Ghyll:Main Page

From Disobiki
Revision as of 17:14, 12 August 2004 by Morbus Iff (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the Ghyll game world!

This is the Gamegrene wiki, for creating a game world based on Neel Krishnaswami in "Lexicon: an RPG". The goal: create a world (Ghyll) by taking on the role of scholars and defining new in-game subjects alphabetically. Whatever one scholar reports as fact must be accepted as such.

We are currently on Turn 1, defining letters A and B. You have until August 31st until Turn 2.

How to Play

New players may join in at any time - be sure to familiarize yourself with the rules below. To sign up, create a new account in the wiki software, and then go to the URL for your new page. For example, if you'd like to define "Crab apples", go to, click "edit", and begin typing your entry.

The rules are defined below and vary slightly from the original Lexicon manifesto (primarily to handle an ever-changing player base, as well as to increase the length of game play indefinitely, as opposed to a limited 26 turns).

  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 or more citations to other entries in the encyclopedia (these citations may also be made within the body of your subject). These citations will be phantoms -- their names exist, but their content will get filled in only on the appropriate turn (and not necessarily by yourself).
  2. On the second and subsequent turns, each player continues to write entries for B, C, D and so on (whether brand new entries, or a pre-existing phantom entry). However, you need to make three citations: one must be a reference to an already-written entry, and two must be to unwritten entries. It's an academic sin to cite yourself, thus you can never cite an entry you've written. However, citing your own sources in addition to the required three is permitted.
  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.)