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....

[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]

Originally Posted by AEIOU

Silly metagamer players....

*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.