Supperset
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2023
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 83
You are writing a story and you want your fictional world to feel believable/realistic without sounding over-the-top, randomly improvised, or ripped straight Outta ur ass but ur lazy self can't be bothered to spend weeks doing soul-crushing research on every dull, boring and "realistic" detail follow this very simple principle:
Identify a problem or plotholes in ur story and provide two layered explanation for it.
Here’s how it works:
Plot hole: Why can't this be this? Or why is this happening here but not there? Basically formulate a question addressing your plothole in a way you can address it.
Explanation 01: Give an in-world explanation that addresses that specific problem, event, or phenomenon. This is the answer your characters (and readers) will latch onto immediately, it should makes sense within the context of the story.
Explaination: Then, explain why that explanation exists in the first place. This meta-layer gives your first answer roots in your world’s history, culture, science, or politics. It makes the explanation feel like it’s been there long before the reader arrived, giving depth without needing to simulate an entire textbook.
Here's a simple example:
Plot Hole: “Why does the city have no visible farms, yet never runs out of food?”
Explanation 01: “The city relies on underground hydroponic farms run by the Agricultural Guild.”
Explanation 02 (Meta-Reason): “The Guild was formed a century ago after the surface was poisoned during the Great Rain. Controlling the underground farms gave them political dominance and they’ve kept that monopoly ever since.”
This approach works because the first explanation satisfies the reader’s immediate curiosity, and the second makes it feel like the answer was always a part of the story. You get the illusion of deep realism without writing a thousand pages of background notes.
You can do this in pretty much every other context. In Fact, you can even use this rule for the explanation you are providing, giving it more context but I don't recommend doing it back to back.
Here's another example that always bugs me in any fantasy novel.
Plot hole: Why does the kingdom’s army wear bright red uniforms if camouflage exists?
Explanation 01: Because red cloth is cheap to dye and easy to produce in large quantities.
Explanation 02: The red dye comes from a native plant that grows everywhere in the region, and historically, wearing red in battle was a sign of divine favor. Over centuries, it became tradition and the army’s pride in tradition outweighs any need for subtlety.
That’s it. No five-page infodump. Just two neat layers enough to feel real, without breaking your back on research.
Identify a problem or plotholes in ur story and provide two layered explanation for it.
Here’s how it works:
Plot hole: Why can't this be this? Or why is this happening here but not there? Basically formulate a question addressing your plothole in a way you can address it.
Explanation 01: Give an in-world explanation that addresses that specific problem, event, or phenomenon. This is the answer your characters (and readers) will latch onto immediately, it should makes sense within the context of the story.
Explaination: Then, explain why that explanation exists in the first place. This meta-layer gives your first answer roots in your world’s history, culture, science, or politics. It makes the explanation feel like it’s been there long before the reader arrived, giving depth without needing to simulate an entire textbook.
Here's a simple example:
Plot Hole: “Why does the city have no visible farms, yet never runs out of food?”
Explanation 01: “The city relies on underground hydroponic farms run by the Agricultural Guild.”
Explanation 02 (Meta-Reason): “The Guild was formed a century ago after the surface was poisoned during the Great Rain. Controlling the underground farms gave them political dominance and they’ve kept that monopoly ever since.”
This approach works because the first explanation satisfies the reader’s immediate curiosity, and the second makes it feel like the answer was always a part of the story. You get the illusion of deep realism without writing a thousand pages of background notes.
You can do this in pretty much every other context. In Fact, you can even use this rule for the explanation you are providing, giving it more context but I don't recommend doing it back to back.
Here's another example that always bugs me in any fantasy novel.
Plot hole: Why does the kingdom’s army wear bright red uniforms if camouflage exists?
Explanation 01: Because red cloth is cheap to dye and easy to produce in large quantities.
Explanation 02: The red dye comes from a native plant that grows everywhere in the region, and historically, wearing red in battle was a sign of divine favor. Over centuries, it became tradition and the army’s pride in tradition outweighs any need for subtlety.
That’s it. No five-page infodump. Just two neat layers enough to feel real, without breaking your back on research.