From Ctss

!! ROUGH DRAFT !!

BROKEN

AAUGHH! The fucking rules are broken. I always had a suspicion that there was something not quite right about the way the rules worked, but it was only on the periphery of my mind until I took a closer look while writing them out here.

Don't start the game yet. Give me a little time to figure this shit out. I want to find the guy who originally came up with this game and punch him directly in the throat.

Lexicon is a game of Collaborative World Building, which was designed to be played on Wiki. Basically, the players each write sections of the world they are building. At first, they have nothing to build off of, but by the end they are filling in the blanks left by the other 'scholars' they are working with.

Lexicon 2.0 Rules

!! ROUGH DRAFT !!

1. Turns: Each of the 26 turns consists of writing an article for that letter of the alphabet. On the first

turn, everyone writes an article on a topic beginning with the letter A; on the second turn, the letter B, and so on.

1. Citations: Each article must contain, either within the body or included at the end, either a) one

reference to an existing article and one reference to a phantom article, or b) three references to existing articles. A reference to a phantom article may be to a new phantom or to one that has already been referenced. (On the first turn, this requirement does not apply. You need only make a reference to one new phantom.)

This is the minimum requirement; once you've fulfilled either of these two requirements, you may include as many more references, either to existing articles or existing phantoms or other articles in the same letter, as you wish. You may not create additional new phantoms.

1. Scoring: Your score for each round is (number of words in your article) + 50 * (number of citations,

maximum 5). Points are cumulative throughout the game. The winner of the game gets a nice ice cream.

• Optional scoring rule Peer Review: At the end of each round, players read all the articles in that

round and by secret ballot vote for the best article for that round. Whoever wins the peer review gains double points for that round as a bonus reward for good writing.

You may not vote for yourself for peer review. If two or more players tie, they get 150% points. If you don't vote for a peer review for that round and you win the peer review, you receive no bonus points. If no one gets more than one vote, no one wins the peer review.

Rules to Lexicon

Stolen from [1] via [2]:

The basic idea is that each player takes on the role of a scholar, from before scholarly pursuits became professionalized (or possibly after they ceased to be). You are cranky, opinionated, prejudiced and eccentric. You are also collaborating with a number of your peers -- the other players -- on the construction of an encyclopedia describing some historical period (possibly of a fantastic world).

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. (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 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.)

4. This little game will probably play best on a wiki, and it should take a month or so to play to completion. At the end of it, you'll have a highly-hyperlinked document that details a nice little piece of collaborative world-building.