Debate: Does strict worldbuilding box you in more than it helps?

I mean, I keep going back and forth on this. Some writers I follow say you need to map out every rule of your magic system or sci-fi tech before you write a single word. They say it keeps things consistent and readers can tell when you're making it up as you go. But then I see other folks who just wing it and let the story shape the world as they write. They argue that too many rules kill creativity and make the story feel like a textbook. What's your take on this? Have you found a middle ground or do you lean hard one way?

3 comments

3 Comments

mark_green11d ago

Why do people act like being consistent is some kind of cage? You can have a detailed world AND tell a good story. The writers who wing it usually end up with plot holes you could drive a truck through. I've read books where a character suddenly has a power they never showed before or tech that just appears when it's convenient. That kills the story way faster than having too many rules. The real problem is when writers confuse "strict worldbuilding" with "boring info dumps." You can have a tight magic system and still leave room for surprises.

daniel_cooper3411d ago

Yeah but sometimes too many rules can choke the fun out of it though.

harperp2411d ago

I read a blog post by Brandon Sanderson where he talked about his "first law" of magic systems, and it actually helped me settle on a middle ground. He says you need enough rules to keep things consistent but not so many that the reader feels like they are studying for a test. For me, I outline the basics of how things work and then leave room to discover the details as the story goes.