For me personally, gonzo is genre mixing + humor.
That humor could be tongue-in-cheek or camp or trolling. Breaking the 4th wall (or some kind of wall) is also a well-employed element of gonzo. By its very nature, gonzo is subjective. That's why any two gonzo things (adventures, campaign settings, whatever) won't ever look exactly alike.
Going back to the genre mixing, gonzo feels primordial. Before we had rigidly defined genres, there was just details, stories, and cool stuff combined. It wasn't until later that genres were established and codified. Gonzo is a way of tearing down the boundaries, which is to say, dangerous business.
In any case, gonzo has been my D&D bread and butter since the beginning. There's a very interesting article / blog post / newsletter featuring gonzo and my own work that I just read this morning.
QuoteWhat is genre gonzo: By the mid-20th century, speculative fiction had gained a number of strongly profiled literary genres that were associated with distinct hobby scenes. The three most prominent were "fantasy", "science fiction" and "horror", each literary genre associated with somewhat distinct social hobbyist identities. Within the geek culture aquarium it mattered a hell of a lot whether your stuff was "fantasy" or "science fiction". The kinda-sorta genre of "gonzo" emerges against this background as intentionally cross-genre genre literature: not only mixing genres, but refuting the literary ideal of being conventional and doing any given genre "right".
The reason gonzo doesn't tend to get recognized as a genre, and goes under such a variety of names, is that it's more of an artistic reaction to genre than a genre in itself. Simply not being any genre is not gonzo, but not fitting into any genre because you blatantly (and often ironically, to comic or absurd effect) combine genres is exactly that. Gonzo creators have historically tended to draw inspiration more from their source genres than each other, although this has been changing, so perhaps a new genre will truly emerge from gonzo. I hear "new weird" on occasion, although I'm not convinced it's real.
I'll include a link for the sake of completeness:
https://www.arkenstonepublishing.net/isabout/2021/01/31/new-on-desk-57-off-genre-in-greyhawk/#4-the-chad-business
Humorous anecdote: Cha'ad is the "Chad" of D&D campaigns, apparently...
Enjoy,
VS
You know, I have completely bounced off of Troika.
All of the components of a good thing are there. I like the Fighting Fantasy system. I have liked it since I read those paperback gamebooks way back in the day. I like batshit crazy mixed-up settings. Masters of the Universe and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks taught me it was fucking cool to have robots shooting lasers at your wizard.
Ultraviolet Grasslands? Totally my jam.
Cha'alt? I dig it. Both books.
Troika just doesn't "zing" for me. Maybe I need to check out some of the supplements. I thought the problem was originally the classes being just too far into "weird for the sake of being weird" territory, but after a second pass I took care of that objection. But I think it's more - I don't know, "lack of stakes?" The main book has a starter adventure, which is your characters riding up a few floors in an elevator and interacting with Kooky Wacky Neighbors (or climbing the staircase and interacting with owls and water and a giant slug). There's a plot hooks table with "find the source of scandalous paper hats" and "bring this guy a fresh sausage roll." Or "a pack of cats has taken over a street, they crave milk and lappies." There are 18 entries on the plot hooks table and not all of them are quite that...localized? Soft like a Nerf ball?
Not every adventure has to be a world-altering cataclysm-averter. I understand that. And epic shit can start from the simplest thing. I get that too. But those hooks I listed were the first ones my eyes settled on when I was flipping through the book, and it was like letting air out of a balloon.
I don't outright hate it, and I'm not unwilling to give it another shot if someone can reframe it for me a little bit or point to a specific supplement they liked.
All I'll say is there's a reason I say the biggest single source of inspiration for my game system is Thundarr the Barbarian.
You can always pair back on the gonzo for a specific campaign, but it's good to have it all to begin with and strip away rather than having to build from scratch.
Quote from: Thornhammer on February 01, 2021, 04:33:52 PM
You know, I have completely bounced off of Troika.
All of the components of a good thing are there. I like the Fighting Fantasy system. I have liked it since I read those paperback gamebooks way back in the day. I like batshit crazy mixed-up settings. Masters of the Universe and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks taught me it was fucking cool to have robots shooting lasers at your wizard.
Ultraviolet Grasslands? Totally my jam.
Cha'alt? I dig it. Both books.
Troika just doesn't "zing" for me. Maybe I need to check out some of the supplements. I thought the problem was originally the classes being just too far into "weird for the sake of being weird" territory, but after a second pass I took care of that objection. But I think it's more - I don't know, "lack of stakes?" The main book has a starter adventure, which is your characters riding up a few floors in an elevator and interacting with Kooky Wacky Neighbors (or climbing the staircase and interacting with owls and water and a giant slug). There's a plot hooks table with "find the source of scandalous paper hats" and "bring this guy a fresh sausage roll." Or "a pack of cats has taken over a street, they crave milk and lappies." There are 18 entries on the plot hooks table and not all of them are quite that...localized? Soft like a Nerf ball?
Not every adventure has to be a world-altering cataclysm-averter. I understand that. And epic shit can start from the simplest thing. I get that too. But those hooks I listed were the first ones my eyes settled on when I was flipping through the book, and it was like letting air out of a balloon.
I don't outright hate it, and I'm not unwilling to give it another shot if someone can reframe it for me a little bit or point to a specific supplement they liked.
Fronds of Benevolence is an pointcrawl adventure for Troika where the players are charged with saving the existence of their friend/ruler/patron/deity Duke Decorticus. The duchy he rules is a cornerstone of peace among several ramshackle empires with access to nasty technology, and if anything were to happen to the duchy, war is almost a certainty. It's only a couple or sessions of play, so the political ramifications are vague, but they certain set up a situation that can have serious consequences for the players' actions.
Acid Death Fantasy is a setting for Troika that centers around Shurupak, the greatest and wealthiest city of the desert, ruled by the Many-Crowned Monarch and her terrible guard a thousand-thousand strong. Surrounding the Shurupak are the Thousand Sultanates, a constantly changing collection of unstable states full of avarice, ambition, and hubris, while beyond them are the Wastes, where nomad groups and beasts living under the sands try to avoid the great Worms. The setting is not conveyed by walls of text, but by the d66 table of PC Backgrounds, the d66 table of Enemies, and the Thousand Sultanates Generator. The actual entries in the table are what convey the elements of the setting, including its factions. While it doesn't contain an adventure itself, it certainly contains enough hooks to enmesh your players the setting in ways that ought to have consequences.
Both of these are short books, less than 50 6x9ish inch pages, but I think they give you lots of ideas of things to do.
Thanks! I will check those out.
Quote from: VengerSatanis on February 01, 2021, 10:31:49 AM
For me personally, gonzo is genre mixing + humor.
That humor could be tongue-in-cheek or camp or trolling. Breaking the 4th wall (or some kind of wall) is also a well-employed element of gonzo.
That's a great point.
The author talks about mixing science, fantasy and horror, but that is not a new thing, nor it is "gonzo" by itself. It is closer to the "weird" classics (CAS, HPL, REH) or the "new weird" (say, Ted Chiang, some GRRM stuff).
Even the (very derivative) Terry Brooks has his elves live in a post-apoc setting IIRC.
I do agree that "science fantasy" is not a good term for Wizards and Heavy Metal... not sure I'd call them "gonzo". But talking about RPGs here...
Venger's stuff definitely is.
Carcosa? Not so sure. It takes itself quite seriously (for some, too seriously).
But the interesting bit is that ORIGINAL D&D is very gonzo. It has humor, it mixes fantasy with science and horror, and it uses the "weird" authors I mentioned as inspiration.
The "boring Tolkien pastiche" is not what D&D originally was, that came later.
(And got old fast... which is why they came up with Dark Sun, etc.)
EDIT: so, gonzo (in RPGs) might be defined as "weird fiction + humor".
About weird fiction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_fiction
For early D&D gonzo, don't forget the wild western influence.
Isn't that line between "weird for weird sake" and bending genre to the mood or setting or story--so subjective as to be difficult to pin down? I know that frequently I can be put off by a weird mix so much that I'll never get past the surface to discover if there is more depth or not. That's why the humor is so critical: It gives you something to enjoy while you determine if you like the mix or not.
QuoteI do agree that "science fantasy" is not a good term for Wizards and Heavy Metal... not sure I'd call them "gonzo". But talking about RPGs here...
Which raises a good question then, what is science fantasy? I've always seen things like Dune, Star Wars, 40k, etc as science fantasy.
Quote from: Arkansan on February 04, 2021, 11:34:45 AM
QuoteI do agree that "science fantasy" is not a good term for Wizards and Heavy Metal... not sure I'd call them "gonzo". But talking about RPGs here...
Which raises a good question then, what is science fantasy? I've always seen things like Dune, Star Wars, 40k, etc as science fantasy.
I think science fantasy is a fantasy body (heroes, princesses, monsters, "chosen ones") in science clothes (spaceships, planets, aliens). So, yes, Dune, Star Wars, 40k*, would fit the bill, but the original ones are things like John Carter and Flash Gordon.
Noticeably absent (or downplayed) is the "horror" part of the "weird fiction".
*Notice 40k has some horror, dark humor, etc., and maybe less heroes and princesses. So maybe closer to gonzo, weird, etc.
But then again... what is fantasy? A broad definition would include sci-fi, horror, and so on.
I always considered science fantasy to be something like Thundarr the Barbarian, where there's a mix of wizards and super-tech.
But Wikipedia seems to disagree. The definition they're using is magic, treated like science. The iconic examples include Heinlein's Magic, Inc. and Pratt and de Camp's Incompleat Enchanter, both of which are clearly fantasy worlds, but fantasy worlds that are either highly industrialized and follow a consistent set of rules (Heinlein), or where an engineer ventures into a world of magic and figures out a consistent set of rules for applying it (Pratt and de Camp).
It's probably best to treat science fantasy as one of those terms that means different things to different people.
Quote from: Pat on February 04, 2021, 12:20:49 PM
I always considered science fantasy to be something like Thundarr the Barbarian, where there's a mix of wizards and super-tech.
But Wikipedia seems to disagree. The definition they're using is magic, treated like science. The iconic examples include Heinlein's Magic, Inc. and Pratt and de Camp's Incompleat Enchanter, both of which are clearly fantasy worlds, but fantasy worlds that are either highly industrialized and follow a consistent set of rules (Heinlein), or where an engineer ventures into a world of magic and figures out a consistent set of rules for applying it (Pratt and de Camp).
It's probably best to treat science fantasy as one of those terms that means different things to different people.
I would tend to agree with your position, I've always considered it science fantasy if there were clear elements of both genres present (Robots and Wizards!) or if science explained the fantastical in setting (The Wizards are actually Robots!).
Original Gamma World was the original gonzo.
QuoteBut then again... what is fantasy? A broad definition would include sci-fi, horror, and so on.
Generally in Polish we have word - fantastyka - maybe fantastic fiction would be best translation that includes basically three major genres and all sub-cross-genres of Fantasy, Science-Fiction and Horror.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 06, 2021, 03:42:34 AM
QuoteBut then again... what is fantasy? A broad definition would include sci-fi, horror, and so on.
Generally in Polish we have word - fantastyka - maybe fantastic fiction would be best translation that includes basically three major genres and all sub-cross-genres of Fantasy, Science-Fiction and Horror.
I like that, it's got a nice ring to it.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 06, 2021, 03:42:34 AM
QuoteBut then again... what is fantasy? A broad definition would include sci-fi, horror, and so on.
Generally in Polish we have word - fantastyka - maybe fantastic fiction would be best translation that includes basically three major genres and all sub-cross-genres of Fantasy, Science-Fiction and Horror.
In the "academies," (i.e. university lit departments) they call it "speculative fiction." Science fiction, fantasy, etc., all fall under that label.
QuoteIn the "academies," (i.e. university lit departments) they call it "speculative fiction." Science fiction, fantasy, etc., all fall under that label.
I must say by sound of it, I do not find it... well best choice of words. Sure for alt-history, futuristic fiction, hard sci-fi, it seems proper word, but for Tolkien? Sanderson? Butcher?
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 07, 2021, 05:10:22 AM
QuoteIn the "academies," (i.e. university lit departments) they call it "speculative fiction." Science fiction, fantasy, etc., all fall under that label.
I must say by sound of it, I do not find it... well best choice of words. Sure for alt-history, futuristic fiction, hard sci-fi, it seems proper word, but for Tolkien? Sanderson? Butcher?
They use it in the sense of writing about things that don't exist in our universe, not in the sense of speculating about the future.
That means it also includes alternate histories, supernatural horror, etc.
Oh, I get it, thank you. It just sounds wrong for me, purely aesthetic irk ;)
Quote from: Thornhammer on February 01, 2021, 04:33:52 PM
You know, I have completely bounced off of Troika.
All of the components of a good thing are there. I like the Fighting Fantasy system. I have liked it since I read those paperback gamebooks way back in the day. I like batshit crazy mixed-up settings. Masters of the Universe and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks taught me it was fucking cool to have robots shooting lasers at your wizard.
Ultraviolet Grasslands? Totally my jam.
Cha'alt? I dig it. Both books.
Troika just doesn't "zing" for me. Maybe I need to check out some of the supplements. I thought the problem was originally the classes being just too far into "weird for the sake of being weird" territory, but after a second pass I took care of that objection. But I think it's more - I don't know, "lack of stakes?" The main book has a starter adventure, which is your characters riding up a few floors in an elevator and interacting with Kooky Wacky Neighbors (or climbing the staircase and interacting with owls and water and a giant slug). There's a plot hooks table with "find the source of scandalous paper hats" and "bring this guy a fresh sausage roll." Or "a pack of cats has taken over a street, they crave milk and lappies." There are 18 entries on the plot hooks table and not all of them are quite that...localized? Soft like a Nerf ball?
Not every adventure has to be a world-altering cataclysm-averter. I understand that. And epic shit can start from the simplest thing. I get that too. But those hooks I listed were the first ones my eyes settled on when I was flipping through the book, and it was like letting air out of a balloon.
I don't outright hate it, and I'm not unwilling to give it another shot if someone can reframe it for me a little bit or point to a specific supplement they liked.
Thanks, hoss!
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2021, 04:54:58 PM
All I'll say is there's a reason I say the biggest single source of inspiration for my game system is Thundarr the Barbarian.
You can always pair back on the gonzo for a specific campaign, but it's good to have it all to begin with and strip away rather than having to build from scratch.
Yeah, I agree with that.