because I wanted to feel sure I understand both what I was concerned about and what @Elemtilas and @MontyWild were concerned about.

We should not allow incomplete ideas

I believe there's a significant difference between an idea that's complete from the perspective of an early stage of worldbuilding (although incomplete from the perspective of the final world) and an OP who wants to fish for ideas and is looking for a loop-hole to do it. I'm willing to embrace the former, but not the latter.

The difference is, I believe, in the idea of "I'm done." Using house construction as an example, the framing of a house can be complete, but the house itself is far from complete. An RMIQ in such a case would be an invitation to review the frame of the house, not the incomplete house. Answers pointing out that plumbing, electrical, carpet, paint, etc. are all missing would be entirely inappropriate because only the frame of the house is under review. The idea is "complete" even if the idea as a whole isn't finished.

Compare this to the frame of a house that's missing its roof (the idea is incomplete). A valid answer would be, "you're missing the roof." But an equally valid answer would be, "you know, you could add two more floors to that home before you add the roof, and the second floor could include a game room and a parlor...." The former answer is what we're looking for (kinda, I'll get to that) but the latter answer is literally an opinion-based brainstorming answer that isn't at all what was envisioned for the tag.

What's the purpose of the tag?

The tag was intentionally designed with two purposes, and both must be met to have a valid question and valid answers.

  1. The OP may gain insight into improving his/her idea.
  2. The OP will become a better worldbuilder.

That's why it implies the tag. No answer lacking worldbuilding process insight is a valid answer and as "incompleteness" (which I'll arbitrarily measure as the "amount of ambiguity of the idea") increases, the ability to give constructive advice decreases.

Therefore, of the several Stack Exchange rules allowed to be vacated for an RMIQ, the necessity of remaining focused is not one of them. This is one of the reasons why I included the aliens-living-on-a-molten-world question in the post. The OP asked us for too much (violating, at least, the Book Rule). He/she asked for us to create one or more entire species with arbitrary detail. That's perhaps an example of the ultimate "incomplete idea."

Even from the perspective of helping the OP learn to be a better worldbuilder, where do you start? Using my house analogy, pointing out how the house could have been better framed is fairly narrow compared to reviewing the whole house. The tools, materials, and techniques, while having a some overlap with other aspects of building a house, are fairly compartmentalized, leading to a constructive education about how to build a better frame.

But what the molten-world question did was show us the cement pad and ask us to build the rest of the house. Thus, "where do you start?" is (IMO) a valid concern.

Finishing touches vs primary development

Simplistically, the difference between a good RMIQ and a bad one is this:

  • Good: What have I missed? (OP is content with potentially no forthcoming insight concerning the idea.)
  • Bad: What more could I do? (OP anticipates forthcoming insight concerning the idea.)

I believe my comment was poorly written, because whether or not an RMIQ is good or bad (in terms of this discussion) should be determined by the Goals and Conditions of the review. My comment was an attempt to point out they were missing, but I'm inexperienced with the tag, too, and I said that very badly ("so I don't know what it is you're expecting from us") as I was focused on the expectation of a house, not the framing of a house.

Therefore, I recommend the following (italics indicate added material and would not be included):

  1. I've grown fond of my house-vs-framing example, so I recommend modifying the Scope: section to read:

Scope: Questions may not ask for a review of an entire world. Questions must be narrowly scoped, dealing with a specific aspect of a world. House construction can be used as an example of what is meant by this restriction. A complete house (a complete world) cannot be presented for review. But the framing of the house (a complete idea within the world) would be appropriate. As worldbuilding is frequently a recursive process, it is expected that RMIQ ideas may not be entirely complete, but questions must be asked from the perspective of, "I'm done for now, what am I missing?" and not "what more could I do?" as the latter is prohibited brainstorming. Note that questions asking for a review of climate are specifically warned to keep the review narrowly focused as planetary climate is a very large and very complex construction.

  1. I also think we need to clarify the Goals and Conditions Required: section.

Goals and Conditions Required: The querent is required to explain the goals of the review and any limiting expectations. Goals and expectations must be within the context of the presented idea as a complete idea. RMIQs may not seek new information but may only review existing information. From that perspective, goals and expectations must reflect the idea as it is today, not what it could be tomorrow.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I'd feel better if we had a (too) in the first header - ideas presented might be incomplete in manners that don't influence the substance. Placeholder names, or materials for a latter stage of construction of the house stored on the same site don't influence if the framework of the house looks stable or wonky. But I see that we need to see more than a single standing beam to inspect the framework - there needs to be at least a single wall of framework to be inspected to tell the builder "Fix this, then complete the rest of the walls in the same fashion." $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 10 at 4:44
  • $\begingroup$ To stay at the framing and I'm done example: the question could be "I am done with this wall of the framework. What do I need to fix here, and what do I need to keep in mind for the next walls from the start?" sounds like a doable thing. If the complete map is the framework, the one wall might be a continent in detail and a rough layout lines marking where the other continents might go. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 10 at 4:51
  • $\begingroup$ the point I am trying to explain is mostly: OP needs to a) clarify what step of build they are in, and b) make sure to point to enough work so that we can review it. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 10 at 9:15
1
$\begingroup$

My take on the linked question was that it was at an early stage of development, and the asker wanted a review of it. The question specifically referenced the asker's inexperience with map-making.

As I said, it had labels like 'Kingdom 1', which I stated that I would presume would be filled in later.

The goal of my answer was to address what I saw as flaws in the presented map, that there were many major bifurcations in river systems and small dead-end lakes, along with borders that seemed to be illogically placed and no clear plate tectonics. In my opinion, the issues like 'Kingdom 1' etc. are not for us to address. I noted that they seemed like placeholders and offered no solution. Likewise, if I was to 'complete' that map, I would have gone at it with an eraser and a pencil and removed the bifurcations and drawn in many more river confluences, amongst other things.

In my own most recent worldbuilding project, the world map began as a pencil sketch on a few sheets of A4, which were later converted to a much nicer-looking digitised map. However, if errors had been made at the pencil-and-paper stage, correcting them in the digital map would have been far more difficult.

The problem with presenting a 'Complete and Detailed' worldbuilding idea is that 'Complete and Detailed' may vary depending upon the feedback sought and the state of the project. Should we force a worldbuilder who is a self-admitted poor mapmaker to compound their potential errors by submitting a more complete map when - as seems to be the case here - we could likely help them by pointing out their errors before they become mistakes that are far harder to correct?

I agree with JBH that an RMIQ must set the goals and expectations of the review. I would also suggest that the querent's idea was complete for their value of complete: it included both the map and a summary of the story behind it, but the thrust of the review request was the map, not the story.

When the RMIQ tag was suggested, FrogOfJuly's Reality check: energy source for power armour was an excellent example of a complete idea... but the feedback that RTGs were not the ideal power supply means that to correct this would require a significant rework of the idea. Had we been asked to review the idea of RTGs as a power supply for power armour at an earlier stage, we would have been able to save FrogOfJuly a lot of work spent going down what may have been the wrong path.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.