TheRPGSite

So I've seen people here discuss this concept a few times, and I think I know what some people feel about the whole thing: but what do you like? Grimm Dark or Gonzo? Or something in between? Why?

Quote from: Serious Paul;525830So I've seen people here discuss this concept a few times, and I think I know what some people feel about the whole thing: but what do you like? Grimm Dark or Gonzo? Or something in between? Why?

Both.  At the same time.

Preferably neither, but if I have to - Gonzo.

Okay neither of you have elaborated what you actually do.

My own style mixes a lot together-sometimes becoming darker than other times; and at other times becoming Gonzo with a little humor. At other times we get sand box.

That's a very apples vs. oranges kind of question.

Okay, I'll bite. How so? I'm no expert at how style stuff is perceived by people. So lay it on me.

I tend to prefer a mix of both - "gonzo" in the Hunter S. Thompson sense is already fairly grim and dark. But not veering too far into either end of the spectrum. Neither too zany or too 40K-at-its-worst-moments-of-fluff dark.

Quote from: Serious Paul;525855Okay neither of you have elaborated what you actually do.

My own style mixes a lot together-sometimes becoming darker than other times; and at other times becoming Gonzo with a little humor. At other times we get sand box.

Sorry.  I'll elaborate.  My games are a mix of Gothic conventions (from Poe, Walpole, Wilde, etc.) and Weird Fantasy (Moorecock, Barker, Tanith Lee, etc.)  What this means, in practice, is that the "atmosphere" I'm going for mixes the "dark" with the "gonzo."

I dislike the usual aesthetics of those conventions.

Quote from: Rincewind1;525869I dislike the usual aesthetics of those conventions.

How do you see them?  I ask because I've always thought of Warhammer's Old World as mixing "dark" and "gonzo," especially in the first edition.

Quote from: misterguignol;525868Sorry.  I'll elaborate.  My games are a mix of Gothic conventions (from Poe, Walpole, Wilde, etc.) and Weird Fantasy (Moorecock, Barker, Tanith Lee, etc.)  What this means, in practice, is that the "atmosphere" I'm going for mixes the "dark" with the "gonzo."

Out of curiosity, would you argue that elements of surrealism (in the technical historical sense, which I'm baldly assuming you're familiar with based on what I know of your background) crop up in your games? And if so, is that by accident or by design?

Quote from: misterguignol;525873How do you see them?  I ask because I've always thought of Warhammer's Old World as mixing "dark" and "gonzo," especially in the first edition.

It's all about the proportions - I dislike it when the aesthetics are borderline over the top, and, well, too gonzo - like the comparison between 1e sailor illustration and 2e sailor illustration.

I don't find 1e that much "gonzo" - I'd rather call it a rich setting.

Quote from: Géza Echs;525874Out of curiosity, would you argue that elements of surrealism (in the technical historical sense, which I'm baldly assuming you're familiar with based on what I know of your background) crop up in your games? And if so, is that by accident or by design?

Yeah, I would say they do.  Both by accident (let's say the characters do something inexplicable that is difficult to account for, leading to a moment of surrealism) and by design (in some parts of my setting reality itself has worn "thin," to say nothing of the surreality of other planes).

Not for nothing, Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto (the first Gothic novel) was adopted by the Surrealists as a artistic progenitor.

Quote from: Rincewind1;525876I don't find 1e that much "gonzo" - I'd rather call it a rich setting.

A lot of the black humor and pun-based names seem gonzo to me.  Also, the artwork in the core book hadn't solidified into that monolithic WARHAMMER look that came later with the minis game.  For example, look at that color plate of all the different adventures: it's kinda gonzo to have Renaissance Germans on an adventure with Gandalf and Conan, but that's what the illustration gives you.  I still love how wide open and "anything goes" that is.

I like "grimdaft".

I want my grim turned up so far that it loops back around into being stupid again - and I want it to know this has happened, and not bother even trying to take itself too seriously. I like insane leaps of bureaucracy, slippery slope fallacies, and a general sense that yes, everything has gone wrong, and everybody knows it, but nobody wants to admit it.

I can't do "wacky gonzo" - it's just not the way my mind works, I can't be "internet random". And I don't like darkdarkDARK, because if you're going to try doing that, you're competing with the Nazis, who were pretty fucking good at that sort of thing. So this is my direction.

Quote from: misterguignol;525878Yeah, I would say they do.  Both by accident (let's say the characters do something inexplicable that is difficult to account for, leading to a moment of surrealism) and by design (in some parts of my setting reality itself has worn "thin," to say nothing of the surreality of other planes).

Makes sense - your description of gonzo slamming into grim within a gothic milieu screamed "surrealism" to me. :)

QuoteNot for nothing, Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto (the first Gothic novel) was adopted by the Surrealists as a artistic progenitor.

Yup, along with some of the French poetic groups. You'd mentioned in the past that you're a Walpole scholar, so I figured it would be a safe bet to ask. :)

My own subjective definitions for both terms.

Grimdark is one of several possible moods a game can focus on. It's a good mood to have because great games and great players thrive on adversity, and a world nthat's gone to the crapper should be a dangerous place that's got it in spades.

Gonzo is the idea that anything can happen. Your elf ranger fights a robot and loots a ray gun. The mysterious cargo, contracted by the oddly-accented, strangely pale broker, now sitting on your space trader's hold is actually a vampire. Your superhero squares off against Cthulhu. Your Jedi rip-off psionic knight fights alongside a dragon and a steroid-addicted super-soldier against godless jackbooted thugs hellbent on reclaiming a post-apocalyptic, magic-blasted Earth.

I've been playing "focused", not necessarily grimdark, games for some time now. I haven't unleashed a full-on gonzo treatment on my players for some time now (I don't think Day After Ragnarok counts; the setting is ostensibly gonzo, but our campaign was very much focused on a "British superspies vs. occult Nazis and their horrors" feel).

The way I see it, gonzo is a tricky balance to pull. You want to have an "anything goes" feel without devolving into general silliness, but you don't want to be too restrictive. The easiest way to do this is to show PCs that actions have consequences. You want to ride a dinosaur? Go ahead, but consider for a moment the nightmarish logistics of caring for and feeding one in the long haul (or don't, if you want to run with it).

Grimdark is easier, I think; just make sure that PCs stand a fighting chance, while at the same time driving home that the world they share with their foes is a fucked-up place. Make sure to drive home that it's going to be difficult to hold on to their convictions, let alone change the world; if Sauron's got the Ring, they'll have to try and take Middle-Earth back, one orc at a time. Just don't rob them of the chance if and when they rise up to the task at hand with resolve and ingenuity.

Quote from: misterguignol;525882A lot of the black humor and pun-based names seem gonzo to me.

I'd really call that parody elements rather then gonzo. I think the term gonzo is too overused, especially in regard to RPGs.

QuoteAlso, the artwork in the core book hadn't solidified into that monolithic WARHAMMER look that came later with the minis game.  For example, look at that color plate of all the different adventures: it's kinda gonzo to have Renaissance Germans on an adventure with Gandalf and Conan, but that's what the illustration gives you.  I still love how wide open and "anything goes" that is.

That is a bit of a point, but I'd say that the setting is still coherent and more or less consistent - while you may find a steam tank here and there, you won't be going through a forest and BAM STEAMTANK. Then again, there was that flamethrower on a champion of Khorne - but for some reason, it never really bothered me. Perhaps 1e is "gonzo", but it's not the "over the top gonzo", like 2e.

But hey, I don't use mandatory random generation rules, so fuck do I know about WFRP.





Oh yeah. I'm a dwarf.

Quote from: Rincewind1;525889I'd really call that parody elements rather then gonzo. I think the term gonzo is too overused, especially in regard to RPGs.

Agreed on the over-use of the word.

QuoteThat is a bit of a point, but I'd say that the setting is still coherent and more or less consistent - while you may find a steam tank here and there, you won't be going through a forest and BAM STEAMTANK.

Hmm, I don't know...I seem to remember some sort of adventure where a Chaos Warrior had access to a 40k flamethrower or something of the sort.

QuoteThere is not as much randomness and over - the - top pastiche for me to classify 1e as gonzo

Ah, see, to me "gonzo" means "over-the-top."  Maybe that's what the difference is for us.  





Oh yeah. I'm a dwarf.[/QUOTE]

Our hobby is firmly based on dragons and magicians, space aliens, vampires and other scary monsters. However much we claim to treat the subject matter realism and maturity and go all dark and grim it's still pure gonzo posing as dark and grim.

Quote from: misterguignol;525891Hmm, I don't know...I seem to remember some sort of adventure where a Chaos Warrior had access to a 40k flamethrower or something of the sort.

Yeah, I remembered that one seconds after finishing the post :D (as well as Amazons with lasguns). To be precise, it was a clone of a Khorne champion that had it. Just edited the post - as I had said, 1e is certainly a bit gonzo. It's just not what I usually associate with the term - the completely over - the - top action, and most importantly - the aesthetics that are so pastiche that they are borderline grotesque.

Quote from: Rincewind1;525895Yeah, I remembered that one seconds after finishing the post :D (as well as Amazons with lasguns). To be precise, it was a clone of a Khorne champion that had it. Just edited the post - as I had said, 1e is certainly a bit gonzo. It's just not what I usually associate with the term - the completely over - the - top action, and most importantly - the aesthetics that are so pastiche that they are borderline grotesque.

I guess I always think of gonzo as borderline grotesque.  Paranoia also comes to mind, as it's another game that is both grimdark and gonzo by turns.

when I think of gonzo, I think first and foremost of Gamma World and Metamorphosis Alpha.

And yeah, much as I kinda dig 40k, I'd rather play in GW and MA's spaces any day, because they feel more like play.

my adventures used to be mostly on the darker side of normal, with the occasional side excursion into gonzo-ville.

Grimm Dark on the surface, with a dash of "we're gonna kick their teeth in" underneath.

I like Grimm Dark, with a slight touch of Gonzo.

Both! A gonzo game can take a solid dose of grimm dark and vice-versa. Hell, I've run two games that I know are not necessarily RPGSite favorites, RIFTS and Exalted, and had a blast with it by doing exactly that.

"Something Else". I can like both when done right. It's possible to do Gonzo right, and it's possible to do Grimdark right as well. I would do neither all the time, though.

I am in a weird spot with this poll given I play Dark Heresy so obviously I like Grimdark but love RIFTS and Synibarr and would play them anytime I had a chance. So....two to one, Gonzo it is!

Rather than 'gonzo' I'd prefer to aim for the 'weird'... as in the stuff Thomas Ligotti and Jeff Vandermeer write.
It's a hard thing to put my finger on but it's more than just an wild combination of seemingly disparate elements.
It's open-ended, anything/everything is out there... but there is somehow a sense of pattern or intent behind it (even if the intention is crazy).
Whatever the flavor was that David Lynch brought to his Dune movie that had me liking it more than the book it was based on... which I don't think of as 'gonzo'. A kind of 'nonsense baroque' maybe.
Whatever it is it doesn't take itself all that seriously, but it can be pretty damn frightening anyway.

My image of 40K derives a lot from John Blanche's illustrations... and some of the other images from the original Rogue Trader game.
HUGE machines and architecture looming over tiny insignificant men, bizarre costumes that are a collage of different historical periods mixed with futuristic nonsense... the average citizen being an absurd cypher of fear or insanity (a bit of Wonderland).

You liked the Dune movie?  Even better than the book no less?  Wow, at least the SCYFY channel's rendition was far truer to the books and didn't make me retch in disgust.

There's a difference between Dark and Grim and "Grimdark".  Grimdark (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Grimdark) as a term really only applies to 40k.  There might be other settings that have some aspects of Grimdark, but only 40k has them all.

Quote from: Marleycat;526144You liked the Dune movie?  Even better than the book no less?  Wow, at least the SCYFY channel's rendition was far truer to the books and didn't make me retch in disgust.

Actually, I didn't like the books much at all. Might have been the time and the place I read them... maybe not. I remember thinking they were kind of dull.
Whatever it was they hit me the wrong way... but when I saw Lynch's version (fucked as it was by Dino's meddling) I was amazed. It didn't bother me at all that they'd veered off from the books (didn't bother me about LOTR either).
A case where the pictures on the screen were MUCH more interesting than the ones in my head.

If only the Jodorowsky version (http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/jodorowsky/) had gotten made... that would have been heavenly.

Quote from: Géza Echs;525867I tend to prefer a mix of both - "gonzo" in the Hunter S. Thompson sense is already fairly grim and dark. But not veering too far into either end of the spectrum. Neither too zany or too 40K-at-its-worst-moments-of-fluff dark.

Dark Gonzo!!!!

Grimm Gonzo!!!

I've never played a Grimdark RPG that didn't go gonzo pretty damn fast. And that's why I love them.

Quote from: Simlasa;526151Actually, I didn't like the books much at all. Might have been the time and the place I read them... maybe not. I remember thinking they were kind of dull.
Whatever it was they hit me the wrong way... but when I saw Lynch's version (fucked as it was by Dino's meddling) I was amazed. It didn't bother me at all that they'd veered off from the books (didn't bother me about LOTR either).
A case where the pictures on the screen were MUCH more interesting than the ones in my head.

If only the Jodorowsky version (http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/jodorowsky/) had gotten made... that would have been heavenly.

Well that's cool because I know that I tend to be dissatisfied with any film adaptions of books I like. Nobody can match the weirdness in my head so I'm not overly upset with movies that do this except in a few cases.

Quote from: The Butcher;525888My own subjective definitions for both terms.

Grimdark is one of several possible moods a game can focus on. It's a good mood to have because great games and great players thrive on adversity, and a world nthat's gone to the crapper should be a dangerous place that's got it in spades.

Gonzo is the idea that anything can happen. Your elf ranger fights a robot and loots a ray gun. The mysterious cargo, contracted by the oddly-accented, strangely pale broker, now sitting on your space trader's hold is actually a vampire. Your superhero squares off against Cthulhu. Your Jedi rip-off psionic knight fights alongside a dragon and a steroid-addicted super-soldier against godless jackbooted thugs hellbent on reclaiming a post-apocalyptic, magic-blasted Earth.

I've been playing "focused", not necessarily grimdark, games for some time now. I haven't unleashed a full-on gonzo treatment on my players for some time now (I don't think Day After Ragnarok counts; the setting is ostensibly gonzo, but our campaign was very much focused on a "British superspies vs. occult Nazis and their horrors" feel).

The way I see it, gonzo is a tricky balance to pull. You want to have an "anything goes" feel without devolving into general silliness, but you don't want to be too restrictive. The easiest way to do this is to show PCs that actions have consequences. You want to ride a dinosaur? Go ahead, but consider for a moment the nightmarish logistics of caring for and feeding one in the long haul (or don't, if you want to run with it).

Grimdark is easier, I think; just make sure that PCs stand a fighting chance, while at the same time driving home that the world they share with their foes is a fucked-up place. Make sure to drive home that it's going to be difficult to hold on to their convictions, let alone change the world; if Sauron's got the Ring, they'll have to try and take Middle-Earth back, one orc at a time. Just don't rob them of the chance if and when they rise up to the task at hand with resolve and ingenuity.

that reminds me, the only other game i could consider gonzo besides rifts, would be gurps IOU (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/iou/).

As a general rule, I prefer gritty over gonzo 99% of the time. Although, the two concepts don't have to be mutually exclusive; i.e., I could run a 'gritty' game even in a high fantasy setting or space opera setting.  I think that a couple of keys to a successful gritty game is resource management by the GM and momentum of the game world.  Resources, which are vital to survival, should be difficult for the characters to obtain, and the game world should not slow down so that the characters have to pick and choose their down time carefully.

Grimdark is one step away from Misery Tourism which I can't stand in an RPG.

Gonzo is one step away from Funhouse Dungeon, which I also cannot stand in an RPG (it is bigger than a "dungeon", but the metaphor stands).  

I take the middle path.  A Middle-Earth path, if you will.  Not in that I place my campaigns or prefer to game in a ME setting, just that it tends to be like that.  Not too dark, not too goofy.

Grimdark with dark humour.

Quote from: Dodger;526380Grimdark with dark humour.

WHFRP 1e, then.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;526416WHFRP 1e, then.

And 2e.

Metal- which is like gonzo done with a straight face, some wacky elements, lots of tits, and some sort of logical underpinning.

In my new game, there is a collapsible jet-bike that fits into a skull-shaped belt buckle.

Quote from: J Arcane;526500In my new game, there is a collapsible jet-bike that fits into a skull-shaped belt buckle.

Is the bike or buckle possessed by a demon? That would totally be Grimmzo.

Or is is GonDark?

Quote from: JamesV;526527Is the bike or buckle possessed by a demon? That would totally be Grimmzo.

Or is is GonDark?

Nah, though there is a suit of living virus that perpetually claws its way into the host's brain whenever used.

I like to think I'm an equal opportunity maker of wacky shit.

Living virus is a bit of an oxymoron. Bacteria more likely.

Quote from: Rincewind1;526533Living virus is a bit of an oxymoron. Bacteria more likely.

Living virus sounds better and it's totally Grimzo, or is it Gonzark? I'm so confused, nevermind nothing to see here, just move along.:D

Quote from: Rincewind1;526533Living virus is a bit of an oxymoron. Bacteria more likely.

Virus is more metal.

Which would you name your death metal band, Virus, or Bacteria?

Quote from: Marleycat;526534Living virus sounds better and it's totally Grimzo, or is it Gonzark? I'm so confused, nevermind nothing to see here, just move along.:D

I was aiming for the "it does not bother me that a penguin is holding a music instrument, but that there's a penguin and a polar bear in one picture - since they live on 2 different poles" joke :P.

I'd honestly suggest bacteria rather then viruses - it'd make sense for them to get to the brain. Viruses just...exist and replicate.

Quote from: J Arcane;526535Virus is more metal.

Which would you name your death metal band, Virus, or Bacteria?

I'd name it Satan's Cock, but true enuff.

Quote from: Rincewind1;526536I was aiming for the "it does not bother me that a penguin is holding a music instrument, but that there's a penguin and a polar bear in one picture - since they live on 2 different poles" joke :P.

I'd honestly suggest bacteria rather then viruses - it'd make sense for them to get to the brain. Viruses just...exist and replicate.




I'd name it Satan's Cock, but true enuff.

Since your harshing my buzz by being all logical and stuff, yes you're correct, but NO FUN!

Actually, I think in the text it's referred to as a "plague".

Which is both metal, and joyously vague.

Quote from: Serious Paul;525830So I've seen people here discuss this concept a few times, and I think I know what some people feel about the whole thing: but what do you like? Grimm Dark or Gonzo? Or something in between? Why?

...in reference to whicvh game system or setting??

Its like you're missing half of your question. The context is completely missing.

Usually on this forum; 'Grim Dark' and 'Gonzo' have been used to describe WARHAMMER 40K and how it changed over the years.

 IF you're referring to WH 40K - then its all mostly crap.


- Ed C.

Biology nitpick time! Yay!

Quote from: Rincewind1;526533Living virus is a bit of an oxymoron. Bacteria more likely.

This one's been laid to rest for some time now. Nowadays, no biologist in his right mind gives any credence to the idea that vriuses (virii?) are not living organisms.

Quote from: Rincewind1;526536I'd honestly suggest bacteria rather then viruses - it'd make sense for them to get to the brain. Viruses just...exist and replicate.

Bacteria have a much harder time getting through the blood-brain barrier, than viruses (virii?). And when they do reach the central nervous system, they tend to kill the host pretty quick, while viruses (virii?) may go for a acute, devastating infection (e.g. West Nile encephalitis) or a slow, dementia-inducing chronic infection (e.g. HIV and the "AIDS dementia complex").

Quote from: The Butcher;526674Biology nitpick time! Yay!



This one's been laid to rest for some time now. Nowadays, no biologist in his right mind gives any credence to the idea that vriuses (virii?) are not living organisms.



Bacteria have a much harder time getting through the blood-brain barrier, than viruses (virii?). And when they do reach the central nervous system, they tend to kill the host pretty quick, while viruses (virii?) may go for a acute, devastating infection (e.g. West Nile encephalitis) or a slow, dementia-inducing chronic infection (e.g. HIV and the "AIDS dementia complex").

Cool, I learned something interesting today. Thanks for that.:)

Woo! Totally pulled that out of my ass and I was still right. Sort of.