How do we define World Building?

[Storyscapers]

Lately I've been trying to answer this question for myself: "What is worldbuilding?" The answer really comes down to one's definition of a "world."

I started looking at the elements that are not always necessary to create a world: any particular setting, any particular size, the existence of a map.

So what elements do define a world? The elements that make us believe that the world exists. The more believable, imaginable elements we have, the more likely we are to immerse our audience in the world. It’s a rather ethereal answer but that’s because the concept of a world is rather ethereal. Almost anything can make up a world, as long as its contents make us believe that it exists.

I’d also like to explore a possible new term called “storyscaping” which can be defined as “building any romanticized, thematic setting where stories can occur.” Whereas worldbuilding usually (but, of course, not always) has a top-down, map-first approach to building worlds, storyscaping is more focused on a bottom-up, story-environment-first approach to building worlds.

You’ll notice that the definition of storyscaping does not say “where stories occur” but rather it says “where stories can occur.” This is an important distinction. Storyscaping in and of itself does not concern itself with the stories that occur in the world—that’s storytelling. Storyscaping concerns itself with providing a suitable environment for stories—a world. Our constructed world (our storyscape) is a birthplace for stories. And with that in mind, we should do all we can to prepare the storyscape (the world) as though it were a nursery for newborn stories.

Once a world has been so thematically fleshed out and romanticized, a story is bound to pop up. One can so prepare a setting for a story through storyscaping that it’s almost impossible to prevent a story from occurring. And with a well-defined storyscape, a narrative can be told and explored in a more powerful, engaging, and immersive way.

Storyscaping is creating the environment/experience in which stories are born. One of the defining elements of successful storyscaping is that, in the end, the audience is more interested in exploring the world than the narrative. Let’s take the world of Harry Potter as an example. The world of Harry Potter exists outside of the story of Harry Potter. And in this way, the world of Harry Potter is the storyscape—the romanticized setting where the story may occur (but doesn’t necessitate it in order to exist). In this way, there are other stories that occur in the same world that may not have yet been told. Thinking back, I don’t ever remember wanting to live out the story of Harry Potter. Instead, I remember wanting to get a letter saying I’d been accepted to Hogwarts as a wizard. I remember wanting to go to potions class, play quidditch, and cast spells. I wanted to live my own adventure in that world—I didn’t want to live Harry Potter’s adventure.

And let’s take the world of Pokémon. Growing up, I didn’t want to live the story of Ash. I wanted to be told by Professor Oak that I had been chosen to be a Pokémon trainer. I wanted to be handed a Pokédex and be set loose in the grass to discover and catch Pokémon of our own. The world of Pokémon is so immersive and engaging that we care more about the storyscape than about the story. That’s storyscaping success. And you’ll notice that the world of Pokémon can and does exist outside of the story of Ash Ketchum.

But do you agree? Disagree? Think something entirely different?

What's your definition of Worldbuilding?

[avr]

Harry Potter's world looks more like you'd expect a game world to look like in a solo adventure set up to make Harry shine. Quidditch is set up to showcase the skills of a person with great flying skills and no teamwork ability, Gryffindor is basically defined as the house for heroes, magic items show up as needed for the story and are forgotten afterwards, etc. It's not so much a world or a 'storyscape' set up in advance as one created on the fly to fit the protagonist and whatever he's doing today. Which is fine, it's a skill you need when running a game, but it's not really a useful example for prep work.

I'm not familiar with Pokemon so can't say anything much about it.

Where you can learn from HP is making sure to include cool and exciting elements in your world, and to adjust them to fit the players and what they want in the game.

[Dagda Mor]

Worldbuilding is when you make up a fictional setting, regardless of scope (apartment building/continent/multiverse) and also regardless of the aspects you focus on (history, language, ph level of soil).

That said, doesn't seem to me like it MATTERS whether someone's actions are considered worldbuilding or not. Unless you're a forum mod who needs to determine whether a thread is on topic.

[jqavins]

Lately I've been trying to answer this question for myself: "What is worldbuilding?" The answer really comes down to one's definition of a "world."
In my opinion, it may be that you've gone wrong right here. Because there is no definitive definition of a "world." Dagda Mor has come close, but only because of his/her deliberate lack of specificity. And I'm sure someone could come up with a counterexample, something that counts as world building that is somehow excluded even by this. It would take me some time to come up with one, and I'm not going to bother.


I’d also like to explore a possible new term called “storyscaping” which can be defined as “building any romanticized, thematic setting where stories can occur.” Whereas worldbuilding usually (but, of course, not always) has a top-down, map-first approach to building worlds, storyscaping is more focused on a bottom-up, story-environment-first approach to building worlds.
I take issue with "usually has a top-down map-first approach." I recognize that you allowed for exceptions. (Personally, I hate when I say something is usually some way and people immediately point out exceptions; I said "usually" folks.) But I don't think they are exceptions. If you take a poll, I think you'll find that quite a lot of people don't start with the map. Some go bottom-up, and some go middle-out. I suspect - just suspect, not assert - that outright top-down, map first world-building is a minority approach. And it's all "world building" no matter how you do it. Thus, while what you call "storyscaping" is a perfectly good method, I don't think it needs a new word.

But don't take my word for it; even I only suspect. Add a poll to this thread. Unless I'm mistaken, only the thread originator can do this, or I'd do it myself right now. Ask something like:

When you begin a world building project, do you start with the map?

[*=1]Yes, I make a complete (or mostly complete) map first thing.
[*=1]Yes, but it's only a partial map which grows later.
[*=1]No, I start with more general ideas and fit them into a map later.
[*=1]I don't use maps.
[*=1]It varies with each project.


Storyscaping is creating the environment/experience in which stories are born. One of the defining elements of successful storyscaping is that, in the end, the audience is more interested in exploring the world than the narrative.
Either I disagree or I have to take back what I said above about not needing a new word. My own goal in world building, which I don't do top-down, is to make a setting that is interesting when you're looking at it, and has room (literally and otherwise) for good adventure stories, but that one doesn't need to pay attention to. In other words, the world fades into the background during a story, but is still a cool place to come back to afterward. The world is interesting, but the story is the point.

You seem to talking about creating story settings that are more interesting than the stories; am I reading that wrong? To me, that comes pretty close to being a waste of time. And it that is a defining characteristic of the activity, then I can see the case for using a different word. (But I'm still not sure it's necessary.)