Kitchen Sink vs. Parsimony?

[Smoss]

When I settled down to work on my current campaign world I had decided to go far less kitchen sink. I rolled multiple monsters into one, created myths around creatures that drew on other monsters, etc. Plus the fact that in this world monsters are rare and sometimes unique... It is a different flavor.

I've been working on writing some blogs on my design, purpose behind it, and results. But so far I really like the epic feel of the game. monsters being something to fear but rarely seen AKA boogeymen - People being the REAL evil, etc, etc... Lots of fun in a way different from a more kitchen sink approach.

Smoss

 

[steeldragons]

When you create a campaign world, do you prefer a "kitchen sink" approach (if it's in the rulebook, it's in the campaign setting; creates a world that looks like the Mos Eisley cantina or the 80s D&D cartoon) or a more restrictive paradigm where you pick and choose what exists in the game world?

On a related note... monsters. Do you prefer to portray them as true races/species, or unique entities? Is there an entire race of hydras out there, or just the one until Hercules kills it? Which, do you suppose, makes for the better fantasy campaign (of any sub-genre you like to talk about)?

Is Parsimoniously-Kitchen-Sink-ish an option?

For PC races, I am usually...let me clarify, "by today's standards" it seems I would be considered fairly restrictive...in the sense of what I allow as a PC, I mean. Though I may sommmetimes be talked into an "unusual" choice if you can give me a good reason.

An example of not giving me a good reason usually goes a little something like this:
Player: "Are there <insert random race here> on this world?"
DM/Me: Maybe.
Player: "I wanna play a <insert -drow/gnoll/wilden/dragon-bore/eladrin/half-dragon-ogre with purple fire for hair or any hundreds of other races- here> cuz I think it'd be soooo cool...She's an outcast...and kinda a loner...AND..."
Me: STOP! Just stop right there. The answer is no. Why does this character concept have to be that particular race?
Player: Cuz it'd be so...
Me: <rubs temples> No. You're capable of making a "cool outcast" character with any number of the dozen or so allowed races. You don't have to be some creature no one in the "normal world" has even seen before.

For NPC races that exist in the world, I'm fairly kitchen-sink...goblins, orcs, kobolds, yada yada...Some are more exotic/rare races might be smaller, forgotten or fabled or hidden/unnoticed communities..."the last/only of their species" sort of thing. But they do exist/can be in the world...if I need them to.

As for "monsters" I am somewhat middle of the road. Certain are "true races". Some are individual or, again, very small enclaves. Some are simply very very rare. Like dragons. Yeah, they exist. Yes, they are a real race that "mates true"...but (other than the mating every some many hundreds of years) they are solitary creatures...and very very rare.

I've never done the "ultra-first-best-progenitor of all other monsters of this kind" before...but I really like the idea. I can certainly see incorporating that easily into my world.

Sooo...ummm....did I answer the question?
Yes, I am kitchen sink on some things and parsimonious about others.

--Steel Dragons

 

[steeldragons]

hahaha.

Steel Dragons the Threadkiller strikes again!

I swear. Seems I have the last post on dozens of threads...ah well. Hope folks enjoys something I have to say...at least sometimes.

--SD

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Sometimes even when I'm not really running a sandbox game, I like some of the sandbox effects. One of the big ones is that when you run sandbox, you have:

A. Sand - things to play with.
B. Box - boundaries.

I may make the box relatively big or relatively small, but I want it still. I find that "limits are freeing" in more ways than one in this style. Not only do the boundaries spark creativity in our group, but also having the box makes the players a lot more willing to really play with all the sand. Sand that doesn't get used, might as well not have been there.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For my Midwood campaign, I sat down and went through my sourcebooks and wrote down all the stuff I liked, and then built a campaign around that. (There are no player character elves in the starting area, for instance, just humans, dwarves and gnomes, and no orcs -- the main threat is a well-established tribe of kobolds.)

Next time around, I'll probably do the same, just with a different master list.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I prefer the more restrictive paradigm, limiting the options to give a clearly delineated campaign world.

For some campaigns this will be pretty broad anyway (e.g. when I ran an Eberron campaign - although even then it was original ECS book only, as I didn't like the direction many of the supplements took things, diluting and spoiling some of the excellent ideas in Keith Bakers original vision as far as I was concerned).

Other campaigns I've run have been human only, with dwarves, elves and hobbits as NPCs only, to emphasise their difference, and character classes being very strongly regionally based (rangers come from here, clerics come from there, wizards are from that place and so forth).

I've never run an all-inclusive kitchen sink world, and wouldn't want to.

Cheers

 

[Crazy Jerome]

[MENTION=114]Plane Sailing[/MENTION],

I finally failed my Will save and have to ask if I'm the first person that glanced casually at your avator and saw a dire acid rhinocerous?

 

[NN]

The advantage of parsimony is: its easier to add stuff than take it away.

 

[Camelot]

I definitely like the kitchen sink approach better, at least as a DM. My one rule is that everything has to have its place in the world: races, mosnters, classes, feats...everything. For example, half-orcs aren't just there so that there's a "tough guy" player race, with their origins kind of just mumbled off; they need to have a real reason for existing.

I don't use the core world or any published setting, I make my own so that I can put everything in there and intertwine them however I see fit.

 

[steeldragons]

Sometimes even when I'm not really running a sandbox game, I like some of the sandbox effects. One of the big ones is that when you run sandbox, you have:

A. Sand - things to play with.
B. Box - boundaries.

I may make the box relatively big or relatively small, but I want it still. I find that "limits are freeing" in more ways than one in this style. Not only do the boundaries spark creativity in our group, but also having the box makes the players a lot more willing to really play with all the sand. Sand that doesn't get used, might as well not have been there.

While I agree with much of this post...how do you know what sand to leave out/which doesn't get used until the players have already traipsed through the sandbox?

I can't see hoe you could...so...all of the sand is necessary...until the players get their grubby lil mitts on it.

--SD