Player View

[ruhar]

I was playing around with player view and noticed that the number for the subject heading is shown to the players. So if you show them something from 1, 2, and 5 they see number 1, 2, and 5 and know that there's a 3 and 4 not revealed. Players know that they won't know everything about a subject, but it would be nice if their view didn't include the numbers so it's not so obvious that there is more information.

[Zaphod Beebledoc]

But there won't necessarily be any information in the unrevealed categories.

I think players will soon realize that snippets are gathered together in categories, so personally I don't have a problem with it, though there might (soon) be a way to hide the numbers.

[Dr_Automaton]

But it does reveal that those Sections exist in the first place, meaning that the GM would have to reorganize a topic if he wanted to truly hide the existence of a certain section. I'm with ruhar on this one: Revealed sections in the player view should either exclude their numbers or at least renumber themselves to skip unrevealed sections.

[Silveras]

What does it matter if the players know there is a section 15.2, because 15.1 and 15.3 have been revealed? Of it they know there is a section 3 in between section 2 and section 4? Even if they know what type of information is in the section, does it matter? :)

I am genuinely curious as to what cases or uses where this would be a problem.

[Zaphod Beebledoc]

So for an Individual, to my mind, all it reveals is that there are 13 sections of information. I can't see how it tells the players any more than that.

All it means is that the players learn a bit about the underlying structure of RW, and I can't see that being a problem.

But, if a GM doesn't want to show their players that info, well I don't have a problem with it. Each to their own! :)

[AEIOU]

Silly metagamer players.... :rolleyes::D

[Dr_Automaton]

What AEIOU said. Plus, it's a question of, for lack of a better word, privacy. Why should Realm Works be sharing information, even metadata, with other people without the owner's explicit permission? If I sent a friend an email inviting them to a game on the weekend, and my email software appended a signature stating that my favorite color was blue, would that be okay? Even if the information seems inconsequential, shouldn't it be my decision, as the user, as to whether or not I share it?

It's pretty much an academic debate, and I don't mean to imply that LWD is being irresponsible with our data. I just think it's food for thought and hope it's something the developers keep in mind.

[Silveras]

Thanks, but I can't really see any metagame applications.

And the signature example doesn't work.. I'd like to see some kind of actual issue that could occur.

As I see it, worst case:

The player knows there *could be* one or more additional details s/he does not have access to, because the missing numbered sections may or may not contain anything.

[Zaphod Beebledoc]

Silly metagamer players.... :rolleyes::D

*giggles*

[Dr_Automaton]

I'm not sure what to tell you, Silveras. You seem to have a have a higher tolerance for this sort of thing than some others might, which is cool, but you also seem to be approaching the issue from a position of, "I don't personally see a problem, therefore any complaints must be invalid," which doesn't strike me as particularly productive. I may be totally misreading you here.

If there are users that actually want this data exposed, that's one thing, but if it comes down to some people not wanting to share it and everyone else just being ambivalent, I'd prefer to see the developers err on the side of caution.

[ruhar]

I can think of one or two players who would be a little obnoxious trying to find out what was missing. As a player I'd be extremely curious not to mention it would kind of bug me something was missing. As a GM I also want it to look neat and nice. Blame undiagnosed OCD or whatever alphabet it would fall under. If LW can't or won't do it I can live with it. It's just a suggestion, which is what we're suppose to do as beta testers.
:o

[Silveras]

I'm not trying to be hostile, or obtuse, but I am sure the nature of text exchanges isn't helping me avoid that. :)

[Dr_Automaton]

Curse you, written word! :) No worries, I was probably just reading too much into things (and made the mistake of peeking into a video game news comment thread earlier -- that's never a good idea).

[ruhar]

And trying to type on an iPhone doesn't help me either. I tried to select a smiley face last time and the buttons were too small. Darn buttons.

[DeckOfManyThings]

Thanks, but I can't really see any metagame applications.

And the signature example doesn't work.. I'd like to see some kind of actual issue that could occur.

As I see it, worst case:

The player knows there *could be* one or more additional details s/he does not have access to, because the missing numbered sections may or may not contain anything.

Her's an example:

Players see that they have sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 revealed. They notice they are missing section 5.

They stop playing the game and begin a discussion among themselves what 5 is, and why it's being kept from them. The game has devolved into an elaborate game of "What's My Line". They pester the GM to reveal 5 if they guess correctly. Dumb theories are thrown about for the rest of the night.

And it doesn't end there. "Snippet 5" becomes a running joke for the rest of the campaign. If ever the GM holds back ANY information, it's called "Snippet Five-ing Us". Eventually it stops being used in just the game, but begins to take a life of its own within the group.

Someone starts dating. Their friends ask if they have figured out their significant other's "Snippet 5" yet. At the wedding the entire best man's speech is about a list of the groom's Snippet 5's. Eventually the couple have a kid, and to mess with the group, they give them the middle name of Snippet 5. The kid then grows up in a world where he has to explain the origin of Snippet 5 to all his teachers, employers and friends. In spite of the weird name, they become successful and go into politics. Even though they changed their name years ago, the entire concept of Snippet 5 lives on with them. They run their campaign based on "revealing the snippet 5's that the government has been keeping from you."

They eventually become president, they now have enough power to pull the Game Master of his his old-folks home and brought before a grand jury. They demand to know what Snippet 5 was on that NPC their parents met so long ago.

The Game Master thinks long and hard, and finally says "Oh right, I remember now. Favorite color: Blue, NPC is more favorable to characters wearing blue or have blue eyes or involve blue things."

This may sound far fetched, but think about your gaming group. Seems more plausible now doesn't it?

(I admit, I am tired and should go back to bed.)

[Zaphod Beebledoc]

(I admit, I am tired and should go back to bed.)

Yes. Yes you should! ;)

[ruhar]

LOL
I've been in groups that Snippet 5 would go to the extreme outside of the game, a running joke. It probably drove the GM crazy, but we were crazy like that. hehehe

[ruhar]

I loved DeckofManyThings scenario so much I had to share with a group of friends I use to play with. They not only thought it was funny, but they could see themselves doing it and came up with more ideas of what they could do as players and GMs.

[bodrin]

Sit back and I'll regale you with a tale!;)

Over six years ago I began to run The Age of Worms AP from dungeon magazine.

In a module entitled The Spire of Long Shadows the Brave (?) heroes encounter a circular walled area that contains one structure. A temple dedicated to Kyuss the Wormgod.

The area before the structure is bare open ground, a 200' ft radius of bare open ground.

Multiple character deaths occurred in this bare open ground, a magic carpet was destroyed, assaults and tactical withdrawals executed. One player had on hand 7 characters, just in case! (The last one survived IIRC)

Here's the crux of the story. The term "6 weeks 200 feet" is still used in my traumatised group of players to describe a particularly difficult and frustrating task.

So a Snippet 5 saying is a likely outcome. Especially amongst RPG participants. Cantankerous as we are. :D

[Dakadin]

LOL DeckOfManyThings! :D I like the story even if the example is a bit over the top. :p

One thing that I just occurred to me that would be hard not to meta game. If NPC A has sections 1 and 3 revealed but NPC B has sections 1 and 2 revealed. If they know that section 3 is about enemies from NPC A, then they will know that they don't know NPC B's enemies.

But then again the section headings probably would give that away too. :o

[AzrofD]

+1 this. Loved the story and I see the need, too. My players just about can't help meta-ing.

[Vargr]

I know - old discussion.

I would prefer the option to turn it off.
That way it does not look like cold computer generated info.
It is a matter of giving the players the info in a format that does not subtract from the immersion into the game world.

Yes, it doesn't (neccessarily) tell the players anything, but a lot of players (including myself) would start concentrating on those numbers and not on the info itself.

Silly? Yes. Human? Very much.

[MarkNorfolk]

I thing 'Snippet 5' i somehow going to become a running joke even though it was just an extremely hypothetical example.

but for meta-players who insist on using all their powers to find out 'snippet 5' I'd just cut'n'paste the content to a new snippet in the list and have snippet 5 read "This snippet deliberately left blank" or something. Players should give up once they realise there are 'ghost' sippets.

Cheers
Mark

[Zaphod Beebledoc]

...But for meta-players who insist on using all their powers to find out 'snippet 5' I'd just cut'n'paste the content to a new snippet in the list and have snippet 5 read "This snippet deliberately left blank" or something. Players should give up once they realise there are 'ghost' sippets...

I like it!