Netardapope
Sage
So, I have been pondering this debate for quite a while. When examining my current world, I find myself divided between two strains of thought when it comes to worldbuilding.
Either I, throw ideas at my fantasyland, picking mainly on whatever is most interesting. This allows for unique scenarios, at the cost of perhaps making the world feel disjointed. Think Elric, a lot of Sword and Sorcery, basically.
Or I create a world based off of one unique premise, and try to apply that premise across the every aspect of the fantasyland. Think Stormlight Archive or most Sanderson works.
I wanted to know which philosophy you guys tend to skew for, and which philosophy you think is most easily polished into a presentable product in the long run? I enjoy both kinds, but find my tendency to be toward the latter. However, I find that I have an easier time immersing myself into the books that follow the first philosophy.
What are your thoughts?
Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
Either I, throw ideas at my fantasyland, picking mainly on whatever is most interesting. This allows for unique scenarios, at the cost of perhaps making the world feel disjointed. Think Elric, a lot of Sword and Sorcery, basically.
Or I create a world based off of one unique premise, and try to apply that premise across the every aspect of the fantasyland. Think Stormlight Archive or most Sanderson works.
I wanted to know which philosophy you guys tend to skew for, and which philosophy you think is most easily polished into a presentable product in the long run? I enjoy both kinds, but find my tendency to be toward the latter. However, I find that I have an easier time immersing myself into the books that follow the first philosophy.
What are your thoughts?
Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk