Round 2 discussion
This is a page for Ghyll players to discuss what changes, if any, should be made during Round 2, since the letter Z is not too far away. Before we get into those discussions, we'll talk about what the End of Round 1 means, and what will happen during that interim period between its end and Round 2's beginning. Players get to vote on all this. If you don't vote, you cede to Morbus, and he'll confuse you. There are Discussion headers for each entry, but certainly feel free to comment nearest your issue (ie., near a particular rule as opposed to at the bottom of the entire section).
A few people have noticed the natural tendency of a Lexicon to have its earliest entries "outdated" by the time you get into the mid- or end- game. For instance, we know a bit more about Ghyllian reproduction, a little more about this, and a lot more about that. Anyone reading those entries "new" will get a slop-sided view of its completeness. What to do, what to do?
An in-game solution proposed by Morbus Iff seemed to also be plausible out of game. Basically, since Round 1 is a "formalized" attempt by the Encyclopedants to create an Encyclopedia, Round 1 could be considered a "First Edition Draft" of the Encyclopedia. Round 2, on the other hand, would be a "Second Edition Draft" and so on. Thus, the time between Round 1 and Round 2 would be used to edit, fix and enhance any and all previous entries.
But, how much time for this editing? Or should the editing be part of Round 2? Should every player now have the ability to a) write a new entry, and b) revise/edit a previous entry? This would satisfy a "Done My Entry, Now What?" player who wants to contribute to Ghyll more. And it wouldn't allow them to overly influence the world, since they'd still need to edit/revamp based on prior art.
Allow a two week 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.
I'd say at least a two week period for clean up. Possibly more, depending on how much work there is to do. --Doctor Phineas Crank 09:12, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
Allow scholars to revamp previous round's entries
- One edit per turn, in addition to regular round rules.
- No new facts, just revamped to include missing/clarified facts.
- No dibbing on edits; if necc. mad-edits are collaborative.
I like this because there are corrections I would have liked to make to some of my entries. Not only corrections for cannon that came later, but simple clarifications, too. --Doctor Phineas Crank 09:11, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
Would players only be allowed to add parts to their own posts, or other people's too? --Sean B. Palmer 00:47, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
Any and all. "Own posts only" would mean that 90% of our A/B's would never be touched. --Morbus Iff 07:21, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
- HOUSE rules are specific to Ghyll only, and modify, enhance, or tweak the rules to our conditions.
- WHOOPS are from the original Lexicon: an RPG post and were (accidentally) missed/forgotten/left-out, etc.
At this point, Morbus Iff and Sean B. Palmer, the originators of Ghyll, have agreed that the WHOOPS rules were accidental omissions based on the original Lexicon: an RPG rules. As such, they are to be automatically implemented in Round 2. In all things, however, you can certainly argue and discuss these WHOOPS, as well as suggest (and ask for a vote on) HOUSE rules that circumvent, replace, or change them.
WHOOPS: New phantoms must start with an upcoming letter in the current round
Reason against: you'll end up with a lot of XYZ phantoms. --Sean B. Palmer 00:47, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
No, you wouldn't - at the most, you'd have five tops (assuming "average number of players", per the WHOOPS below). With further Sleepy-Sleepy reflection, I'm starting to think that WHOOPS rules shouldn't be voted on, and instead just implemented: they're things we got "wrong" from the original rules the first time through. --Morbus Iff 07:21, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
I think we should discuss it still: if everybody is against a point, or finds some massive flaw, why not address it? --Sean B. Palmer 07:33, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
- Actually since a) Ghyll is based on Neel's lexicon game and b) that game originally included these rules, so should Ghyll, and so I vote YES on not bothering with the voting and just going ahead. --Sean B. Palmer 10:00, 4 Feb 2005 (EST) aka. the Mystery Commenter.
Um, if this game goes on forever, every letter is a future round, right? --Doctor Phineas Crank 09:08, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
- Corrected. This rule comes from the original Lexicon intent: once you get to Z, the game is done - there'd be no chance to go back and write up phantoms for previous turns, because hey, the game is over. In our case, where Ghyll goes on forever (with the invention of "rounds"), the goal is to restrict phantoms to a certain "round idea". If Round 2, for example, takes place in -150 EC (and ONLY in -150 EC) and Round 3 takes place in -125 EC (and ONLY -125 EC), defining a Round 2 "B" leftover would be a "violation" of the "spirit" of Round 3 ("only play in the year -125 EC"). --Morbus Iff 09:36, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
WHOOPS: Phantoms per letter may not exceed average number of players
How will this be enforced? --Sean B. Palmer 00:47, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
- The same way any other rule is enforced. Assuming five average players, if there are five existing phantoms for S, you can either a) use one of those existing phantoms in your entry, or b) create a new phantom for a letter that has less than five. You may not, however, create a new phantom for S (bringing the total to six, more than the average number of players). This stops the madness that is our P. --Morbus Iff 07:21, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
What happens if all letters have five phantoms? --Sean B. Palmer 07:33, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
- A strengthening of the original Lexicon intent: integration. You're either forced to pick a new/available letter to create your new phantom, or you're forced to use existing phantoms in your entry. Enforcing a phantom limit forces the integration of truth, otherwise, as you've self-imposed, anyone could invent new phantoms all the time, and we'd be inundated with entries that only link to one or two other things - "pockets" of content (what's the wikiphrase for that? can't remember. somewhere on c2.) --Morbus Iff 09:36, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
I think this would over-complicate the rules, especially with players dropping in and out. --Doctor Phineas Crank 09:08, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
- I disagree. Ghyll has an average of 5 players, so any letter can only have 5 phantoms in play. That's not difficult. --Morbus Iff 09:36, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
HOUSE: Letter 'X' allows definition of any previous phantom instead
HOUSE: LMNOP are speed turns; one turn per day
I'd just have to bow out. And why "LMNOP" specifically? --Sean B. Palmer 00:47, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
I deleted the original explanatory comment. In the alphabet song, they're said really fast. --Morbus Iff 07:21, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
Yeah, I'd be way, way too busy to do a "speed" turn of any kind, so I'd just skip. Which may be okay with you all, considering how lame some of my entries have been lately. --Doctor Phineas Crank 09:07, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
HOUSE: Of your two phantom citations, only one can be new
HOUSE: Turn challenges inspired by Kaleidoscope
More information here at http://kevan.org/kaleido?faq, and a number of challenges at http://kevan.org/kaleido. Could be really simple (random global enhancement per turn, optional participation) or complicated (those who take the challenge get points, points can be traded in for multiple entries per turn, specific-scholar "attacks", etc.)
I'd yay it if it were totally optional, and didn't see it much. Newbies really don't need another thing to learn, and the points themselves could cause conflict --Melik Fizzou 10:28, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
I'd like to find a way to make entries out of turn occasionally. I know there is Stottlemeyer O'Phelan and that such things do happen, but I wondered if there might be a way to "earn" an out of sequence letter by doing something in-game. --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 19:31, 28 Jan 2005 (EST)
I don't like this one. Stott is a hack for dealing with certain kinds of problems, and if he gets overused, he becomes uninteresting. (I'd be happy if he was *really* never used again.) I think the letters and the turns are the main thing that keeps Ghyll from becoming a free-for-all where whoever writes first and most wins. --Jcowan 13:29, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)
I hate to say it, but I agree with Mr. Cowan on this. Old Stott was a very, very generous concession made to an entry I'd worked up that was a parody of the History of the Necronomicon. I was crying about how fun it would have been to get it in after all the work I'd done and a kind soul took pity on me, thus was Stottlemeyer O'Phelan born. --Doctor Phineas Crank 09:14, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)
The Ghyll Index
Currently, the Ghyll Index is a hybrid between an index and a record of what happens each turn (players added, dropped, dibbed but did not complete). The information will become hard to maintain in Round 2, because it won't be obvious which entries are from which round. Here are a couple of possibilities:
Create A Round Summary
- Move existing turn summary info to round-specific summary page.
- Index page would contain previous entries, but would summary only R2.
- CON: R2 summary information would appear visually incorrect.
Create Separate Round Indexes
- Keep separate indexes for each round.
- CON: Undermines the value of the Ghyll Index.
Create Separate and Master Indexes
- Keep separate indexes for each round.
- Keep master index of all rounds.
- CON: Yet more pages to edit.
Would it be possible to somehow tag the 2nd turn entries as they are added to the Ghyll Index? Either a different color on the table or a type style differentiation? --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 11:56, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)
We could, yes; the page is hand-maintained, and any HTML whatever can be hacked into it. But it's annoying to do so, and whatever we choose will not scale (we will have problems with using distinct colors after about 10 rounds, e.g.) The only thing that will really work is to add the round number directly to the entry, which seems like overkill to me. --Jcowan 17:47, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)
Is the information we're trying not to lose the turn summaries, or the phantom/defined by? As an Index, we can always depend on Special:Allpages for a master index. Is the information in a separate Round 1 index vitally important (ie., used nearly every turn) that requires it to be part of a Master Index? --Morbus Iff 20:14, 3 Feb 2005 (EST)