How gonzo will you roll with?

[abirdcall]

Moderate-to-low zaniness, I’d say. I’m fine with improbable successes, but not absurdist breaches of the laws of physics/magic (i.e., a 25 on an acrobatics check while falling might enable you to grab onto something in the face of certain doom, but you won’t start flapping your arms and fly back up).

That would be 15 or 20 to me.

Might be a good idea to start a thread on where people put skill checks.

In my experience people make them way too high.

 

[Satyrn]

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

I want a rational explanation behind it all . . .

Yeah, I exaggerated a little for effect. (And it worked since I got one laugh!)


I actually do put some bit of rational explanation into the dungeons, monsters, and whatever I build. I also fully expect everyone else does, too, and think they probably ought to.

I just don't want that the focus in my game. Eberron's never appealed to me, and option 4 looks like it precludes playing Xena.

 

[pogre]

I am pretty bog-standard. A step above Tolkien on the zany scale.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I should have been clearer – a roll of 25+, not a DC thereof. I was trying to get at the kind of goofy meme logic that if you roll high enough you can break the laws of physics in D&D (granted, D&D laws of physics are pretty loose to begin with).

If a PC’s falling to their death, I’m going to give them a solid chance to save themselves. Depending on the situation, I’d put the DC at 10-15 if they're facing certain death, or 15-20 if it's just going to hurt a lot.

That would be 15 or 20 to me.

Might be a good idea to start a thread on where people put skill checks.

In my experience people make them way too high.

 

[robus]

If a PC’s falling to their death, I’m going to give them a solid chance to save themselves. Depending on the situation, I’d put the DC at 10-15 if they're facing certain death, or 15-20 if it's just going to hurt a lot.

You old softy!

 

[Nagol]

If want heavy gonzo, I pull out a system designed to support it well and not any version of D&D.

 

[Bigsta]

No matter how serious I think I want my campaign to be, it always becomes Borderlands.

I have one question for you En World.

Explosions!?!!!?

 

[corwyn77]

I find the concept of grounded "world-buiilding" to be a fool's errand, best enjoyed by infants, alcoholics, and control-freaks.

Myself, I prefer campaigns where it's a short hop, skip, and jump from Barrier Peaks (pew pew) to the Land Beyond the Magic Mirror.

I played in a realistic gurps game once where we started out as 18th century civilians with little to no combat skills, impressed into the British army, and posted in Newfoundland, Canada (well, eventually would be).


Within 12 sessions we had fought a witch, time-travellers (and had access to a laser pistol stolen from said time-travellers), a robot, a steampunkish robo-Kraken and a T-rex. I went from playing a talented gunsmith to a cross between Wyatt Earp and Nicola Tesla.

Favourite campaign ever.

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends what mood I am in but Gonzo is fine in settings core rules not so much.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How much zaniness can you enjoy?

Depends on the campaign. If I’m told we’re doing grim & gritty sci-fi, I won’t be too pleased to encounter the Baloonians from Fartcarus V.