How to play

Players so far have joined by invitation, simply because we're all still learning how it works, and that's easier with a small group of experienced writers, many of whom already know one another. And it's too dependant on human intervention right now to be able to take much volume. I hope to get it automated as soon as my technical skills are up to the task, and at that point I'd hope to make it more generally available.

Sound complicated? It's not. It's just hard to describe . . .

Once you're in, though, here's how you play:

• You have 2 days for each turn (we started using just one day, but found it a bit too hectic)

• Read through some, or all, of the 'live nodes'. These are the ones that don't have names beside them in the map.

• Respond to one or two of these. Your response must generate a link with the source node. That link can be anything you want. Look at these examples -

• node 4 responds to node 1 by taking a description and turning it into a set of, slightly stupid, commands
• node 20 responds to node 4 by taking from it one phrase, "you girls in gilding", transforming it into "you girls in gliding", and using that for the title of a parody of Hopkins' poem, The Windhover

   You're allowed a maximum of two responses per turn

• Your response should, preferably, be no more than about 150 words long. (It could even be a graphic image; see node 36)

• You are asked to respond only to nodes written by other players, not by yourself.

• Send your new node to me, indicating, by number and opening words,which node you're branching from ('linking to' means the same as 'branching from' as far as I'm concerned.) If you're a player here, you'll already have my email.

• Your node will be added, anonymously, to the project at about midnight GMT at the end of the current turn. It will be added to the website, and circulated to all players by email. Then we're off on the next turn, and you'll have to wait two days to see whether anyone has responded to you.

• It's never 'your turn'. If you're busy, don't feel like writing, or you're otherwise distracted, no problem. Respond when you've time and feel like it. Trying to respond regularly is a nice challenge, though.

• A node 'withers' if it hasn't sprouted a branch for three turns, and can no longer be linked to. It's only at that point the author's name is revealed. That's how come you can identify the 'live' nodes by their not showing the authors' names in the map.

And that's about it, so far as rules go.

There seem to be at least three ways that a node can be counted as 'a success':

• The link to the original, source node is ingenious and / or stylish. It may often have the quality of a good joke, or a nice move at chess - first you don't get it, but then, suddenly, it makes real sense
• The node is beautifully formed and structured in itself. This is akin to the way many people judge writing in familiar forms.
• The node provokes many and different good reponses for others; it becomes a centre of growth within the project.

Keep in mind that the governing metaphor is of a tree growing and branching. Branches may break off from the original tree and grow into independent trees themselves. Branches stem from nodes, creating their own nodes in turn, from which new branches may emerge.

But the only thing really to focus on is the node you've selected, and responding to it as well as you can. The rest of the tree is rich and complicated, but you don't need to focus on any of it except the node you're branching from.

And have fun. We're not called 'players' for nothing.

Trevor Joyce

(I'll add more notes, including some stuff on the long history of collaborative composition, as soon as time and energy permit.)