Thank you for your help reviewing the first post: We're going to upgrade the Help Center page, here is the 100,000-foot-view discussion of the what-we-cans and what-we-can'ts

We've got an idea of where we want to go and it's time to start digging into the policies. Based on comments and answers from that first question, it's obvious that the future of storybuilding will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, discussion concerning policies. The goal of this question is to gather information about what story-question policy or policies we want and where to impose limits, if any.

Review of Existing Policies

1. Help Center: We don't help people write stories

Today's fundamental rule.

When asking questions keep in mind that the goal of the site is to help you build your world, not to tell your story. (Source)

2. Help Center: We don't answer questions about character choices

Character choices have been deemed too dependent on the circumstances of the story to be worldbuilding.

If a system, event or element of the world is causing you problems we are here to help. If on the other hand you aren’t sure what a character (be it an individual or organization) should do, that is out of scope for the site. (Ibid.)

3. VTC:Too Story-Based

A specialized form of "VTC:Opinion-Based" reflecting the concern that a question is too dependent on the circumstances or plot of the story to be worldbuilding. The VTC reason is based on an existing Meta policy statement linked in the VTC close reason text (see below).

You are asking questions about a story set in a world instead of about building a world. For more information, see Why is my question "Too Story Based" and how do I get it opened?. (Source: "Close" link -> "A Community-Specific Reason" -> Option #2)

Please note that I plan on introducing another question about how to handle SE's required VTC:Opinion-Based close reason. Please don't address that here. Thanks!

4. Brainstorming Discouraged

Brainstorming, also called fishing for ideas or (raw) idea generation, has had a love-hate relationship on this Stack. It's true that a brainstorming question isn't always a storybuilding question, but it's too often true that a storybuilding question is a brainstorming question. Thus, it's included here.

• List of (mostly) relevant Meta posts #1
• List of (mostly) relevant Meta posts #2
• List of (mostly) relevant Meta posts #3

If you are looking for discussion, brainstorming, or an overall process rather than specific questions and answers, the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange might not be a good place for your question. (Source)

5. High Concept Questions

High concept questions have the basic form of suggesting a seemingly small but specific change and asking what the large and ambiguous consequences would be. Answering them usually results in writing a significant part of the story (if only in bullet list form) or determining significant plot points and don't reflect story-independent world rules. As with Brainstorming, it's not true that all HCQs are storybuilding questions, but it's too often true that storybuilding questions are HCQs. The original policy post is here. I wrote a summary that might be a good description of the policy here.

The first thing to do when coming across such a question, in my mind, is to vote to close as too broad. Sorry, but as posed (and I have seen a few such examples myself, so I know what you mean), it's simply asking for far too much. It cannot meaningfully be answered in its current form, particularly within the Stack Exchange format, and therefore should be closed. Remember the so-called book test: if you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much. (Source)

6. Narrative necessity

Not a policy per-se, but this has been used to help worldbuilders understand the line between worldbuilding and storybuilding from the perspective of, "this has no objective answer because the question can only be resolved via narrative necessity." It is included for completeness.

Like all great ideas, the notion of narrative necessity is really quite simple. At its most fundamental, it means quite literally that any story (as story) needs certain things to happen, otherwise there is no story worth telling. (Source) ... Narrative necessity means the story comes first. (Source)

7. To Storybuilding.SE or not to Storybuilding SE?

Storybuilding questions on this Stack are popular. Not a little popular, they're very popular. It makes moderating story-based questions difficult. Though it's been discussed before, I recently pitched the idea of sending "Storybuilding.SE" to Area 51. At this time, Stack Exchange sees the combination of four Stacks as having solved that problem. In other words, considering the limits of Writing.SE, Freelancing.SE and Literature.SE, Stack Exchange sees Worldbuilding as the place people go to for storybuilding questions (yes, I'm putting words in their mouths a little bit... but only a little bit). I am NOT reintroducing the pitch for a new Stack. I'm including this because strong opinions relating to story-based questions were expressed.

However, I do need to caution that, with the existence of Worldbuilding, Writers, Freelancing, and Literature, the topic of story development is already quite thoroughly covered by existing ground. (Source)

General vs. Specific Issues

As you contemplate this discussion, try to keep in mind the general goals we want for this Stack vs. the specific policies that would enforce those goals. In other words, first answer the question "Do we want to allow storybuilding?" If no, post that belief and why! If yes, ask yourself, "to what extent to we wish to allow storybuilding questions?" Then explain in as much detail as you can imagine how to enforce your belief.

If I have missed a relevant policy statement regarding storybuilding, please either point to it in a comment or edit this post to include it! Thanks!

Also, it should be noted that when we're ready to proceed with the Help Center upgrade, it will include editing all previous policy Meta posts with a line like, "this policy has been superseded, see [Link]" so the past doesn't come back to haunt us.