Worldbuilding without a story?

[D. Gray Warrior]

Anyone else here built a setting without any story in particular in mind? Is it bad to do?

I've been working on a steampunk fantasy world. So far, there's no actual characters or conflict yet since I'm still brainstorming it and only have loose notes about the setting and lore. However, I do plan to write stories in it eventually.

The reason it's a steampunk world is simply because I like the concept and aesthetic. I also want to explore the theme of magic vs technology. Basically, the premise is that humans are incapable (or at least incompetent) when it comes to using magic. So what they lack in magical affinity, they make up for with engineering and technological innovations.

However, non-humans have an innate ability to use magic and have a lower technology level compared to humans.

Anyone else build a setting just because you like a particular theme or concept?

 

[Karlin]

I am not a worldbuilder. I don't understand the attraction of it as an activity. Having said that- go for it! there isn't anything "bad" about it. If your goal is to end up with a novel, you'll have to have good story as well.

 

[pmmg]

World building for an RPG game, or some other type of gaming, I can see.

But world building for a story without a story--maybe for future planning?

I am a story first, world second advocate.

 

[Mad Swede]

I sometimes think that this focus on developing a setting comes from people reading The Lord of the Rings and thinking that this was what Tolkien did. Except that he didn't. His setting developed as a way of explaining and providing a background for his stories and his invented languages. I read some of the fantasy stories that appeared in the 1970s, where the authors had clearly first created the setting and then written the story. As a general rule, those stories weren't up to much.

So my suggestion to you would be to write your stories rather than develop the setting. I think you'll find that the setting builds itself as the stories develop - this is what happens to me when I write.

 

[ThinkerX]

Anyone else here built a setting without any story in particular in mind? Is it bad to do?

I've been working on a steampunk fantasy world. So far, there's no actual characters or conflict yet since I'm still brainstorming it and only have loose notes about the setting and lore. However, I do plan to write stories in it eventually.

The reason it's a steampunk world is simply because I like the concept and aesthetic. I also want to explore the theme of magic vs technology. Basically, the premise is that humans are incapable (or at least incompetent) when it comes to using magic. So what they lack in magical affinity, they make up for with engineering and technological innovations.

However, non-humans have an innate ability to use magic and have a lower technology level compared to humans.

Anyone else build a setting just because you like a particular theme or concept?

My main world was like this for a very long time - a detailed setting devoid of stories. Then again, it was for an AD&D campaign.

 

[casval]

I've played a few TTRPGs where the game is worldbuilding - Revolt! and Grasping Nettles, to name a couple - but when I'm writing novels, I tend to let the story, characters, and themes dictate the worldbuilding rather than the other way around.

I don't think it's bad to start with worldbuilding, though, for one: if you're having fun with it, that's its own reward. There are definitely readers who prefer world-first storytelling, especially among communities that like steampunk and similar aesthetic-oriented genres. However, it can be tough to kill your darlings (that is, axe a worldbuilding detail you really love because it doesn't suit the story you're telling) when writers start from the worldbuilding - I have writer friends who've had that issue, they always spend ages waffling on it and sometimes it has even killed their momentum on a story.

 

[skip.knox]

I view this as a false dichotomy. It's not do *this* first rather than *that*. To me, story telling is iterative, and the process can start in any one of several places. Setting is one (that's world-building), but character is another, plot another, and theme yet another. I believe I've done them all, and every one of them unplanned. It's simply where the story popped up.

But I did start with world. Not world-building, but more like a premise. A what-if kind of premise. I posited real Earth history, but some time (I didn't have a specific point yet chosen) something Changed and history took a turn. Magic became real. Non-humans appeared.

That was the premise. I knew I could get stories out of that, since I had a thousand years of history with which to work (initially I thought I'd write only in the Middle Ages). Rather than start world-building, I began with story ideas. Richard the Lionhearted could turn into a lion. The Hundred Years War was a war with monsters--maybe orcs, maybe something else. I was just testing concepts to see if the original premise broke under the weight. It did not.

As I worked more seriously on the world, I knew I needed to write an origin story. I needed to do this for myself, to build some foundations. That led to my first novel, Goblins at the Gates. But, along the way, three short stories same swooping in, entirely uninvited. One was another bit of foundation building, though it takes place in (roughly) 17thc Switzerland. One was absolutely a mood piece, one where the beginning was just an image and a tone. And it takes place in the 1950s. I never expected to write anything so modern. And the third was a bit of Gothic horror that just popped into my head while walking my dog.

Each of those contributed to world-building. They filled out history, or clarified (for me) how magic worked or how it worked out in particular circumstances. In none of those cases could I have somehow built the world first. I had the framework. I was fast establishing certain predicates under which any subsequent stories must work. I've written a few hundred thousand words since then and in every case it's been iterative. Think about the world, make a few decisions here and there, write some stuff, which raises questions or establishes a precedent, do some more thinking, and so on.

When I stand back from all that and consider how I write, this matter of story first or world-building first just doesn't seem a useful way of thinking. But it is for others (see this very thread). So, best advice? Just write. After you've written a couple of completed stories, you'll start to discern your own process. Keep a sharp eye out though, cuz the dang thing will keep changing!

 

[ThrillhoBaggins]

Nah, all of my stories are like that, but, then, my stories are more games than they are stories.

 

[BunnyJen90]

Well, when I was about 5 years old I made up an imaginary forest world. I didn't make up too much about it just that it was a quiet and peaceful place. As I got older I kind of forgot about it until I was in high school and my mom reminded me about it. I still think to this day it would make a good setting for a story someday.

 

[Gurkhal]

I don't think its a problem with building a world for itself. Maybe it will inspire stories or maybe it will train you in world building anyway, its can be a engaging project.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Anyone else here built a setting without any story in particular in mind? Is it bad to do?

The answer to the specific question being asked is, of course, no. There is nothing bad or wrong with just worldbuilding for the fun of it. It can be a fun and relaxing activity, and there's nothing wrong with those. It's the same as that there's nothing wrong with drawing or painting or playing football or guitar. Enjoy being creative and have fun with it.

Just know why you are doing it. If you want to be a professional author, you probably want to be thinking about stories set in the world. If you want to get a novel written, then you might want to incorporate some kind of conflict and a couple of characters into your worldbuilding which eventually leads to a story.

And if you're already writing lots of stories, then it doesn't hurt to have a couple of worlds lying around waiting for stories. I probably have three or four different worlds floating in around in the back of my mind at any given time waiting to be written about...

I would like to emphasise Mad Swede's comment though. Which is that Tolkien didn't sit in a chair worldbuilding for 4 decades before writing Lord of the Rings. He wrote stories (mainly shorter ones and many not very good ones), which slowly formed his world. He didn't sit down to think about the thirteen different ways an elf could use magic. He just wrote a story about elves doing stuff.

They're also very different things. You don't become a better writer by worldbuilding. You become better by writing. And as you write stories, the worldbuilding changes because you discover things as your characters live through your story and interact with the world.

However, if you just want to worldbuild for the fun of it, then go play around and have fun. There are worse ways to spend your time...