Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

[ghost-angel]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Some excellent points made so far. Just a couple of things...

 

Though this is by no means an exhaustive list, I'd say having neither Public ID

1. nor Secret ID can mean some of the following:
   
2. some/all of the character's significant others know that the character is a superhero and are willing to keep that a secret
   
3. the character has movement abilities (or Invisibility) that allow him to appear on the scene with ease -- and depart from it just as easily
   
4. through either passive or active means, the character can ensure that his superhero and civilian IDs are never connected
   
5. the character has a superhero form and personality so utterly removed from his civilian ID that no one is able to believe the two are one
   
6. everyone is well aware of who the hero is, but, due to fear/adoration/loathing/pity/respect no one wants to bother him
   

 

Actually.... it just means it doesn't Disadvantage you.

Never comes up. Never causes major issues. Not DISADVANTAGEOUS.

 

you can still have one, call it the same flavor as stating you have a fear of teddy bears but also didn't take that Disadvantage.

 

It really has no other implications, connotations, or other aspects.

No Disadvantage Taken = No Disadvantage Gained.

 

No explanation required.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

I'm with the faction that states you only suffer drawbacks if you take the identity as a Disadvantage. If you want to reduce the frequency of the drawbacks, or their severity, you reduce the points taken for the disadvantage.

 

And if you want your character to be beloved by the masses because he doesn't hide behind a mask, you don't take a Public ID disadvantage - you take Public ID - Reputation +2d6 - The Hero who Doesn't Hide Behind a Mask. YOUR public ID is an advantage, not a disadvantage, because YOU defined it that way and paid for the benefits, rather than receiving points for the drawback.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Exactly - define what drawbacks or benefits you want from it.

 

There don't HAVE to be any, it could be a wash - no Disadvantages and no Positive Reputations.

 

You can still have a Secret ID - not taking one doesn't mean you tell Aunt May you're Spider Man, it just means there's no disadvantage involved.

 

FORCING a player to take one because you the GM want can't fathom it not being a Disadvantage (versus just some background flavor of the character) is just bad GMing IMO.

[Cygnia]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Of course, I've had some GMs insist on the players taking Secret ID as one of their disads for their characters as part of the campaign guidelines.

[jwpacker]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Of course' date=' I've had some GMs insist on the players taking Secret ID as one of their disads for their characters as part of the campaign guidelines.[/quote']

 

And I think that's totally reasonable. In his or her world, there are no public superheroes, and he intends to make it part of the roleplaying to determine how they deal with the fact that nobody (or nearly nobody) knows who they really are.

 

In this case I was referencing in my OP, there was no mandate, and my character fit better without either. Given all that I've learned here, I'm going to press Zac to play along with the middle ground I've chosen, which is effectively secret identity, yet taking no pains to maintain it, and not expecting it to come up much in the game. He'll have plenty of fun with my two intersecting DNPCs to hose me without that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Of course' date=' I've had some GMs insist on the players taking Secret ID as one of their disads for their characters as part of the campaign guidelines.[/quote']

 

This isn't too much of a problem - it's stating that the GM will want to focus some story on the duality going on.

 

It's when there are no campaign guidelines and the player doesn't take one but the GM acts like its there anyways - that's a problem.

[KA.]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

This isn't too much of a problem - it's stating that the GM will want to focus some story on the duality going on.

 

It's when there are no campaign guidelines and the player doesn't take one but the GM acts like its there anyways - that's a problem.

 

Exactly.

KA.

[Utech]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

No explanation required.

 

Certainly not! But -- as in the case of the OP -- there might be an explanation desired.

 

If not desired, you've got the right of things, hit the nail right on the head, and slam dunked it.

[sinanju]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

I'm with the faction that states you only suffer drawbacks if you take the identity as a Disadvantage. If you want to reduce the frequency of the drawbacks, or their severity, you reduce the points taken for the disadvantage.

 

And if you want your character to be beloved by the masses because he doesn't hide behind a mask, you don't take a Public ID disadvantage - you take Public ID - Reputation +2d6 - The Hero who Doesn't Hide Behind a Mask. YOUR public ID is an advantage, not a disadvantage, because YOU defined it that way and paid for the benefits, rather than receiving points for the drawback.

 

Yeah. I think this whole argument is a subset of a larger point--which is that disadvantages are the player's way of saying "This is what I want to deal with when I play the character." Aside from that, issues of "realism" shouldn't come into it--any more than the "realism" of people who can fly, throw fireballs and see through walls....

 

Two players want to play the Spectacular Bug-Man (presumably in different campaigns). One player takes Secret ID, Hunted, Reputation: Menace. He clearly wants to play a character like Spider-Man. He expects (even wants) to deal with threats to his secret ID, hostile bystanders, cops trying to arrest him, seeing his name smeared in the papers, etc.

 

The other player takes Psych: Protective of Innocents and Rep: Friendly Neighborhood Bug-Man. He clearly wants to be viewed as a HERO, rather like Superman (albeit on a smaller scale).

 

They can both have a secret identity in-game, but only one character should have to be constantly explaining away his suspicious disappearances, missed dates/appointments, and so forth. The other Bug-Man also has a secret ID, but he doesn't have to work hard to maintain it. He just doesn't. It's not what his story is ABOUT.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Exactly - define what drawbacks or benefits you want from it.

 

There don't HAVE to be any, it could be a wash - no Disadvantages and no Positive Reputations.

 

You can still have a Secret ID - not taking one doesn't mean you tell Aunt May you're Spider Man, it just means there's no disadvantage involved.

 

FORCING a player to take one because you the GM want can't fathom it not being a Disadvantage (versus just some background flavor of the character) is just bad GMing IMO.

 

Can't fathom? WTH? So anyone who doesn't agree with you on this just doesn't get it because of their intellectual inferiority?

 

Sorry, generally speaking in world's I GM when something get broken someone out there starts looking for someone to sue. PO Viper too many times and they will starting looking for revenge, and they won't hesitate about going after friends and family to get it.

 

Now, I mentioned Wolverine as someone who had neither the disadvantage Secret ID or Public ID, and I agree that Dr. Strange and some other characters fall into the same bag. So, I do see how this can reasonably work. However, both Wolverine and Dr. Strange have rather unique personal lives that facilitate them not having to worry about keeping their identity secret or experiencing the problems of a public ID. I don't think that I am being unreasonable in asking my players to explaining how their characters avoid the standard problems associated with secret and public IDs if they elect to have neither (or explaining anything else about their characters that I have questions about).

 

Now, if your mileage varies on this, that is fine. Just don't tell me that I am being a bad GM for seeing things differently.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

You missed. . .

 

Just because they do not write "Secret ID" or "Public ID" written down on the Disadvantage Column of their character sheet does not mean they don't have one.

 

It just means it's not a Disadvantage to any significant degree.

 

I had a character once - Rebar. Wore a mask and everything to hide his face - that's a secret identity in that he doesn't want his face on the news when the film crews capture him rescuing people from the burning building. But - I never wrote down "Secret ID - Hank Wallace" on his Character Sheet. It never cause significant issues for him to switch from Hank to Rebar. It wasn't a Disadvantage =/= It Doesn't Exist.

 

So yes, if you think not putting it on the sheet means the Player doesn't have or maintain one then you are being a bad GM.

Not putting one down on the sheet as a Disadvantage means just that - it's not a Disadvantage.

As I said above, if you set a Campaign Parameter that one is required because part of the Campaigns Stories will focus on the duality of Superhero vs Normal Lives, that's a different issue.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Sorry, generally speaking in world's I GM when something get broken someone out there starts looking for someone to sue. PO Viper too many times and they will starting looking for revenge, and they won't hesitate about going after friends and family to get it.

 

Now, I mentioned Wolverine as someone who had neither the disadvantage Secret ID or Public ID, and I agree that Dr. Strange and some other characters fall into the same bag. So, I do see how this can reasonably work. However, both Wolverine and Dr. Strange have rather unique personal lives

 

So it's their lack of a DNPC that makes them require no Secret or Public ID? If I take one disadvantage, I get a second one for free? If I take no DNPC's and a Secret ID, you just start creating DNPC's for me so VIPER can go after them?

 

I guess my best approach in your game is to take the Secret ID, and some DNPC's. If I'm going to get the hassles anyway, I may as well get the points, and have less disadvantages in other areas that you won't impose on me whether you gave me points for them or not.

[Peregrine]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Yeah. I think this whole argument is a subset of a larger point--which is that disadvantages are the player's way of saying "This is what I want to deal with when I play the character."

 

 

... It's not what his story is ABOUT.

 

*bing-bing-bing-bing* We have a winnah!

 

It's not about representing reality to the Nth degree. It's about telling a story.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

You missed. . .

 

Just because they do not write "Secret ID" or "Public ID" written down on the Disadvantage Column of their character sheet does not mean they don't have one.

 

It just means it's not a Disadvantage to any significant degree.

 

I had a character once - Rebar. Wore a mask and everything to hide his face - that's a secret identity in that he doesn't want his face on the news when the film crews capture him rescuing people from the burning building. But - I never wrote down "Secret ID - Hank Wallace" on his Character Sheet. It never cause significant issues for him to switch from Hank to Rebar. It wasn't a Disadvantage =/= It Doesn't Exist.

 

So yes, if you think not putting it on the sheet means the Player doesn't have or maintain one then you are being a bad GM.

Not putting one down on the sheet as a Disadvantage means just that - it's not a Disadvantage.

As I said above, if you set a Campaign Parameter that one is required because part of the Campaigns Stories will focus on the duality of Superhero vs Normal Lives, that's a different issue.

 

My campaigns don't focus on on the duality of Superhero vs Normal lives per se. They focus (amongst other things) on superheroes in a world that with the exception of possessing superheroes is pretty much like the one that we live in. The notion of either a zero point Secret ID or zero point Public ID just doesn't work in my worlds. The rub of realism against superhero fantasy just has too much friction for the identity not to be an issue that players have to deal with ... unless there is something specific about that character that makes the point moot.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

So it's their lack of a DNPC that makes them require no Secret or Public ID? If I take one disadvantage, I get a second one for free? If I take no DNPC's and a Secret ID, you just start creating DNPC's for me so VIPER can go after them?

 

I guess my best approach in your game is to take the Secret ID, and some DNPC's. If I'm going to get the hassles anyway, I may as well get the points, and have less disadvantages in other areas that you won't impose on me whether you gave me points for them or not.

 

My spidey sense tells me that your tongue is in your cheek, but I am going to answer this as though it were a serious question. DNPCs are a totally separate disadvantage from public or secret ID. Whether the character has a public or secret ID, he or she going to have to jump through hoops to keep them safe whenever the disadvantage comes up. So they earn there points one way or another.

 

That being said, whether a character has a Secret ID or Public ID does effect how he or she interacts with his or her DNPCs and how the rest of the world does too. It is the difference between Lois Lane getting herself into trouble vs Lex Luthor taking her captive to bait a trap for Superman. The latter situation is generally much worse, and that is why those pesky hunted are worth more points when the character has a public ID.

 

The worst situation though is a secret ID that is blown and now public. The consequences for this have to be so bad that all the work and lies and embarrassment of maintaining that secret ID now seem like a bargain compared to the consequences of letting it slip. Essentially all DNPCs are now in play whether they rolled for that adventure or not, and non-DNPC acquaintances of the character can start acting like DNPCs. Also hunted that weren't rolled can also come up, and other nasty things arise such as scathing exposes, lawsuits, etc.

 

Fortunately, all my players have known me well enough not test me on the Secret ID thing, and none of them have outed themselves.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

The whole thing... going from no id to secret or public... should be based on player actions, with fair warning given. A player should make a concious decision, not have the GM decide behind his back. A simple "Hey, you're risking making your ID public" works.

 

Also, I do 'point balancing'. Just as I require them to pay in points for that Viper blaster they want to carry around now, I as GM must 'give them' points for when they go from no ID to public. Hmmm, outed yourself? Well, guess what... those hunteds you have are drop from 11 or less to 8 or less. That DNPC brother in law is going to avoid you, dropping his occurrance to zero. Or whatever it takes to rebalance your disadvantages.

 

Summery: it's player's choice after fair warning, and disads are rebalanced to account for it.

[Great Beyond]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

It's the time when it's in the middle of a city that it strains disbelief. But then' date=' so does starting your world takeover in an urban center...[/quote']

 

Pfft - never watch Doctor Who? *ALL* alien invasions always take place in urban settings! And always in england!

[Cygnia]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Pfft - never watch Doctor Who? *ALL* alien invasions always take place in urban settings! And always in england!

 

What?! You mean anime lied to me about all alien invasions taking place in Tokyo then?!

[sinanju]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Pfft - never watch Doctor Who? *ALL* alien invasions always take place in urban settings! And always in england!

 

I have to admit...when I first started watching Doctor Who (the Eccleston/Piper duo), that was kinda weird. I've spent my whole life watching mostly American media where the threats almost always occur in the USA. It was pretty strange to see England (and London in particular) as the focus of all the action instead of NYC or LA.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

And I think that's totally reasonable. In his or her world, there are no public superheroes, and he intends to make it part of the roleplaying to determine how they deal with the fact that nobody (or nearly nobody) knows who they really are.

In this case I was referencing in my OP, there was no mandate, and my character fit better without either. Given all that I've learned here, I'm going to press Zac to play along with the middle ground I've chosen, which is effectively secret identity, yet taking no pains to maintain it, and not expecting it to come up much in the game. He'll have plenty of fun with my two intersecting DNPCs to hose me without that.

 

You might want to have Zac actually read the Champions book. Particularly page 48 and page 68. The book actually says if all of your DNPCs know who you are, or if you have no loved ones, and your job isn’t an inconvenience, then you are getting extra points for free and should be forced to buy off the Disad. Remember, a Disadvantage that doesn’t disadvantage you is not worth any points. If your GM is going to force you to roleplay Secret ID issues often, even though you don’t want to, he is either not doing a good job as a GM or, at the very least, is not explaining what he expects of you or the campaign very well.

 

Can't fathom? WTH? So anyone who doesn't agree with you on this just doesn't get it because of their intellectual inferiority?

 

I have trouble understanding why a GM would force issues on players that they really don't want to play. Doesn't sound like a fun way to start a campaign to me. If you think those issues have to be part of the campaign, then that should be pre-established. I can't fathom punishing a player for not having super crazy inconvenience issues built into their character.

 

Sorry, generally speaking in world's I GM when something get broken someone out there starts looking for someone to sue. PO Viper too many times and they will starting looking for revenge, and they won't hesitate about going after friends and family to get it.

 

Now, I mentioned Wolverine as someone who had neither the disadvantage Secret ID or Public ID, and I agree that Dr. Strange and some other characters fall into the same bag. So, I do see how this can reasonably work. However, both Wolverine and Dr. Strange have rather unique personal lives that facilitate them not having to worry about keeping their identity secret or experiencing the problems of a public ID. I don't think that I am being unreasonable in asking my players to explaining how their characters avoid the standard problems associated with secret and public IDs if they elect to have neither (or explaining anything else about their characters that I have questions about).

 

Now, if your mileage varies on this, that is fine. Just don't tell me that I am being a bad GM for seeing things differently.

 

“Sorry, generally speaking in world's I GM when something get broken someone out there starts looking for someone to sue.” And that’s fine as long as the players understand that BEFORE engaging in the campaign. In fact having an ID related Social Disadvantage should probably be mentioned in the campaign guidelines. And yes, if a GM doesn’t establish that ahead of time, and then punishes players who didn’t take one by giving them the exact same problems as thought that did, then that is a very bad GM.

 

My campaigns don't focus on on the duality of Superhero vs Normal lives per se. They focus (amongst other things) on superheroes in a world that with the exception of possessing superheroes is pretty much like the one that we live in. The notion of either a zero point Secret ID or zero point Public ID just doesn't work in my worlds. The rub of realism against superhero fantasy just has too much friction for the identity not to be an issue that players have to deal with ... unless there is something specific about that character that makes the point moot.

 

You seem to not be able to understand that not having a Secret ID Disadvantage does not necessarily mean you don’t have a secret ID, it just means that the player does not want to have to constantly focus on that as part of their game every darn session. I guess in your campaign that really might not work, but you seem to imply that it won’t work in any campaign, which just isn’t true.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

I have trouble understanding why a GM would force issues on players that they really don't want to play. Doesn't sound like a fun way to start a campaign to me. If you think those issues have to be part of the campaign, then that should be pre-established. I can't fathom punishing a player for not having super crazy inconvenience issues built into their character.

 

 

 

“Sorry, generally speaking in world's I GM when something get broken someone out there starts looking for someone to sue.” And that’s fine as long as the players understand that BEFORE engaging in the campaign. In fact having an ID related Social Disadvantage should probably be mentioned in the campaign guidelines. And yes, if a GM doesn’t establish that ahead of time, and then punishes players who didn’t take one by giving them the exact same problems as thought that did, then that is a very bad GM.

 

 

 

You seem to not be able to understand that not having a Secret ID Disadvantage does not necessarily mean you don’t have a secret ID, it just means that the player does not want to have to constantly focus on that as part of their game every darn session. I guess in your campaign that really might not work, but you seem to imply that it won’t work in any campaign, which just isn’t true.

 

Dude, you are making too many assumptions about my GMing. I give new players plenty of information about what they can expect in one of my campaigns both at the outset and as they work on making their characters. Also, I tend to drop pretty strong hints when they are about to cut their own throats, such as, "Hey are you sure you want to do that? You aren't in your costume and a number of people can see you right now."

 

Not sure how I was implying that a zero point Secret ID would not work in any campaign. I said "in worlds that I GM" and "My campaigns ... focus"* so I don't see these statements as generalizations meant to apply all campaigns. Still, I will say it explicitly now, zero point secret and public IDs are totally appropriate in some campaigns and should be available on a case by case basis in others.

 

* - emphasis not original post added for clarification here

[Zac]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

You might want to have Zac actually read the Champions book. Particularly page 48 and page 68.

 

Please, don't make assumptions about my knowledge. I don't assume to know anything about your knowledge or your manners. Asking anyone to ask someone else about something when that someone else is present is childish to the nth degree. My 5 year old daughter does that when she is upset with one of her friends. "Dad, tell Tina that I am not her friend." Tina looks at my daughter and then me, "Well, you tell her...", I throw up my hands and tell them to settle it amongst themselves. I really don't want to liken anyone on this board to getting upset that a friend pushed them down the slide, sat in their place at the lunch table or dropped their doll in the mud on the playground. If you want to tell me something, tell me.

 

I think jwpacker's original question to the board was pretty straight forward. He wanted to get other peoples opinions. However, jwpacker has not asked me about this yet. To be honest, I don't think alot about disads a player did not take. I don't have a loads of free time and spending it on non-productive ponderings does little good. He may never ask. If he did ask, then I would tell him....

 

For "my" game, not taking a disad means its not a disad. It does not matter what it is.

 

[The following may come across as lippy, not my intent. Just an example.]

We can play what if with this all day long: Secret ID, DNPC, Psych Lims, Hunteds, etc. What if I have a player who has a very large family, owns a business, has hundreds of employees and wants to take a DNPC of a childhood friend. Fine, one DNPC. They can roleplay their interaction with their co-workers, relatives and internet dating club BUT the only DNPC is the childhood friend. Want to see how this passes the test: insert another disad in its place. Player did not take a Psych Lim: Fear of Heights, I am not going to put the screws to him when he is fighting on top of the Empire State Building. Player did not take a susceptibility salt water, then the only thing he has to worry about when fighting Aquaguy on the beach is getting sand kicked in his face.

 

I think the Secret ID, Public ID, No ID, Obscured ID has become overly clouded (but interesting reading). Individual GMs have the final say in their campaign. If they want players to pick, then players pick. If GMs don't care one way or the other, cool. If a GM does not specify and then they put the screws to the player, that may make them a bad GM. However, it could just as likely be they are an inexperienced GM. It is really a shame that so many posters wade in with the Bad GM Hammer, evidently having completely forgotten what is was like to be a New or Inexperienced GM. It is one thing to read boxed text from a prepared adventure and another to make an adventure (or campaign) from scratch. There is a learning curve there that only comes from doing (just like role playing). I guess so many have been railroaded by GMs who think it they are actually competing against the players or GMs think that role playing just means large rewards (Monty Haul), those players have forgotten the excitement of the game. These kinds of players usual become sycophantic point mongers and rules lawyers unless they get a steady diet of good GMs and a true gaming community. Endlessly arguing about the best possible builds or holding a game up for hours and hours while they stroke the point of a particular nuiance of the rules. Alas, don't dispair. There is hope for such lost gamers. They just need to seek out a good community and, with therapy, they can come around to becoming productive Players/GMs once again. [Ok, that last bit was lippy. I admit it!]

 

The rest of the post to jwpacker I "assume" was directed to me. But, since I don't feel like trading snarky innunedos, I am dropping the ball here.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

Please, don't make assumptions about my knowledge. I don't assume to know anything about your knowledge or your manners. Asking anyone to ask someone else about something when that someone else is present is childish to the nth degree. My 5 year old daughter does that when she is upset with one of her friends. "Dad, tell Tina that I am not her friend." Tina looks at my daughter and then me, "Well, you tell her...", I throw up my hands and tell them to settle it amongst themselves. I really don't want to liken anyone on this board to getting upset that a friend pushed them down the slide, sat in their place at the lunch table or dropped their doll in the mud on the playground. If you want to tell me something, tell me.

 

I did not know you were present. I don’t know who you are. I didn’t even know “Zac” was someone on this forum and not just the name of his GM who may or may not have anything to do with the online community. I see you did post something in this thread almost 2 weeks ago. Sorry I didn’t remember that by the time I responded to the OPs last post. Looking back at your posts it seems as if we pretty much agree, so I’m not sure why your getting bent out of shape, since most of my arguments would not apply to you. If you and I disagreed strongly and if I had known you were the GM in question and that you were in fact present, I would have told you to read those passages.

 

I think jwpacker's original question to the board was pretty straight forward. He wanted to get other peoples opinions. However' date=' jwpacker has not asked me about this yet. To be honest, I don't think alot about disads a player did not take. I don't have a loads of free time and spending it on non-productive ponderings does little good. He may never ask. If he did ask, then I would tell him....[/quote']

 

Maybe he never asked you, but he said: “I'm going to press Zac to play along with the middle ground I've chosen, which is effectively secret identity, yet taking no pains to maintain it, and not expecting it to come up much in the game.”

The need to “press” the GM to “play along” with not having any ID related Disads implies that the GM is leaning one way or has already made a decision (or that he assumes you will feel that way). Further more, you are posting in the thread where he asked the question. Why don’t you just answer him? I mean he asked the community at large, but he is obviously concerned about it because of the game he is going to be playing in, your game, and you know that.

 

Also, no one asked you to or expects you to waste time on “non-productive pondering”.

 

For "my" game' date=' not taking a disad means its not a disad. It does not matter what it is.[/quote']

 

That’s my view too. See, we agree. Yay!

 

[The following may come across as lippy' date= not my intent. Just an example.]

We can play what if with this all day long: Secret ID, DNPC, Psych Lims, Hunteds, etc. What if I have a player who has a very large family, owns a business, has hundreds of employees and wants to take a DNPC of a childhood friend. Fine, one DNPC. They can roleplay their interaction with their co-workers, relatives and internet dating club BUT the only DNPC is the childhood friend. Want to see how this passes the test: insert another disad in its place. Player did not take a Psych Lim: Fear of Heights, I am not going to put the screws to him when he is fighting on top of the Empire State Building. Player did not take a susceptibility salt water, then the only thing he has to worry about when fighting Aquaguy on the beach is getting sand kicked in his face.

 

I think the Secret ID, Public ID, No ID, Obscured ID has become overly clouded (but interesting reading). Individual GMs have the final say in their campaign. If they want players to pick, then players pick. If GMs don't care one way or the other, cool. If a GM does not specify and then they put the screws to the player, that may make them a bad GM. However, it could just as likely be they are an inexperienced GM. It is really a shame that so many posters wade in with the Bad GM Hammer, evidently having completely forgotten what is was like to be a New or Inexperienced GM. It is one thing to read boxed text from a prepared adventure and another to make an adventure (or campaign) from scratch. There is a learning curve there that only comes from doing (just like role playing). I guess so many have been railroaded by GMs who think it they are actually competing against the players or GMs think that role playing just means large rewards (Monty Haul), those players have forgotten the excitement of the game. These kinds of players usual become sycophantic point mongers and rules lawyers unless they get a steady diet of good GMs and a true gaming community. Endlessly arguing about the best possible builds or holding a game up for hours and hours while they stroke the point of a particular nuiance of the rules. Alas, don't dispair. There is hope for such lost gamers. They just need to seek out a good community and, with therapy, they can come around to becoming productive Players/GMs once again. [Ok, that last bit was lippy. I admit it!]

 

The rest of the post to jwpacker I "assume" was directed to me. But, since I don't feel like trading snarky innunedos, I am dropping the ball here.

 

Um, wow. Actually, my entire post to jwpacker was aimed at jwpacker. As I said before, I didn’t even realize who you were or that you were here. I was, in fact, trying to answer the OP, by pointing out the fact that question he asked is answered in the book.

 

As far as snarky innuendo I don’t believe I aimed any at you, especially not intentionally. You seem to have been personally offended by things I said to two different people, not to you. Sorry I accidentally offended you by answering a question and wading into an argument with somewhat entrenched viewpoints.

[Zac]

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity"

 

I did not know you were present. I don’t know who you are. I didn’t even know “Zac” was someone on this forum and not just the name of his GM who may or may not have anything to do with the online community. I see you did post something in this thread almost 2 weeks ago. Sorry I didn’t remember that by the time I responded to the OPs last post. Looking back at your posts it seems as if we pretty much agree, so I’m not sure why your getting bent out of shape, since most of my arguments would not apply to you. If you and I disagreed strongly and if I had known you were the GM in question and that you were in fact present, I would have told you to read those passages.

 

 

 

Maybe he never asked you, but he said: “I'm going to press Zac to play along with the middle ground I've chosen, which is effectively secret identity, yet taking no pains to maintain it, and not expecting it to come up much in the game.”

The need to “press” the GM to “play along” with not having any ID related Disads implies that the GM is leaning one way or has already made a decision (or that he assumes you will feel that way). Further more, you are posting in the thread where he asked the question. Why don’t you just answer him? I mean he asked the community at large, but he is obviously concerned about it because of the game he is going to be playing in, your game, and you know that.

 

Also, no one asked you to or expects you to waste time on “non-productive pondering”.

 

 

 

That’s my view too. See, we agree. Yay!

 

 

 

Um, wow. Actually, my entire post to jwpacker was aimed at jwpacker. As I said before, I didn’t even realize who you were or that you were here. I was, in fact, trying to answer the OP, by pointing out the fact that question he asked is answered in the book.

 

As far as snarky innuendo I don’t believe I aimed any at you, especially not intentionally. You seem to have been personally offended by things I said to two different people, not to you. Sorry I accidentally offended you by answering a question and wading into an argument with somewhat entrenched viewpoints.

 

I took your midwording and wish to redact my "snarky" statements. No offense taken and I hope none were in kind. If so, my sincerest appologies.