15
$\begingroup$

Required Reading: Help Center Upgrade: The Future of Storybuilding

A year+ ago I started the process of thoroughly reviewing the Help Center to make some desirable and comprehensive changes. The project was larger than I had time to embrace. However, one issue continues to dog us something awful: story-based questions. We lose a large number of questions and users for our failure to support this kind of question.

Changes required from the moderators

If the policy, below, is accepted some changes must be made via tools only available to the moderators.

  • Regarding brainstorming, the Help Center "What topics can I ask about here?" page should change "might not be a good place for your questions" to "isn't a good place for your questions."

  • The statement "When asking questions keep in mind that the goal of the site is to help you build your world, not to tell your story" on the Help Center "What topics can I ask about here?" page should change to "When asking questions keep in mind that the goal of the site is to help you build your world and craft your story within the rules of Stack Exchange. When asking for help crafting your story, questions must adhere to the story-based questions policy."

  • The VTC:Too Story-Based close reason should be removed as an option when voting to close questions.

Request for help bringing this to the attention of the community

Unlike in years past, it is very difficult today to bring Meta issues to the attention of the general user base. I pesonally feel uncomfortable perceiving this as an accepted policy change with a score less than +25. Whether you feel this proposal has merit or not, please consider using the @user tagging function in comments on Main to invite five or more other users to visit this meta post.

Based on the required reading I formally propose the following policy.

Story-based and storybuilding questions are acceptable on Worldbuilding.SE when questions conform to the following expectations and conditions

Worldbuilding: is the objective development of the structure of an imaginary natural world situated within a universe of rules defined and consistently applied by its designer — or the similarly objective design of cultures, civilizations, and technologies — to be used as the framework for stories or game play.

Storybuilding: is the subjective effort to develop a narrative involving the lives of individuals and their choices — or similarly a subjective history — that are necessarily dependent on the goals of the author and therefore cannot enjoy a definitive "best answer" in terms of Stack Exchange's basic design without first identifying the desired answer to explain the terms of that decision.

The nature of Stack Exchange is objectivity. An objective request for help solving a problem is followed by solutions that can be judged by both the original poster and the community just as objectively. This is why worlbuilding is fundamentally acceptable on Stack Exchange. Storybuilding is naturally subjective and are therefore only acceptable on this Stack when they conform to the following expectations and conditions.

  1. Brainstorming remains prohibited. Brainstorming is defined as soliciting a list of options rather than seeking a best solution. Brainstorming violates the Help Center's prohibitions against questions that lead to all answers having equal value and/or being open-ended. Stack Exchange users are obligated to ask questions with the intent — even if the user never follows through — of objectively selecting one best solution. Therefore, specific goals, expectations and conditions relating to the objective choice of a "best answer" must be provided. The community will help users to build their stories, but it will not participate in spitballing. Ask a specific question or don't ask it here.

  2. Questions about character or organization choices, motivations and actions will be limited. Choices, motivations and actions are often indeterministic. Users must provide sufficient details, goals and expectations to narrow proposed solutions to a finite list of things. If you have not read it, please consider reading the How to Ask Help Center page.

  3. High Concept Questions (HCQ) remain prohibited. A HCQ has the form of positing a seemingly simple change ("Hitler is killed two years ealier") then asking for broad and often vague help ("how would this affect the outcome of World War II?"). The scope of any story-based question must adhere to Stack Exchange's Book Rule. The community will help users craft their stories, but it will not write the book, or even a significant part of it. HCQs are inherently an invitation to develop plot points or portions of a story that are substantially beyond the scope of Stack Exchange.

  4. Asking a story-based question under this policy assumes the user understands the legal limits of this service. Copyright law and the CC BY-SA license under which all Stack Exchange sites operate may cause legal difficulties if the posting user expects to commercially publish their work using any ideas derived from this Stack. Posting a solution does not automatically convey to the original poster permission to use the solution in a commercial context. Users seeking to use Stack Exchange-derived information (or, indeed, any social media-derived information) should consult a copyright attorney before using that information.

A good storybuilding question is an objective request for help resolving a story development problem by asking a community of users with a wide variety of skills and talents to offer insight into the problem's resolution. It is not a request for ideas to choose from, also known as brainstorming or raw idea generation, but a directed effort that includes conditions, restrictions and limits combined with an explanation of goals and expectations (often taking the form of why the question has been asked). Questions left intentionally vague for the purpose of maximizing the number of provided options are prohibited.

$\endgroup$
28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Are you trying to get votes (Yai, Nay) for this proposal? If so, how? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27 at 7:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you provide an example of what you would consider a good story building question. Can you provide your reasoning for why we should permit story building questions on this worldbuilding site. Why not create a new exchange foe story building? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27 at 9:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sphennings Why not create a new exchange? That idea was proposed and shot down. Further, I asked our SE Overlords about it and they think storybuilding is already covered on Stack Exchange. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27 at 16:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sphennings provide your reasoning for why we should permit story building That reasoning was in the required reading. Said very simply: we can't leave them alone. We can't even depend on the moderators to leave them alone. Better to create a predictable path to success than to continue turning people away with mixed messages. ... I'll get to example questions this weekend. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27 at 16:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @L.Dutch Per the Request for help... section of the post, I've already dropped comments on Main to a dozen of the highest rep'd users still active on the service. I'll be dropping more this weekend. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27 at 16:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Demon reporting for duty, Sir! (I've read this, I will chew on it and potentially add some thoughts - unless someone adds things that align with my own and articulates better tha I can) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27 at 22:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You could put up a banner on main - it'll get attention, and be within the system $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 28 at 3:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DanielB I'm not planning to make it a habit, but this proposal represents a significant change in community policy. With the loss of community ads and the small visual space "hot meta" and "featured meta" links possess, there's few other ways to draw attention. Knowing it wasn't a preferred method, I selected posts that were +/- a month old so they wouldn't conflict with current reviews. A week from now I'll go back and delete them. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 28 at 5:05
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Seems comprehensive. We'll add to this or tweak it as necessary, I'm sure. Thanks for putting in the work behind the scenes @JBH $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 28 at 6:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Seconding @sphennings asking for an example of what would be a good or at least acceptable story building question. The closest I can think of are the "What would probably X do in the event of Y?" where X is a real-world organisation and Y is something like an alien invasion. However, given some of the bizarre, irrational responses of some governments to recent real-world events such as the COVID pandemic, the invasion of Ukraine and trade imbalances, even an answer giving a really sensible course of action is not necessarily "best" or "most likely". $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 28 at 6:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I wholeheartedly support such a proposal. I have repeatedly taken notice with how many new users get their questions shot down and are discouraged from future engagement for not meeting current criteria. Broadening the scope of allowable questions and topics is something that this community desperately needs if we want to keep growing an active user base. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 28 at 11:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe this is just a reflection of my own interests, but I'd prefer more of these kinds of questions rather than this site just being questions about orbital mechanics. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 28 at 12:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @elemtilas Asked at Writing.SE. I don't have the rep on Literature or Freelancing to ask on those Stacks. Although I might find a mod at each and find a back door. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 29 at 3:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @jbh --- Poked around on W.SE, and they seem to close what I think might be reasonable storybuilding queries. They also keep some open. I'll be eager to hear what you have to report. They also handle some worldbuilding-adjacent queries as well. A quick skim at L.SE indicates that storybuilding is not their thing: Questions about creating literature yourself—you may want to try Writing Stack Exchange. F.SE won't take writing or story crafting questions either. I think best bet would be Writing. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30 at 4:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (cont) subtype here, then I think we should integrate it within our perspective as worldbuilders rather than merely writers of stories. I'd like Rule #2 much better if it focussed those choices, motivations, and actions on the world itself in some way. Kind of like where we're going with the military doctrine policy proposal. There, choices and motivations must be rooted within a rule of the world itself. I think we should do the same here. On the surface, actions are always what a character does when confronted with a choice, but there are also the underlying rules of the world (cont) $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

CC BY-SA

User contributions licensed under CC Attribution–ShareAlike, and not under any other license.

This has two important consequences for questions which ask for story building:

  • By default, the answers cannot be used in any kind of commercial context. This may be kind of important when the answer is the story, or at least an element of the story, of the work.

  • The story which uses one of the answers has shared authorship; at a minimum, it must include a notice that it is based on a story by <author-of-the-answer>.

Based on a story by
Name Of Author of Answer

Shared authorship has dramatic consequences both in the materialistic world on Anglo-Saxon copyright, and in the idealistic of world of the moral rights of Civil Law countries.

There was a fun story recently involving a Danish court strongly enforcing the moral rights of a bunch of actresses. (Link goes to Ars Technica.) Specifically, the imprescriptible and inalienable right to the integrity of the work.

Oh, and I for one would be most unhappy if the notice used my short handle on Stack Exchange instead of my real name. Or instead of a suitably chosen pseudonym; you know, depending on the story and on the nature of the work to which the answer contributed.

The proposed changes to the text of the Help Center absolutely must emphasize the consequences of asking for story building help. In bold.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ This is a fantastic point. I'd forgotten I'd written this question. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27 at 16:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I updated the post. However, while doing so, I realized that all but the Real World questions fall under this very issue. In other words, this isn't just a storybuilding problem as developed worlds used for commercial purposes become part of the stories. Therefore, while I'm happy to include the issue for the purposes of this proposed policy, such a notice in the help center would need to be all-encompassing and would likely need to pass a Stack Exchange legal review. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27 at 17:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JBH: Yes, in principle. But there is an important difference between an answer which merely offers a solution to a punctual problem and an answer which actually develops the story, or at least a part of the story; the difference is that normally the solution to a punctual problem would not be included as is in the work, whereas developing the story is actual creative content and not "information". $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27 at 22:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ actually I would find this great. Both for usage of worldbuilding answers and story building answers. Right now I imagine that one day I pick up a fantasy book and see a disclaimer thanking for the help of some of our community. I think it would be great if we could find a way to blanket allow commercial usage, but with mandatory attribution. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 28 at 14:29
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH Am I correct in understanding the response on the law stack that this concern is not in fact applicable? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 28 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielB: The general idea "write a story about the adventures a hero coming back home from a war in foreign lands" is just a vague idea and does not rise to the level shared authorship. But actually developing the plot does; for example, after ten years of fantastic adventures the hero is shipwrecked on an island, where he is found on the beach by the daughter of the local king, who takes to her mother to be presented to the court, and then after the hero recounts his adventures as a story-within-a-story he is given the means to return home... is recognizable as the framework of the Odyssey. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 28 at 21:16
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielB You're not wrong, but the answer also specifies issues of fair use and co-authorship. There's a difference between research (no attribution/rights) and derivative/co-authored works. Basically, the "more" the help on the Stack (in terms of either quantity or quality) the more likely there could be an issue. Frankly, I need to review my #4 paragraph once more (and Alex's recommendation for a help center addition) because there are expectations for both the querent and respondents. We just don't want anybody feeling cheated now or later. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 29 at 2:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A genuine & serious question I have about this is: how does shared authorship even fit into this? (Any more than it does already!) Even when we do answer storybuilding queries, we're not supposed to write the querent's story for them. Just as we don't build their worlds for them. One would think that Writing.SE must be absolutely full of respondents who have dozens of credits spanning multiple genres of books if this is really a significant problem! $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30 at 5:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Addendum: It seems to me that if we're worried about shared authorship, book credits, movie franchise residuals, etc here at the first stage of policy creation, then we're probably already planning to overstep what we do when helping people build worlds. I think we should just use the same model we use for worldbuilding. We help you the author write your own story using tools such as applied worldbuilding, joining the structure of the world to the arc of the story, bringing the world out through narrative, descriptive and narrative techniques, etc. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30 at 5:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "By default, the answers cannot be used in any kind of commercial context." Not true; this is what differentiates CC BY-SA from CC BY-NC-SA (which does ban commercial reuse). $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
3
$\begingroup$

Where possible, don't let users shoot themselves in the foot

There's an old adage in software development: When you give folks the opportunity to screw something up, sooner or later, somebody will take you up on it. In fact, where I work, even fixing bugs must take backwards compatibility into account, because we absolutely will get customer complaints that essentially boil down to "I've got the gun, I'm pointing it at my foot, I pull the trigger, nothing happens. Yesterday, the gun was blowing my foot off! Please fix this regression!"

As outlined in the other answer, this policy change seems specifically aimed at allowing folks to shoot themselves in the foot. In a very bad way. Many users today ask for currently-banned advice because they want to use the answer to create a copyright quagmire. Worse, they probably don't know they're doing it. Even worse, many won't find out they've stepped on a landmine until well after they've spent a lot of time producing something they can't sell after all.

If the goal is to get more users into the community, because folks come in, try to shoot themselves in the foot, and then disengage because they can't... This solution seems counterproductive. Because it will take time for the damage caused by the policy change to become apparent, engagement might increase in the short term... But at the expense of blowing up the community with an entirely foreseeable and probably inevitable spike in big issues that drives them all away.

This does not seem like the right solution.

Counterproposal

It seems like a lot of people are wanting something that, if they got it, they'd probably wish they hadn't. I think the help center could be clarified, to explain why we don't allow such questions, and to be more explicit that the reason we don't allow those questions are the copyright consequences (and elaborate on how crippling those consequences really are). That might help.

New contributor
Ton Day is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ A counterproposal to the counterproposal could then be to accept storybuilding queries whilst also clarifying the help center to include the use of podiatric firearms. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30 at 5:00
  • $\begingroup$ I'm tempted to ask a question on Law that could be used as a pointer destination, but I don't understand well enough to do the question justice. Fancy having a go? (Assuming that's a viable part-solution given that they can't bind S/E to anything and given the multi-jurisdictional implications). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Escapeddentalpatient. that question might skirt the Specific legal advice ban there. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30 at 15:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Escapeddentalpatient. I asked the question some time ago. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30 at 20:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Some years ago my family and I owned a micro-publishing house. By the time it closed due to the 2009 U.S. recession, we had over 50 books in print. (a) Research does not compromise copyright and doesn't justify a claim of co-authorship. (b) Good publishers do their due diligence with authors before signing contracts to publish. (c) The idea of adding text to the help center was introduced by @AlexP. (d) Ultimately, it's the author's responsibility to be clear of all copyright claims. There is no warning we can publish that will avoid all possible issues. We're already going out of our way. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30 at 20:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Another way to say all that is prohibiting 99.99999% of story-based questions to avoid the potential problem of 0.00001% of them when we're already having trouble not answering them is the wrong solution. It's not technically our problem, anyway. A user who offered a solution used by the OP to write a best-seller would start the argument with the author. It's hard to imagine Stack Exchange becoming involved when it's nothing more than a means of facilitating free speech. It is, after all, the obligation of this site's users to read the Terms of Service, which include the CC BY-SA license. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30 at 20:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JBH "A user who offered a solution used by the OP to write a best-seller would start the argument with the author" and this is a very important point. I can only speak for myself, but probably most of us are here just because we enjoy tossing ideas around. I think it's rather unlikely that anything I answer here will turn into the next LOTR or Harry Potter, but even if it does, I think my reaction would be to feel some slight satisfaction rather than "you used my idea on page 337, give me a 10% cut now!" But even if I did get greedy, I'd lawyer up on my own. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 1 at 7:04
  • $\begingroup$ I also don't see why any legal concerns would apply here, but not to the story tellers corner chat, where such questions are already (as I understand) permitted. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user111403 Your reference to the chat rooms is completely valid. We're already tripping over the issue. In the long run, the goal is to help authors understand the consequences of the CC BY-SA license as it affects them far more than it affects respondents. If an author deals with a very clever idea here, CC BY-SA allows anybody to use it - kinda. Personally, I don't expect the problem to ever exist... but lawyers have made hay out of less. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
1
$\begingroup$

Pros and Cons of Rule #4

  1. Asking a story-based question under this policy assumes the user understands the legal limits of this service. Copyright law and the CC BY-SA license under which all Stack Exchange sites operate may cause legal difficulties if the posting user expects to commercially publish their work using any ideas derived from this Stack. Posting a solution does not automatically convey to the original poster permission to use the solution in a commercial context. Users seeking to use Stack Exchange-derived information (or, indeed, any social media-derived information) should consult a copyright attorney before using that information.

I've had time to think about the answers from both @AlexP and @TonDay. I've reviewed the answers to the question I posted over at Law.SE and I've re-read the CC BY-SA license.

The nature of Stack Exchange is to state brief but objective and concise problems in the hope of equally brief, objective and concise answers. Add to this that the goal of this Stack is to help people to build worlds. This proposal expands that to helping authors tell stories based in their worlds, but as stated in my answer about Rule #2, the underlying goal must never be lost: we're here to help people become better worldbuilders.

To that end I agree with @elemtilas' rebuttal in comment ([1] and [2]). We're likely worrying about a tempest in the proverbial tea pot. However, Alex's admonitions do weigh upon me.

I'm not convinced that the issue rises to the level of a statement in the Help Center. While it's technically true that everything we do beyond answering Real World Questions is subject to the interpretation of copyright and licensing, we've nevertheless been doing it for over ten years. And we have already let the bulls into the equally proverbial china shop by allowing the creation of the Story Tellers Corner chat room.

I would like to change Rule #4

This means that there is no such thing as a "copyright on a concept." (David Siegel at Law.SE)

A single sentence doesn't do David's answer over at Law.SE justice. Not even close. But it sets the tone I think is appropriate here. Unless the author has provided direct text from their story, a generalized request is being made about a concept [circumstance, condition, etc.], which cannot be protected under copyright in the first place.

What we do need is, perhaps, a statement like one we find over at Christianity.SE:

Like any library, Christianity Stack Exchange offers great information, but does not offer personalized advice, and does not take the place of seeking such advice from your pastor, priest, or other trustworthy counselor.

We're not in the business of offering legal advice, even when such advice is narrowed to the field of worldbuilding. We are a research source. And like any college professor, political insider, or business professional, the information sought from us is (and should be) nothing more than research performed by the OP for the purpose of building intellectual property that can enjoy the protection of copyright.

Worse, legal standards for copyright and intellectual/creative property differ all around the world. I believe it's possible to help people without becoming entangled in a legal rats' nest that might be exceeded in complexity only by water right laws.

Therefore, I propose changing Rule #4 to the following:

  1. Like any research source, Worldbuilding Stack Exchange offers creative solutions to the problems of building worlds and crafting stories that take place in them. However, we are neither ghost writers nor lawyers and we do not offer personalized advice. If after reading Stack Exchange's terms of service, the license under which Stack Exchange operates and this advice about creative writing and Stack Exchange you are still concerned that asking a question or posting an answer may reveal story elements you believe can be protected under copyright, we suggest you not post here but instead seek professional assistance.

Of course, it would be cool beyond reason for someone to cite Worldbuilding.SE in the acknowledgement section of their creative expression. Really cool. Really... I'm seriously ready to throw laurels.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Pros and Cons of Rule #2

  1. Questions about character or organization choices, motivations and actions will be limited. Choices, motivations and actions are often indeterministic. Users must provide sufficient worlbuilding-based details, goals and expectations to narrow proposed solutions to a finite list of things. This makes the question on-topic cultural worldbuilding (even if only an individual is involved) compared to off-topic character building, which is the expression of a fixed stereotype dependent on the the world's structure but not an influence on it. If you have not read it, please consider reading the How to Ask Help Center page.

This is one of the most common types of story-based questions. Here are some common forms:

  • What should my character/organization do?
  • How would my character/organization react?
  • How would my character/organization be affected?
  • Why would my character/organization do that?

In a moment I'll draw your attention to the last bullet, but for the moment, here's the basic problem. Character choices, motivations and (re)actions are remarkably subjective. A trained psychologist with experience interviewing and interacting with the subject may have a reasonable chance (and that's the best I'll give them) at guessing what choice a person (or organization, in the case of an exceptional stock trader) would make, the simple truth is an OP cannot provide enough detail to objectively answer the question without providing an answer to the question.

To make a point, when asked how a group of people would react I've often used the examples of my little sister (who the OP doesn't know) and a Tibetan monk (about which the OP might know something), as an example for why I voted to close the question. The reactions of both are legitimate answers to the question and thousands more.

Bad question example

Mike is your average American male. Aliens arrive just like they did in the movie Independence Day. How would mike react?

That is an insta-close question for lacking details, needing focus, being opinion-based, and violating the HC prohibition against questions leading to all answers having equal value. Mike's reaction could be anything. Literally anything. And no answer would be wrong.

Worse example

Mike is a 42 year old male living in Chicago, IL, U.S.A. He has a bachelor degree in history, but has been working as a manager for a small chain of book stores for fifteen years. He's married (happily) with three children and is stressed financially. He attends the local United Methodist church, but only halfheartedly and mostly to support his wife and children, who he believes will benefit from religion in their upbringing. Politically he admits to being Libertarian, but has only ever voted Democrat because he's never sure if he can trust the Republican candidates but is sure his vote would otherwise be wasted. He likes zombie movies, but not particularly horror. Secretly he has a crush on Sigourney Weaver (although he admits Morgan Freeman is an excellent actor) and tends to favor girl bands. On the day in question it rained overnight, leaving the Chicago morning smelling unusually fresh. He's actually in better spirits this morning than he has been in a long time. Shortly after he leaves home for work, aliens invade! For the purpose of the question, assume the aliens appear just as they do in the movie Independence Day. Mike could hear the unusually loud rumble of the ship's atmospheric deceleration, but didn't know what was happening until he looked up and saw the large ship. Neighbors around him are reacting, ranging from haven't noticed yet to screaming in terror or rushing their families to cars to leave town. How would Mike react to the ship?

Why is this worse? Because the author went to an enormous amount of effort to provide what he/she thought was sufficient detail to answer the question... and it's no better than the previous example. Mike might wet his pants, pass out, run screaming in insanity, calmly sip his coffee, call 911, call his wife, hug his children, sigh in acquiescence like it's just another day in Chicago.... anything. I consider the example worse because it seems like it should be an improved question and people would argue that it is. But it isn't.

Good example

Mike is your average American male. When aliens arrive just like they did in the movie Independence Day, he reacts by spewing his coffee onto the sidewalk and screaming for his wife to come see. What about his nature or character would rationalize this behavior?

The wonderful thing about psychology and history is that it gives us a great many examples of influences that can be drawn from to rationalize Mike's behavior. The best answer would be the one with the best citations and examples. While it's always possible for respondents to bring differing citations to bear, there's a reasonably limited subset of references, giving the community the chance to up vote a best answer with reasonable objectivity. Said another way, only the last bullet, above, represents an acceptable question. Said even more simply, the only acceptable character/organization "choice" question is about motivation.

And best of all, whether by showing the results of research/knowledge or the exercise of logic and analysis, each and every answer shows the OP how we experienced worldbuilders went about solving his/her problem.

A better example, even if it beats a dead horse

Mike is a 42 year old male living in Chicago, IL, U.S.A. He has a bachelor degree in history, but has been working as a manager for a small chain of book stores ... and lo, many words did pass by ... rushing their families to cars to leave town. Mike reacts by spewing his coffee onto the sidewalk and screaming for his wife to come see. What about his nature or character would rationalize this behavior?

This level of detail would surprise me, but what any detail provides is a way to narrow the focus. Now cited psychological or historical examples must reflect what is known about Mike. This substantially limits the field of choices.

I would like to change Rule #2

I believe @Nosajimiki is correct: our primary goal is to help people build imaginary worlds of their own creation. Opening up the Stack to story-based questions must still be in pursuit of that goal. In short, answering the question should help the OP become a better worldbuilder. (Answering any question should help the OP become a better worldbuilder.)

I'd like to change Rule #2 to read as follows:

  1. Questions about character or organization choices, motivations and actions will be limited. Choices, motivations and actions are frequently indeterministic (opinion-based) and have little to do with this Stack's purpose of helping people build imaginary worlds. Acceptable questions about character/organization choices, motivations and actions must provide both sufficient details, goals and expectations to narrow proposed solutions to a finite list of things and the desired reaction. This changes the question from an unacceptable "how will my character behave?" (OP provides the rationalization and asks the community to make the choice) to an acceptable, "how do I rationalize my character's behavior?" (OP makes the choice and asks the community for help rationalizing it). If you have not read it, please consider reading the How to Ask Help Center page.
$\endgroup$
17
  • $\begingroup$ I'm unconvinced questions about "Mike" (an individual) are OK. Both the good example seem just trivial. Why would Mike be shocked by seeing aliens and call for his wife? I mean, honestly - why wouldn't he. Seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction. It just looks odd that we're asked to rationalise it. And I think it opens the door to a whole slew of inane questions "Tom is <give background>. Tom saw a werewolf and ran. How can this be explained?" or "Bill is <give background>. Bill recently won the lottery. Now he is going for a drink with his buddies. What can rationalise this behaviour?" $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Furthermore, I've been always unconvinced with "character and organisations" are alwaysoff-topic. Especially questions in the form : "What should my character/organization do?" - this doesn't seem subjective. Especially organisations with their many rules, regulations, and policies would likely have or should have a method of dealing with stuff within their purview. Bad: "How should the bank fight Santa Claus" - there is no bank policy for that, good: "How should firefighters coordinate to save the occupant of a burning sled and control the fire?" - it is what fire fighters do. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ Questions for how a character or organisation should handle something with additional constraints seems perfectly logical to ask. "My cabal of mind controlling mages wants to take over the world. How should they ensure total world dominance while keeping away from the public and pulling the strings behind the scenes?" doesn't need to be subjective. It would be some combination of steps where the cabal starts mind controlling people of power and influence to start and influence the public in small ways first, then increase their grasp. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @VLAZ Comment #1 conflicts with comments #2 and #3. The question example isn't bad simply because the expected outcome is trivial. "How should/would/could they ensure total world dominance while..." is the same question format: provide outcome, ask for help rationalizing. I'm not even sure your Santa Cl;aus example is unanswerable unless taken only as the one-line example you've provided (must an organization have a policy to take action? Not in my experience). My question to you boils down to this: are you concerned about what's being pitched? Or simply the quality of the examples? $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Both. Because I fear the quality of the example will drive what questions we get. And I do not see it as sufficiently objective. I'd also hate it for the site to devolve to "explain this completely normal human behaviour". $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @VLAZ I see your point and will improve the examples, but I don't see a universal solution. The best possible example will not restrict low quality questions to any degree. I can easily imagine someone saying, "what's the difference" (and they wouldn't be wrong). Simply put, it's impossible to do without moderation any more than it's impossible to write good law and do without police. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ So, I agree that the bad and worse examples are indeed bad and worse. The good and better examples --- well, to me those are good examples of character building questions. We're not told what kind of man Mike is, only some relatively superficial things about his activities & routines. I think this sort of question could be useful when fleshing out Mike's character. That said, it doesn't seem to help build the story, except in so far as the querent needs to understand Mike in order to mesh plot and character together. In other words, if the querent has this grand post-pockyclyptic (cont) $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas I'm open to ideas. One of the weak spots of this stack has be cultural worldbuilding. Using our help center definition as a reference, ... in short, everything from the characters within the structure of your world to the entire galactic society you want to build. Rule #2 says "limited." How, rather exactly, do we want to draw the line? While an aspect of character building could be a function of worldbuilding (Mike is the way he is due to the nature of the society) I can see an argument that asking why Mike likes hotdogs may be too far away from worldbuilding ... (*Cont.*) $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ ... to answer. I believe you and others are completely correct, however, in that any story-building question must be a function of worldbuilding. In the case of Rule #2, what about the world would lead a character to make a defined choice? However, perhaps we're saying that "what about the character would lead the character to make a choice?" is off-topic? It's too bad @Otkin is no longer active. Other than believing only psychologists should answer questions about psychology, his/her input would be interesting. If we define worldbuilding as something ... (*Continued*) $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ ... that's always true regardless of the story, can anything about an individual anything (even a rock) always be true regardless the story? Possibly physiology. But the definition gets blurry when cultural worldbuilding comes into play. It's too bad it's so ridiculously impractical to get 5-6 of us in a conference room for two days with lots of white boards and plenty of catered food to work this out. I think we'd be doing the combined artistic world a service. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas Worth a quick review might be this meta question. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ (cont) epic in mind, but the Mike he has in mind widdles his trousers and collapses into a gibbering pile of psychiatric goo, then the story won't get very far! I'm not adverse to including individual characters into worldbuilding, as people are at least artifacts of the world and react according to its underlying principles. Though I'm not sure we're taking the proposal that far. I really think the "sufficient details, goals and expectations to narrow proposed solutions to a finite list of things and the desired reaction" ought to be clearly based in the rules of the world. (cont) $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ (cont) In other words, I think there needs to be a clear basis in worldbuilding! $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH --- And I'm off to do the homework you assigned me! $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH --- A good query for review here! What I'm seeing here with storybuilding sort of parallels what I was seeing in that older query, and also what Otkin was getting at: building rules and systems of the world. I haven't yet posted my thoughts on the proposal, though you know that I've never been terribly opposed to storybuilding queries. I'm not going to propose an alternate ruleset, because why should I reinvent the hubcap? I think I'll focus on principles and how they would interact with the rules. I'm also thinking that we probably should disallow queries of choice like (cont) $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
0
$\begingroup$

I am generally for this, but it should still have to tie back to Worldbuilding

The metric I've always advocated for when it comes to character and organization choice as WorldBuilding has always been do we know enough about the setting and people involved to be able backed up an answer with Psychological, Sociological, or Historical principles. Because this changes plot choices from being subjective, indeterministic author choices to objectively probable outcomes determined by the setting.

In order for a question to meet this restriction, it would have to have enough detail about the setting and person/group to make an objective claim.

EAMPLES:

Bad Question: "Jane is a human character in love with both a vampire and a werewolf. Which one should she choose to be with?"

  • Even though this would meet JBH's definitions, there is not enough detail to determine a best possible answer, and should be closed.

Good Question: "Jane is a typical 20 year old girl from rural America. She is in love with both a vampire and a werewolf. The werewolf treats her better so she can reason why she should choose him, but the vampire can supernaturally manipulate human emotions and make her feel passionate about him when he is arround. When she is by herself, her memories and reason are all intact; so, she has to choose between one who makes her feel good vs one who treats her well, which one would she probably choose to be with?"

  • While this a question will inheirantly lead to a plot choice and good arguments could potentially be made for either choice, there is enough information about the setting and characters here to be able to say that there could be good reasons to assume one outcome over another.
$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ The bad example question ought to be closed for being opinion based. It's no different than "what colour should Jane's dress be for the wedding hunt. Storybuilding queries still have to comply with all other forum policies and SE rules! $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ I'd like to suggest this query as a "bad" storybuyilding query. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree that the second query is the better of the two, though if this were in Main, I'd still ask in comments for clarification: is Jane aware of the manipulation during and after, and how enduring is the vampiric manipulation? Basically, this seems to be a somewhat compromised comparison: a not-quite optimal good query being compared with an opinion based bad query. Essentially rotten apples to fresh oranges! $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm still on the fence with my proposal, which opens up the gate to "what would my character do?" questions. I've met 20 year olds with the maturity of twelve year olds and vice-versa. Listing all of the skills, attributes, characteristics, circumstances, etc. that would make the question deterministic answers the question. I'm leaning toward expecting the OP to provide us the choice and asking for help rationalizing it rather than giving us the rationalizations and asking us to make the choice. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ @jbh -- Indeed! We should in no way be making the choices. We don't build querents' worlds and we don't write their stories --- and we don't plot out their narrative arcs. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @elemtilas I've posted two answers addressing improvements to Rule #2 and Rule #4. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ The second question still seems like a stretch to me. There are far too many individual factors that go into how different people choose partners for the answer to "who would she choose" to be anything but "whoever you need for the story". The questions I would want to see would be 1) "girl chooses vampire over werewolf. Why?" or 2) "I want girl to become President. Which partner helps her more?" $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ In other words, more "person/group in situation A wants to achieve B, what's the best way to do it?" or "person in situation C does D, how can I rationalize this", rather than open-ended "what does person choose to do in situation E". This question would be a good example of questions I'd like to see allowed. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH It does not matter that some people don't act the norm if the question is asking for a "probable" choice because the question is distinctly not asking about statistical outliers. Humans, animals, societies, and AI all make generally predictable choices even if their choices are not 100% determinable. There are whole branches of science that have proven that these patterns exist; so, ignoring their existence because of outliers is like ignoring all the insights that quantum physics gives us just because it can not perfectly predict the path that each photon will choose to take. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ The reason I say these sorts of things can be world building is because, the more circumstances you define, the more deterministic choices become. For example, a typical Star Trek Federation captain will treat 1st contact very different than a typical 40k Imperium captain because their settings create different rules for how people act. But sometimes within a setting we create rules for how people tend to act and need help resolving how those rules should impact a person with a specific personality or how to resolve edge cases for social norms. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ Or we need to know how past events should impact social norms $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @Nosajimiki Admitting that we need to avoid opening Pandora's box up entirely, I think we're slowly coming together. Please check out what I've written (and modified) in the "Pros and Cons of Rule #2" answer and let me know if that presents a fair balance between the wants and the don't-wants. Thanks. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday

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.