Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page »

Cool. I'll message you and lasalle on NaNoWriMo with the URL, since the two of you are the most reliable . If we can each get 3-4 people to commit at the start we should be good to go.

Re: New lexicon game by FeloniousFunkFeloniousFunk, 16 Jul 2011 01:59

Again, probably/almost certainly interested here. Especially if you get close to your recruitment goal.

(Wouldn't have been in if it were starting now, since Game Chef 2011 just started.)

Re: New lexicon game by JeffRJeffR, 15 Jul 2011 18:38

Well it looks like this particular game is as dead as the attendees of the 49th Feast. Maybe it's time to start another. I'm thinking of a mid-August start date. I know that will be the middle of the second session of Camp Nano, but I think we can snag people who intended, and want to, write but never got around to it.

I'm thinking of a 6-7 round game based on the alphabet. Letters will be grouped in 3's or 4's. Players won't have to write articles in alphabetical order, but each person can write one entry per letter group. After two or three rounds (depending on the starting number of players), each article must cite no fewer than three previous articles. That way, people will have to intermingle their writing, similar to the follow-the-phantom game.

Like I said in the OP, if you're interested, let me know and I'll send you the URL so you can help with recruiting. I'm hoping for a good 10 players to start so when people end up washing out, we're still left with a good 4,5,6.

Re: New lexicon game by FeloniousFunkFeloniousFunk, 13 Jul 2011 15:36

The very first lexicon game I played had the double-restriction. Players had to write articles in order, but could create phantoms for any letter. If there were no phantoms available within the letters for the next turn, you could simply make up a new entry. If I do recall, though, this method did leave a good amount of unwritten phantoms. So, like I said, I think that the alphabetical restricition will likely be the only one. I like phantoms if for no other reason than they serve as an immediate jumping off point for new entries, as opposed having to come up with a new idea from scratch all the time. But not if its gonna turn the game into a mess. The idea that players can write articles in any order, as long as the only have one entry per letter group, isn't bad. I'll think it over. Glad I got at least one "probably", though. :-p

Re: New lexicon game by FeloniousFunkFeloniousFunk, 22 Jun 2011 19:04

I'll probably be up for it.

I'm not sure how a double restriction game like that would work. (Every ABC article required to create a DEF phantom, and so on? What becomes of the 'extra' phantoms from the first round, then?)

The other follow-the-phantoms game I was in did letter restrictions but unrestricted turn order: each player could write whatever on whichever round, but could only ever write one 'A' article, one 'B' article, and so forth, and likewise could only ever create one phantom per letter and no phantoms in the letter of their first article. In practice, that created situations in which a particular player was eventually going to be forced into writing a particular article, and other ones in which people had to put in far too much thought to avoid making some articles completely unwritable.

I have seen traditional lexicons that adopt the rule that nobody can create a new/unnamed article in a round until after all of the phantoms for that round have been written/dibsed. That rule works fairly well.

Re: New lexicon game by JeffRJeffR, 22 Jun 2011 18:36

With this game wrapping up in the next couple weeks, I was just looking to see who among us might be interested in doing another. I'd be hosting on on PBWorks with a late July/early August start date to give time to catch up on life after this game and to have time for recruiting.

I plan on a high fantasy setting based on an event I've created called the Three Waters Diet. The Diet is a gathering of the best minds in magic that is held once every 100 years in the city of Three Waters. Instead of discourse on a particular historical event, though, the lexicon would focus on the latest and greatest discoveries in the world of magic. Right now, I'm planning an 8ish round game based on the alphabet. Round one would be entries beginning with ABC, round two DEF and so on. I'm considering also making it a follow-the-phantom type game, but right now I'm not leaning towards that. I'm not sure how well it will work given the subject and also not sure about the double restiction of alphabetization and the phantoms.

That's all the detail I have at the moment. If 3-4 of us here are interested, I'll set up the wiki page and provide the URL so we can start recruiting. Lemme know.

New lexicon game by FeloniousFunkFeloniousFunk, 22 Jun 2011 15:44

I generally don't pay attention to who created the phantom. In a larger game (number of players-wise) I try, sometimes unsuccessfully, to avoid getting into 'dialogs' in which me and another player end up repeatedly writing each other's new phantoms.

And look at it on the brighter side: some of your phantoms are attracting an awful lot of links. This can make writing them more intimidating or seem more like self-citation when they really aren't (if someone has established a lot of facts about them already), which may be why people are staying away from them. And they start becoming more and more central to the overall plot, which means that people find it more appropriate, collectively, to save them for the end rounds…

Re: Phantom selection by JeffRJeffR, 18 Jun 2011 01:49

I dont pay any attention to who created the phantom, other than to avoid those I have created.

I look for one that I can connect backwards and sideways with some spin appropriate to my character within a standard word count.

Re: Phantom selection by lasalle202lasalle202, 17 Jun 2011 12:12

When selecting my topic for the most recent round (though it appears that everyone is a week behind), I couldn't help but notice that a full half of available phantoms are ones that I created. I was just curious as to why that is. Not that I'm offended or anything like that, just wondering what things people take into account when deciding which topic to write about.

For me, I guess the overridding consideration is a topic that inspired me with ideas as soon as I read it. After that, I like to choose topics that play into the "scholarly argument" aspect of the game, giving different opinions and accounts of various topics. Failing that, I just pick whichever I find to be the least boring.

Phantom selection by FeloniousFunkFeloniousFunk, 14 Jun 2011 16:49

Remember, Round Seven is the last 'normal' round and thus the last chance to create new phantoms. If you think there's a topic that will need discussion by the end of the game, you should introduce it now…

Last chance coming up by JeffRJeffR, 10 Jun 2011 02:04

Thanks - me too :)

It's less out-of-control, and more a matter of iron-tight prioritization being called for :P

Re: Ack. by StandbackStandback, 05 Jun 2011 22:09


That is sad news. I hope your life gets under control soon. I anxiously await new insights from Teresa's scholarship!

Re: Ack. by lasalle202lasalle202, 05 Jun 2011 00:09

Sorry, guys, but I've fallen far behind, and it doesn't look like I'm going to be catching up in the next few days.

This has little to do with my post on the state of the game, and everything to do with some serious turbulence on a community theater production I'm involved with and some severe internet access problems.

I'm really sorry to be slacking, especially with so few other players :-/ I'll bounce back when I can, but I doubt it'll be within the coming week.

In the meantime, I'm cutting out my last draft (the Observatory), which isn't complete enough to linger around IMHO. Hope I'll be back very soon :)


Ack. by StandbackStandback, 04 Jun 2011 20:45

I am also enjoying the game and had noticed that it was kind of quiet, but, I dont have much to say

Re: State of the Game by lasalle202lasalle202, 02 Jun 2011 03:38

Having four active players on round five puts us ahead of the curve, gamestate-wise. So I'm fairly happy about that. (Yes, I'm behind on my article, but that won't be the case for long.)

The previous 'follow-the-phantoms' game I was in (The Nullosk Eventuality, which I think has vanished into the tubes although it may be on some archive somewhere) started with a lot more players and then had a normal attrition pattern, which meant that it would have been a lot harder to actually wrap up (more endgame-type rounds needed), but it did means that there were more open phantoms, which could allow some to build up references.

Anyhow, re-opening threads is as easy as working in a cite to the article. (Or, for the more direct route, creating a new phantom more directly about Element X.)

Re: State of the Game by JeffRJeffR, 31 May 2011 19:25

I'm enjoying the game. This type of faux Wikipedia writing is what I'm best at. It's probably the reason I never get any noveling done.

I feel what you're saying about the lack of interconnectivity among the articles. Sometimes a citation is just thrown in there to meet the requirement without any real discussion as to how/why the two entries are related.

I think the source of the issues is two fold, 1) people being behind on entries and 2) not enough players. It's only natural for people to be behind. People get busy and don't have time to write. That's why I think that, when planning this type of game, you really have to recruit double the amount of people needed to have a good game. Typically only about half of people who start the game end up regularly contributing throughout. So, with a lot of missing or incomplete entries, people who are on time or ahead don't have much to go on. Especially with the "dibs" system in place. People don't want to step on toes when citing an article someone else has dibbed, so just the cursory citation is made where a more thorough one might have been possibled if the dibbed article was at least started.

But, overall, I like the game. It's just as fun as the last one I played, even if I don't particularly like this site as a host (I much prefer pbworks). As long as there's an interesting premise, I'm down for a lexicon game pretty much any time.

Re: State of the Game by FeloniousFunkFeloniousFunk, 31 May 2011 18:11

I thought I'd ping y'all on how you're enjoying the game so far. It's been a lot more quiet than I'm used to; I'm having trouble getting a sense of how we're all relating to the game…

As for myself, I'm definitely enjoying. There've been some great entries, and a lot of really fun writing. I wanted to raise a certain point that's been bothering me, though: I'm not finding the great connections and the gradual evolution that I look forward to in Lexicon games.

One area that's really bothering me is casual citations. By which I mean, making a citation without providing much in the way of significant information about that element, or bringing it into play in a significant way. We've had a lot of citations (and even phantom creation) that provide little more than that the referenced element exists. The result is that we've failed to build real connections between our elements - which, in my understanding, is the biggest draw of a Lexicon game. I'm missing the gradual buildup of a future phantom, or using a backwards citation to bring established elements into play in a surprising way.

The other thing is, I was surprised to see quite a few entries that added very little to their chosen topic. Entries that summarized the information already existing about the phantom, and didn't address open threads and questions relating to the subject. I'm not criticizing any particular entry; all the entries were well-written and fun to read, and throwing a curveball by using Entry A to talk about Entry B is a time-honored Lexicon tradition :D All I'm trying to say is this: as I see it, a lot of the game is opening up enticing threads… and then closing off the threads somebody else left. If you don't provide the payoff, you're left dangling. And if those threads are keyed to a particular entry, then writing that entry without giving a clear continuation can just cut off that thread completely. If we've spent three rounds establishing that Element X is important and mysterious, and then the entry for Element X doesn't explain why it's important or how it's mysterious - well then, where is anything more about Element X going to be written? All the threads connected to it just kind of wither away.

I think part of the problem is the "follow the phantom" format - it discourages players from citing a particular phantom with lots of information before somebody gets around to writing it. But I think I'm seeing more than that - I'm just not sure if the other players are interested in focusing on creating the kind of interconnections that I am, or in the set-up/pay-off cycle I'm describing.

So mostly what I'm trying to say is, if you would like more of this, then by all means, please do more of this. It won't go unappreciated :)

And if that's not what holds your interest, then just keep up the great writing you're doing already :D

If anybody else has any thoughts on how the game's going or directions they'd like to see, then by all means, please don't hesitate to speak up!

State of the Game by StandbackStandback, 29 May 2011 21:43

In general, tag use is optional (feel free, by the way, to tag other people's articles within reason). Ideally, it should be there to help easily navigate the wiki, especially over areas that aren't already easily findable through the backlinks/wanted pages business.

But let's try to use underscores when entering any multi-word tags, okay?

Tag cleanup by JeffRJeffR, 23 May 2011 18:17

Generally, that's okay: if your current article is so strongly linked to one you've written that leaving out a link or mention would be extremely odd, go ahead and put the link in. Just don't (1) count it as the required written-article citation or (2) establish any significant new facts about the thing you're citing that aren't inseperable from the one you're writing now. Hand looks okay, then.

In reference to Standback's 5/11 note, I did cite the War of the Broken Succession (which i wrote) in my article on the Hand of Shadow while also citing the Diary of Lady Brisband. Do the "house rules" for this particular game allow for this? Given the context of the articles, it didn't really seem right to leave it out.

page »