Avoiding the "Kitchen Sink Fantasy"?

[LoA]

So I'm putting this here because It fits, but I looked this up after reading this thread and having people mention "Kitchen Sink" settings. So basically a kitchen sink is trying to put every single little monster imaginable into a single setting and making it all work together.

When I looked this up, I realized this is my biggest problem as a dnd world builder. I have a wierd impulse to try and use everything, and yet also know that that's a horrible idea, so I try to rail it back.

How do I avoid the impulse to try and stick everything in a campaign setting at once?

LoA

[Kindling]

Well, in my opinion the phrase kitchen sink setting tends to be used only for settings that don't do a very good job of putting a bit of everything into them. The mass of different elements and inability to reconcile them ends up destroying the setting's internal verisimilitude.

But, while not common, and potentially quite difficult, I wouldn't say that it's impossible to create a setting that incorporates that "little bit of everything" - or at least a little bit of a lot of things, maybe absolutely everything is a bit of a tall order - while maintaining internal verisimilitude.

And I'd say the key to this is knowing what the heart of the setting is, in terms of mood or aesthetic, and making sure that all the diverse setting elements complement or at least interact intelligently with that mood or aesthetic. Which may require reskinning certain things, but hey, that's part of the fun of worldbuilding, right?

You could also work the concept of some kind of limitless possibility into the setting's basis in one way or another, that way it feels like it fits and makes sense more than just an unexplained situation of heading over the next valley or what have you and suddenly there's a whole different culture and ecology and so on. I've kind of done this with my Dark Silver setting, where the infinite and chaotic nature of the Beyond allows for theoretically any kind of monster or non-human creature to crop up if needed, reskinned to be more or less explicitly demonic in nature - but because it's the Beyond and not the mortal world in which most of the game is set, it doesn't dilute the core of what the setting is about, it just allows other elements to turn up in that core and interact with it.

[sparkletwist]

I agree. "Kitchen sink" is really only bad when stuff stops feeling like it works together. My own creation, Asura, has all kinds of disparate stuff in it-- but it all fits together in the setting's crazy mythology, so it all feels rather consistent despite there being a ton of weird possibilities for directions it could go.

[Steerpike]

I agree with the above posters. I'm rather fond of a few settings that resemble kitchen sinks: China Miéville's Bas-Lag, Terry Pratchett's Discworld, Fritz Leiber's Newhon, and most of what Neil Gaiman writes, for example. What makes these settings work is either some kind of consistent tone, atmosphere, or approach (Miéville's Marxist grotesquery; Pratchett's light comedy and cunning parody; Leiber's picaresque hedonism) or a method of representation that exploits the tensions and contradictions arising from the setting's heterogeneity. So, for example, American Gods really works because it combines the eclecticism of mythology with the romance of the American road trip and the mixture of banality and bizarrerie of middle America. Sandman works because it takes a panoply of cosmic personifications and then treats them with psychological realism, taking them seriously as individuals.

In other words, I think kitchen sinks work when they either unify the aesthetics of the mashup to make things more cohesive, or when the harness the very patchwork quality of their constituent parts for aesthetic effect. They don't work when their lack of unity leads to tonal whiplash that doesn't work to some greater end.

[Lmns Crn]

So I'm putting this here because It fits, but I looked this up after reading this thread and having people mention "Kitchen Sink" settings. So basically a kitchen sink is trying to put every single little monster imaginable into a single setting and making it all work together.

When I looked this up, I realized this is my biggest problem as a dnd world builder. I have a wierd impulse to try and use everything, and yet also know that that's a horrible idea, so I try to rail it back.

I was going to suggest that maybe this is a problem that D&D contributes to! It seems to provide a large palette of options, but the temptation to write something that fits every single one of them can be tough to ignore, especially for new gamers and new setting writers. I remember feeling like I had to use every crayon in the box, but that's simply not how art has to work.

I don't remember where I recently heard it, but recently I came across the idea of a "dirty dozen" concepts-- really, 10-15 ideas that you find central to the tone of what you're going for, that you list at the start of your project. This advice was aimed at someone trying to choose a system of game mechanics to fit a setting, but I think the basic principle is strong for setting-writing as well, perhaps: pare everything down to a manageable list of core concepts, and let that list steer your creative process. It may help you keep your focus.

[sparkletwist]

D&D definitely encourages this. I mean, it's even basically official; the rules for the contest that spawned Eberron were "cram as much D&D into your entry as possible." :grin:

[LoA]

Sorry I haven't responded to this yet, busy with school.

So I'm putting this here because It fits, but I looked this up after reading this thread and having people mention "Kitchen Sink" settings. So basically a kitchen sink is trying to put every single little monster imaginable into a single setting and making it all work together.

When I looked this up, I realized this is my biggest problem as a dnd world builder. I have a wierd impulse to try and use everything, and yet also know that that's a horrible idea, so I try to rail it back.

I was going to suggest that maybe this is a problem that D&D contributes to! It seems to provide a large palette of options, but the temptation to write something that fits every single one of them can be tough to ignore, especially for new gamers and new setting writers. I remember feeling like I had to use every crayon in the box, but that's simply not how art has to work.

I don't remember where I recently heard it, but recently I came across the idea of a "dirty dozen" concepts-- really, 10-15 ideas that you find central to the tone of what you're going for, that you list at the start of your project. This advice was aimed at someone trying to choose a system of game mechanics to fit a setting, but I think the basic principle is strong for setting-writing as well, perhaps: pare everything down to a manageable list of core concepts, and let that list steer your creative process. It may help you keep your focus.

Thanks for the advice! I read something similar once, but it said to use only about 4 ideas or so. 15 sounds a lot better to me.

D&D definitely encourages this. I mean, it's even basically official; the rules for the contest that spawned Eberron were "cram as much D&D into your entry as possible." :grin:

Yeah, and as it's been well established I am a huge Eberron fanboy. So i've been meaning to ask, What would you do to fix Eberron? I know it's not perfect, but since it's my first Dnd SettinWhat would you replace, and what would you cut out all together?

[Weave]

I don't know that I would be able to "fix" Eberron since I'm not super knowledgable on it, but I do recall liking it (insofar as D&D settings go). Rather than thinking of which parts you would want to strip away, why not focus on the things that you like most and develop elements that branch off of those (I'm pretty much echoing LC's "dirty dozen" idea)?

On another point, why bother with Eberron? If you yourself can't think of what to change in Eberron then maybe it's not bad - I wouldn't concern yourself with what everyone else might think of it if you don't take any issue with the setting itself. Eberron, by itself, has to force every ounce of D&D compatibility into it because it's a D&D setting. I think that, on a whole, Eberron has a pretty good unifying tone to it even with dinosaurs and zombies and dragons and unicorns: dungeon-punky adventure, exploration, and intrigue. It's got that whole post-war unease set up going for it, Sharn is pretty badass, and it seems to have some forward thought when it comes to magic being as widespread as it is (but it still pales in comparison to the real ramifications that such widespread magic would have on a civilization, but hey, that's D&D for ya). It all feels like it could exist in the same universe unlike, say, Golarion, which is just the worst case of kitchen-sinkery I can think of. Granted, I only have the 3.5 Eberron core setting book and none of the extra splatbooks it probably has, so I have no idea how rampant it truly became.

[Steerpike]

You should have a look at 2E Planescape, for my money the best kitchen sink setting TSR ever put out. There's some free stuff floating round.

I also tend to agree with Weave that "fixing" settings rather than, like, stealing ideas and making something new generally isn't worth the effort, but there's nothing wrong with playing in an established setting...

[Lmns Crn]

Hey, I found the place I first heard about the "dirty dozen" design idea. To reiterate, I didn't originate it.

D&D definitely encourages this. I mean, it's even basically official; the rules for the contest that spawned Eberron were "cram as much D&D into your entry as possible." :grin:

Yeah, but I think it's more than just Eberron. I was having this issue before Eberron existed outside of Keith Baker's private notes.

I got into this hobby through D&D, which is not a universal experience but a common enough one. And a huge problem with D&D is that by default, it has no setting, so there's little to "grab on to" for players. I remember one of my first posts to the WotC forums: I was complaining that my players rather brutally roughed up a pacifist priest for whatever reason, and I didn't think that treatment made much sense. I was told, correctly, that my players didn't care about their actions in the world because there wasn't enough world for them to care about. We were just playing generic D&D with two lists: a list of names of countries, and a list of names of gods. None of it meant anything, or was interesting. That was how I got started doing any real worldbuilding-- I took some forgotten poster's advice about worldbuilding as a method for engaging players.

But I don't mean to ramble; this is just an example of the problem D&D sets up. It's a generic toolkit, it encourages players and groups to re-skin it, and it's the jumping-in point for a lot of new gamers who don't realize what options they have. So you get a bunch of settings that start out as some group's version of, basically, stock D&D with minor cosmetic adjustments. There are a lot that show this at their roots-- more sophisticated settings (Planescape, Eberron, etc.) that have more layers of color, but use the same base.

[LoA]

Hey, I found the place I first heard about the "dirty dozen" design idea. To reiterate, I didn't originate it.

D&D definitely encourages this. I mean, it's even basically official; the rules for the contest that spawned Eberron were "cram as much D&D into your entry as possible." :grin:

Yeah, but I think it's more than just Eberron. I was having this issue before Eberron existed outside of Keith Baker's private notes.

I got into this hobby through D&D, which is not a universal experience but a common enough one. And a huge problem with D&D is that by default, it has no setting, so there's little to "grab on to" for players. I remember one of my first posts to the WotC forums: I was complaining that my players rather brutally roughed up a pacifist priest for whatever reason, and I didn't think that treatment made much sense. I was told, correctly, that my players didn't care about their actions in the world because there wasn't enough world for them to care about. We were just playing generic D&D with two lists: a list of names of countries, and a list of names of gods. None of it meant anything, or was interesting. That was how I got started doing any real worldbuilding-- I took some forgotten poster's advice about worldbuilding as a method for engaging players.

But I don't mean to ramble; this is just an example of the problem D&D sets up. It's a generic toolkit, it encourages players and groups to re-skin it, and it's the jumping-in point for a lot of new gamers who don't realize what options they have. So you get a bunch of settings that start out as some group's version of, basically, stock D&D with minor cosmetic adjustments. There are a lot that show this at their roots-- more sophisticated settings (Planescape, Eberron, etc.) that have more layers of color, but use the same base.

First off, that podcast is amazing!!! My life already feels changed by listening to that. Secondly I always felt the same way with the base set of DND books, and even Pathfinder. I feel like Wizards and Paizo would have been well to include a very basic DnD setting in the DM Guide, or PF Core Rulebook. That way you had something simple to introduce you to what a Campaign Setting  is, and how one is structured.

How does this look for a dirty dozen for Panorah?

[ic]Dirty Dozen for Panorah

Small Woodland Creatures as the Core races (Inspired by Redwall). Mice, Badgers, Otters, Weasels, Hares, and Squirrels
Royal Houses (Like those in Game of Thrones). Two major houses battle for control with several Houses underneath their control. Is there a war coming? And if so what will trigger it? Cope Castle the home of the Pirate hordes are the only real "non-royal" government in Urthlind. But that's only because no Pirate Lord can stay in power long enough to establish himself as king.

Pirate Lords all fighting for the Cope Castle Crown. So that means that there are many ex pirate lords fighting with what hordes they have to take back there rightful crown. Who will win the Pirate Insurrection?

There are three primary continents and an Ice cap. Urthlind which resembles High Middle Ages Europe, The Easterly which resembles Medieval Asia, and Isstohr, which resembles ancient Scandinavia. The Ice cap is a vast tundra north of Isstohr, where the dragons dwell. Very few creeps are fearless enough to even try to explore the cap.

Primeval World. This planet has much in the way of prehistoric fauna. Maybe not "dinosaurs" but there are plenty of ancient mammals alongside the Creeps that we recognize, such as Giant Beavers, predatory land birds, small elephants. There are plenty of common animals as well, such as eagles, tortioses, crows, and snakes.

Dragons (I'm not sure what kind though, Traditional Dnd kind? Wyverns? Animalistic?)

Giant Insects and Arachnid. Fey are insects and arachnid that have magical fey like abilities. There are mice who have figured out how to tame lesser insects such as dragonflies and beetles.

Undersea creatures are Lovecraftican Horrors and Aberrations. Deep in the seas lie frightening primordial beasts with strange powers. Every once in a while some of the amphibious creatures wind up making their way to the surface

"Direism" as Lycanthropy. There is a curse going around that when infected, the Creep will transfigure into a feral beast.

Medium Magic: There certainly is mysticism in this world. Wizards fling spells, and the most fearsome monsters in the world pocess incredible magical abilities such as fey, dragons, and the horrid creatures of the bottom. However it still remains a very unknown force. There was an age known as the Black Age where magicians were free to do whatever they please often at the behest of corrupt houses, which led to an era of instability and horrors. Eventually the Treaty of Houses was passed which respected the rights and restrictions of royal houses, and instituted the laws of Wizardry which make sure that all spell-casters are sworn to the houses in their realms.

A cosmology consisting of two gods. One is a giant Coutl like creature named Arula that is LG and has the power to heal and to restore corrupt things. The other is a colossal monstrous Kraken like creature named Bzzltr that is C(E/N?), that distorts and corrupts any life forms that it has control over, and is believed to be the source of all evil magic like necromancy.

Divine Magic. Arula has a religious following whom gain magical powers through righteous actions such as slaying aberrations and undead, bringing criminals and corrupt spell masters to justice, exposing Orders of Bzzltr, stopping the "Dire Cursed", etc, etc. Bzzltr seems unable to produce divine magic, but his followers tend to use dark arcane magic for their rituals. There are druidic sects in Isstohr, however it's not very likely that a druid would find their way to Urthlind.
[/ic]

[O Senhor Leetz]

I think the term "Kitchen sink" is also quite misleading. Everyone's perceptions of what constitutes a setting packed with everything invariably, well, varies. I agree with Sparkletwist and Steerpike with the argument that a setting that includes tons of content is only bad when the setting is poorly conceived. A setting within only one player race and three monsters can be just as good, or bad, as a kitchen sink setting, it all depends on how it is made and how well it meshed together.

Bringing up Eberron is interesting, because while it is packed to capacity with DnD tropes and conventions, it somehow still works within it's own pulp, noir, high adventure atmosphere.

So all in all, there's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a kitchen sink setting, as long as it's done well. Furthermore, what makes your kitchen sink better and different than the hundreds of others out there?