{ø} The Set of the Empty Set

I’m planning on running an “alternative metahistory” game in three levels, with two groups (potentially three if we’re crowded) of players.  This is an experiment with canon, the history of history, and recontextualization.

The overview of the game is that it consists of three subgames.   I will explain them here, initially in a sequential format.  If you haven’t read the last post explaining the game of Lexicon, do so now.

1. The first group of players (the Historians) will play a game of Lexicon, describing a situation somehow affecting their present.
2. The second group of players (the Metahistorians) will play a different group of historians in the future of the world described by the first group.  Their work is the study of the Historian group, examining their biases, historical inaccuracy, and generally explaining why and how they managed to get everything all wrong.  They will write a metahistorical work, annotating the original lexicon (the Annotations).  The second group is for some reason better aware of what was actually going on, and explains this at length.  For an interesting ‘historical’ bent to change creative processes, the second group of players will have the Lexicon gradually revealed as more historical evidence is ‘dug up’.
3. The third group of players will play a simple RPG set in the same time period as the first group.  They will have access to the unannotated Lexicon created by the first group, but the lexicon created by the second group will be treated as describing the actual state of the RPG world.

I played with various interesting ways to set up the groups, including collapsing groups, running things simultaneously, and messing with information flow.  I decided one week- to month-long worldbuilding phase with two groups (1+2), and an indefinite-length RPG running with one of the two groups afterwards (3):

1. First, one group of players (the Historians), will play Lexicon.
2. Second, the Metahistorians will play a simultaneous game of Metalexicon with the first Lexicon as source material, creating the Annotations or Metahistory.  The Lexicon will be released to them on a slightly delayed basis (probably three days or so) to allow for some groups skipping days.
3. I think the most fun option for the RPG is to have the original Historians play after the Annotations are completed, with the gamemaster having read the Annotations.

How to Play Lexicon

I found this game floating around the depths of the internet.  Sadly, the original page is only on Wayback, so I thought I’d re-write (a variant of) the rules here.

From the original rules:

The basic idea is that each player takes on the role of a scholar, from before scholarly pursuits became professionalized (or possibly after they ceased to be). You are cranky, opinionated, prejudiced and eccentric. You are also collaborating with a number of your peers — the other players — on the construction of an encyclopedia describing some historical period (possibly of a fantastic world).

The owner of the wiki should set the general subject of the Lexicon. I suggest that he or she make use of the technique of “open reference” when describing the historical period: “You are all revisionist scholars from the Paleotechnic Era arguing about how the Void Ghost Rebellion led to the overthrow of the cyber-gnostic theocracy and the establishment of the Third Republic.” What a cyber-gnostic theocracy is, or what happened to the first two republics, or what the Paleotechnic Era is are all unknown — they are named to specifically to evoke a mood and inspire the other players’ creativity.

1. Each player starts on a different letter of the alphabet – say the first letter of their name.
2. An index for the lexicon is created, listing the titles of all the articles in the lexicon.  A wiki is suggested as a good medium in the original because of cross-linking.  If there are 6 players, there will be 6 slots for each letter in the alphabet (6 slots under A, 6 under B, etc.).  A slot can be empty, it can be a ‘phantom article’ (title but not yet any content), or it can be a full article.  Player are allowed to call ‘dibs’ on up to one phantom article at a time.
3. Each turn (there are 26), each player writes an entry in the lexicon.  Each turn is associated with a letter.  If your name is Za3k, you will use the letter ‘Z’ the first turn, ‘A’ the second turn, ‘B’ the third turn, etc.  I predict scheduling will work out more easily if everyone starts on a different letter.
4. On your turn, you can either add a flesh out a phantom article starting with that letter into a full article by adding content, or you can write a new full article if there are empty slots.  On the first turn, you always write a full article.  When writing a full article, you should choose a title beginning with the letter for that turn, and then write the article on that subject.
5. Articles should be 100-200 words, and you sign your name at the end.
6. At the end of an article, you cite two forward references to as-yet-unwritten articles in the lexicon.  If using a wiki, hyperlinks/wikiwords can be used in place of citations.  These phantom articles may already exist, or you may add them to the index as you make the citation (your choice).  One forward reference should be earlier in the alphabet, and one later in the alphabet.  (If the turn is A or Z, do two references earlier/later instead)
7. Also, at the end of the article you should cite another article which has already been written, assuming it’s not the first turn.
8. It’s an academic sin to cite yourself, you can never cite an entry you’ve written.
9. 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.)