Kitchen Sink vs. Parsimony?

[John Quixote]

Since polls always seem to leave out the more nuanced positions, I'm posting this question for discussion only.

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? The latter approach would be more like your typical fantasy novel: in Middle-Earth, there's no need for gnomes because hobbits fill the "little hero" niche, and the variety of monsters in Middle-Earth certainly wouldn't fill a Monster Manual.

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)?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Q1) 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?

A1) It depends on the campaign I'm running.

Q2) Do you prefer to portray them as true races/species, or unique entities?

It depends on the campaign I'm running.

 

[Celebrim]

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?

I would say that I typically do something more middle of the road. I consider my world to look something like the 80's D&D cartoon, but I also pick and choose what goes in it (no orcs, halflings, or gnomes, for example, though having a goblin in the bar with you would not be unusual in large parts of the world).

I personally consider 'Earth' to be a kitchen sink world, simultaneously having Eastern and Western themed area, and simultaneously supporting civilizations at any tech level from stone age to industrial. In isolated areas of 21st century earth you can go from tech level 1 to tech level 7 in the space of a few hundred miles. And in some sense, the ancient world was even more diverse with thousands of distinct cultures and languages isolated from each other by distance and xenophobia.

I prefer that a world be at least as diverse as earth, and more if it contains more than one sentient species.

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)?

Again, something of a mix. Monsters are usually species, but typically there is a liberal sprinkling of legendary monsters about of the sort that if defeated, it is a matter of legend and song. Often these legendary monsters are progenitors of the class, either globally or at least regionally. The primary inspiration isn't Greek, so much as it is Tolkien - with monsters like Ungoliant and Shelob being the legendary progenitors of the race of monstrous spiders. Because of this Tolkien like prespective, I've been 'advancing' monsters on an ad hoc basis almost since the beginning of my DMing career. So for example, in one country there might be a legendary Peryton - from which a great brood of the foul beasts has decended and plagues a wide area across a continent. On another continent, these beasts might be unknown. Some two hundred miles away, there might be a mountain pass gaurded by the paragon of Manticores, from whom is decended every manticore east of the Great Spine, and so forth.

I like this because it makes for a good sandbox. I have a map that can say things like, "Beware Traveller - Certain Death Awaits", and introduce a monster at 1st level through story, cut scene, or environment that will ultimately become relevant at 10th or 15th level.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I like kitchen sink in my source materials, so that I can discard a bunch of it for any given campaign. Next campaign, I'll discard a different set. I want to start with the kitchen sink, because I'm not always picking elements that naturally go together. Sometimes I'm picking two elements because they don't go together very well--at least not on the surface. Making them work is part of the challenge.

I don't mind kitchen sink, expansive settings--as long as most areas are not too kitchen sink. For example, I'm ok with the Forgotten Realms, as long as I'm not running a single campaign that is world spanning, and every area isn't Waterdeep.

 

[Umbran]

It does depend on the campaign.

My most frequent start is to have all things that exist in the game's core rules as options for PCs. Things beyond the core I'll review and negotiate over.

This does not mean that all things in the core rules are prominent in the game world - if nobody wants to play a dwarf or elf, then I may (or may not) write them out of the setting, or put them someplace far away from where play begins, so that we may never have to deal with them.

Monsters are a case-by case basis for me. I don't exclude monster books from my own use as GM - I just may never get around to using any particular source.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I would want something that is flexible - it would be easy to add something into the game or take something out of it as well without breaking the setting or anything.

Granted, I don't think you can take humans out of a setting for the most part without radical changes.

I think most monsters are not unique, except for things like named demons & devils. However, I also could see some unique monsters, like the hydra Hercules fought as a special, unique solo type monster - the mother/father of all hydras.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Kitchen sink, everything in core. Oh wait, I write my own rules sets!

When I have run with published rules its mostly everything in core, although I might toss out one or two things (Halflings and Evil characters for example), but I prefer that my players have plenty to choose from.

Monsters are generally races, although they might only run into one in a campaign. Again, I like the variety, rather than being confined to only one of this and one of that.

 

[Gilladian]

In answering this question, I'm going to think only of my own campaign world, since I have decided I'm NOT leaving it again as a DM.

I have a set list of races and classes which I allow PCs to use, which are not quite core, but are certainly not kitchen sink (I think there are 8 races, and eventually I might add one or two more if a part of the world justifies the addition). I disallow monks only, just because I don't use anything "eastern". If I ever decide to, I'll make a whole section of the campaign world be ALL eastern, and that will be fine, but I doubt I get that far...

I like to imagine that some monsters are races; the more humanoid the more likely that is. Orcs and goblins and kobolds certainly breed. Dragons, however, reproduce abiogenetically (their treasure hoards produce eggs under the right conditions). So do many other species, such as oozes and aberrations. Other types of creatures, like the fey, cannot reproduce; they're immortal, and on their own plane they simply appear when conditions are right for them; a tree reaches a particular size or age or environmental significance, and it will have a nature spirit. When they appear in our plane, they have "leaked over" and may not even realize it, or care.

Mostly, I imagine that the "heroic" foe-beasts such as hydras and legendary monsters are either the creations of foully manipulated magic, or they are "mutant" offspring of more normal creatures, and may be one of a kind or an occasional "sport". This provides a nice balance of sources, I think.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Parsimony, and monsters are (usually) not unique.

 

[TwoSix]

As a world-builder: parsimony.

As a storyteller: parsimony.

As a DM who wants his players to be happy: kitchen-sink.