rules variant for playing Lexicon
This is a modification of the Lexicon rules.
The main purpose is to make selecting topics for articles a bit more open-ended instead of requiring alphabetical order.
I've also tried to make nominating new topics proceed a bit more predictably, as last time we played this we ended up generating far more nominations than we actually used.
Scholars
Each player takes on the role of a cranky, opinionated, prejudiced, and eccentric scholar. You are collaborating with a number of peers on the creations of a reference work (such as an encyclopaedia). The work will be historical in tone, describing a world, nation, or other subject. The players' scholars exist within the fictional world itself.
Your own scholar is, of course, a paragon of logic and reason, while their peers are self-important and narrow-minded dunderheads. However, you cannot deny that they are honest scholars. This means that the basic facts introduced by any article are as accurate as historical research allows, but the interpretation and conclusions drawn from them can be debated widely. Remember also that new facts introduced in your article may call previous interpretations into question.
Order the players alphabetically by name: your scholar is previously acquainted with the scholars belonging to the two players beside you in the list (consider the first and last people in the list to be beside each other). Talk to their players to figure out if the scholars are acquainted on friendly or unfriendly terms (remember, no-one can deny that they are at least honest scholars).
At the start of the game, have your scholar write a short letter of introduction to the group. Probably your scholar was introduced to the group by one of their two acquaintances.
At the end of the game, have your scholar write a short biography of one or more of the others. It can be as subjective and unbalanced as you like, so if your scholar really dislikes one of the others this is the last chance to tear into them.
Always keep in mind that a scholar may be portrayed with attitudes and opinions distinct from that of the player (it's a sort of role-playing game). Don't take any in-character insults personally.
Rounds and articles
Play will consist of six rounds, with each player writing two articles per round (just one on the first round). A time limit of about a week per round should be reasonable.
In each round, you must write one article on a brand-new topic (i.e. one not already nominated by anyone).
On all rounds but the first, you must also write one article on a topic nominated by some previous article (from another player: you can't use topics you nominated yourself).
There will be a few nominated topics left over. You can use this to continue the encyclopaedia as a regular open-ended wiki, or if you prefer to have a closed book you can play an extra round to fill them in (there should be one leftover nomination per player).
Referencing
Each article must always reference at least one existing article by another player (articles written by you can be referenced but don't count for this restriction).
The only exception to this rule is on the first round, for the very simple reason that not many articles exist yet to reference.
In the first few rounds, you must also add references to new topics ("nominated topics") for which articles don't yet exist. These topics will be written about later by the other players: you may not write an article for a topic you nominated yourself. References to topics which have already been nominated but not yet written don't count.
In rounds 1 and 2, you nominate two topics per round (you can spread the references between your articles for that round in whatever way you like).
In rounds 3 and 4, nominate one topic per round.
In rounds 5 and 6 no new nominations can be made.
You can add as many other references to the article as you like, but they must be to either an existing article or to a topic which has already been nominated. It's okay to use topics you wrote about or nominated for these extra references.
Summary
RoundArticle topics writtenTopic nominations
11 new2
21 new, 1 nominated2 (in total across both articles)
31 new, 1 nominated1 (in either article)
41 new, 1 nominated1 (in either article)
51 new, 1 nominatedNone
61 new, 1 nominatedNone
Remember that the number of new nominations you may create is per round, not per article. E.g. in round 2, you can create both nominations in a single article (and no new ones in the other), or you can put one nomination in each article.
If you want to play a longer game, you can repeat round 4 as many times as you like before proceeding to the final two rounds.
The main purpose is to make selecting topics for articles a bit more open-ended instead of requiring alphabetical order.
I've also tried to make nominating new topics proceed a bit more predictably, as last time we played this we ended up generating far more nominations than we actually used.
Scholars
Each player takes on the role of a cranky, opinionated, prejudiced, and eccentric scholar. You are collaborating with a number of peers on the creations of a reference work (such as an encyclopaedia). The work will be historical in tone, describing a world, nation, or other subject. The players' scholars exist within the fictional world itself.
Your own scholar is, of course, a paragon of logic and reason, while their peers are self-important and narrow-minded dunderheads. However, you cannot deny that they are honest scholars. This means that the basic facts introduced by any article are as accurate as historical research allows, but the interpretation and conclusions drawn from them can be debated widely. Remember also that new facts introduced in your article may call previous interpretations into question.
Order the players alphabetically by name: your scholar is previously acquainted with the scholars belonging to the two players beside you in the list (consider the first and last people in the list to be beside each other). Talk to their players to figure out if the scholars are acquainted on friendly or unfriendly terms (remember, no-one can deny that they are at least honest scholars).
At the start of the game, have your scholar write a short letter of introduction to the group. Probably your scholar was introduced to the group by one of their two acquaintances.
At the end of the game, have your scholar write a short biography of one or more of the others. It can be as subjective and unbalanced as you like, so if your scholar really dislikes one of the others this is the last chance to tear into them.
Always keep in mind that a scholar may be portrayed with attitudes and opinions distinct from that of the player (it's a sort of role-playing game). Don't take any in-character insults personally.
Rounds and articles
Play will consist of six rounds, with each player writing two articles per round (just one on the first round). A time limit of about a week per round should be reasonable.
In each round, you must write one article on a brand-new topic (i.e. one not already nominated by anyone).
On all rounds but the first, you must also write one article on a topic nominated by some previous article (from another player: you can't use topics you nominated yourself).
There will be a few nominated topics left over. You can use this to continue the encyclopaedia as a regular open-ended wiki, or if you prefer to have a closed book you can play an extra round to fill them in (there should be one leftover nomination per player).
Referencing
Each article must always reference at least one existing article by another player (articles written by you can be referenced but don't count for this restriction).
The only exception to this rule is on the first round, for the very simple reason that not many articles exist yet to reference.
In the first few rounds, you must also add references to new topics ("nominated topics") for which articles don't yet exist. These topics will be written about later by the other players: you may not write an article for a topic you nominated yourself. References to topics which have already been nominated but not yet written don't count.
In rounds 1 and 2, you nominate two topics per round (you can spread the references between your articles for that round in whatever way you like).
In rounds 3 and 4, nominate one topic per round.
In rounds 5 and 6 no new nominations can be made.
You can add as many other references to the article as you like, but they must be to either an existing article or to a topic which has already been nominated. It's okay to use topics you wrote about or nominated for these extra references.
Summary
RoundArticle topics writtenTopic nominations
11 new2
21 new, 1 nominated2 (in total across both articles)
31 new, 1 nominated1 (in either article)
41 new, 1 nominated1 (in either article)
51 new, 1 nominatedNone
61 new, 1 nominatedNone
Remember that the number of new nominations you may create is per round, not per article. E.g. in round 2, you can create both nominations in a single article (and no new ones in the other), or you can put one nomination in each article.
If you want to play a longer game, you can repeat round 4 as many times as you like before proceeding to the final two rounds.