BattleMaster > Dwilight
Zuma/Daimons
Anaris:
--- Quote from: Vellos on February 08, 2012, 09:51:26 PM ---In sum, I am offering a broad outline for what I think, and what I have argued quite a bit, would be a reasonable change to how the Zuma currently are, and one which would, in part or in whole, address many (not all) of the legitimate complaints of many players.
--- End quote ---
And this is where I disagree.
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.
Essentially, it seems to me that you want more people playing the Zuma either a) simply for the sake of having more people playing them, or b) to make them more like a player-run realm.
Except that A is a woefully insufficient reason to do such a thing, and B ignores or outright dismisses the fact that the Zuma are not, and never were, intended to be like a player-run realm.
In summary, I do not see that you have shown either that the changes you propose will address everyone's criticisms, or that they will be reasonable and beneficial in general. They might address your criticisms (though I am deeply skeptical, and strongly suspect that within 2 months of such a change, you would be back complaining that there might as well still be one Zuma GM, and your proposed change didn't actually amount to anything), but other people in this thread had other criticisms.
And, finally, if you would be satisfied with the Zuma getting an additional GM, sharing some of the work, without actually changing any of the way the Zuma interact with you...
...Would you be happy if I just came out and told you, "There. The Zuma now have a new GM. Don't notice any difference? That's because he's very good at following in the established RP and policies of the Zuma."?
Zuma GM:
--- Quote from: Vellos on February 08, 2012, 09:51:26 PM ---Also, the daimons have repeatedly stated that my character, Hireshmont, was intentionally trying to insult the Zuma: a thing not stated or implied anywhere IC.
--- End quote ---
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)
Having members of your realm enter the lands of the Zuma without giving any notice before hand - something you already know IC causes trouble and something that happened after you already knew it caused trouble. A perceived intentional insult. (as it was taken IC and was stated IC).
Discuss and debate ways ahead all you want, but don't spread false information.
Vellos:
--- Quote from: Zuma GM on February 08, 2012, 10:15:59 PM ---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)
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Anaris on February 08, 2012, 10:01:37 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Anaris:
--- Quote from: Vellos on February 09, 2012, 12:28:22 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I certainly do. I've discussed some of these with the Zuma GM.
Here's some public ones:
I think that Vates was handled extremely poorly as an extension of the Zuma. Too little coordination, and then inactivity without real warning.
I think that the forged letter could have been handled better. I agree with the principle that for the Zuma to try to do something (or even threaten to do something) against a particular realm, it should take action by that realm. Not necessarily public, official action, but some action by the realm or someone with some credible claim to represent it.
I think Tom should have communicated better to the dev team about what the Zuma needed so that we could ensure that the code would support it better.
As part of that, I think that humans should have been far more selectively allowed to join the Zuma Coalition, so as to avoid debacles like (IIRC) Valentine's attempted secession of Nightmarch. (I think that's what happened, anyway.) If we had not had things like that happen, it might not have been necessary to bar all further humans from joining the Zuma.
I think that if more GMs could be found who were known to be active and fully willing to coordinate solidly with the existing GM, that would help to ensure that a) the existing GM was not so badly swamped with the required replies and actions, and b) people who interact with the Zuma will, on average, receive better replies faster. (Note that I do not say anything in here about variety: I've never opposed extra GMs, I just don't think they'll solve the problems people have with the Zuma.)
De-Legro:
--- Quote from: Vellos on February 09, 2012, 12:28:22 AM ---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.
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.
--- End quote ---
Zuma Masters don't lie, that is part of why the forgery worked. In that context I can't see there being huge issues between multiple GM's about what was promised to whom, unless someone wants to break the background for the Zuma. This has always been in my mind one of the biggest problems with multiple GM's. Either they work together so well you'd never even know there was multiples, or you get GM's running off and doing their own thing to the point it is detrimental to the culture.
The Zuma currently work because the GM we have can be relied upon to follow Tom's guidelines to the letter. Very few people are willing to invest what amounts to several hours each and every day to chafe under the restriction this imposes when they have so much BETTER ideas if only we ignore this instruction here, or that piece of background there.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version