PDA

View Full Version : why fantasy kitchen sink is amazing



NecroDancer
2017-06-11, 02:44 PM
Do you ever start with a campaign in a generic fantasy land (like the forgotten realms) but the players add in new details such as gods, places, and organization that aren't in your world? Instead of telling them that it's against the lore of your world you decide to add it in and after 15 or so sessions the world doesn't resemble what you started out with?

While some DMs may hate this I love the concept of a "fantasy kitchen sink" where almost every fantasy aspect can be found. It gives me a chance to add new plots on the fly and add a whole new experience to games. The world will feel more "real" and less cookie cutter. Your players will remember the world long after the campaign because they helped make it.

However their are some things that you probably will need to do to keep the world from collapsing under all the added content. You will need to flesh out areas where your players are located but keep just enough wiggle room in case you need to change something. Once the flood of new stuff comes to a close (make sure to tell the players about this before hand) you should cement your world to keep inconsistenties from popping up. Finally don't be afraid to add some crazy new stuff as well! Druids and artificers working together to make cyborg dinosaurs? Why not!

In summary, let your players help craft and change the world to make a unique and wonderful setting that will inspire them for games to come.

BWR
2017-06-11, 02:51 PM
Never done, never will.

If I'm running a specific campaign setting it will stay mostly true to the canon (with some alterations, of course because some canon is really ****ing stupid). If I ever run a homebrew again I will want my own ideas in it, not other people's. Secondly, while some players may be counted on to not ruin things for everyone, other can be counted on to royally screw things up for everybody, no matter what (and they may not even do so intentionally).

Quertus
2017-06-11, 03:38 PM
Well, I must admit, I love the idea, but...

I'm not from around here. This is the catchphrase for my character creation. I want to be able to grok every last detail of my characters' upbringing, the society they grew up in, etc. And I don't want DMs ****ing that up, by trying to run someone from my character's backstory. So I'm... not from around here.

When I've built a world, sometimes, what the players want to add fits, sometimes, it doesn't. Sometimes, the reason it doesn't fit is spoilers. So it's... tricky.

Kitten Champion
2017-06-11, 04:31 PM
Sort of, I think.

Typically we start the creative process collaboratively with an all-things-on-the-table kitchen sink approach. We then precede to wipe away what we don't want and remove the clutter of redundant ideas or things just not likely to be of use, leaving a general outline for what the world should feel like, the scope of it, and themes/concept we could explore. Basically we do enough so that the players can start developing their PCs and we all have some idea of what we're doing even if the proper nouns and other such specifics are undefined.

From there, each of the players add elements to the world through their character's backstory and present context. Where were they born? How did they get here from there? What persons/groups/etc shape their present identity and circumstances? Do/did they have conflicts/important baggage they're bringing with them? Stuff like that.

These sorts of questions spawn nations, religions, and world-shaping organizations out of the ether. They also help shape the political sphere and give rise to setting-significant NPCs. Some ideas can be merged while others have to be edited for cohesiveness and brevity, but much of our worlds are defined by the characters and not much setting-wise is taken for granted before hand.

We've never just played a game in a straight kitchen sink setting though.

BWR
2017-06-11, 04:57 PM
Forgot to mention that the kitchen sink =/= everybody taking part in the creative process.

Plenty of settings are varying degrees of KS, from things like FR to Mystara (one of my favorites) and it's 3.0 version Golarion, up to Rifts being the most KS of them all (probably), without players throwing in any arbitrary or random thing they can think of.

Mendicant
2017-06-11, 05:48 PM
My experience playing kitchen-sink fantasy is that it doesn't feel "cookie cutter" because it doesn't feel like anything particularly distinct at all.

I would much rather have some clear boundaries on what is and is not normal in the setting, a cosmology that feels coherent, and monsters with clear ecologies. When I'm DMing, I lwt almost anything play in chargen, but if it's weird or unique for that world I make sure the player knows it's weird or unique. If you want to be an earth genasi in this world with no earth genasis that's great, but be prepared to get funny looks and never meet another one the entire time. Most players in my experience are totally ok with this.

Cluedrew
2017-06-11, 06:08 PM
Personally I am less for kitchen sink settings, although they do have some advantages. Notably the "just go with it" element and if you don't have a particular pitch, you can hone in later. Its an option.

On the other hand I am very onboard for players creating the setting. Buy in, character integration and often just how interesting the idea is all get a boost. (The last because the people creating the setting goes from 1 to N.) So I would actually encourage it.

Knaight
2017-06-11, 07:33 PM
I've played and GMed kitchen sinks, and I thoroughly dislike them. They don't feel more real, and a more coherent setting with a few strong motifs usually comes across much better.

S@tanicoaldo
2017-06-11, 07:43 PM
I think that's not fantasy kitchen sink. :smallconfused:

I'm cool with this kind of game if I'm with a very creative team of players, otherwise... Word Building is one of the feel things that makes being Dm enjoyable... Don't take that from me.

SirBellias
2017-06-11, 07:50 PM
The last three sessions of the current game I'm running turned the current regime into a hardliner edge trip inquisition, the biggest town around into a much more complex slurry of social classes, the starting town's mayor and others into a family of lawyers, the complete direction of the narrative 3 times, and the nature of several plot devices too many times to count. All under the direction of the players.

Granted, it only really works with players that want to do it and are good at it. It's kinda like character integration on the fly and without checking with me beforehand. If they think it fits, then that's the world I'm communicating to them and what they want to play. If I'm not communicating my ideas well enough to actually not like the directions it's going, then that's on me and I may speak up, but otherwise, they usually are much more creative than I can manage alone.

I would not do this with most people I play with. If you do not trust your players with that sort of narrative leeway, then make sure you tell them how much control they have and over what. If you trust them enough to not screw each other over and keep it self contained/without affecting others directly, then in my experience it's a lot of fun.

Cosi
2017-06-12, 07:32 AM
This is not what "Fantasy Kitchen Sink" means. The "Kitchen Sink" refers to the phrase "everything but the kitchen sink", and means a setting or game that casts as wide a net as possible for content inclusion. So D&D is a Fantasy Kitchen Sink because it has Orcs and Elves and Naga and Coatls and Liches and Angels and Demons. Buffy and Angel probably count as Urban Fantasy Kitchen Sink settings.

That said, this is a reasonably good way of doing things. Having players bring their ideas to the table makes it easier for them to invest in the game, and makes it consequentially easier to provide plot hooks for them. It's much easier to get players to care if you start the game asking "what are some things you'd care about" than if you start the game saying "here are some things you're supposed to care about".


If I ever run a homebrew again I will want my own ideas in it, not other people's.

So this is a horrible way of DMing. If you want just your ideas in something, write a book. Don't play a game where four other people exist to bring ideas to the table.

BWR
2017-06-12, 09:27 AM
So this is a horrible way of DMing. If you want just your ideas in something, write a book. Don't play a game where four other people exist to bring ideas to the table.

No, it's an excellent way of GMing, and one which I prefer to play under as well run. If a GM has gone to all the trouble to craft a vision of a world, some ignorant twerp shouldn't be allowed to throw any arbitrary thing just because they feel like it. A setting's unique feel comes from not just the things that are in it but the things that are not in it. If I wanted to make Middle Earth with a rich and detailed background and world for the players to enjoy and explore, I wouldn't want some idiot throwing in robots and DBZ-style fighting morons because they thought it sounded fun. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of settings you like that you wouldn't like mucked up by stupid additions.

It is also a matter of respect. If the GM puts effort into creating a world I'm not going to accept other people essentially saying "screw you, I can do this better" and shoving their ideas in. It may be the case that they can do it better, but then people can drop out and do their own thing. If everyone has an equal say you need to have some way of coordinating everything and avoiding contradictions. The godawful mess might be fun at one point but it's the sort thing I grew out of, just like mindless murder-hoboing.

Creating a world is a far cry from writing a story, and you should know that by now.


Lastly, this isn't an entirely binary situation. Giving players some control over minor aspects of the world is one thing. Letting them make a family and a background or add minor village somewhere isn't the problem. It's when players add elves in a setting specifically designed to not have elves.

Nifft
2017-06-12, 10:09 AM
Do you ever start with a campaign in a generic fantasy land Yes.


(like the forgotten realms) No.


but the players add in new details such as gods, places, and organization that aren't in your world? YES. It's fantastic and it works very well, and I've been doing this ever since I read about it in the Dresden Files RPG (where it's called "City Creation").

The DFRPG gives a simple & usable structure for putting together a plot-laden play-area. You can use it on smaller or larger scales, too.

I highly recommend giving that section of the book a read, or googling for people who have used it.

However: I would probably never do that with a lore-heavy, well-documented setting like the Forgotten Realms. I usually just homebrew something as the base.


While some DMs may hate this I love the concept of a "fantasy kitchen sink" where almost every fantasy aspect can be found. It gives me a chance to add new plots on the fly and add a whole new experience to games. The world will feel more "real" and less cookie cutter. Your players will remember the world long after the campaign because they helped make it. The latter is true, but the former is just that you homebrewed the setting and that meant you had a better mastery of it than you would have of someone else's pre-rendered setting.

In my experience a campaign may be memorable not just for the extra stuff you stuck in, but also for the stuff you left out.

Homebrewing has been a fantastic experience for me, and choosing what to keep vs. what to exclude is a big part of that.

You want to let the players pick things that go in -- and that's great -- but this means you can be the person who decides what is NOT included. For example, during the 5e playtest, I did a short campaign around the Isle of Dread which had:
- No alignments
- No dragons, aberrations, or fiends
- The chief antagonists were Fey
- The theme was Civilization Against Nature, and wilderness survival was a thing because the wilderness was an enemy


The players added:
- The four civilized races (human, elf, dwarf, and halfling) share a pantheon. (Plus details on the pantheon.)
- Mutations can happen, especially under moonlight. The mutated are cast out, and often become adventurers.
- The civilized races had different government across nearby regions, from the elf kingdom, to the free dwarven trade-cities, to the human confederate plantations of the coast. Slavery was legal, especially legal for uncivilized foreigners and mutants.
- Naval authorizations & minutia (where the lowest -- "free merchant" -- basically meant pirate).
- Mutations were a thing that could happen, especially in the wilds under moonlight. Mutants were not liked, and tended to take on dangerous jobs (e.g. Adventurer) in order to get away from discrimination.


I came back with:
- Moon seems pretty evil. Okay, so that's where Fey come from. Goblins spawn from toadstools which ripen in moonlight. Aranea and ettercaps descend on silvery threads like moon-beams.
- If slavery is legal, and the antagonists are Fey, then clearly there's a law-vs-chaos thing going on. Find ways to emphasize that.


So, when the party escaped from the giant water-spiders and sea-monsters and finally landed on the inhabited peninsula, they had no problem accepting the zombie-using tribes (which had been that way since 1e apparently). Zombies were gross, but apparently necessary for the survival of this remote civilization, and at any rate some undead were far less awful than the Fey -- and mindless undead slaves (created from naturally dead tribe members, with permission) were just slaves with fewer moral quandaries.


Memorable games indeed.

Cluedrew
2017-06-12, 06:04 PM
I summarized most of my general views on the matter last post, but I generally think that the back and forth really helps. Nifft's example is roughly how I think the ideal (unless you are going for something particular) setting creation should go.


It is also a matter of respect. If the GM puts effort into creating a world I'm not going to accept other people essentially saying "screw you, I can do this better" and shoving their ideas in.It is also a matter of respect for the players. If the GM puts in effort then suddenly it is a perfect setting to which no one could ever hope to make a meaningful contribution to? Its not "I can do this better" its "we can do this better".

OK not every single time. There are problem players and so on. But it can be a matter of making something already good better.

Squiddish
2017-06-12, 08:32 PM
However: I would probably never do that with a lore-heavy, well-documented setting like the Forgotten Realms. I usually just homebrew something as the base.



The trick is, FR has almost exclusively unreliable narrators. So if something you decide conflicts with something in the book, guess what? The book is wrong, not you.

The Fury
2017-06-13, 02:11 PM
I guess? Kitchen sink settings can be fun, but I think they're better suited for games with a wackier tone. Also, provided that the PCs are allowed a certain level of self-awareness about being in a kitchen sink. I mean, if they only understand things as characters from a standard fantasy setting they'd flip out when they see a cyborg for the first time or blow themselves up when they find a ray gun in a treasure chest, (why is there always a self-destruct function on those?)

Nifft
2017-06-13, 03:11 PM
The trick is, FR has almost exclusively unreliable narrators. So if something you decide conflicts with something in the book, guess what? The book is wrong, not you.

No, that's a different problem.

The issue is that a lore-heavy setting clashes directly with creative group brainstorming.

If I did as you suggested, I could do it in one of two ways:

1) I do all the work myself -- and I can do that, and it's not terribly difficult -- but then I'm back at square one of obtaining player buy-in for a setting that I did all the work on myself.

2) I ask the players to decide in advance what stuff from which books they're going to discard, and what they're going to include. Instead of discussing their own ideas, they're discussing the books, and they're discussing the books from a detached perspective, because they're trying to decide what is allowed in vs. what is not.

#1 is buy-in neutral and very conventional; #2 creates negative buy-in.

Neither of these is helpful in my experience.

Malimar
2017-06-13, 06:08 PM
A good DM is open to a variety of ideas, so long as they don't contradict the setting's canon or themes/motifs. If you're not willing to work with your players' ideas, go write a novel instead.

That said, it gets slightly iffy when, as my main game does, you have a large number of players cycling in and out, and each one brings ideas that are only touched on in their backstory. So I've gotta find places in the world for killorens and raptorans and goliaths and kalashtar, and then those players leave and I never do anything with the new additions to the setting because I've got my own ideas I'm trying to run with, so I've just got a bunch of old ideas clogging up the canon, mouldering, contributing nothing.

But that's mostly only a problem in a world that's small, like mine -- five tiny continents, all but one mostly explored. If your world is expansive and vast and has all sorts of unexplored nooks and crannies (the kind of setting that D&D historically has assumed), you can fit pretty much anything in without much effort, and you wouldn't expect to ever go back to touch on most ideas that come to the table.

That said, a fantasy kitchen sink is objectionable to me if it goes too far and stops being fantasy and starts being something else. To wit: I stopped being able to take Golarion at all seriously as a setting when they started in with the Wild West gunslingers and the crashed alien spaceships and ugh.

Faily
2017-06-14, 10:39 AM
I had a GM once who did a pretty cool homebrew setting for a D&D Campaign, and it was never assumed (at least not from me!) that we could just say "but I want *this* to be in the world!", because, well, we assumed that he had built up a world with its own fluff and reasons for things to be and not be. I played three characters in that world; a drow, a half-fey sorcerer and a Cleric. And all of them I asked first if it was acceptable to his world. I never assumed or whined, I politely asked, because he was the one who had spent so much time building this world for us to explore.

When I play published settings (Rokugan, Mystara, Golarion, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc)... I want the setting to be as much as possible like the published material. Same for when I GM it. Because this puts everyone on equal footing at the start of the game, and then we can instead have changes in the world happen from the actions of the PCs (like someone becoming the Emerald Champion in Rokugan, or becoming gods as we're trying to do in Mystara). The storyline created in play is much more important to me than whether or not there is a particular Race or Pantheon in the game. In fact, I sometimes find it more interesting of what's *not* in a setting than what is.

Kitchen sinks can be fun, and for some groups that work fine, but let's not pretend that it's "bad GMing" when a GM would prefer to stick to either the published info, or the world they have made.

Arbane
2017-06-14, 11:32 AM
That said, a fantasy kitchen sink is objectionable to me if it goes too far and stops being fantasy and starts being something else. To wit: I stopped being able to take Golarion at all seriously as a setting when they started in with the Wild West gunslingers and the crashed alien spaceships and ugh.

AD&D had a gunslinger wizard (Murlynd, IIRC?), and a crashed spaceship (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks). Heck, Blackmoor's backstory had a crashed alien spaceship plunging the previously high-tech world into Ye Olde Medieval Tymes.

Not that this refutes your point, just pointing out that 'throw it in' is a long and hallowed tradition in RPGs.

Tanarii
2017-06-14, 04:57 PM
Do you ever start with a campaign in a generic fantasy land (like the forgotten realms) but the players add in new details such as gods, places, and organization that aren't in your world? Instead of telling them that it's against the lore of your world you decide to add it in and after 15 or so sessions the world doesn't resemble what you started out with?Yes, of course. That's the entire point of Forgotten Realms*. Also the Known World for BECMI. To take a campaign setting with lots of details you can look up, then modify it as needed and drape it over your campaign as a backdrop.

That way you don't have to try and spend forever building all those details yourself. It gives your campaign a sense of 'world' in the background, as opposed to 'local adventure area surrounded by empty misty undefined areas'. Unless you use Ravenloft of course, in which case that's the sense of world it gives. :smallbiggrin:

*if your players have read any Forgotten Realms novels, after you're done beating them with their own PHB for being bad people and make them swear never to do it again, choose a different campaign setting.

wumpus
2017-06-15, 10:45 AM
Yes, of course. That's the entire point of Forgotten Realms*. Also the Known World for BECMI. To take a campaign setting with lots of details you can look up, then modify it as needed and drape it over your campaign as a backdrop.

One thing I would expect about BECMI (I never played, I started with Moldvay and went to 1e) is that you would start your players in "B" and have a far smaller world. This would work for the characters (local lore would seem as important as cross-cultural lore) and allow for a decent backstory for your local dungeon. Just how much does a character "just off the farm" really know about the "known world", anyway? A recently graduated magic-user journeyman might know the basics of the planes, but hardly the details of someone who has been there.

Back when BECMI was new, Kartharine Kurtz was writing "deryni novels". The first one, "Deryni Rising" must have been her first novel. It barely touches on worldbuilding and tends to use cliches for background (anything written after that doesn't suffer from these issues). While this sounds bad, the overall effect is to mash the reader's point of view right up to the characters for close-up action (and she did the characters well enough to sell more books). This always sounded like a great way to run low-level adventures.

Tanarii
2017-06-15, 09:09 PM
One thing I would expect about BECMI (I never played, I started with Moldvay and went to 1e) is that you would start your players in "B" and have a far smaller world. This would work for the characters (local lore would seem as important as cross-cultural lore) and allow for a decent backstory for your local dungeon. Just how much does a character "just off the farm" really know about the "known world", anyway? A recently graduated magic-user journeyman might know the basics of the planes, but hardly the details of someone who has been there.You can do that. But basic is just 3 levels. Expert (4-15) is where you start to learn about the larger world. that said, leveling can be considerably slower in BECMI than most modern D&D.

5e has a similar structure in its Tiers, but you pretty quickly reach Tier 2 (level 5).

Of course, BECMI's Known World can become pretty not 'kitchen sink' if you focus on any one of the nations for a while. For example, heavily adventuring in Karameikos (fantasy Medieval) can be quite different from Ylarum (Arabian) or the Northern area (Norse). Otoh if your players move around a lot or adventure to high enough level, taken as a whole it's certainly a cultural kitchen sink, all jammed into a pretty small physical area.