Lexicon of Elder Days General Discussion Archive

Entries

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Back to the Lexicon

For the purposes of making the game more open to casual players, allowing them to step in and add entries at random, I suggest that we set a minimum number of entries for a particular letter, but not retain a maximum. A letter's turn is (some period, maybe about two days), and no entries after that letter may be written until the turn ends, but entries may be added before it. - willows

Sounds good :) - DS

Should we be inventing new fictitious names with which to sign our work? - Quendalon

Hm, good question; I think I will, but as long as you sign consistently, there is no need. If we all start using pseudonyms, I'll put up a Scholars page. I'm going to go plug this in the forums now.

As a note: When making phantom citations, please add a title on the appropriate page, to be filled in when appropriate. I've done this for the existing entries. - willows

To clarify the setup a little more, should people strive to fill phantom entries, or are they encouraged to take any interesting hooks from a previous entry and run with them? Case in point, my A entry, being a bit too long, offers a number of hooks someone could run with, though, of course, only two are noted at the bottom. Secondly, am I missing some mechanic, or will the letter B have a ton of references to A entries, and letter Y to entries Z (Not that it matters overmuch.)? ~Jabberwocky

Well, we should try to fill in phantom citations, but if there are none, then there's no reason not to pick up hooks from previous articles (this is important anyway, since after the intital turn, you're supposed to refer to previously existing entries as well as making new ones up). As for article length, the entries we have written are dramatically shorter than NobilisWiki's; they have individual article pages. I'm not going to pose any artificial article length restriction when the longer ones turn out so interestingly. You're not missing any mechanic... the B entries will probably be linked very tightly to A and each other. - willows

I'd like to get in on this... I already have the personality too. - Killed

There's some very cool stuff in here so far, and we're only on the 'A's! Now, can participants add more than one entry per letter? And I assume we can make up new entries for letters that don't have enough phantom slots written up (as will be likely for 'B', 'C' and 'D')? - Quendalon

We're probably getting on toward the point where we can add some 'B' entries. Oh, and hi Jere! - Quendalon

Agreed; let's start on B! I think 6 A entries is cool. Can we agree to a turnaround time of, say, 2 days per letter? - willows

Two days seems fairly reasonable. Also, as long as people are interested, maybe we should keep going with three entries (still 1 'real' and 2 phantom) and loop around the alphabet at the Zs. Cause this seems neat :) - DS

If people are still interested, we should close off the Lexicon as normal at 'Z', then start a new Lexicon with new subject matter. Maybe a lexicon of the Scarlet Realm, or of Yu-Shan, or of the Violet Coast, or whatever. - Quendalon

One more mechanical question: once one cites a previous entry without filling a phantom entry, it would stand to reason that they should update the citations on the initial entry to include their newing added addition, correct? ~Jabberwocky

Um, yes, that's a good idea. (A confusing one, but...) - willows

Not really. Think of it as an encyclopedia. An encylopedia can cite an entry without the original entry citing back. So if entry Frog cites Green and Newt, and entry Toad references Frog, theres no reason now for Frog to reference Toad. Sure you could go back to Frog and referece Toad, but theres little reason too. The Phantom entries really exist as a form of constrained writing, to give the exercise its form and an element of game play. -- Jeremiah Genest

The Wiki is also smart enough to search for backlinks for you. In the perfect world, you could put a little code at the bottom of the page that listed the backlinks automatically; that would be nice. - willows

Does this version of Wiki not have a backlinks plugin? Personally I just rely on clicking on the title for such things, but I can see where others might find it useful. -- Jeremiah Genest

I'm not aware if it does. Clicking on the title works well enough, anyways. - willows

How long are the turns? Is it just a case of everyone keeping an eye on the pages and making sure they don't get too far ahead of or too far behind the rest of the players? What happens if sonme one want to join half way through a round? Will it break the game? -- Voidstate

Voidstate, there's no problem with joining in the middle, as long as you don't post a phantom entry that none of the active players can fill in. (I don't think this has happened yet - it looks like someone hasn't posted a 'B' entry yet, and they can take the Butterflies - but it's something to watch for.) - Quendalon

Time to start on the 'C' entries, maybe? - Quendalon

Shouldn't we wait till tomorrow? -Dim

Fine with me. I only brought it up because we're scheduled for a two-day turnaround, and 'B' came up two days ago. - Quendalon

Well, we're now short a B entry... does someone want the Butterflies? I couldn't resist starting on C. - willows

Okay, sorry, Quen. I didn't realize we had started B earlier. So...who'se up for some C entries? *dashes off to brainstorm* -Dim

Have we started C yet? I took the Butterflies already, so that shouldn't be a problem any more. -EC

Quendalon - I don't see much of a problem with 'orphan' entries being created. Already the game isn't running strictly by the rules and people are starting on future letters out of sequence. I'm sure some people will enjoy going back after the round is over and filling in the blanks in a way which ties the whole thing together. Either that, or people could keep joining and adding to the Lexicon as they progress through it and these 'orphans' can act as hooks to allow future players to tie their entries into the older ones. - Voidstate

I have a rules question. When you are citing a previous entry, and you are completing a phantom entry, does the citation have to refer to the entry which already points to the entry you are writing or should you tie an unrelated entry into your entry? In other words should the "already-written entry" be a) the one which points to the entry you are creating or b) an unrelated (but already existing) entry. The rules could be read either way:

<<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.>>

- Voidstate

Not sure, but you definitely should only reference one entry, even if there are several already-written entries that tie into your own. - Quendalon

I agree - Voidstate

Things seem to have slowed down on our Lexicon. Is anyone else going to add some 'C' entries? Shall we soon move on to 'D'? - Quendalon

I've been uninspired as of late... rather, I've been playing Knights of the Old Republic. I think if a few more people could be encouraged to join in before the letters were too far advanced, things would be a bit more interesting all in all. I've only got, like, twenty or thirty hours left of KotOR, so I'll... catch up after that. ~Jabberwocky

I have a rather radical recomendation. Why don't we all just add entries as we like, though making sure that any we add are linked to an already written one, and then you only make one phantom entry. Then at the end of a pre-determined period of time we cease creating phantom entries until we have fleshed out all the existing ones. Sure, this might lead to an irregular looking Lexicon, but who says all the letters of the alphabet must be equally represented. Just a thought. LEt me know what you all think. -EndlessChase

Or, as a compromise, why not change the rules so that players can add to the letters in any order but should only add to each letter once? - Voidstate

And I have added a link to the Lexicon in the homepage. I'm not sure my description is the most snappy or informative so if anyone wants to change it I don't mind. I was going to add it to ImportantLinks but couldn't decide which category to use. Any ideas? - Voidstate

The matter of people starting on letters out of sequence is mostly a matter of people posting before they have read the rules. Honestly, I don't see any reason to continue that: It is a matter of but a moment's cogitation to devise a new and alphabetically-appropriate title to an otherwise structurally good entry (by which I mean one with the requisite references), so why seed needless disorder?

Ideally, we should each write exactly one article per letter, because the whole point of this exercise is to write within boundaries which, though they are loose, are present and have perceptible force. I see that we have slowed down in filling our entries, though; maybe as more phantoms appear (thus constraining us to write them) we'll see what the Nobilis group did - people jumping for entries that they wanted to write.

As for multiple back-references, I have been playing with "1 existing page" as a minimum, and making an effort to link other sections of the Wiki into my entries as well, so that this isn't an isolated phenomenon. I don't know what Neel's intention was, though.

So what happened to the people who still haven't written C entries?

- willows

I agree with everything Willows wrote. (There's a shocker.) - Quendalon

I have completed my C entry. When are we moving to D? -EndlessChase

I agree about allowing multiple back-references. If the general consensus is that we only add one entry to each letter and keep moving forward in sequence, that's fine by me too.

I'm still not sure about this though: "When you are citing a previous entry, and you are completing a phantom entry, does the citation have to refer to the entry which already points to the entry you are writing or should you tie an unrelated entry into your entry?". Any ideas?

- Voidstate

I think either's a viable choice; I would choose the second if I had an elegant way to do it, but there's nothing independently wrong with the first. - willows

We may want to start moving forward with 'D' entries. Better to play with a smaller pool of active players than to let the whole thing die of stagnation. - Quendalon

I officially appoint you "guy who decides when the next letter starts." - willows

I say let's start D already; it's been more than 2 days. -Dim

Get ready... get set... GO! - Quendalon

Thanks! It's an excellent fit. Next time, I'll call dibs in advance. :) - Quendalon\\

Once again, I'd like to encourage people to dive in and participate. Feel free to add brief entries, like a paragraph or so; just because the rest of us are going way over the word limit is no reason to feel compelled to overexert yourself in order to participate. - Quendalon

It occurred to me tht the players list might seem rather exclusive to anyone thinking of joining, so I've added a note to the front page encouraging them to join in. That OK with everyone? - Voidstate

Well posted! Thanks, Voidstate. - Quendalon

E, anyone? - Voidstate

Since we seem to have five active participants, I recommend that we do not allow the number of phantom entries for any given letter to go over 5. For instance, 'Serenity, Gift of' should probably go under 'Gift of Serenity.' Also, sooner or later we'll hit a place when we have too many phantom entries; any thoughts? - Quendalon

Makes sense to me. Fixed. -EndlessChase

Once we can no longer make phantoms, we can do one of two things: start phantoms for a new Lexicon (probably not preferable, as it will contaminate these articles with data from other time periods), or we could just stop making phantoms. - willows

Hmm I have to say this looks interesting. If I find the time I might start in on this. 'A' here I come (hopefully) Alabrax

Welcome Alabrax! I recommend coming in at 'E' (or wherever we happen to be at the time), so that we're all at the same letter together. Lexicographers Unite! - Quendalon

Is that allowed? I didn't figure it would be after reading the rules. Alabrax

Put it this way - if you're playing catchup, you lose the opportunity and benefit of filling in phantoms, which is (IMO) what makes this fun at all. So jump in, and if you feel like it, I'm sure no one will object to your adding catchup entries later. Vive la Lexicon! - willows

Or if you really wanted, you could still come in at A and just add entries at a rate of more than one every few days until you catch up. The rules have generally been interpreted pretty loosely so far, so it shouldn't matter. - Voidstate

On another note, I had an idea for an alternative version of this game called The Hundred Kingdoms. It would work on a similar basis, but be a history or guide to the area, with each entry making up a short guide to a specific kingdom, and the links could be in the form of notable allies, enemies, trade partners, etc. from the other kingdoms. It could end up actually being a useful source for GMs running games in the Hundred Kingdoms... Sound good? - Voidstate

I'm game for a Lexicon of the Hundred Kingdoms (using extant Lexicon rules, natch), but I have my doubts about running it concurrently with the current Lexicon; people seem to be having enough issues with time and inspiration for the current Lexicon. - Quendalon

Sure. I didn't really think we should play it yet. I just thought I'd field the idea while it was fresh in my mind. Thanks for the vote of confidence though. - Voidstate

Well if I do find time to do this I will start at A. Just so I am straight on this, after my "A" entry I should then place 2 Phantoms in letters that you all have not done yet. Now to find my inspiration :) You know another Lexicon type thing that could be done with this is system like this only instead of being a lexicon it could be Dragonblooded NCP descriptions. The level that these would intertwine would probably be as close to the tangled mess that Realm relations and politics as we will get. Alabrax

Yeah, I would make your phantoms G or later, as it doesn't look like anyone else is planning to join in at this stage. I noticed that both X and Y are still empty... - Voidstate

If you're going to be playing catchup by starting from 'A', I recommend you do it quickly, or else you'll never catch up, and thus you'll never actually end up completing other peoples' phantom entries, which is half of the fun of the game. (The other half being the fun of seeing what other people do with your phantom entries.) - Quendalon

Is it too early to be starting F d'ya reckon? - Voidstate

Of course not. Get started right away! - Quendalon

Sorry still no "A" for me yet. I have spent my non-work time here at work, writing letters to NPCs and PCs in a Dark Age Vamp game I am playing in. Although I have taken time to read over some of the things already in the Lexicon so I can link my stuff to those easier. Alabrax

If you have time issues, you should definitely go with the current letter rather than starting at 'A'. Not only will you be playing the game as it's meant to be played, but you'll be able to jump in and out whenever you have time; you can do 'F', take a break, do 'J', take a break, do 'R'... etc. - Quendalon

Your right... I will come in on F. Seeing as I am starting late should I claim one of the phantoms already under F or should I start a whole new entry under that letter? Sorry I seem to be so timid with this, I just don't want to be the guy that comes late to the game and screws everything up. Alabrax

Don't worry, you're not screwing anything up. Either create a new entry or claim a phantom, whichever you'd like more. This should be fun, so don't worry so much. Enjoy! - Quendalon

I should have mine written and posted tomorrow after noon. I had some unexpected computer issues today that ate up my lunch, which was when I had planned to finish it up. Sorry to slow things down. Alabrax

I was thinkin' of doing the Feral Dragon Kings entry, if I do it'll be tomorrow as well. I hope I get it right. -MidKnight

Hi guys. This is one of the coolest games I've seen in a really long while, so I think I'm going to join. This is an advance apology: if I mess up (I don't think I completely get it all yet) then I'm sorry. Mainly, I'm just confused because this little page seems to give a lot of, er, mixed signals shall we say? Plus, I have 1 Wits: I think slowly and get confused easily. ;)\\ So ... since you're all about done with F, should I wait until you're on to G to join in?\\ On phantom citations: so we can still make up new ones, but we're encouraged to fill in the phantoms. Should we wait to make new ones up until all the phantoms are done for a letter?\\ Everyone can only do one per letter, so this means everyone can fill in one phantom or make a new one up, right? Not fill in one phantom and make a new one up?\\ Why isn't it okay to make phantom citations for letters that have already passed? It seems like this would make the Lexicon a little more balanced, especially as players keep joining. Or am I missing something again?\\ Thanks,\\ ~ Shataina

I'm trying to figure out what the ruleset we are working under actually looks like, and placing that on the rules page as I do... so in the meantime, do what you feel is right, and we'll be gentle about trying to clarify what we're doing (: As for Flying Dismissal - the only reason I didn't make that a phantom is that it was the same letter, and I didn't expect anyone to take it. You're totally welcome to, though(: - willows

Hi MidKnight, Shaitana, Alabrax! Just to reassure you, you really don't have to worry about messing up. The fact is that we are now playing with rules which differ in several ways to the original ones on the front page. In fact several people have "messed up" (someone put Grassblade in without referencing anything and Arbane the Terrible showed up, posted an entry in Q and T and left) and the game is still going and no-one is having less fun. In fact, if you do something different, it's quite possible that everyone else will decide your way is better and all start doing it that way, too. - Voidstate

There's a difference between 'try and stick to the rules but don't worry if you make a mistake' and 'ignore the rules and do whatever you want'. - Quendalon

I will note that the rules aren't as clear as they should be, and there are some things implicit in the rules that should have been spelled out clearly:\\ 1) All entries other than 'A' should start as phantom entries. We didn't think of this at the start; it means that half of all the phantoms created in the first round should have been 'B' phantoms, which was not the case.\\ 2) Corrolary: everyone should be paying attention to upcoming phantoms to make sure that we have the right number for each letter. Right now, willows and I are playing watchdog and making sure that we have enough phantoms for the next letter, so that we don't, say, find that seven players have only three 'G' phantoms.\\ 3) The rules assume that the number of players will remain unchanged through the entirety of the game. This clearly isn't the case here, but there's no reason that adding new players should impact significantly upon play. It seems easy enough to just grab an unclaimed phantom at the current letter and continue from there.\\ - Quendalon

My "F" is up... although I just read through it and I never explained way it was called the Fugazi Jihad. Oops! I'll have to tweek that. Alabrax

Hey should we start calling dibs on the "G"'s now? Also in my Fugazi Jihad I had a few comments about the Lace and Paper War, was that a no no? or should I do something so that who ever does that one is sure to see my entry? Alabrax

Sure, call dibs on 'G'. And you can make as many references as you want; it's a limit of two links, which has nothing to do with the body of the text. You can talk about the Lace and Paper War without linking to it. - Quendalon

Yeah, but it's a misdemeanor, not a felony. Let it stand. :) - Quendalon

As long as you make only two new phantoms it doesn't really matter how many past entries you link to. - Voidstate

Wouldn't it make it easier if we noted which citation each phantom originally came from next to the phantom? I've done this next to my phantoms; let me know if there's a reason we haven't been doing so.\\ ~ Shataina

Sorry about my slowness. I've been going through a mild slump, and one of the things that gets affected the most is my creative drive. I'll catch up when things work themselves out. -EndlessChase

Shataina I was thinking something along those same lines. When I was looking at the phantoms out there right now I really had no idea where they all came from. Alabrax

While a phantom may only have one link to it, it may be referenced in more than one entry. (E.g. the Fire Chronicle was referenced in at least three entries, even though only one of them linked to it.) As a result, noting a single source can be deceptive. - Quendalon

Well then maybe we would make notes on all phantoms that we mention before they are written. This would help keep conflicting info to a level that at least made sense. I know some conflicts make things more real, but we dont want one person to say something like "The Lemur Incident" was a really just a poem, then the person that writes the Lemur Incident talks about self replicating demon monkeys from beyond space and time. I mean if we are going to have conflicts dont we want them to be the type were the type of money is in question, like some might say it was spider or gibbons, not that it was something completely different. Alabrax

IMO, this is basically the scholar's responsibility - to be sure he is factually consistent with his sources - though I like Shataina's idea somewhat, particularly given that this Wiki's search function is wacky. - willows

Why don't we just make a note next to the phantom whenever we cite it? So all the relevant citations will be noted next to the phantom when whoever writes the entry writes it, and they won't have to attempt to make the Wiki-search work.\\

Lexicon/DiscussionArchive

Contents

Lexicon of Elder Days General Discussion Archive

Entries

The Vote

The Votity Vote

Navigation menu

Search