Good vs Bad "Feasibility" Questions?

Question

Recently, I've noticed a lot of new questions with "Feasibility" written in the title.

Generally, the community consensus is that "feasibility" questions about sci-fi ideas are on-topic because they produce relevant information that can help people build fictional worlds. Some recent feasibility questions that seem to fit the accepted style include:

• Feasibility of a creature that leaves behind crystal like formations
• Feasibility of Making a Quantum Destabilizer

However, I've noticed a string of feasibility questions structured differently:

• Feasibility of a species based on Nyarlethotep
• Feasibility of a species based on Yog Sothoth
• Feasibility of nurgle
• Feasibility of tzeentch

The latter questions follow this format: "here is an existing creature from a work of fiction, and here are its attributes; how can it be explained?" I'm reminded of the Anatomically Correct Series, which exists to help users

create fictional creatures in a realistic evolutionary way.

The problem is, these questions seem less geared toward creating fictional creatures and more toward explaining existing ones.

Are the aforementioned questions on-topic? Are "explain-existing-creature" questions fundamentally different from the Anatomically Correct Series because they are narrow and off-topic, or are they equally helpful because they provide scientific explanations that others may find useful?

EDIT: Here's some clarification of my perspective based on VLAZ's post: I think part of what irks me most is the apparent ease of inserting an existing creature into a post for the sake of generating questions. A lot of questions on this site don't seem to be used to make actual fictional worlds, but when it's possible to functionally copy-and-paste existing works of fiction to generate posts, it seems especially unproductive.

Answer 1

The latter questions follow this format: "here is an existing creature from a work of fiction, and here are its attributes; how can it be explained?"

I disagree with this assessment. The questions actually veer quite far away from the existing entity. Each question starts with a general description of the being in question, however it then construct an fictional species heavily inspired but most definitely not the same as the original.

So, it's definitely not "here are the traits of an existing entity, I want to re-make it" - there already is a remake in process as part of the question. And the re-make makes rather drastic changes to the creature...which is inevitable, since each of these beings is not a species, it's an individual. I'm myself reminded of a comedy sketch which has an exchange I'd like to paraphrase here:

Nyarlathotep, Yog Sothtoth, Nurgle, and Tzeentetch aren't a genre of mythical beast - there is only one of each and their names respectively are Nyarlathotep, Yog Sothtoth, Nurgle, and Tzeentetch

So, I cannot see construction of a new species that share some traits with each of the individuals as anything but a new fictional creature creation and the question is if that works or can can it be improved.

Whether that does or doesn't overlap with Anatomically Correct Series, I'm not sure. To me it does seem distinct even if quite similar. ACS does feature some singular such as King Kong, Slenderman, Sleipnir, Scylla, and Charybdis, for example. But each time the premise is actually what you mistakenly (according to me) attribute to the new feasibility questions: "here is an existing creature from a work of fiction; how can it be explained?" There are also ACS questions that do some of the re-imagining as part of the question, like Pinocchio which seems quite close in composition.

In conclusion, I don't see a problem with the questions you described. They seem to be about creating species inspired from a fictional being. The only "problem" (in heavy quotes) I could see is whether they should be included in the Anatomically Correct Series. I can't actually make that call, but at most, I can see them being edited to include a link to ACS and then the ACS listing having a link to the questions.

Answer 2

As the person that creates the , “the feasibility of” questions, I find that this post is really informative. In a way, I make these questions to just see what is and what isn’t feasible by taking the individual god like being, taking away it’s god like attributes, and trying to make it into a feasible species.

In a way, it kinda reminds me that in the vastness of the universe, these species could be possible. Also, I will say, that The reason why I don’t make the questions for a personalized universe is because I find it pretty hard to make a personalized universe with specific rules, without breaking them myself.

Other than that, I find this post extremely informative, and I’ll try to look at this post as a means of improving my questions.

Answer 3

These are on-topic questions because:

Learning is sometimes about learning how to think about something rather than getting a specific answer. Picking apart existing creatures is extremely helpful in learning how to build a creature, because there's already an established point of reference. These questions aren't so much about generating questions. For me, they are more about learning how to think in order to create something. We can take something silly like Pokemon, and by exploring the mechanics of those creatures, we can learn what we will and won't accept, and how we might THINK, the steps we must take, the process of what we should be considering when building a creature of our own.

World creation builds on other worlds. Thing is, in a lot a fiction, established worlds ARE a jumping-off point. Take fantasy. The jumping-off point would be Tolkien. And when authors create their fantasy world, what do they do? They say "well, my elves are different/better." Maybe they get an idea from a post on Godzilla's evolution, maybe they treat magic like radiation. Whatever the case, when you create something, it's best if your readers know what you're talking about, and the best way to do that is to use something that already exists as your jumping-off point.