Truthfully though, this whole conversation is starting to bore me because it seems no one is even interested in trying to figure out what makes the Zuma tick.
My character is standing in a volcano and has just asked Haktoo what makes her tick.
The trouble, though, regardless of the response my character gets (which may well be to get his head chopped off at the rate he's going) -- the Zuma don't really make me want to know what's making them tick. They're not intriguing. I get the explanation for their language but that doesn't mean it isn't a handicap.
I would challenge anyone with the unfortunate job of running the Zuma to run them without a great CS advantage. It's too much of an easy I Win button and that dominates the way most people think about them. I'm enjoying myself on Dwilight more than usual (which is to say, at all) because I don't care if my character dies and my character cares less if he dies than most do (since he's old).
SMA done right breeds interesting characters. Putting a force on the game board with a whole lot of power makes people pay attention but it doesn't make them interesting. I'm not saying that there aren't a dozen interesting things about them that I'm just not privy to, either. But the structural problems make it very unlikely that many of those things will be revealed. Think about some medieval antagonists: Eleanor of Aquitaine or any of the princes in
Lion in Winter, Robert the Bruce in Braveheart, or even Denethor in LOTR. They are complex characters with often conflicting goals that get them into trouble. An antagonist ought to be able to muck up the natural order of things somewhat, but with finesse - not by merely stomping on the board until the pieces fall off.
Poll