I want to give a shoutout to Stage 32 Thought Leader & Experienced Transmedia Producer, Jean-Pierre Magro, who inspired me to start this conversation-
When we build expansive story worlds, the instinct is often to answer everything. Lock down the canon. Clarify the rules. Build the timeline. Define the politics, the mythology, the culture. But what if part of the power of a transmedia world comes from the space we leave open?
Not gaps from laziness. Not confusion. Intentional space.
Space for a reader, viewer, or player to project their own fears, beliefs, or cultural lens into the experience. Space for a game to explore a different corner of the world that reframes what we thought we understood. Space for a new character introduced in a spin-off to have a perspective that doesn’t perfectly align with the “original” narrative.
For example, if a flagship series presents a government as heroic, is it powerful or destabilizing for a companion novel or game to reveal the same government as oppressive from another region’s point of view? Does that deepen the world… or fracture it?
I’m increasingly drawn to the idea that strong worlds don’t just expand outward, they expand in perspective. They allow contradiction and multiple lived experiences within the same canon.
But that raises the question: how much is too much? At what point does ambiguity become incoherence? When does contradiction stop feeling layered and start feeling like a retcon?
When you’re building a world meant to live across mediums, what do you define with precision? And where do you intentionally leave room for interpretation, reinterpretation, or even disagreement?
1 person likes this
If the facts are the same, audiences are smart enough to understand that the same event seen through different eyes will have a different take/POV. You lose audiences when you cheat and change facts or alter the reality they know. It's not incoherence to show different perspectives, even from contradictory POVs as long as you don't re-write the rules as you go. I think that's when you lose your readers/viewers.
2 people like this
The tension between a locked-down canon and an open-ended world is the heartbeat of a living mythology. When every corner of a map is charted and every historical detail footnoted, a story world stops being a place of discovery and becomes a museum. To build for transmedia is to balance the rigid architecture of rules with the fluid nature of human perspective. Intellectual worldbuilding requires us to identify where the load-bearing walls of a universe sit and where the flexible partitions can be moved to let the light in. Building for multiple mediums requires a handshake between creators and their audience. By defining the "what" and the "where" while leaving the "why" and the "who" open for reinterpretation, you are cultivating an ecosystem. You are giving the audience the room to inhabit the world, to argue about its nuances, and to keep it alive long after the final credits roll.
1 person likes this
Jean Pierre Magro, "Negative Space Narrative Architecture" names something I've been practicing instinctively, something I didn't fully recognize until later: the world of PRAYPREY was designed so that its most powerful elements are the ones for which no explanation is given.
The Void Audit — I ran it against my world and found that not only can I not answer all four questions, the voids are structural. My civilization's central taboo — the prohibition of mercy — is enforced by an entire culture that has forgotten why it became forbidden. The original act was pure love: a starving male offering himself to his queen with the words "Take me, and remember me." Generations later, that gift calcified into mandatory ritual consumption, and mercy became heresy. No character in the story knows the origin. They only know the fear. The taboo isn't a secret waiting to be revealed — it's a permanent void in the culture's self-knowledge, and the protagonist's entire arc is the act of filling it not with answers, but with practice.
My map features Cartographic Ghosts — like a sealed lake hiding something an ancient voice told to "sleep until truth is threatened". It isn't explained; it warns. My world also features Kavri — objects that attract memory through stillness and intention — whose mechanics are never codified. But most critically, my creation myth exists in two irreconcilable versions: a sacred, liturgical account and a buried scientific one involving a human consciousness that fractured from the grief of being the last surviving human and the weight of administrating the creation of a world. Neither version is authoritative. The audience must live in the friction between them.
What your piece helped me crystallize is that these voids aren't gaps in craft — they are spaces for an audience to inhabit. And because PRAYPREY was never designed to be simply observed; it was meant to be witnessed, I instinctively I left space for the viewer to bring their own grief, their own questions, their own need for mercy into the architecture.
Just as the genesis of my world began with an "Eternal Flame and Shimmering Void", this narrative void is the space left specifically for the audience—the witness. When they enter, the void shimmers. And when they reach out in curiosity to touch the world, the veil ignites, removing the separation between story and self.
Ashley Renée Smith — forgive my inability to achieve brevity in this reply.
2 people like this
I am glad you found it useful.