Kitchen Sink Settings

[schporto]

It depends. At the start the players and I sit down and we all decide what books to use. At that point it is kitchen sink. Any book can be added, or denied. After that though, things are mostly fixed. Adding a book or even a part of a book, is a rare thing.
This cuts down on what people feel obligated to buy/own, and makes it more predictable for the DM. Its a group thing for us, and therefore not a competition of who owns the most books, and the latest dookickey of doom.
-cpd

 

[Ventifus]

By the definition the OP gave, no.

Replace 'WotC' with 'WotC, Green Ronin, Goodman Games, Game Mechanics, RPG Objects and Malhavoc' and affix 'most other d20-compatible material by request' to the end, and you get a yes.

My game as well. I actively encourage 3rd party material. Unfortunately many players seem a bit adverse to non-WotC books for some reason.

I'm actually thinking of making my next campaign Arcana Evolved with the rule "no WotC books allowed."

 

[the Jester]

Nope. Especially the new races are not allowed imc, and the presumption is that a player should check with the dm before using anything not in the core rules or in my official checklist of acceptable materials.

 

[Gothmog]

I'm not a kitchen sinker. I've always found too many varied elements in a game weaken the setting as a whole, especially when players question the how and whys of a race's existence. If someone wants to play an unusual character class or race at the start of the campaign and talks to me about it, we can usually reach some compromise, as long as its not something that I have stated outright doesn't exist in my campaign world (no drow or warforged for example). I realize players need to have fun and I will work with them so they will, but as the DM I need to have fun too, and a player demanding to play a pet race is very selfish.

I tend to keep the total number of player races to a minimum, with humans being the predominant race by far. Non-human characters are EXTREMELY rare (only one dwarf so far), but to make up for that, each ethnic group in my world is essentially a different "race" by PHB and D&D standards. I've had no complaints from my players, and I can't imagine someone being too upset if they are told the basic design parameters when the campaign starts/at character creation.

 

[Treebore]

You seem to equate wanting to play something besides same ol-same ol as wanting more power. Maybe you should not.

No, I equate not playing in a campaign because it doesn't have what they want in it as wanting more power. My games are good and fun. I can understand not likeing my style, but when they refuse to play because I don't allow things outside the core books they are looking for more power.

Ever since 3E came out the "same ol-same ol" excuse went out the window. Unless people now want to claim the core 3E is "cookie cutter" etc....

 

[Raven Crowking]

IMHO, the kitchen sink belongs in the kitchen, not at the table.

IME kitchen sink worlds have a tendency to become cluttered and lack focus. They do not have to begin this way; it is the alteration of the initial premise of the campaign world to accomodate more and more stuff (and, let's face it, stuff is never-ending) that clogs the arteries of the game world.

I have an expansive campaign. I want nothing to do with an all-inclusive one.


RC

 

[Arc]

My DM treats most campaigns in the "kitchen sink" manner, for which I'm thankful. Being able to chose from (almost) every WotC book means I can come up with quirkier character concepts that are still mechanically effective. A bard that doesn't suck? Check (bard / binder). A dagger user that can match damage with a greatsword wielder? Check (swash / rogue / invisible blade w/ revised prereqs). A glass cannon who can incinerate enemies in a single round? Check (artificer). A caster who's competent in melee? Check (wizard / runesmith / eldritch knight). A FF style dragoon? Check (leap attack & battle jump synergies). PrC's and feats in 3.5 make an amazing number of combat and character styles not only viable, but effective to play.

I tend to stay away from non-human races, simply because I personally don't play them very well - in my opinion, weird race choices tend to be a crutch for shallow character development, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

 

[GreatLemur]

I think the flavor of a good setting should be defined as much by what isn't there as by what is. I've always been bothered by the kitchen sinkyness of Eberron, for example, and I think it gives up its chance to be a truly unique and flavorful setting in favor of being compatible with everything WotC ever publishes.

That said, I kind of like the idea of starting out with a kitchen sink setting, letting players use anything from any book (as long as it doesn't look unreasonable mechanically) . . . and then gradually defining the world formally according to what's already been suggested organically. That is, if no PCs or NPCs are using psionics, then maybe psionics doesn't exist. If the first few missions revolve around undead antagonists, then maybe undeath is the primary threat in the world, and orcs and fiends aren't really a big deal. If the party's Ranger is the non-magical variant from Complete Warrior, and they never run into any Rangers that do cast spells, then maybe all Rangers are non-magical. If the Cleric worships the idea of "justice" instead of a god, maybe there aren't any actual deities with names and faces, just vague concepts invested with divine power. And so on. Hopefully, you'd end up with a world that's unique, and full of all the things your gaming group is interested in, with enough elbow room to explore those elements in depth.

EDIT:

At the start the players and I sit down and we all decide what books to use. At that point it is kitchen sink. Any book can be added, or denied. After that though, things are mostly fixed.

Aw, hell. Beaten to it. So what kind of world have you ended up with, through this method? I'm really curious.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't like kitchen sink worlds. If you dump all the flavors in your kitchen cabinets into your soup pot, you don't get a flavorful dish, you get a bland mess. So too if you add every possible bit of crunch to a campaign world.

That said, I allow a lot, but it all has to have a place in the world, even if that place is "this secluded city in the jungle you will only visit once, but will face enemies using strange powers while you're there."

I'm a lot more restrictive on races, though. I don't find the world is better for having dozens of player races. Cutting that back pretty aggressively allows for each race having more of a role and a culture, which I find to be a good tradeoff. I'm not super hardcore on this -- the Barony of Midwood has humans, dwarves, gnomes and kobolds running around in different areas, with goblins drifting through periodically -- but I'm certainly not "kitchen sink."

That said, it's a big world, and if someone has their heart set on a Sha'ir or something, we can play a side game set in a region of the world where they exist.

 

[Zamtap]

I Don't have the money to follow all the complete/races/eberon/FR/conditions and i do prefer FR to be distinct from Eberon or Greyhawk, or indeed Homebrew

The campaign I play in has as it's sources all FR, 3 core and completes, most it not all of the FR regional supliments being restricted to the DM side of the screen.

most of the one shot things thet i have run have had "the books i feel like carring today" for their source books as the folks in that group are roleplayers and not just DnD players and have wide calls on their money for books.

Zamtap