When does Story clashes with Worldbuilding & Lore?

When telling a story in a world, there is generally a beginning, middle, and an end, with the lore and worldbuilding setting the preconditions for the story to take place.

However, as stories end, the world will continue to tick on long after everyone is long gone.

For example, Avatar has cycles of titular Avatars. They are born, go on a journey, create a party, and generally try to make the world a better place... With long-term consequences for the next Avatar. Each era is different depending on the Avatar, and while their story and the stories of those around them get told, the world will continue to turn and their contributions may erode into faded statues and history books.

I personally like and accept the idea of integrating story into worldbuilding and vice versa as some settings will have their characters pass the torch and inhabitants evolve and change over time. I've seen some worldbuilding kind of crash and burn because they decided to make their world denser and denser instead of turning the page to a new era.

Now, this is natural with the progression of time and reflected in real life with the rise and fall of empires, however, audiences will be attached to that particular era for better or worse, and there isn't much you can do as whatever comes after will always be compared to the original.

**When does Story clashes with Worldbuilding & Lore?**

Of course you could just say "Screw the audience, I tell the story I want and whether *they* like it is up to them" and the question is completely moot. Though it does still stick in my mind.