Tuesday Aug 22, 2017, 08:57 GMT
Pandapen





Sponsored links
You can promote your product at this space.
Information at:
www.cyaccess.com
You can promote your product at this space.
Information at:
www.cyaccess.com


If you like AZbb, please rate it!
HotScripts.com
ScriptSearch.com
Scripts.com
The Great Librarie
The Lexiconne  (Topics: 5 - Posts: 38)
Page  1
Read me first or I will destroy you!
Posted by Cowboy Dec 3, 2006, 22:01
This is the board for The Lexiconne - the Pandapen Lexicon Game. Please do not start any new topics on this board. If you have questions, ask them in this thread.

I'll set up a new thread for each letter of the alphabet as we get to them.

You may make up any information you like as long as it doesn't contradict anything written previously by someone else. Any thing not already specified by another poster is up to you to decide.


Posted by Carduus Dec 3, 2006, 22:21
Do we have some kind of setting,"world" or theme?













Please don't destroy me!

[:-p]


Posted by Cowboy Dec 3, 2006, 22:31
Whatever you infer from what has been written down so far. Basically, you make shit up as you go.

The entry I just wrote on Aglalism, for example, clearly states that the City-State of Bluro-Fenandzio has an indigenous population of something called "Hoblings" and implies a bit of other information about the setting. What, specifically, a Hobling is and what they're like and how many there are of them and what their status in society is is up to whoever ends up writing the entry on Hoblings - which you'll not won't be me since I cited the article. It also makes it clear that the dominant religious organization in the setting is the Church of Bluron but again, just what the tenets of said organization are and who or what Bluron is, is left up to whoever ends up writing that article.


Posted by Monika Dec 4, 2006, 08:57
Great!

Is it possible to publish another definition in a thread already opened?


Posted by Cowboy Dec 4, 2006, 10:12
Possible and encouraged.

Post all definitions starting with the letter "A" in the "A" thread.

Don't start on any definitions starting with other letters until such a thread is opened.


Posted by Sunjumper Dec 4, 2006, 22:13
OK I just posted an entry.

And I seem to have gone a bit overboard with it (as always).

Have a look and tell me if I should revise it. I am afraid that I am not very good at staying on topic...


And a request for Igelkotten:
would you mind adding citation marks for the great Conflagration, St. Fredegunda, the Creator and Great Houses? It would be most apriciated.


Posted by Sunjumper Dec 6, 2006, 16:32
Am I getting carried away to much?


Posted by Cowboy Dec 6, 2006, 18:13
Quoted from: Sunjumper

Am I getting carried away to much?


A bit, yeah:

Quoted from: Me

Your "A" article must cite two phantom entries from later in the alphabet. Each subsequent article must cite one previous article and two phantom articles until such time as we get to X.


[;)]


Posted by Sunjumper Dec 6, 2006, 18:19
Quoted from: Cowboy

Quoted from: Sunjumper

Am I getting carried away to much?


A bit, yeah:

Quoted from: Me

Your "A" article must cite two phantom entries from later in the alphabet. Each subsequent article must cite one previous article and two phantom articles until such time as we get to X.


[;)]


Argh!
I thought that there had to be at least two follow up citations.
I am fairly sure that my second entry was not based on any other reference.

I am sorry and I will try to behave my self from now on.
(Not that easy when you have a beardy cantankerous old know-it all screaming in your head)

[oops]


Posted by Igelkotten Dec 6, 2006, 18:23
Quoted from: Sunjumper

Am I getting carried away to much?


Well, it's interesting to see that there have already been several different styles in so few posts.

As a very rough approximation, you seem to go the Exalted/Kitchen Sink way, so to say, whereas Monika on the other hand is more of a Jeff Vandermeer/magical realism style. I suppose that I tried to do some sort of grumpy old chronicler man-style, and Cowboy and Carduus being more of an actual sourcebook.

It remains to be seen what any other participants might write, and in what style.

Whether this is good or bad is of, course, a matter of perception. We might end up with a very disparate document, with wildly differing styles and ideas, and little to no consenus on how things are supposed to be in this little world we are creating. I like herrings, and you like battlemechs crackling with sorcerous energy, piloted by the half-human offspring of demented gods.

But is that really a bug, and not a feature? The Lexiconne might very well be a monstrous pile of disparate, internally contradicting, articles, all penned by various factions for their own purposes, by writers who probably were at least a few quills short of the full calligraphy set. And now, the poor youngster of the city-state might have to learn it all by heart and write essays on it...

Personally, I'd say that the whole point of this game is that it should be entertaining to write, entertaining to read, and have at least a little internal consistency, since it is based in the common assumptions that Cowboy posted.

That's my Ann's worth, at least. [;)]


Posted by Sunjumper Dec 6, 2006, 18:37
While I have been afflicted with terminal epicness I think that so far I have not been flipping out to much. (Granted Machine Gods falling burning from the sky and a whole race of people being created by the splinters crushed from a god might be a bit on the epic side) I tried to work with what was already given.
My second post was inspired completely by what everyone else wrote and so far I think that everything is still looking quite coherent. One of the reasons I create so many citations apart from the fact that I always get carried away when I start to write anything, is that I really want to see what other people make from the details I wrote, as this should lead to results that no one else has anticipated.
Should I have already stepped on anyone's toes feel free to tell me so. I will revise what 'I have done as swiftly as possible.

Your style Igelkotten has reminded me most of that of a devout monk, which in turn made me make my 'writer' even more secular. So far I love all of the entries as they have so far shown me many interesting glimpses to a world which is very much unlike to any other fantasy world I know off.


Posted by Igelkotten Dec 6, 2006, 18:52
Quoted from: Cowboy

Your "A" article must cite two phantom entries from later in the alphabet. Each subsequent article must cite one previous article and two phantom articles until such time as we get to X.



I suppose my little article about the coins issued by the Church of Bluron are a bit borderline about the referencing of a previous post. It was just an idea that struck me, and I decided to write it down quickly before I forgot it, instead of waiting for the letter "C". So, I decided to hang it on a general reference to the Church. Mea Culpa! I'll try to do better next time! [halo]


Posted by Carduus Dec 6, 2006, 19:27
I take upon me to be the bitter old lady and do the whining and grumbleing... [;)]

The idea with at least two and at the most so many "ghost referece" as there are players is that somebody else should fill in those articles and give them body.
With an over abundence of ghost references many of those articles will never be written (which is I think part of the fun) or the the gamer who writes the most "ghost references" under his article will from the start decide what every body else will be writing about.

Right now we are five players can we stick to max 5 five ghost references per article?


Posted by Sunjumper Dec 6, 2006, 21:01
Quoted from: Carduus

I take upon me to be the bitter old lady and do the whining and grumbleing... [;)]

The idea with at least two and at the most so many "ghost referece" as there are players is that somebody else should fill in those articles and give them body.
With an over abundence of ghost references many of those articles will never be written (which is I think part of the fun) or the the gamer who writes the most "ghost references" under his article will from the start decide what every body else will be writing about.

Right now we are five players can we stick to max 5 five ghost references per article?


Wouldn't we run out of authors if we made more than five ghost references with the same starting letter?
It sounds like a good guideline though.


Posted by Cowboy Dec 7, 2006, 20:04
Quoted from: Sunjumper

Quoted from: Carduus

I take upon me to be the bitter old lady and do the whining and grumbleing... [;)]

The idea with at least two and at the most so many "ghost referece" as there are players is that somebody else should fill in those articles and give them body.
With an over abundence of ghost references many of those articles will never be written (which is I think part of the fun) or the the gamer who writes the most "ghost references" under his article will from the start decide what every body else will be writing about.

Right now we are five players can we stick to max 5 five ghost references per article?


Wouldn't we run out of authors if we made more than five ghost references with the same starting letter?
It sounds like a good guideline though.


Yes. There are a number of conditions under which we'll end up having more ghost references than authors for a given letter. Even if we stick rigidly to the rules, for example, precisely n references to "B" articles will have to appear among the "A" articles where n=number of participants, or there will be too many ghost references to a given letter.

Anyway, please don't overdo the ghost references, since this will reduce the choices available to other players when we get to later letters.

As I already stated, in order to get all articles referred to actually written, I'll assign surplus ones to scholars at random. (Well, semi-random so as to avoid having anyone write an article referred to by themselves).

I'll go and open "B" now.


Posted by ScottC Dec 8, 2006, 13:39
OK, I'm kinda slow this morning, but if another thread is opened, can we update a previous thread?


Posted by Igelkotten Dec 8, 2006, 15:59
The rules we are supposed to play by:

www.20by20room.com/2003/11/lexicon_an_rpg.html

See also Monika's question upthread:


Great!

Is it possible to publish another definition in a thread already opened?



To which the Big Boss-Panda replied:


Possible and encouraged.

Post all definitions starting with the letter "A" in the "A" thread.

Don't start on any definitions starting with other letters until such a thread is opened.



So, I interpret this as being a "Yes" to your question, provided that you stay within the "one previous and two ghost references" rule.


Posted by Cowboy Dec 8, 2006, 21:10
Quoted from: ScottC

OK, I'm kinda slow this morning, but if another thread is opened, can we update a previous thread?


Funnily enough, I was just thinking about this. As I interpret the description of this sort of game that I found, I'd say the answer would be a definite "No". On the other hand, I think a "Yes" would be much more fun (albeit make the whole thing even more completely chaotic). I therefore decree that the answer is "Yes", provided you stay within the constraints of the other rules.

The fact that a "turn" then never really ends means that, strictly speaking, you could also make ghost references to previous letters.

I'll request, though, that noone write a second (or third) entry on any letter until that letter's thread's been open for at least a few days so everyone has had a chance of getting their first entry in.


Posted by Cowboy Dec 8, 2006, 21:16
Quoted from: Igelkotten

Well, it's interesting to see that there have already been several different styles in so few posts.

As a very rough approximation, you seem to go the Exalted/Kitchen Sink way, so to say, whereas Monika on the other hand is more of a Jeff Vandermeer/magical realism style. I suppose that I tried to do some sort of grumpy old chronicler man-style, and Cowboy and Carduus being more of an actual sourcebook.

But is that really a bug, and not a feature? The Lexiconne might very well be a monstrous pile of disparate, internally contradicting, articles, all penned by various factions for their own purposes, by writers who probably were at least a few quills short of the full calligraphy set. And now, the poor youngster of the city-state might have to learn it all by heart and write essays on it...


As I see it, that's clearly a feature and not a bug. If we were all anal about internal consistency, it would make more sense if we each wrote our own Lexicon and what fun would that be?

I'm generally writing from the POV of a scholar who uncritically accepts official doctrine as unquestionable truth. I'll refrain from saying anything else about the kinds of assumptions I'm making lest they influence anyone else's writing which I wouldn't want to do.


Posted by Cowboy Dec 8, 2006, 21:18
Oh, and whoever ends up writing the entry on Hoblings, once we get to H, is going to have his (or her) work cut out for her (or him) with all the little tidbits of information about them that have cropped up in other entries so far and might well continue to accumulate through C, D, E, F and G. [lol]


Posted by Igelkotten Dec 28, 2006, 11:15
Just a little bump -I have finally written my entry for "B".

Sorry about the delay -real life got in the way in a rather massive fashion.


Posted by Cowboy Dec 28, 2006, 20:04
Quoted from: Igelkotten

Just a little bump -I have finally written my entry for "B".

Sorry about the delay -real life got in the way in a rather massive fashion.


Real life - to be avoided whenever possible. [;)]


Posted by Igelkotten Jan 3, 2007, 12:34
So, uh, did I break the Lexiconne with my last update? Or are we waiting for another post before the "C" section opens?


Posted by Cowboy Jan 4, 2007, 12:31
Quoted from: Igelkotten

So, uh, did I break the Lexiconne with my last update? Or are we waiting for another post before the "C" section opens?


Nah, I just got a little busy - I'll open C when I get home.


Forum Information
Users browsing this page: 1 [1 Guest]

Powered by: AZbb 1.0.04 © 2004 AZ. All Rights Reserved. In: 0.067 sec.