[Lexicon: an RPG]

Lexicon is an RPG meant to be played on a Wiki. Since this is a Wiki, that clearly means we should play Lexicon.

Basically, players are a bunch of scholars preparing an encyclopedia. There are rules for turns and citations and what-not.

There are links to games of Lexicon, both complete and in-progress, at http://www.gamegrene.com/wiki/Lexicon_games.

It might help to get a consensus on general mood/style for the game before starting.

Note the following game is dead and has been for quite some time. In fact, the link no longer works.

Wiki at http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~stan/wiki/pmwiki.php .

Current Players:

Current Turn: [Letter D]

Possible Players:

Possible Bored, Snarky Observers:

I think doing some sort of conspiracy-theory-nut/secret organization lexicon would be cool, but I don't know if anyone else is up for that.

Thoughts on the matter:

Original rules:

The game is played in 26 turns, one for each letter of the alphabet.

1. On the first turn, each player writes an entry for the letter 'A'. You come up with the name of the entry, and you write 100-200 words on the subject. At the end of the article, you sign your name, and make two citations to other entries in the encyclopedia. These citations will be phantoms -- their names exist, but their content will get filled in only on the appropriate turn. No letter can have more entries than the number of players, either, so all citations made on the first turn have to start with non-A letters.

2. On the second and subsequent turns, you continue to write entries for B, C, D and so on. However, you need to make three citations. One must be a reference to an already-written entry, and two must be to unwritten entries. (On the 25th and 26th turns, you only need to cite one and zero phantom entries, respectively, because there won't be enough phantom entries, otherwise.)

It's an academic sin to cite yourself, you can never cite an entry you've written. (OOC, this forces the players to intertwingle their entries, so that everybody depends on everyone else's facts.) Incidentally, once you run out of empty slots, obviously you can only cite the phantom slots.

3. Despite the fact that your peers are self-important, narrow-minded dunderheads, they are honest scholars. No matter how strained their interpretations are, their facts are as accurate as historical research can make them. So if you cite an entry, you have to treat its factual content as true! (Though you can argue vociferously with the interpretation and introduce new facts that shade the interpretation.)

An optional rule that we might want to implement deals with phantom entries. Basically, for each letter, phantom entries have to be filled in before new entries can be made. Obviously this works a little better with longer turns. People working on phantom entries should call dibs on them so that we don't get several people writing the same entry.

Um, it figures that the game would stat right after my computer borked itself. Is there any chance I can still play, or shall I join RichardGarfinkel in the ranks of the bored, snarky observers?


I think the general feeling is yes, though we're not sure on how the details work out. It already sounds like the number of citations isn't likely to magically work out exactly. Not to mention, as long as your computer is fixed relatively soon, you'll probably make this turn.

Hmm...isn't this (absent the Gnomic-like proposal) more of a GroupStory? than an RPG? Insofar as there's no (formal) competition, no win or loss conditions, etc.. Or am I missing something? --ClayHambrick

My computer is "fixed," (actually, I'm back home so I'm no longer stuck using my not-in-such-good-shape laptop). So, since I haven't heard any objections, I'm going to sign up and play. --CurtisVinson

FunWiki | RecentChanges | Preferences
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Last edited December 6, 2006 21:45 (diff)