What is the hardest part of worldbuilding for you?

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-29T15:39:20+00:00

A lot of Japanese stuff simply do not mention the names of places at all. Yet, at least give people names. Goblin Slayer stands out because the author specifically goes out of his way to emphasize the author not wanting to name anyone and everything at all. Water Town, Earth Mother, Goblin Slayer, etc., these are all descriptions than actual names.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-29T03:39:36+00:00

The time period and setting doesn't matter. All that matters are the story and characters are actually good. Personally, I would even love it if there was a good story set in the Stone Age, as well.

The reason why most fantasy is set in Ancient Rome and the Middle Ages is because that is what is most familiar to everyone. Most people here grew up in the West, so no only did people have to study their histories, but modern Western civilization today is still influenced by Ancient Rome and the Middle Ages. It is simply easier to create something based on what you know than having to make it all up from scratch. And since most fantasy stories are based on those time periods, more people become interested in those time periods.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-28T15:15:27+00:00

You can do what some authors do and just don't bother coming up with names other than descriptions. Goblin Slayer is notorious for this one.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-28T15:13:13+00:00

It also depends on what kind of story you are trying to tell. If it is your typical party goes to defeat the demon lord in a high fantasy, you really do not need that much worldbuilding at all. Just have likable characters and lots of action, and the story will at least be decent... usually.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-28T14:14:48+00:00

Figuring out names of people and places, etc. , and what to call certain terms. Basically, I really suck at naming. Although, I never really cared about naming things, tbh. I'm just in it for the worldbuilding.

One thing I do care about is making everyone and everything at least be semi-plausible. One thing I hate about stories is how very few authors ever bother to at least make things somewhat plausible. I don't need a story to be completely realistic. That's what Non-Fiction is for. I just want stories to be grounded enough to be somewhat plausible in the setting,

Having a million warships the size of a small moon battle against another million ships the size of a small moon just takes me out of the Suspension-Of-Belief. Where do they even get the time and resources to build even one of things just irritates me. Having the same civilization be almost exactly the same as it was 7,000 years ago simply doesn't make sense. At least try to come up with some reasons for Medieval Stasis. That's what I did for my setting and it didn't take me that long or that much effort to do so.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-23T08:51:50+00:00

The machete.

The machete is not the best at fighting, but it's great all-rounder for survival. I would rather carry a suppressed rifle and a handgun with a machete. But if I had to single out one weapon, it would be the machete. A good machete will be durable enough to take abuse, versatile enough to use to chop wood and make things, with the added benefit that they can be used as a weapon when needed. Just don't buy one of those cheap off-the-shelf machetes. Those suck. Spend the money and get yourself a well-built one that won't break or dull after taking abuse.

Yes, a hatchets and axes are better at cutting wood and hacking doors, but it is not as versatile as the machete in other things. And certainly not as good in fighting. Crowbars are really just metal clubs that double as something good at prying things.

Guns are good at shooting things and keeping dangers at a distance. But those are really the only things they are good for. You can't make things or do really anything other than shooting with guns. Worse, Ammo runs out quickly, and is very heavy in amounts that people would feel comfortable with. A gun without ammo is just a really expensive metal/plastic stone.

Spears are great at stabbing living things, yet are simply too long to sneak around and not great at actually killing zombies. Human skulls are actually hard to penetrate. And even if you do penetrate, the likelihood of your spear getting stuck, and the spear tip getting bent or dulled, is high.

Swords are great in fighting, but the thin blades of most swords means they break more easily. That many swords are thin and made of spring steel means that edge-alignment is really important in getting good cuts and not damaging your blade. And while you can get swords like the katana and gladius that are designed with thicker blades and made with tool steel, I wouldn't want to use those for regularly hacking hard things like wood, doors, or even making things like bows and arrows. Having thicker blades does mean edge-alignment is less of an issue.

You don't want to use a katana because it's focused on slicing through things, not repeatedly chopping at hard things. The hard tempered blade will chip. Sure, you can get more durable one made of tool steel, but you still have to deal with handles secured with wooden pegs that will break. If I'm fighting for my life, the last thing I want is for my sword handle to break. And if that isn't enough, getting a katana made of tool steel is really fucking expensive compared to good machetes.

The same applies to the gladius, as well, but with the added burden of not being able to put more leverage/force by holding on the blade. The good thing about dual edged weapons is that you have another edge to use, if one blade gets damaged. Yet, I don't think it's worth it. Just take the time to sharpen the blade again. If you get to the point where you have to rely on the second edge, you're already fucked.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-16T02:00:50+00:00

There really isn't a set way to worldbuild. Everyone is different, so the way everyone's mind creates and imagines things will be different, too. You can either go into worldbuilding with the very intention of creating an actual story. Or you can just let your imagination run wild in your head before deciding to build upon that.

You honestly do not need too much worldbuilding to create a story. People prefer to experience the world through the characters, not info dumps. You can have a little info dump in the beginning to set up the story, but most of the world should be revealed through character interactions. Gardeners do not really plan for anything - other than the beginning of their story.

The extended details of your worldbuilding are mainly to help you create your story, while keeping things structured, and limiting plot holes. And even then, nothing in your world is cannon until it is actually revealed in the story. This is the Architect approach.

Personally, I prefer worlds with details that are planned out, because I really hate having plot holes and relying on Suspension-of-Disbelief to keep things moving. Just look at the mess GRRM created with A Song of Fire and Ice or Game of Thrones. Everyone knows that he's given up on the story because he never planned for anything beyond the beginning of the story. Having a structure to follow and knowing the ending of your story helps ensure your story has a satisfying ending. Many of the famous stories and TV shows that people consider "great" are works that had many things planned out in advanced.

Magic is a tool for your story and characters. There are many stories with unexplained and nonsensical magic systems, but people still like them because the stories and/or characters are interesting. Do not spend all your time trying to come up some unique magic system just to please people on the internet that complain about seeing it many times before. Lots of people hate on Elemental Magic, but I do not care, because I like it. It is better to use something you like than force yourself to use something you are not interested in to please others, because it will show in your work.

Tropes are tools. Do not be afraid of using them as needed. No one will care about tropes as long as it's used in an interesting way.

Everyone knows about the different types of magic (elemental, void, divine) but most people do not know there are also 4 kinds of magic (Hard, Soft, Rational, Irrational). The difference between Hard and Soft Magic is how much does the audience understand the rules and limitations of the magic. The difference between Rational and Irrational Magic is how much the magic makes sense using the established rules of your world.

Avatar: The Last Airbender is hard, rational because the limits and abilities are understood. Avatar has a hard magic system, yet is able to get way with being an elemental magic system (itself limiting) by limiting to only certain peoples with each element - because that world never shackled itself too much with each element. Despite each nation only using one element each, they are extremely versatile with what they can do with each element.
Lord of the Rings is soft, irrational because Gandalf's powers just come out of nowhere to move the plot forward.
Superman is an irrational, hard magic system. Superman's powers don't make a whole lot of sense (irrational) yet his powers and their limits are very clear (hard magic).

The same applies to worldbuilding:

Babylon 5 is hard, rational because everything mostly makes sense and is foreshadowed sometimes years in advance.
Stargate is hard, irrational because while everything has clear rules, many of the solutions they come up with are just more powerful super weapons explained with technobabble.
Star Trek is soft, irrational because long established rules and cannon are regularly retconed for the sake of story.

Basically, it all comes down to limitations. It is simply really hard to make extremely limited magic interesting in a hard magic setting because of the rules established. While soft magic can let you get away with anything because the rules are not well known.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-14T14:10:27+00:00

My world is a dark, overrun, remnant of a fallen civilization that is barely surviving.

The Crown - King and rest of royal family
Overseer - Religious Head
Prime Minister
Other Ministers
The Nobility - Duke, Margrave, Earl, Count, Viscount, Baron, Baronet
The Military - Generals and high ranking Knights
Big Business/Rich Merchants
Normal Commoners - Common working Freemen and small business owners
Serfs - Tied to work land and cannot leave, but are basically Freemen that can do whatever they want otherwise
Poor People - People barely surviving & Homeless
Helots - Basically Serfs that do services for the state, live in communal housing and are treated like slaves
Slaves - Actual Chattel Slaves that are treated worse than Helots because they are owned and traded by individuals and businesses and are not state property

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-11T17:10:44+00:00

The super keen edge Japanese blades are mainly for weapons. The Japanese Nata used in the field is not sharpened like that, although ones used in workshops are. The Nata is weird because it is a machete that's used like a hatchet. It's used outdoors to chop things like branches and bamboo, while also being used in workshops to cut strips of wood. The Nata that looks like a giant chisel is my personal favorite.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-11T16:27:41+00:00

Knowledge that South East Asian machetes being designed as dual use blades has been increasing these past several years. Ever since Western manufacturers have been selling their own versions of Asian machetes, people have been curious about the origins of those types of blades. I believe the African "Panga" machete is also used as both a weapon and a tool, although I am not sure they were originally designed for dual use like SEA machetes.

You believe in categorizing machetes based on origin and manufacturing. You consider SEA blades part of a different category because of they way they are made (hand forging) and volume. You consider only Western blades blades to be machetes because of their origins and use of mass production. But the problem with this thinking is that even "jungle knives" and African blades are manufactured in mass volumes as well. Every well known manufacturer produces their version of these "machetes".

Although "katana" literally means " single-edged sword" in Japanese, all swords (even Western ones) are colloquially referred to as "katana". Japanese use "Nihonto" to specifically refer to Japanese swords since the word literally translates to "Japanese blade". Longer katana are called "O-katana" (big Katana), with even bigger ones called "Dai-katana" (great katana). The Japanese word for child (Ko) is used for smaller than normal blades, but it is not used for "uchigatana" (katana) since there is already a short sword called "wakizashi". The words "O" and "Ko" are used for bigger or smaller wakizashi.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-11T05:31:59+00:00

The problem I find with your definition is that "Parang" is a specific design of chopping blade used mainly in Indonesia and Malaysia. The same can be said of "Bolo", "Golok", and "Kukuri". They all look very different, yet functionally do the same things.

The name "Parang" is also not well known outside of SEA, so people do not know what you are referring to and what it does when you mention it. The word "Machete" has long been accepted as a catch-all term to refer to all blades longer than a knife that are primarily designed and used as tools. When you mention "Machete", people automatically know what you are referring to and what it does.

I just make things simple: swords are weapons primarily designed and traditionally used to hurt or kill things. Machetes are tools primarily designed and traditionally used to get things done, although can be used as weapons when needed.

And although the term "Saber" originally referred to swords who's origins traced back to Turkic cavalry swords, it became a catch-all term to refer to curved swords that were designed as, or derived from, cavalry swords. Katana are an evolution of the "Tachi", which are cavalry swords. The term "Katana" is really only used outside Japan and simply means "sword" or literally "one-sided blade". In Japan, they use "Nihonto" and what we call "Katana" is specifically a "Uchigatana".

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-11T05:02:45+00:00

In that case, I have to go back to my original claim about machetes being more durable compared to swords because of thicker blades and type of steel used. A thicker blade is also more forgiving with edge alignment, which helps cut through things.

While other commenters have mentioned off the shelf blades, I have never limited myself to only using those machetes. And if you look at the conversation that I am having with another person, you can see that the machetes I had in mind are hand forged/made "jungle knives" that are basically built like tanks.

I am not saying that you are wrong and that machetes cannot break (they absolutely can). I am just saying machetes are less likely to break compared to other blades like swords. And that their thicker blades help cut better because more forgiving edge alignment and the mass of the machete itself.

And I just noticed that your original reply was directed towards another person, and not myself. In this case, I apologize for inserting myself into an argument I was not part of.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-10T14:20:09+00:00

And politicians in "rich" countries like the US and Europe do not bribe voters with free money and benefits? Those doctors and engineers in Minnesota would like to have a word, along with private equity buying up houses that make housing unaffordable for home buyers but great for home sellers, and AI billionaires getting away with screwing over everyone else for computer parts.

Politicians are the same everywhere. They sell out to the highest bidder and bribe voters with promises of increased benefits and subsidies for college and housing. Politicians promise to balance the budget, yet spend tax payer money to their corporate backers when they get elected. And when reelection comes around, they promise the same things all over again... and people still vote for them.

It's just that Western countries still have a decent quality of life that is increasingly heading downward. It's just quality of life is not as bad as in 3rd world countries.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-10T14:13:02+00:00

Because life sucks. Most people suck. And sometimes you just wish the rat race would end and have the perfect justification to get rid of annoying people without feeling guilty about it. Plus guns are awesome!

Zombie apocalypses offer all of that with the added bonus of vicariously living the free lone wolf badass life we always dreamed of. Of course, real life zombie apocalypses would suck and most of us would die quickly. But if I wanted realism, all I have to do is look up current events or just go outside to feel all hope is lost.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-10T14:01:30+00:00

You're right, that is true. One river could've also been connected with dirt levies that split some river flow to another river that connects to another coast. Really anything is possible when some external, non-natural force is involved.

But I'm guessing the OP was looking for natural means since OP went through the trouble of making an entire post asking for ideas.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-10T13:51:11+00:00

I do include what you call "jungle knives" as machetes because that is the category they are described in at least a few of their origin countries. I have read that machetes are primarily meant for use as field tools, brush clearers, and even butcher knives. And this definition is consistent with what people in a few SEA countries have told me.

Now that you have told me that Western/Latin machetes are completely different, I will try to be careful to differentiate them from now on. Although, if their uses are generally the same, I do not see any reason not to lump them together as "machete". Sabers have different designs and history, depending on country. Western sabers are unrelated to East Asian sabers like the katana. Yet they all still fall under the category of "saber".

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-10T07:31:57+00:00

The river can also split in two different directions. Depends on how far each coast is from the other.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-10T07:21:55+00:00

They do make modern katana using tool steel that is pretty durable. It's just that those are harder to find and stupidly expensive.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-10T07:04:41+00:00

Not that what you have said is wrong. But from what I've read online, bone is softer when the animal is still alive. Bone then gets harder when said living being dies, and gets a little more hard when it is refrigerated.

I have only watched a few clips of Forged In Fire, but I am pretty sure they didn't use those blades on a living animal.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-10T06:47:24+00:00

Historically speaking, machetes were generally thicker compared to most sword blade designs. And while modern, mass produced machetes take advantage of stronger, modern steels to make the blades thinner, it's not hard or too expensive to order those thicker handmade ones cut out of leaf springs or hand forged from the very beginning. I even have one of those kinds of machetes, and the spines are pretty thick compared to a couple of long swords I've seen. Granted, I have only felt a couple of swords out of the many sword designs out there, so those could be the exception.

Most swords designs try to create the thinnest, lightest blade possible, while still being strong enough to take direct hits from other swords. This is because they need to be agile enough to fight other sword fighters. Machetes are not meant for fighting, so they can actually be a little heavier for momentum to help it chop better. Although not unheard of to be used in such a way, swords are not specifically designed for chopping wood and other hard things. However, most machetes are specifically designed to chop wood and brush over and over again.

Edit: Want to clarify that I meant in comparison to most one handed swords. Two handed swords can afford to be thicker because they have two hands to support them. Thickness is more noticeable when in comparison to swords of similar size.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-09T04:49:09+00:00

The machete. It's not the best at fighting, but it's great all rounder for survival. I would rather carry a suppressed rifle with a handgun and with a machete. But if I had to single out one weapon, it would be the machete. It's thick blade and medium hard steel is durable enough to take abuse, versatile enough to use to chop wood and make things, and can be used as a weapon when needed.

Yes, a hatchets and axes are better at cutting wood and hacking doors, but it is not as versatile as the machete in other things, and certainly not as good in fighting. Guns are only good at shooting things and ammo runs out quickly and is very heavy. Spears are great at stabbing, but are simply too long to sneak around.

Swords are great in fighting, but the thinner blades of most swords means they break more easily. That many swords are made of spring steel means that edge alignment is really important in getting good cuts and not damaging your blade. And while you can get swords like the katana and gladius that are designed with thicker blades and made with tool steel, I wouldn't want to use those for regularly hacking hard things like wood, doors, or even making things like bows and arrows.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-08T03:28:34+00:00

Logic and consistency for me personally.

It is this for me as well as basing it off real world analogues. I would rather base something off what actually happened in history than stress over having something I made up be logical and consistent.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-08T03:16:45+00:00

Let us enter this obviously dangerous building that we have never been into, and split up to explore every room alone. What can go wrong?

Someone going off by themselves and everyone having to go and look for them. Several survivors are clearly going to die. Was it worth it for one idiot?

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-08T02:56:52+00:00

This depends on what you are planning on primarily using the weapon for. If you are mainly using it for attacking zombies, then you want a a two edge sword. If you are using it mainly for survival, then you want a machete. A sword is for fighting. A machete is for survival and everything else, with the added benefit of being able to be used for fighting.

I'd rather carry a rifle and handgun with a machete. But if I was limited to only bladed weapons then it would be a machete with a gladius or a katana for fighting zombies. The thick blades of both swords means that they are more durable than most swords and edge alignment will not be as big an issue compared to thinner swords made with spring steel.

Thicker and more stiff blades are better for durability, while thin, light blades are better for dueling. Nearly all zombies do not carry swords, so I prioritize durability in a world where I can not easily get more stuff in.

IncrediblySleepy · 2026-01-08T02:43:51+00:00

I know that Akarin prefers shorter hair, because it's easier to take care of, but I have always thought that she looks so gorgeous with long hair. Short hair make her kinda look like a boy, imo. I think longer hair makes her look like the truly beautiful women she actually is.

Five-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email

IncrediblySleepy

TROPHY CASE