How gonzo will you roll with?

[iserith]

For my part, you basically can't be too gonzo. But most people in my experience tend to play in the area of "some attempt at explanation."

 

[robus]

For my part, you basically can't be too gonzo. But most people in my experience tend to play in the area of "some attempt at explanation."

I can imagine that would be fun - but only once in a while for me

In my opinion, along with a shared understanding of the rules should be a shared suspension of disbelief in the world we're adventuring in. If things get too zany (meaning illogical) that can threaten that suspension and the whole game could come crashing down as players throw their hands up in frustration. Probably it would never come to that but I'm much more happy to say "because the world works that way", rather than "because I just made it up". I know those are basically the same thing but I think the former needs to fit into an existing frame of reference and the latter doesn't?

 

[Umbran]

I'm fine with Extreme Gonzo for short periods. It can be great for one-shots. But, I find it loses its luster when you go longer than a short arc, though.

Anything from "some explanation" on down has longer viability for campaign work, so that's where I tend to keep my games.

 

[iserith]

Probably it would never come to that but I'm much more happy to say "because the world works that way", rather than "because I just made it up". I know those are basically the same thing but I think the former needs to fit into an existing frame of reference and the latter doesn't?

They are the same, for the DM anyway. Nothing is real or concrete until it's established in play, essentially. To the extent the fiction is completely mutable, it's easy to justify anything in my view. One just needs to take care not to contradict something that was established before, otherwise you lose consistency and the players need that to make informed decisions.

 

[Gradine]

My campaigns are all in Eberron, though I don't necessarily think I consider the setting itself to be any kind of "gonzo" (but perhaps my perspective is skewed).

I did have a brief 5e campaign where a newer player that was struggling to come up with a character concept started flipping through the PHB until she found the Oath of Vengeance and shouted (startling everyone else, who were working on their own characters) "There is a Batman paladin!'.

They ended up fighting, among other things: a resurrected Warforged whose body had been used as a scarecrow and who focused on poison and fear effects; a changeling justice of the peace who moonlit as a crime boss; a cold sun lizardfolk that had been mutated by daelkyr; and an immortal vampire and his daughter.

Now that campaign I considered gonzo.

 

[Satyrn]

After considering how to answer the poll, I realized that while I am happy with any level of weirdness or zaniness, what I'm not interested in tolerating is any significant attempt at rational explanations.

I voted for options 1 & 3 and would eagerly vote against 2 & 4.

 

[JonnyP71]

I bounce between options 3 and 4 - mostly leaning towards 3, they're pretty close together anyway...

I'm not interested in DMing or playing any game of D&D that is based in either of options 1 or 2.

 

[jgsugden]

As long as it tells a good story, I am happy with whatever.

 

[Inchoroi]

I like my worlds and campaigns to be coherent. If the players want a zany game, I can do that, but I probably wouldn't write it; rather steal it and run it out of the box. Generally, though, my own writing tends to be on the semi-serious to serious side.

 

[Lanefan]

After considering how to answer the poll, I realized that while I am happy with any level of weirdness or zaniness, what I'm not interested in tolerating is any significant attempt at rational explanations.

I voted for options 1 & 3 and would eagerly vote against 2 & 4.

I voted for the same two but for completely different reasons.

I want a rational explanation behind it all but am quite happy to accept magic - particularly wild or uncontrolled magic - and its workings as a part of that rationale; and have worked it in to my own background rationale for why and how things work they way they do.

So, #3 medieval-based without much reference to real-world history, with #1 occasional random bursts of wild magic (e.g. when a caster gets interrupted mid-spelll, or a magic item breaks) able to bring the gonzo at any moment.

Lan-"magic, at its core, works best when inserted as a high-risk high-reward way of doing things"-efan