Fantasy world building: Aesthetic vs Scientific

Disclaimer: I'm not sure if the title fits best, but let me explain.
As far as I know, people making their own world building (in term of how the world works) has two kind of approach.

One that prefer everything explained until the very detail like how magic works, why it works that way, how a custom creature live, and many things explained in detail.

One another is not to care about the detail. They put something on their world because it's cool, and has an aesthetic to support the world/story tone. How magic works and why it works that way they don't care (or at least they never explain). They put dragon on their world, because it's cool and it can be used as plot device.

If you're making a fantasy world, which type are you? Are you explaining all the stuff on your world? Or you don't care much detail about it as long as it fits the narrative you want to tell?

I'm somewhere in between, as I'm making an urban fantasy world where there needs to be a basic explanation why monsters exist, and how modern society and various organizations dealing with the issue. etc but not going into extra detail beyond what the player needs to know to understand the story, though I include them inside in-game lore for the interested, just not every single trivial stuff.

Some people are capable to dole out some details for the world to work on, while some others... not so much. Some people, however, tried too hard on making the world believable and "plot-hole proof" but usually they failed to keep up with their standards...

As for me, I'd go with details IF it is required for the story to work. Magic and stuffs, those are usually beyond my scope but it's my duty to explain how it works whenever possible--which is rare, considering I have a lot of things to take care of like the characters, places/landmarks, and of course the story itself.
Moreover, it's not necessary to fill out the world with everything trivia and deemed unnecessary for the story. Like Sir Conan Doyle wrote in the first Sherlock Holmes series: A Study in Scarlet,

While it's good to make everything scientific, fantasy stories don't require one to work; it surely helps to make a better understanding upon certain topics like magic, but will everyone bats an eye on something they don't really need?

I came up with an entire pantheon of gods, complete with crests, paladins and celebrations.
I don't know if I'm going to use all of them, but, better safe than sorry.

(also I may or may not have found a website that helps me with the plot points and names, but, hush....!)

I guess it depends on how to-universe the story is made and related. I mean, if you want your characters to be fleshed out, you always have to answer every "why?" that might come up, with something substantial: "this guy hates this other guy..... ok.... why? because...... and, why 'because' exactly?.... because, that other thing, because, life, because, the history of this place, because, the ancients.... or something."

I am of the opinion that complexity of concepts should be pared down to simplicity whenever possible in order to minimize the need for exposition. For the most part, "it works because its magic" tends to be good enough.

Some newer concepts, such as Horcruxes in Harry Potter being the key to Voldemort's power as well as his weak point or the One Ring in the Lord of the Rings being the key to Sauron's power as well as his weak point might need explanations, but those concepts and explanations are still kept simple and archetypal. Even better that such concepts tie in with the story themes and the big bad's characterization; Horcruxes are products of Voldemort's lack of empathy and fear of death, which must be overcome by Harry Potter's willingness to die for others, and the One Ring is a product of Souron's will to dominate all life existing in contrast to Frodo's lack of such ambition and desire for a simple life. The heroes overcoming these concepts asserts the themes of the story, making them powerful concepts indeed.

Edit: I forgot what I'm trying to argue relative to the question.

Edit: Keep things simple and relatable. Archetypal. Do what Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings did. Most of us aren't George R.R. Martin.

I think that fleshing things out and creating rules for everything is extremely important. World building is far more than just weird names on a map, it's the detailing of an entire world, its rules, and how everything fits together. You don't need to tell the player\reader everything about your world, but it does help you create characters, cultures, locations, and even stories. Plus, the reader\player is less likely to have their immersion broken by inconsistencies and things that simply make no sense.

Explaining everything away with 'it's fantasy', or 'a wizard did it' isn't very good. There needs to be rules established that determine what can and can't happen within your world. If you've established that death is meaningless and can be reveresed by people with magic, then you're going get a lot of questions when you try to make death meaningful. You don't need to have written a whole thesis on how your world functions for it to make sense, but it's important to have some basic rules that govern your setting, its people, and the mechanics of things like magic.

Things just need to make sense.

I've never been immersed in any Final Fantasy setting because they often lack basic rules and coherency. These places are swarming with hostile monsters, but towns have very little, or sometimes no, defences at all. That's just one example of something that breaks my immersion when playing those games, but there are countless other examples I could give.

I also get fairly annoyed at people who want to add random crap to established fantasy settings, or even change them completely, so as to suit their own morals and world views. They always justify such changes with 'it's fantasy! Anything can happen.' which is a stupid justification. The existence of magic and monsters doesn't, or shouldn't, mean anything can happen. I'd better stop there before I get up on my soapbox. :p

But yeah, details and rules in a fictional setting are a good thing. They exist for the benefit of both player\reader and author\dev.

@The Stranger, also yes. Internal consistency is an important factor in worldbuilding.

I definatley fit into this category.

One another is not to care about the detail. They put something on their world because it's cool, and has an aesthetic to support the world/story tone. How magic works and why it works that way they don't care (or at least they never explain). They put dragon on their world, because it's cool and it can be used as plot device.

I mean I have no background lore for my roject I just spend most of my time making sprites and putting them into my project only to be defeated by the main character. :)

I really love to expand my world. I am always writting stuff down. I think it's important for the story to somehow teach the players why certain things are like they are. But on the other hand there's nothing more annoying if you are forced to learn EVERYTHING.
In my opinion, there should always be a way for the player to find some detail stuff out by themself, and only the important things should be "teached".

I find important in a videogame to let the players explore the enough about the world and its lore, so I'd explain only the relevant stuffs to understand the plot and I'd let the player discovers more details letting him/her to explore

I'm not one to go into much detail about the game world. Most of the time, I put in something because I think it's cool. Of course, it has to somewhat fit the setting, and for more significant objects/systems/etc I'll come up with a background story for it. Often times, I keep that extra information out of the game, because I don't think it matters enough to add, or just prefer to let the player imagine what it could be (for those who can be bothered). Or I'll hint at it through texts found from exploring surroundings, talking to NPCs or doing side-quests.

I love having everything explained. However, I know that not everyone enjoy it. That's why I don't explain too much in my main story, but the player can complete side quests to learn more about how stuff works.

Frankly I think the mistake most people make when it comes to making a fantasy universe, is thinking of themselves the creator & the player's knowledge requirements to be equivalent.

The player doesn't need lengthy wiki style exposition drops about every other topic in the world, more often than not they simply need the "cliff notes" version of things, to explain where they fit in, & why their own actions are necessary.

However, that doesn't mean that creator only needs the "cliff notes" version of the data, they need to be aware of the "full wiki" as it were. So that they can plan out a narratively consistent universe, that doesn't feel like the creator simply pulls whatever the plot requires out of the air, to advance the plot.

The reason why universes like Harry Potter, Dune, Lord of the Rings, A Song of Ice & Fire, Lovecraft's, etcetera seem narratively coherent despite the fantastic nature of the events happening in them; is because their creators spent time developing the world that is "off screen" as it were. They created the laws & lore governing those worlds, & then set their story within that framework.

The less thought you give to what happens to the world off screen, the more likely you are to create plot holes "on screen", or even shatter their suspension of disbelief. Because you're only worrying about that narrative moment & what is happening from the perspective of the audience.

The recent Star Wars movies are a good example of this. Rian Johnson has expressed a desire to base the bombers in the film The Last Jedi, on WWII bombers & how they are portrayed in film. From an aesthetic perspective as well as to heighten tension it makes sense. The problem though is what is happening "Off Screen" from The Last Jedi. Namely, that in the timeline of the Star Wars universe, various military forces, & the Rebellion/Resistance/New Republic especially, have possessed & have utilized various "bombers" that are more maneuverable, faster, & utilize more effective weaponry in the form of Y-Wings & B-Wings.

While the B-17s of WWII can carry more ordinance than most of the aircraft used by the American military currently, having focused more on potentially navally deployed smaller aircraft, with adaptabel payloads; you couldn't write a bit of military fiction set today, where the commander replaces the aircraft in use with B-17s, without a very good in story explanation, & not break people's suspension of disbelief.

To use a more fantasy style reference, Elder Scrolls Skyrim does a fairly nice job of illustrating the consequences of the world suddenly being inhabited by dragons. Namely, the dragons actually attack what they come across. Whether they be towns, bandit camps, roving bands of giants, etcetera.

Most people don't think about it, when they come over a hill & suddenly see a three way brawl between a group of bandits occupying a fort, a pack of giants, & a dragon; as they are usually trying to figure out what they are going to do, based on their level, equipment, stealth skill, who seems to be winning, etcetera. However, suddenly stumbling onto such a battlefield, makes the world feel "alive"; in a way that having those three groups ignore each other, & then collectively tag team you when you get there doesn't.

Simply put, "Because Magic" often is a good enough explanation for the player, as many of them aren't interested in reading through an exposition drop three pages long about arcane theory. But as a creator you should know what "Because Magic" actually means, & then write your story in accordance with that knowledge.

I lean strongly toward the 'Aesthetic' side. If it's cool, and it fits the tone of what you're creating - throw it in.

Then you can find a way to make it fit in, as inspiration for more cool stuff or for story hooks - or you can simply leave it as "the thing speaks for itself" - if you're looking at something and it's there, then obviously it can be there.

Why is there a dragon nest in an ice cave? Because in this world, dragons can live in ice caves. Why is the dragon literally made of ice? Because in this world, magical creatures can be made of ice. No further explanation is really needed. Don't worry about what it eats or how it flies or lays eggs. Don't worry about whether the rest of the ice could somehow "come alive" into a creature.

It's important to avoid obvious inconsistencies (e.g. that same dragon shouldn't be living where it's obvious that nothing at all could live), and you also want to avoid Giant Space Fleas from Nowhere. But as far as whether the author needs to spell out (for the audience or even themselves) every detail about how something exists or operates in a fantasy world - I feel it's counterproductive.

I greatly prefer to explain all the things. In my game (current and future projects) everything from magic to gods are given as much scientific backing as possible. That doesn't mean I don't focus on the aesthetic side, but to me, I feel like I've failed if I can't somehow show the player how things like magic exist in my world in a way that makes sense in our own reality. "Because that's just how it is" or "because the god of magic farted on the world and now we have magic" will never fly with me, but "because this world is in fact a simulated world and magic was programmed into that simulation" is something I can work with.

Actually in fairness, there are some legitimately amusing ways to use that trope successfully. Ultros is one of the more memorable bosses from FF6, and that's exactly what he was.

May I ask for your view as far as what tends to make some uses of the Giant Space Flea from Nowhere successful, versus unsuccessful? Whenever I have seen it appear in a game it has felt almost insulting, so I'm very curious about what kind of game design or narrative framing can be done for the Space Flea to make it feel really good.

Also, as a larger question I'd like to ask everyone, do we see the Giant Space Flea from Nowhere as the "Aesthetic" side of this debate taken to its logical extreme? Or is there something qualitatively different about the Giant Space Flea that makes it different than a complete disregard for the "Scientific" look at fantasy and lore in interest of the Aesthetic?

I tend to see a "gameplay" as its own disconnected world from the lore perspective. So it can be anything including these Space Flea bosses. In short, it's aesthetic that I don't mind if the dev decided to put one (myself included) and no actual lore describing it just for a sake of gameplay (as long as it's not really out of the box.). Personally I often shrugged and move on. As for the relevance of this topic, I was asking on the lore perspective, which has an actual impact on the story, not for gameplay reason.

While this is just my personal belief, I think it can be used to great effect if you want to lay on some light comedy. To use Ultros from FF6 as an example again, he's probably the best example of this trope being used successfully. His various appearances add some light-hearted comedy to the game and he's generally well-received by fans. The same can be said for Z/Siegfried, who is clearly meant as a joke boss.

In contrast, I'll agree that it can feel insulting and disappointing when you defeat the Big Bad and surprise! Out pops the true final boss of the game, which had no plot involvement or screen time up until now. Necron (is that it's name?) from FF9 is a fantastic example of this trope being used in an utterly abysmal fashion.

Definitely hard aesthetic, since you're adding it into your game because you think it should exist somewhere, all without giving its existence any explanation.

@TheoAllen, I prefer explaining everything in detail and organise world building.

If I want to put some monsters because they are cool, I would have to research and rationalise to myself why are they existed in this would?

I do not recommended you to just give players 3 pages essay. You can show the players what is going on instead of telling them directly.

Some of details I write and draw on paper show up in game, but just the notes for me.

I think avoiding exposition dumps and allowing optional lore explanations through things like side NPC dialogues and in-game books is a good approach to go. I think telling what the player needs to know about how things work in your world in your main story is good, but only through bite sized pieces and mostly through showing, not telling.

Personally I have this problem where I get too obsessed over all those little details and end up getting stuck and making no progress because I'm fretting to come up with an explanation for something so minor "just in case the player asks!" and that's not a good way to go about it. When I think about what I'm ACTUALLY thinking about while playing a game, it's very rarely "Where does MP come from and why does sleeping at an inn restore it?"

Why are all these torches lit in some random cave that no one's traveled in for hundreds of years? How did that NPC reach the very bottom of the dungeon through all these monsters I just fought and leveled up multiple times from with a full party? Where did all these treasure chests with loot come from? Why can my party carry 99 of every item, where does it go? Why can't my healer just out heal/revive plotcentric events and prevent any and all deaths of NPCs I care about? These are the kinds of questions that you don't necessarily need to answer in your game, some of this stuff is "just because it's cool" and that's okay.