D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Crimson Longinus]

Its probably not universal, but its fairly frequently used in a dismissive way to describe a campaign that has no shape or structure. If you look at everything but the kitchen sink you'll note the third and fourth reference are not exactly complimentary, and some of the same tone can carry over here.

I don't think that kitchensinkyness automatically makes a setting bad. Eberron and Exandria are both examples of settings where the creators have decided to include almost everything D&Dy, and find a place for it. That takes a lot of work, and I don't think it makes the setting automatically any better that those with tighter thematic focus. There is no one true way!

 

[jmartkdr2]

Wait, wait, wait… but have you considered adding yet ANOTHER elf sub-race?

You have? Then I’m all out of ideas.

Obviously they didn't, because the solution is always more elf subraces.

 

[Cadence]

Fair. I don't have to recruit, so it didn't occur to me. But you're definitely right.

Well, for us it's also sometimes the "competing with the others in the group who both play and DM to get the time slot for the next season".

 

[TwoSix]

Well, for us it's also sometimes the "competing with the others in the group who both play and DM to get the time slot for the next season".

Yea, pretty much in the same boat. Out of 8 players, 5 of them regularly DM. Your idea has to be interesting, and also not take forever.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I don't think that kitchensinkyness automatically makes setting bad. Eberron and Exandria are both examples of settings where the creators have decided to include almost everything D&Dy, and find a place for it. That takes a lot of work, and I don't think it makes the setting automatically any better that those with tighter thematic focus. There is no one true way!

The conversation usually goes like this....

I only allow the 1e DnD races.
Why don't you allow the rest of the PHB options?
Because then the party will look like a walking Star Wars cantina.

Or

I dont have goliaths in my game.
Do you think it's too hard to add them?
No, I could add them but I don't want to because them somebody will ask to play a Jedi Gundam and then it will turn into a kitchen sink campaign.

A conservative baseline 5e experience is all the PHB races. A more liberal table is all the official races. A very open game is custom and 3rd party. A kitchen sink game is a Jedi Gundam, a poopsmith, The Mask, and a human fighter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The conversation usually goes like this....

I only allow the 1e DnD races.
Why don't you allow the rest of the PHB options?
Because then the party will look like a walking Star Wars cantina.

Or

I dont have goliaths in my game.
Do you think it's too hard to add them?
No, I could add them but I don't want to because them somebody will ask to play a Jedi Gundam and then it will turn into a kitchen sink campaign.

A conservative baseline 5e experience is all the PHB races. A more liberal table is all the official races. A very open game is custom and 3rd party. A kitchen sink game is a Jedi Gundam, a poopsmith, The Mask, and a human fighter.

I really don't think PHB races should have any special place. If GM specifically wants to make the setting fresh by not having elves, dwarves and halflings and having genasi, tortles and tabaxi instead, then that's cool.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'll simply note as I always do that when this comes up, I trust GM's motives explicitly or I don't play with them--but I don't trust any GM's judgment unlimitedly, including my own. And there's no need to when a GM can accept criticism and players are willing to give it in good faith. There's more than one person in the room, and limiting who assesses things to only the GM is neither required, nor, in my opinion, desirable.

Yeah, I think GMs mess up often enough that having a way to deal with that in place is a good idea. I know I mess up, or make gut calls that I might otherwise not make if questioned, or with even a little bit of time spent thinking about it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

And I'm asking why they want to play different races when they're all essentially the same now.

You would have to ask the players individually, but the clear fact is that players do want to play different races. I suspect if is because they disagree that all races are the same, notwithstanding the changes that have been made.

 

[hawkeyefan]

RE the idea of a kitchen sink.

I don't see this as the opposite of a curated list of races/classes/other options. Ultimately, the game only has to have the things the players have chosen or are allowed to choose.

If one of my players says, I want to play a warforged, and we work it out in some way (either by adding the race to the setting, or by coming up with some unique origin for the character) that doesn't make it a kitchen sink.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. My list of allowable races could consist of the exact 4 races chosen by my players for their characters and no more.

For me, when I question such restrictions, it's not about the restrictions themselves, but the reasoning behind them, and how that compares to player desire and satisfaction.

 

[Cadence]

I wonder how hard it would be to get a bunch of DMs on here to keep track of which races they offered, and what the players' requested races were for the next few campaigns they each ran...