Welcome to the Ghyll game world!
This is the Gamegrene wiki, where we're creating a world by taking on the role of scholars and defining new in-world subjects alphabetically. Whatever one scholar reports as fact must be accepted as such. The core of the game is based on the principles of Neel Krishnaswami's "Lexicon: an RPG".
We are currently on Turn 1, defining letters A and B. Turn 2 begins August 31st.
How to Play
New players may join in at any time. To sign up, create a new account and then go to the URL for your new page. For example, if you'd like to define "Crab apples", go to http://www.gamegrene.com/wiki/Crab_apples, click "edit", and begin typing your entry. As in traditional wikis, your edits are available immediately. Here's an example of a decent entry.
The game 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).
- 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).
- 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, although phantom entries are preferred). 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.
- 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.)
Write up a quick wiki syntax chart for the commonest usage.