Sending Zuma humans (or false humans made to look that way) (with tattooed faces) dressed as monks to address characters within the Zuma realm - openly mocking (that is how it is taken IC and how it has been stated IC that it was taken IC)
Ah yes, and Garret... forwarded his seeing of the monks? Because that was clearly a message written down on paper that he could forward to Haktoo.
He copied and pasted a *roleplay*. Haktoo knows that humans lie and knows that Garret has misrepresented things in the past. Haktoo never even saw those monks. When I realized that you were going to go ahead and assume knowledge of them, I went ahead and made them present for Swift Claw. The original intent was for you the GM to see what was going on, but not for Haktoo ICly to "know." But I guess I assumed more restraint than was present.
Furthermore, almost every message refers to the foolish ruler of Terran, and rarely in a context directly and immediately connected to the discussion of the message to Garret. Swift Claw didn't even raise the issue with Hireshmont, other than executing the group he saw. Other characters have literally insulted Haktoo directly to her face, as in, direct verbal antagonism and practically harassment. But oh well. Guess I'm missing something that I should figure out IC.
Nice to know you're still reading, though. I do wish you'd reply to some of the more substantive parts of the discussion besides commentary on small issues with your GMing.
Unless what the players want is simply to be told, "There are four different people playing the Zuma now. There's absolutely no difference to how they will interact with you or the policies you will see, but there are four different people now doing the exact same thing that one did before," I do not see how your proposal will address any of the complaints.
Did you not read my post?
I have clearly stated that I
would like to see changes made to
how the Zuma act. I have
not asked for radical changes, but I would like
some changes. Having multiple GMs will cause some of those changes right off the bat. Biggest change: disputes about truth. I want there to be
real doubt within the Zuma Coalition about what may have been said or not said, promised to not promised, to humans.
I'm not asking them to be played like a human realm in the sense of having petty squabbles and merely political objectives. Please stop putting words in my mouth, Tim. Maybe I was immature in some of this discussion earlier; I was very frustrated, that's entirely possible. But did I personally attack you like this?
I'm not asking for the Zuma Coalition to be a human realm. I'm asking that it's GMing be taken off of God-mode slightly (just Daimon-mode will be fine). Limitations on knowledge would be a big part of that.
No, if you told me that the 4 GMs would change
absolutely nothing and would all post every message they sent or received onto a forum where they were all perfectly confident nobody was lying, and would all be sure to log with equal regularity and always make coordinated moves, that would not fix the problem.
And that's never what I proposed. On the other hand, don't keep "spreading false information" (as the Zuma GM likes to put it) that I'm suggesting the Zuma Coalition should just be like a human faction with GM-controlled nobles. I am not now, nor have I ever, advocated that.
Tim, I have a question for you: do you think there are
any problems with how the Zuma have been implemented, and how the game experience involving them has played out? Because the impression I'm getting (that normally I would discount because I have a lot of respect for you, but your attacks on me are making me curious) is that you think they're a flawless and genius addition to BM, and anyone who disagrees is just dumb.
Poll