Gonzo DMing

[havard]

Dave's DMing style has been described as "gonzo", referring I assume to the journalistic style of Hunter S. Thompson and his followers. What could Gonzo Gaming entail? Is it a fair description of Dave's style?

Dave, feel free to comment on this yourself too if you like

Havard

[driver]

When I think of "gonzo" in a gaming context, I think of a campaign with an ad hoc, DIY approach and a lack of priority given to polished, coherent genre simulation. If something seems fun, you put it in and add it to the spitball. Considered this way, there are parallels with gonzo journalism, although I don't think they're very deep.

Some people use the term to describe any campaign with over-the-top or genre-crossing elements. For instance, some people probably think of Tekumel or Exalted as gonzo, but to me, the first is simply a baroque science-fantasy and the second is a high-powered fantasy game with Eastern and anime influences. There are things that simply don't fit in Tekumel. There are things that don't fit in an Exalted game.

Same with Harn and Glorantha, each of which has undeniably gonzo elements but neither of which I think of as gonzo. If you find yourself having to check your notes or a sourcebook to decide if what you're about to do is "appropriate for the setting," I don't think the term "gonzo" applies.

Arduin, on the other hand, is gonzo. Encounter Critical is gonzo. Blackmoor as played, and as described in FFC, seems that way to me, whereas its current published incarnation doesn't.

As always, just my opinion.