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 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)

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. --Sean B. Palmer 12:54, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

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

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. --Morbus Iff 15:33, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

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, Dfaran L'Eniarc
NAY:

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)

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
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 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)