Policy Proposal: We do not engineer technologies

Question

We are receiving questions asking for us to factually invent an idea or technology with increasing frequency. The questions are usually asked by people with insufficient education but a strong desire to join the ranks of professionals who have successfully written novels of the hard science genre.

• They don't seem to realize that the level of detail they're looking for damages a story more than helps.
• They sincerely believe that a fully scientific answer exists and regularly use the science-based or hard-science tags to ensure they get it.
• They don't understand that they've asked their question with insufficient detail, They're unable to provide clarifying details, and they usually become irritated that people don't just answer the question.
• They aren't competent to judge a best answer.
• They never realize there's a very high probability the question can't be answered.

To make matters worse, too many users who don't understand the Help Center's admonitions that every question shouldn't be answered and only well-asked questions should be answered try to answer such questions. The overall result is a growing set of low-quality, badly-thought-out questions suffering from insufficient research on the part of both the querent and the respondents.

Proposal: What is worldbuilding in relation to new technology?

It's simple to suggest that the level of detail required for an answer should be set by the querent. But what to do when the querent doesn't understand the difficulties or consequences in doing so? In many cases, the querent appears to be asking for the factual design specifications and/or schematics for their (often fanciful) idea. But is that worldbuilding?

I propose that worldbuilding inherently demands some level of simplification and that crossing the line from simplification to full detail makes the question off-topic. A good technology-creation worldbuilding question would ask about...

• The functional operation of the device.
• The UI of the device in relation to the creatures/civilization using it.
• The consequences of using the device in context of the rules/nature of the querent's world.

But not how the device does any of that.

Fans of worldbuilding often want more than the author ever intended. That's actually a good thing.

I suspect that part of the drive for excessive detail comes from the natural fan reaction of wanting to know all the details about a world they've become enamored with. Consequently, they think that the natural evolution of good worldbuilding is to provide ever more detail. Regrettably, fans who think this don't understand good writing skills, not the least of which is the need to hook the audience with a sense of always wanting more.

It isn't helped by (frankly ubercool) deep worldbuilding projects that have mind-boggling detail such as Orion's Arm where they contemplate thousands of years of technological advancement with an effort toward "hard science fiction taken to the extreme, with all the dials turned up to the maximum." That would be absolutely laughable were it not for their definition of "hard science."

Two of those possibilities are of special interest to the OA project: paths for possible future technologies that they call 'Conservative Hard SF' and 'Radical Hard SF'. Conservative hard SF is based on cautious extrapolation from present-day knowledge, with perhaps, at most, one or two carefully justified and limited forays into something that's more speculative. Radical hard SF on the other hand takes on every hard SF technology ever imagined and then pushes the envelope further with a few 'not impossible' techs that may not get the nod from every current scientist but do at least get a serious hearing from some significant number of experts in the field.

In other words, the ability to patent the invention isn't what they call "hard science." From a perspective that may only make sense to engineers, they embrace science, but not engineering.¹ Unfortunately, what many of the querents on the Stack are asking for isn't science... but engineering.

Proposal: We don't engineer new technologies.

We will help rationalize a proposed technology with as much science as we can, but we will not invent or develop the technology in detail. Users asking for help defining a technology in their world should expect answers having at least one level of abstraction or more regardless the use of science-fiction, science-based or hard-science.

Abstraction, or the process of generalizing ideas by understanding examples, is an indispensable tool in the engineering process. Humans are privileged in our ability to relate physically distinct concepts through their common qualities, which allows us to translate problems from one domain into another. (Electrical and Computer Engineering Design Handbook)

Related Questions

• Should the hard-science tag be retired?
• Considered harmful: questions where the asker expects us to figure out a scientific explanation or alternative for their handwavium
• Advice to Querents asking "is X plausible or realistic?"
• Why asking for the details isn't always a good idea
• Advice concerning questions asking HOW to implement a technological procedure or device
• Are "how would X explain Y?" questions on-topic?
• What is "narrative necessity" and how does it apply to worldbuilding?
• How best to deal with "what are you expecting?" questions
• Best Practice for Helping OP's with Science-Based Fantasy Requests

---

_{¹ Over the years I've had fun perusing the pages of Orion's Arm. I've not yet found an example of technology at the engineering level. There's a lot of wonderful description — and appropriate abstraction — but no engineering. Perhaps there's a page or two I've missed, but I couldn't find any schematics, no chemistry, no specific realization of any technology. It's a great example of good worldbuilding.}

Answer 1

This proposal seems to be based on the assumption that all worldbuilding is done for the purpose of writing a novel or creating a story, which is simply untrue. Many, perhaps even the majority, worldbuild for the sake of worldbuilding.

Edit:

And even if someone is worldbuilding for the sake of a story or novel, it is absolutely not our place to tell a querent that their question isn't allowed simply because someone feels it wouldn't be useful to their story.

Answer 2

Specific points on the proposal

• They don't seem to realize that the level of detail they're looking for damages a story more than helps.

That's not our concern. Not everyone is writing standard-issue 300-page novels. Some are devising TTRPG rules, some are writing a technical appendix to a larger work. Some are just exploring an idea to complete their mental model of a thing, and know very well that none of this worldbuilding will ever make it to print. And hey, maybe some are writing terribly overwrought infodump stories. Regardless; it is not for us to judge whether someone is writing badly, that's Writing.SE's job.

• They sincerely believe that a fully scientific answer exists and regularly use the science-based or hard-science tags to ensure they get it.

• They don't understand that they've asked their question with insufficient detail, They're unable to provide clarifying details, and they usually become irritated that people don't just answer the question.

[...]

• They never realize there's a very high probability the question can't be answered.

I always am reluctant to guess at motivations. But even if someone is asking from a wrong assumption, the way to respond that would most benefit the user is to address their misconceptions head-on. For example with a Frame Challenge.

• They aren't competent to judge a best answer.

The most persuasive of your points imho; definitely a problem, but not a problem unique to tech questions.

I propose that worldbuilding inherently demands some level of simplification and that crossing the line from simplification to full detail makes the question off-topic. A good technology-creation worldbuilding question would ask about...

• The functional operation of the device.
• The UI of the device in relation to the creatures/civilization using it.
• The consequences of using the device in context of the rules/nature of the querent's world.

But not how the device does any of that.

I disagree. Internal workings strongly influence all of functional operation, UI, and world consequences. I even tend to start with a technical idea and then write the story around its consequences. To start from story-relevant consequences and then make up a technical reason is to create Technobabble. That's definitely not all Worldbuilding.SE is meant for.

"What power source would make the most sense for laser guns?" is a question that I presume would be outlawed under this proposal, as the question matter is none of those three. However, e.g. a nuclear power source drives operation (cooldown after firing), UI (need for a function to discharge waste material), world consequences (waste material piling up in radiated garbage piles outside strongholds).

Imho any work of fiction featuring a laser gun that doesn't state that it is nuclear-powered but just gives those properties in isolation, is a more disconnected piece of writing that's more burdensome to write and to read. It is often a good thing to be compact; if one piece of information about internal workings can make all those properties easy for a reader to guess at, then the author can bring up the properties as they become plot-relevant without bludgeoning a reader.

And that's all subsumed by my overall feelings that we shouldn't reject questions just because we think the querent is writing their fiction badly. If we ever get to that point, I volunteer to be banned from the site; my creative writing is terrible by any standard.

Proposal: We don't engineer new technologies.

We will help rationalize a proposed technology with as much science as we can, but we will not invent or develop the technology in detail.

Ironically, what I would like to see is some more detail in this proposal. "invent or develop" is fuzzy, and the qualifier "in detail" runs counter to your earlier proposal of restricting tech development questions to operation, UI, world consequences. Some inventing/developing is still allowed apparently, but how much?

Are you saying that anything beneath the bodywork of the hyperspace scooter is off-limits, including the colour of said bodywork? Or are high-concept questions that penetrate the skin still alright ("It seems to run on some kind of electricity"). Or can we do some more internal stuff like components and even smashing some existing hardware together, but with no obligation to be exact to the millimeter?

My views on the matter

• Does closing more questions help the people that are so dissected here? Where you describe a clueless asker, I hear someone who benefits from learning. You don't make people learn by closing their questions: you scare them away. A frame challenge or any sorts of detailed explanation why proposal X is misfounded, is 100 times as helpful as a bare comment of "VTC, too detailed". If we need any policy change it is to explicitly allow "This question cannot be answered for reasons X Y and Z" as a valid answer to any question, which I thought was what a frame challenge could do.

• Implementing this proposal will require either a fuzzy delimitation of what kind of tech-related worldbuilding is too detailed which every close-voter will interpret differently, or a draconic restriction that outlaws any discourse of what takes place under the synthetic skin. I could be persuaded away from this view if I could have a more detailed example of what delineation you are concretely looking for. Cite me the very most detail-oriented question you'd still allow, and the most high-level tech question you'd still consider an 'engineering' question and would like to see go.

• Technology can have a large role in some stories, requiring a level of detail that would be utterly out of place in a different one. Good worldbuilding hinges on the story and the medium in which the story is told. If I'm writing an Ant-Man fanfic and the shrinking hero literally goes inside a laser gun to mess with the wiring, I would like to know if loose wiring even makes sense in a machine like this. Even more potently if I'm making a comic book and will actually be illustrating this scene. If the question cannot be answered due to our limited knowledge of integrated electronics, then I'd like to be told that.

• Connected to the previous point; it is not our place to be judging whether someone is writing a good book with our answers. It's our job to help people build worlds.

Answer 3

I've umm'd and arr'd about giving my 2c to the proposal. But seeing as it's a quiet Saturday night and the Wife and Kids are in bed - I'm going to give my suggestion.

I disagree with the proposal

Now that my position is clear, let me give my reasoning. Firstly - I think the issues raised are, at the very least, worthy of discussion. I'm not yet convinced of the validity of the complaint per se - but we'll get to that.

In the nicest possible way - when it comes to your initial bulletpoints - I find myself asking 'So?' - Over-enthusiasm, whilst trying at times, is still enthusiasm. People wanting to ask questions is the lifeblood of SE and Worldbuilding is no different.

I think in a different Meta-post, I made the point that ultimately, if the Asker is happy with the answer, then that's all that matters. I still largely hold that as my ultimate position, even if the Rebuttal of 'Our purpose is that others writing similar stories may find utility in previously written good answers' - is a very strong rebuttal.

And so in that vein I find myself in that position again - if someone asks for input on a piece of technology, regardless of their reasons for wanting it, I'm totally fine with answering it.

Secondly - for me, from a story perspective, even if I were to never fully describe how a bit of technology worked explicitly - knowing how it worked in my own head to have internal consistency and have that impact story elements is useful.

I'm reminded of Robert Jordans method of ranking 'power' in the WoT, to make sure that he maintained internal consistency - even if these notes aren't explicit in the book.

It may be that because I have a technical/engineering background that I'm like this - but that's me.

Thirdly - Sometimes stories can be really enhanced by a single bit of good tech. Aliens and the Motion Tracker for example - in the Movie, it's a semi-realistic, practical piece of technology that makes sense. From a narrative point of view - it's a masterclass in how to raise tension. The scene where the Alien Horde is approaching and the USCM suddenly go 'THEY ARE INSIDE THE ROOM!' - and you can't see any Aliens and they are backing up etc. Imagine if someone was writing the next Aliens esque story and someone suggested something the equivalent of the Motion Tracker - but this was disallowed due to site rules.

Fourthly - and this is perhaps my weakest argument, but I think it's important enough to state:

I like to do this. Coming to WB is entirely voluntary for all parties. I see a question I find interesting, I'm inclined to answer it. Sometimes I see something and I go 'Well, here's how I would solve it within the parameters of your world' - I find it both mentally stimulating and therapeutic of sorts. This is not to say that if this was accepted as a proposal that I would storm off in a huff and never come back - just that something I enjoy doing is missing.

So - TL;DR

I think this merits discussion. I disagree with it, I find having this knowledge helpful, Inventing technology can be very beneficial for a story and I like to do this.