As has been demonstrated in this particular thread, and others dealing with the Zuma, the players have special expectations of a GM-run realm. They are expected to be 100% consistent, 100% reliable/honest in their dealings, and have extremely accurate continuity. Look at what happened with Vates. He's been gone for years, and people are still complaining that things that Vates told them are not consistent with stuff that the current GM is telling them. Or that deals they worked out with Vates are no longer honored. Stuff like this that happens with normal player realms is shrugged off as par for the course. It just happens. But when it happens with GM controlled realms, even when players are specifically told that current events may not have continuity with old events, such as between 3rd and 4th invasion, they still complain and feel somehow betrayed. I really can't see this changing. Adding more GMs to the Zuma team will not suddenly change player expectations of how a GM realm should be.
No, it would.
Because I do not find it credible that the GM will organize a rebel group and have a rebellion against himself.
I find it more credible that a second GM might, especially if each GM was assigned different objectives.
Changing the structure of the GMing will radically alter player perceptions, and radically alter how the GMs play,
especially if every GM is given different objectives, and
every GM has some kind of plausible incentive structure: maybe their "term" lasts only until some variable is exhausted by their actions, maybe a fixed time, it hardly matters, as long as it is small enough that players could figure it out in a reasonable character's timeframe, and as long as the broad reasoning behind the shift can be discerned.
Players expect consistency
because we know it is one GM. We don't expect that kind of consistency from human realms.
Poll