Zuma/Daimons

[Vellos]

...this is a remarkably bad idea. Imagine if you were suddenly forced to play someone else's characters instead of your own. That's what you just proposed.

Well, it's not the same; GM characters don't "belong" to the GM. But, your point is fair.

I personally, don't see a problem with "terms." Again, as long as the terms are short enough for a medium- to long-term player to be able to see a few shifts happen, and as long as there is overlap in terms, and a private GM subforum, I think it would work fine. The argument that it would create inconsistency or a massive storm of complaints is strange, given that, from many players' perspective, there is already inconsistency and, now, over 30 pages of complaint.

Furthermore, again, a limited-term for a GM reduces the commitment required from them, and would allow them to also have a character on Dwilight occasionally (I am assuming, of course, the Zuma GM doesn't have a character on Dwilight. If he/she does... yeah, IMHO, that would be very not okay).

[Indirik]

If you have inconsistency now, and you would have inconsistency then, and a GM forum is used to provide continuity, then are you really gaining anything? If it is done properly, the players shouldn't even know that there was a swap. So, what are you gaining? A rotation that, if done properly, would be invisible to the players. And a growing number of players who know the secrets of the Zuma. Leading to a growing number of players for whom the whole Zuma enigma is... not an enigma. Personally, I'm not seeing a single positive from a "rotating GM" scheme for the Zuma. Not a single one.

[Chenier]

...this is a remarkably bad idea. Imagine if you were suddenly forced to play someone else's characters instead of your own. That's what you just proposed.

Except that it's not *your* character when it's an NPC character.

If you have inconsistency now, and you would have inconsistency then, and a GM forum is used to provide continuity, then are you really gaining anything? If it is done properly, the players shouldn't even know that there was a swap. So, what are you gaining? A rotation that, if done properly, would be invisible to the players. And a growing number of players who know the secrets of the Zuma. Leading to a growing number of players for whom the whole Zuma enigma is... not an enigma. Personally, I'm not seeing a single positive from a "rotating GM" scheme for the Zuma. Not a single one.

There are plenty of players who don't play on Dwilight. And a rotation wouldn't require 20 players to do. Even a rotation of a mere two would force info to be written down somewhere, or at least shared so that if one guy goes, odds are the other guy knows most of what he did.

[Indirik]

...force info to be written down somewhere...

Which can be done without even forcing some kind of rotating GM scheme.

So, what exactly is the benefit of a rotating GM scheme again? I'm not seeing one at all here.

[De-Legro]

Except that it's not *your* character when it's an NPC character.

There are plenty of players who don't play on Dwilight. And a rotation wouldn't require 20 players to do. Even a rotation of a mere two would force info to be written down somewhere, or at least shared so that if one guy goes, odds are the other guy knows most of what he did.

Wait who says its not the GM's character? He is the one that has put in the effort creating the character, the background and interactions. Apart from the fact that NPCs are tied to individual GM accounts and thus you would have to share accounts to share characters, when has Tom ever stated that the NPC's are some sort of common property of the GM team?

[Vellos]

If you have inconsistency now, and you would have inconsistency then, and a GM forum is used to provide continuity, then are you really gaining anything? If it is done properly, the players shouldn't even know that there was a swap. So, what are you gaining? A rotation that, if done properly, would be invisible to the players. And a growing number of players who know the secrets of the Zuma. Leading to a growing number of players for whom the whole Zuma enigma is... not an enigma. Personally, I'm not seeing a single positive from a "rotating GM" scheme for the Zuma. Not a single one.

You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying someone else should play Haktoo.

I'm saying there should be truly OTHER daimons. As in, inconsistencies of belief, knowledge, and behavior between, say, Screamer, Swift Claw, and Haktoo, are obviously contrived. Messages sent by Haktoo and Swift Claw seem to indicate the GM either repeatedly sends messages/messengers to himself every turn (the current hypothesis Terran's nobles are using), or that the daimons are a hive mind. They all seem to know everything about each others' interactions.

That is, the only justification for inconsistencies is that the GM messed up. We get that happens, obviously.

But I'm suggesting we should hardwire managed inconsistency. We don't have players share Haktoo. We set some kind of timer on Haktoo (either a fixed one or manipulable, hardly matters) with an RP explanation. At the end of it, maybe Haktoo falls asleep. Or maybe Haktoo just is weakened. Or maybe Haktoo goes back into the Netherworld, or whatever. Then, maybe Goobergaboogablag is the new daimon overlord. The GMs coordinate OOCly some for general consistency but, ultimately, are understood by all players and characters to be justifiably and intentionally inconsistent: by design.

You can "overlap" their terms if you want. I prefer the idea of having 3 GMs, 2 active at any time. I can write a more detailed schedule if you want, as well as various ideas for RP explanations.

The advantages gained are:
1. The GMs are freed up: they don't have to be so rigorously consistent, because their divergent and possibly disagreeing personalities are by design. They should agree on "reality," of course, but can have different objectives based on RPs... and not merely in the sense that the current GM may have contrived objectives for each daimon.

2. GMs get a break. They can stop and get an outside perspective for a while; see what it's like to not have all the current information. If their downtime was, say, a year, this could, I think, have a very beneficial effect on GMing.

3. If a GM wants to permanently stop, finding a replacement (and how to fit them in) is comparatively easy, and does not destroy the whole framework.

If you want more benefits, I can continue. But those three seem big to me, and would remove a great deal of the feeling many players have of being toyed with by an overpowered GM. If Tom established a rule, however, stating that all GMs must be in lockstep agreement on all things, and that all IC conflict between their characters was forbidden, it wouldn't achieve very much. But nobody has yet explained to me why such a thing should be the case.

[De-Legro]

You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying someone else should play Haktoo.

I'm saying there should be truly OTHER daimons. As in, inconsistencies of belief, knowledge, and behavior between, say, Screamer, Swift Claw, and Haktoo, are obviously contrived. Messages sent by Haktoo and Swift Claw seem to indicate the GM either repeatedly sends messages/messengers to himself every turn (the current hypothesis Terran's nobles are using), or that the daimons are a hive mind. They all seem to know everything about each others' interactions.

That is, the only justification for inconsistencies is that the GM messed up. We get that happens, obviously.

But I'm suggesting we should hardwire managed inconsistency. We don't have players share Haktoo. We set some kind of timer on Haktoo (either a fixed one or manipulable, hardly matters) with an RP explanation. At the end of it, maybe Haktoo falls asleep. Or maybe Haktoo just is weakened. Or maybe Haktoo goes back into the Netherworld, or whatever. Then, maybe Goobergaboogablag is the new daimon overlord. The GMs coordinate OOCly some for general consistency but, ultimately, are understood by all players and characters to be justifiably and intentionally inconsistent: by design.

You can "overlap" their terms if you want. I prefer the idea of having 3 GMs, 2 active at any time. I can write a more detailed schedule if you want, as well as various ideas for RP explanations.

The advantages gained are:
1. The GMs are freed up: they don't have to be so rigorously consistent, because their divergent and possibly disagreeing personalities are by design. They should agree on "reality," of course, but can have different objectives based on RPs... and not merely in the sense that the current GM may have contrived objectives for each daimon.

2. GMs get a break. They can stop and get an outside perspective for a while; see what it's like to not have all the current information. If their downtime was, say, a year, this could, I think, have a very beneficial effect on GMing.

3. If a GM wants to permanently stop, finding a replacement (and how to fit them in) is comparatively easy, and does not destroy the whole framework.

If you want more benefits, I can continue. But those three seem big to me, and would remove a great deal of the feeling many players have of being toyed with by an overpowered GM. If Tom established a rule, however, stating that all GMs must be in lockstep agreement on all things, and that all IC conflict between their characters was forbidden, it wouldn't achieve very much. But nobody has yet explained to me why such a thing should be the case.

There is unlikely to ever be greater conflict between the daimons then already exists, at least that is my understanding. The why I don't know, that would require a explanation from Tom. It is also very unlikely that Tom would implement a system that basically forces GM's to have a break. We don't tend to reward those that give their time to the project by saying, yeah thanks see you in 6 months.

[Indirik]

Then, maybe Goobergaboogablag is the new daimon overlord.

OK, you get bonus points for the name.

Beyond that, I can't imagine that anything like this would be acceptable. I highly doubt that this rotating scheme would with the existing daimon concepts. They have been continuous and monolithic since the opening of the island. Changing that now would almost certainly break some of the core concepts behind the daimons. They don't have elections, faction, changing leaderships, internal power struggles, etc.

Having said that, the only people who matter when it comes down to changing the Zuma, are ZumaGM and Tom. Not me, not Anaris, not De-Legro. I am pretty sure that ZumaGM will see and read your message. If they decide that your proposed system will help, then maybe they will get together and work something out. I don't personally see it happening, but who knows.

[Vellos]

Beyond that, I can't imagine that anything like this would be acceptable. I highly doubt that this rotating scheme would with the existing daimon concepts. They have been continuous and monolithic since the opening of the island. Changing that now would almost certainly break some of the core concepts behind the daimons. They don't have elections, faction, changing leaderships, internal power struggles, etc.

Having said that, the only people who matter when it comes down to changing the Zuma, are ZumaGM and Tom. Not me, not Anaris, not De-Legro. I am pretty sure that ZumaGM will see and read your message. If they decide that your proposed system will help, then maybe they will get together and work something out. I don't personally see it happening, but who knows.

To your first paragraph, my response is: "Vates" And behold, falsification is possible!

For the second.... I know. I just post here because I want to see if there is criticism beyond, "Tom won't like it." The feel I'm getting is that the only final criticism people have of it is that it isn't how the Zuma have been done in the past.

There is unlikely to ever be greater conflict between the daimons then already exists, at least that is my understanding. The why I don't know, that would require a explanation from Tom. It is also very unlikely that Tom would implement a system that basically forces GM's to have a break. We don't tend to reward those that give their time to the project by saying, yeah thanks see you in 6 months.

I guess I can't speak for the GM here, but I know that, for me, I would not mind having a break on a character. Especially if it was on Dwilight, and I could then have a new character on Dwilight. That is, assuming the GM has no other Dwilight account... that means the GM has never actually played normal BM on Dwilight, one of the most unique and interesting continents in BM (and, IMHO, the most fun). I think we reward the GM by making their job easier by dividing the work and creating a structure likely to reduce complaints and address legitimate grievances, and then by allowing them a chance to experience part of the game from which they have otherwise been excluded. I guess we can interpret a break from being a GM as a "penalty" of some kind.... but then I would never see being a GM as a "reward" in the first place. I see it as a public service.

[Indirik]

To your first paragraph, my response is: "Vates" And behold, falsification is possible!

Yes, there was a second GM. But that second GM did not constitute a separate faction, power struggle, or change in leadership. The Zuma themselves have, so far as I am aware, always been a continuous institution.

The feel I'm getting is that the only final criticism people have of it is that it isn't how the Zuma have been done in the past.

What "the Zuma have done in the past" constitutes their body of RP, concept, and characterization. Asking them to change their leadership structure for some kind of rotating leadership role requires them to break with their standing RP and concept.

[Vellos]

Yes, there was a second GM. But that second GM did not constitute a separate faction, power struggle, or change in leadership. The Zuma themselves have, so far as I am aware, always been a continuous institution.

Vates was ruler. Now Haktoo is. Change in leadership. Vates was polite and fairly cultured. Haktoo is not. Change in culture. I can't speak for any internal factions or power struggles; and I don't demand that there actually be huge divisiveness. I just would like to see the daimons not be perfectly united. I'm fine with them being a Very Loyal Realm. I'm not as fine with none of them having personal ambitions.

What "the Zuma have done in the past" constitutes their body of RP, concept, and characterization. Asking them to change their leadership structure for some kind of rotating leadership role requires them to break with their standing RP and concept.

This is true, and I understand that. If my plan were adopted, there could be no change at all for a few months while more GMs are found. Once they are found, by that time, hopefully, an RP framework could be constructed in a plausible fashion. The first daimons would not "take a break" for months if not over a year from now, if we implemented today. I feel confident that continuous, fluid, reasonable RPs could be constructed to explain this change over the next several months.

[JPierreD]

This is true, and I understand that. If my plan were adopted, there could be no change at all for a few months while more GMs are found. Once they are found, by that time, hopefully, an RP framework could be constructed in a plausible fashion. The first daimons would not "take a break" for months if not over a year from now, if we implemented today. I feel confident that continuous, fluid, reasonable RPs could be constructed to explain this change over the next several months.

What problem would the change address?

[Anaris]

What problem would the change address?

The problem that Vellos can't infiltrate the Zuma to instigate a rebellion, play one against another, or otherwise drive wedges into what's canonically a very tight-knit group that trusts each other and doesn't much trust outsiders.

[Gustav Kuriga]

The problem that Vellos can't infiltrate the Zuma to instigate a rebellion, play one against another, or otherwise drive wedges into what's canonically a very tight-knit group that trusts each other and doesn't much trust outsiders.

How about we try not to put words into people's mouths that they did not mean.

[Vellos]

What problem would the change address?

Namely, that numerous (anecdotally the majority) players around the Zuma find their presence as they currently are to have a chilling effect on gameplay in the realms around them. Based on their enormous strength, uncanny unity, and (for many players, but I gather not all) unintelligible objectives, they serve as a kind of "black hole" where all things around them are sucked into whatever they are doing. Simultaneously, because the Zuma are presented as being extremely unified, any time they are inconsistent (or appear to be) it causes major disruptions among players who have assumed consistency from the Zuma. Forming a strategy assuming they will be inconsistent (a "Black Swan" strategy) doesn't get you anywhere, but forming a strategy assuming they will be consistent (most realms around the Zuma until recently) gets you randomly and (at first and to a degree) inexplicably invaded. Usually with enough laborious digging you can find out that it wasn't random and inexplicable, but few players (again, based on my perceptions) find that digging entertaining.

Introducing multiple GMs would not fix the problem of their strength, but would address unity/consistency issues, and, if set up as I suggested, the issue of unintelligible objectives. Namely, having built-in, structured inconsistency (that is, having genuinely different "characters" among the Zuma, who truly do not have perfect knowledge-sharing and do not operate as a perfect team) would allow players to cultivate a more stable playing style. Inconsistency would in fact be built in, but it would be a more manageable inconsistency. In addition, the Zuma being more individualized would form more interesting interactions for players (and, with multiple GMs, be more available to players), and thus would be able to make the exploration of the Zuma more interesting and multi-faceted. Everybody wins (especially the current GM, who would have a reduced workload)

Furthermore, players would no longer have to feel like they were playing against multis and clans quite as much, recruiting GMs would be easier, replacing GMs would be easier, and GMs could have an experience of seeing their actions from the outside on a periodic basis.

From my perspective, those are the major benefits.

The problem that Vellos can't infiltrate the Zuma to instigate a rebellion, play one against another, or otherwise drive wedges into what's canonically a very tight-knit group that trusts each other and doesn't much trust outsiders.

You are really taking this argument personally, aren't you?

It's not even ultimately about playing one against another. It's about the distinction between "Very loyal realm" and "Multi-accounts." Doesn't bother me if I can't play someone against someone else because they're just very loyal. It does bother me when the reason I can't do it is because I'm dealing with multis or clans. No, GMs are not the same, but the frustrations are similar in their nature.