Ghyll:Round 3 discussion

This page is for discussing Round 3 of Ghyll, currently scheduled to begin January 2006.

Should there be a Round 3?

Are you interested? Would you play? What (rules, date, style, etc.) should change? What makes you unhappy with the current state of play? I've had every intent to keep the Ghyll Lexicon going as long as there are players (and perhaps longer) - in the absence of them, I'd probably move on to other (slower, less regular) products such as a Ghyll game deadtree book ("Poor Ghyllians Almanac" is the most popular choice at the moment, though that, honestly, is years away). Some folks have been debating privately whether to stop playing, and their dissatisfaction partly comes from the quality of phantoms being produced (and thus, needing to be written). What sort of phantoms and entries do you prefer to write? --Morbus Iff 09:08, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

What about introducing some kind of collaboration to the game? Sometimes, it would be useful to get more than one viewpoint brought in beforehand. For example, if you had actually "interviewed" me about the Order of Mnerr, to make it a bit more collaborative. There is a limit past which I don't want to press, because I'm afraid of stepping on someone else's toes. I don't know if that's just me, or if other people similarly are hesitant to take on certain things on their own. I'd also like to see a collegial discussion forum that could allow scholars to pose questions to their colleagues. There's a bit of it in some of the appended scholarly comments, but a central forum might develop some life if some interaction between scholars became more a part of the system. --Brother Arfrus 17:22, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Hmm. There's nothing, ultimately, stopping this sort of thing from happening *right now*. I think the logistics of it (integration as opposed to collegial discussion), however (specifically, getting other players to respond in a timely, and quality, manner) are a bit too complicated to make it "official". As I'm sure you can see from the RecentChanges, some players do everything on Friday, some jot notes early, some come outta nowhere, leave their final and only edit, and then disappear for months. As for collegial discussion, there was a bit of that out-of-turn, per se, at Encyclopedants Progress Report 26. Are you proposing, perhaps, some sort of Inn/Tavern-ish meeting? Perhaps a Scholars-only Bulletin Board? (Bulletin boards do exist publically and in-game - see Karcist League, for example, so it wouldn't be an oddity or breakage...) --Morbus Iff 17:52, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I would have liked to have been around for the Encyclopedants Progress Report 26. Some little bulletin board kind of thing where the scholars can unite in character for some banter (friendly or not) would be quite well received, at least by me. --Snood Trunion 01:03, 26 November 2005 (EST)

I agree. I'm not looking to force collaboration at any point, but some benefits might arise if some things could be worked out that way. (I actually wanted to see what someone else would do with the Order, otherwise, I wouldn't have phantomed it.) Something that exists at the top level and that encourages everyone to contribute and to exchange messages, perhaps. Right now, I would feel uncomforatble adding something to the navigation sidebar myself, even if it's okay. That sort of thing probably needs to come from "on high." --Brother Arfrus 12:03, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Also, what if someone were to start periodic postings of articles published in Quester and Phorrus or Folktown Records, for example? Rather than being a static entry, there would, instead, be an ongoing list of what is being published (or submitted for publication) and an opportunity for some intertwining of writing. Things could be linked to the encyclopedia, but it might also provide an opportunity for a different kind of writing. --Brother Arfrus 12:03, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I hereby proclaim to all of Ghyll proper that I am addicted to this game and the knowledge in the encyclopedia. I would love to continue to contribute to this world as long as creative souls inhabit it. --Snood Trunion 15:04, 22 November 2005 (EST)

I just realized I never posted a resounding YES in answer to this question. So, [resounding]YES![/resounding] --Dfaran L'Eniarc 00:31, 23 November 2005 (EST)

Missing Gamemaster?

I have good news and bad news: I'm pregnant. That's the good news. The bad news is that Ghyll, and my "gamemastering" of it will be taking a back seat to that pregnancy. This presents a bit of a problem for me: Round 3 will be about 75% finished by the time the baby arrives. What I don't want to happen is that last 25% to be unintegrated - without fact checking, or Indices modification (timeline, who's who, etc., etc.) I'd much rather NOT do a R3 if it's gonna die a horrible death 75% of the way through. I'm looking for suggestions. --Morbus Iff 18:50, 1 December 2005 (EST)

Between Rounds

The following was hammered out during R1-->R2. They'd still apply.

Allow a rest period between rounds

• Write up in-game "End of Year" reports.
• Finish up any discussions on this page.
• Take a break and collect your thoughts.
• Mad-edit anything that needs to.

Allow scholars to revamp previous round's entries

• Edit ANY entry for clarity and collection.
• No NEW facts, just revamped to include missing/clarified facts.
• No dibbing on edits; if necc. mad-edits are collaborative.

Proposed Rule Changes

No restrictions on 3 entry citations

A player should be able to cite three of any entries in one's citations, not necessarily two phantoms and one finished entry as is the case now. We'd still have to abide by the "don't cite yourself" restriction. The ONLY thing this proposed rule changes is the type of citations you have to make, not the number. You'd still have to write an entry that has three official citations not your own. Whether those citations are three existing entries, two existing entries and one phantom, three phantoms, or what have you, would no longer matter. You'd still have the ability to generate one new phantom a turn, it'd just be by choice, as opposed to forced.

YEA: Sean B. Palmer, John Cowan, Nikos of Ant, Dfaran L'Eniarc, Snood Trunion, Morbus Iff
NAY:

Writing phantoms first is no longer required

One should be able to write any entry under the particular turn letter, not necessarily filling in all the phantoms before creating new entries. (This partially coincides with the next rule as well, but ultimately strives to make the playing experience more enjoyable: there's no love in being forced to write an entry you've no interest in.) --Sean B. Palmer 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

YEA: Sean B. Palmer, Nikos of Ant, John Cowan, Morbus Iff
NAY: Dfaran L'Eniarc, Snood Trunion

Just as long as some phantoms still do get defined. --Dfaran L'Eniarc 01:27, 17 Sep 2005 (EDT)

With this rule in place, it becomes player choice, not an enforceable rule. If other players (or you yourself) want to define an existing phantom for the current letter, you can. Alternatively, if you wanted to create a brand new term entry each and every turn, this rule would allow that as well. --Morbus Iff 10:59, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)

But if everybody always writes new entries, and nobody ever writes phantoms, that's a bad thing. I dunno, I have mixed feelings about this one. --Dfaran L'Eniarc 12:47, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I share your concern but, ultimately, I think it won't be an issue. If worse comes to worse I, being the GM, will fill in phantoms should the need arise. But, honestly, that's not a forced march of any kind: there are a number of phantoms I'm quite interested in defining. From your own standpoint, do you see yourself defining phantoms on occasion? --Morbus Iff 13:32, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Most certainly. --Dfaran L'Eniarc 18:22, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I would suggest establishing a threshold number of phantoms for a particular letter below which one need not be forced to write an undesirable entry. Say, for example, if there are two or fewer phantoms remaining, you can instead choose to write something other than a phantomed entry. This way, everyone is always afforded a choice, while existing phantoms are not completely ignored either. Setting out the phantoms for others to write is a key element of the interconnectedness of the game (at least, as I understand it). The other suggestion I'd offer would be to set an additional requirement (incoporating additional phantoms or entries, perhaps) on any player selected free entries. --Brother Arfrus 13:19, 22 November 2005 (EST)

I just changed my vote. Phantoms are too important a part of the game. They're the thread that ties it into a web and they make things so much more interesting, when you have to write some article you never otherwise would. Not that my single vote's going to make much of a difference against everyone else. --Dfaran L'Eniarc 00:23, 23 November 2005 (EST)

Not to jump on the bandwagon (or trundle cart, as the case may be), but Dfaran has a point, damnit. When I dibbed Absolute Erasure, it was because I wanted to contribute, and I couldn't fathom, under the Rule of X, to create my own entry under any letter in the alphabet. And when I began researching the facts surrounding the Erasure, I found out that the phantom I chose was wove so tightly into the world of Ghyll that the entry became an absolute joy to write. Perhaps also, a joy to read, as it became my first and only Spotlighted entry. There are still a lot of undefined phantoms, and a lot of them are integral to the world of Ghyll as we know it. Things like Perky, Dulalian Empire, Umlaut Tea, and Palace of Lost Souls are very important parts of Ghyll, and I'm surprised to see that they've been passed by--some of them twice. I guess what I'm trying to say is, go ahead and enact this rule if you wish, but then you'll have me filling in all these phantoms and, well, that could get messy. --Snood Trunion 00:49, 26 November 2005 (EST)

One solution I've just thought of is, perhaps before we get started with Round 3, every scholar gets the chance to define any ONE phantom they wish. What do you think? --Snood Trunion 21:42, 30 November 2005 (EST)

While I don't have an objection to this, I don't see what it accomplishes for us. I suppose you could just as easily give everyone one free dib on the current phantom set, so that scholars could stake out a particular item they want to address in the new Round. But it doesn't seem that useful to me to be worth bothering with. --Brother Arfrus 11:38, 1 December 2005 (EST)

No entries solely about people, groups, or places

Ban creating entries, even of currently phantomed entries, that are either people, groups, or places. We have way too many of those types of entries already, and banning them would force people to be more creative. --Sean B. Palmer 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

YEA: Sean B. Palmer, Dfaran L'Eniarc, Nikos of Ant, Morbus Iff
NAY:

If we don't write about People, Groups, and Places what do you have in mind? -- Nikos of Ant 15:19, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Actually, there's an awful lot. This rule only restricts the creation of entire entries about people - so, no one would be able to define Baby Alek, but they could certainly continue to talk about the Baby Alek courtcase, or transcribe the court proceedings, or talk about the chemical process that cut him up into all those little pieces. You'd still be able to talk about people, groups, and places in the course of your entry on something else, they just wouldn't be the crux of the entry itself. Take a look at all the entries for A. Out of 35 entries, only roughly half are named for a person, place, or group. --Morbus Iff 15:33, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I'd like to phase this in by disallowing new phantoms that are proper nouns, but still allowing existing proper-noun phantoms to be written. --John Cowan 15:49, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I concur with John Cowan. I think existing phantoms should still be allowed to be defined, but limits on the generation of new phantoms can be used to steer the direction of the encyclopedia. Would it be useful to impose some limits on categories for Round 3 as a way of accomplishing this? --Brother Arfrus 13:29, 22 November 2005 (EST)

I like this idea except that I don't think there have been all that many new places recently. In fact, I'd like to see the Ghyllian geography expand, myself. I'm all for banning people and groups, though. --Dfaran L'Eniarc 01:26, 17 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Out of curiosity: what will that solve? Or, "just because"? --Morbus Iff 10:30, 17 Sep 2005 (EDT)

More geography? I just don't think we're at a point where we don't need new places, that's all. --Dfaran L'Eniarc 22:31, 17 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I tend to disagree, but that's OK. I think the creation of new places, currently, fractures Ghyll further, making it harder to talk about politics, practices, and history that matter, and actually have a lasting effect to other players and future entries. Creating a new place merely creates a separate pocket that has little to do with the rest of written Ghyll. --Morbus Iff 10:59, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)

The above rule stating, You'd still be able to talk about people, groups, and places "in the course of your entry on something else", they just wouldn't be the crux of the entry itself, is also not disallowing more geography, just direct cites on places. With this understanding it seems it "could" push many of us to new creativity, but of course, ultimate play enjoyablility and degree of well-written entries is still dependent upon who actually comes to ths site and plays. I would not, however, make it a ban on proper nouns - if that is the case then not even processes can be cited; for example Awal shrinkage is NOT a person, place or group, it is a process, but the name of this particular process is a proper noun! --Nikos of Ant 10:23, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Actually it isn't. Awal shrinkage is named after Awal, and "Awal" is indeed a proper noun, but "Awal shrinkage" is a common (compound) noun. There is no reason why common nouns can't have proper nouns embedded in them: consider "Bush" vs. "the Bush administration". Of course, "Awal Shrinkage", the name of Madam Calvian's poodle (say), would be once again a proper noun. --John Cowan 15:06, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

So what's the status of this new rule? Apparently, since Morbus has YEA'd it, we will be integrating it in some form, but will we be able to define current proper noun phantoms first, or are we completely restricted from proper nouns altogether? --Snood Trunion 18:16, 5 December 2005 (EST)

Dib a new entry when you've finished your own

I would suggest revising the rules to allow a player to place a dib immediately once a current entry is completed. This would encourage people to complete entries early in order to earn a dib. Perhaps dibs could also be extended beyond the next letter in sequence, so if someone wanted to write an entry for a Q phantom and had some good ideas for it, they could stake their claim early on. Alternatively, special dibs could be awarded either by acclaim by other encyclopedants or simply based on having an article chosen as a spotlight. --Brother Arfrus 16:50, 21 November 2005 (EST)

YEA: Brother Arfrus
NAY: Dfaran L'Eniarc, Snood Trunion, Morbus Iff

I don't like this idea. Some people write articles later rather than sooner because of busy schedules. Other sorts of special dibbing privilages sound unfair and a probable cause of confusion and unhappiness. Besides, part of the point of the game is having to write articles that you normally wouldn't and then coming up with something totally unexpected and interesting. At least, I feel that way. --Dfaran L'Eniarc 18:59, 21 November 2005 (EST)

While it would be nice, as Brother Arfrus said, to reward such creativity that merits a Spotlight entry, seeing my entry for Absolute Erasure mentioned on the main page made me proud enough that I don't need a special dib. Plus, just today did my internet finally get reconnected after I had gone nearly two weeks without the wonderful world of Ghyll, so one must take that into account. Prolificness does not equal profoundness. --Snood Trunion 15:01, 22 November 2005 (EST)

Turn order progresses from Z to A

Okay, this is a pretty big change to suggest and probably Morbus will be no-ing it as soon as he sees it, but what if for round three we started at turn Z and went back to turn A? The reason being, I've noticed the last couple of turns started with lots of players at the beginning of the round and then slowly lost them here and there until by turn Z we were only producing a few articles a turn. If we reverse the order, then it stands to reason there will be a lot more Z articles and only a few more A articles, balancing things out. Then again, the english language supports words that begin with letters at the beginning of the alphabet much more than it does all those Xs and Ws and Zs at the end, and there aren't as many (or, as a matter of fact, any at all) Z phantoms right now. So, any thoughts? --Dfaran L'Eniarc 20:52, 30 November 2005 (EST)

YEA: Dfaran L'Eniarc
NAY: Morbus Iff

I've also heard of Lexicons where everyone started at a different place (like the first letter of the player's last name) and then everyone progresses from their own start point. Here, everyone stays together in a cohort, which is fine. But getting that startup bulge (I've noticed it as well) in a different part of the alphabet would be a good thing. Starting at Z and going backward might put too much of a challenge (no Z, Y, X or V phantoms currently) at the beginning and thereby scare people off. How about starting somewhere in the middle of the alphabet? Or, even better, start with whatever letter has the most phantoms. (It looks like that would be P, which has 16 phantoms.) I'd be happy with either approach. --Brother Arfrus 11:28, 1 December 2005 (EST)

Starting with P might be a good idea, actually. I'm for it. --Snood Trunion 15:50, 1 December 2005 (EST)

That sounds too complicated for me. If we're going to do this, we should keep it in SOME form of logical order that everyone knows ahead of time.--Dfaran L'Eniarc 19:52, 1 December 2005 (EST)