Poll

Do you enjoy having the Zuma/Daimons on Dwilight?

Yes, I love them.
No, I hate them.
I'm not sure.
I don't know anything about them.

Author Topic: Zuma/Daimons  (Read 168240 times)

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #570: February 08, 2012, 08:04:37 PM »
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.

But—and I believe I've mentioned this before—if Tom wanted you to be able to make any headway by playing the Zuma against each other, you would already be able to do it.  Adding more GMs will not change the cohesiveness of the Zuma as a group. The cohesiveness of their movement times and response times, sure. But not the cohesiveness of the bonds between them.

If there is not meant to be a way to play one Zuma against another, they simply will not let you. No matter how many or how few they are.

Do you just not believe me in this, or are you truly not grasping the concept?
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

vonGenf

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #571: February 08, 2012, 08:12:46 PM »
Do you just not believe me in this, or are you truly not grasping the concept?

He's saying he thinks that concept makes the game less fun.
After all it's a roleplaying game.

Indirik

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 10849
  • No pressure, no diamonds.
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #572: February 08, 2012, 08:19:13 PM »
Quote
He's saying he thinks that concept makes the game less fun.
Nevertheless, that's the way it is. If you want that to change, you will need to convince Tom and/or the ZumaGM. Adding more GMs without changing the underlying concept of the NPC realm will not accomplish that goal.

NPC realms are not intended to be just like regular player-run realms. If they were, then they wouldn't be there at all.
If at first you don't succeed, don't take up skydiving.

vonGenf

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #573: February 08, 2012, 08:36:36 PM »
Nevertheless, that's the way it is. If you want that to change, you will need to convince Tom and/or the ZumaGM. Adding more GMs without changing the underlying concept of the NPC realm will not accomplish that goal.

ZumaGM reads this forum, does he not?

I'm not myself convinced that multiple GMs is a great idea and I tend to agree with you that adding GM without changing the underlying concept will not change much. I'm not yet sure how to change the underlying concept to make it better. If I get an idea, I'll post it.

What I don't do is ask people to refrain from arguing their case on the grounds that I'm not the one that has to be convinced, and that anyway things are the way things are.

I get that you're not the one who will take the decision to change things. That's cool, I'm not that person either. Let Vellos argue away. You don't have to agree with what he says, but you don't have to disagree with him saying it.
After all it's a roleplaying game.

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #574: February 08, 2012, 09:51:26 PM »
Adding more GMs will not change the cohesiveness of the Zuma as a group. The cohesiveness of their movement times and response times, sure. But not the cohesiveness of the bonds between them.

And there, I disagree.

I think (and the Zuma GM can correct me on this if I'm wrong) that the Zuma GM does not speak daimon. Nor does he send roleplays to himself saying, "Two Zuma approach you, saying..." The Zuma GM instantly knows everything any daimon knows. And the daimons ICly seem to know everything anything of them known ICly. Maybe the Zuma GM is sending messages between his/her characters. 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. And yet all daimons seem to have the identical opinion.

I'm fine if the Zuma are unified and loyal to each other, especially in regards to foreigners. It bothers me that the OOC interactions of one player can be so influential on supposedly separate characters, that knowledge is so perfectly shared, that there are no different daimon perspectives. If multiple GMs want to agree to smash Terran, awesome. But I'd really like for it to be possible for different daimons to have different opinions when they go have their internal daimon pow-wow.

Do you see what I'm saying? If they still end up unified, fine. But I don't see what the game gains by having all daimons be cognitively identical; sure, there are contrived differences between them, but those, thus far, appear to be almost entirely cosmetic differences.

Also, with multiple GMs, they can OOC hold each other accountable more easily for GMing decisions.

If there is not meant to be a way to play one Zuma against another, they simply will not let you. No matter how many or how few they are.

Do you just not believe me in this, or are you truly not grasping the concept?

I think maybe you are so fixed on the idea that "Zuma vs. Zuma" battles should not occur that you're not considering intermediary positions between "All daimons must always be in perfect harmony on all things" and "Daimons should be splintered into divisive, hostile factions." I'm not advocating either thing. I'm suggesting that more real diversity in GMing would be beneficial for both GMs and players.

And arguing with Tom or the Zuma GM does not seem likely to be fruitful for me. The reason is not that I think either is unreasonable, but because of:

Adding more GMs without changing the underlying concept of the NPC realm will not accomplish that goal.

NPC realms are not intended to be just like regular player-run realms.

I do not know, from a design perspective, what the Zuma were intended to be like. I do not know what the underlying concept of the Zuma actually is. And given that I think Tom and the Zuma GM are justifiably leery about sharing those kinds of things that should and could be discovered ICly in an OOC setting like this, it makes discussions of how to make appropriate changes difficult.

Example: Suppose (and I'm just making this up entirely) one of the underlying RPs that I haven't discovered yet is that the daimons in Dwilight are ostracized from the Netherworld somehow. If I then propose, "What if the RP for the rotation was daimons going back to the Netherworld to tend to their holdings and vassals there?" My proposal is obviously untenable. But Tom and the Zuma GM are completely justified in refusing to tell me why it's wrong. And until I know what the current setup actually is, it is very difficult to propose the specifics of a change.

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. From my perspective, this change would not fundamentally alter any of what my character knows about the Zuma ICly. That may not be the case for other characters. OOCly, I get that Tom and the Zuma GM might not like the idea. If possible, I would like to hear their reasons why. I understand if they cannot give me reasons because it will spoil RP. That would be extremely frustrating to me personally (and I suspect to many players), but I would understand it. But, insofar as the issue can be discussed without exposing IC things, I think it should be.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #575: February 08, 2012, 10:01:37 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.

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."?
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

Zuma GM

  • Knight
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #576: February 08, 2012, 10:15:59 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.

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

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #577: February 09, 2012, 12:28:22 AM »
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.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #578: February 09, 2012, 01:14:35 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.

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.)
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

De-Legro

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #579: February 09, 2012, 01:24:21 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.

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.
Previously of the De-Legro Family
Now of representation unknown.

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #580: February 09, 2012, 04:23:09 AM »
Zuma Masters don't lie, that is part of why the forgery worked.

.... what is this referencing? I wasn't talking about the forgery. I was talking about a recent message to Garret where I, the player of Hireshmont, phrased the message as a pun on how the Zuma GM phrases messages to others. I did it partly because I want those connected with the Zuma (the Zuma GM and Artemesia) to OOCly start to understand how frustrating it is to work with them, also because I was hoping it would provoke an interesting RP where I could learn about the Zuma (the Zuma GM has opted to respond with RPs where said Zuma Triunists are summarily executed without much explanation; and OOC saying that I'm RPing something that, as I understand it, cannot exist: I apparently didn't play Zumamaster long enough to know that 99% conversion rates aren't high enough to have a couple Zuma monks; I guess you need a perfect 100%?).

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.

See... I don't buy that. I'm partially curious to know how you know that the Zuma GM has perfectly followed all of Tom's guidelines to the letter. I'm also curious to know how you have such faith that Tom's guidelines are perfect or optimal. Neither of these things seem obvious.

But even aside from that, I have a hard time believing that there is only ever one valid Zuma response to a human action. That is, without knowing Tom's guidelines (maybe he really has created some vast matrix of Action-->Response info), I suspect that any human action has numerous theoretically possible responses within the "rules" for Zuma. Of that set, there is probably another set of responses greater than 1 within those rules that also meet some arbitrary definition of "fun." Of that set, there is probably another set of responses greater than 1 that could be simultaneously implemented by different daimons that would be "non-contradictory" or at least not oppositional.

Not knowing Tom's guidelines, I can't say this with certainty. But most rules I can imagine would allow for the above to be true. Which reveals the use of more, possibly non-identical, probably cognitively separate daimons (read: another GM, or more than 1 more). Because there may be multiple responses that can be pursued simultaneously by different agents, but which would be harder to pursue in good faith for one person, for any number of reasons.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

De-Legro

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #581: February 09, 2012, 04:28:04 AM »
.... what is this referencing? I wasn't talking about the forgery. I was talking about a recent message to Garret where I, the player of Hireshmont, phrased the message as a pun on how the Zuma GM phrases messages to others. I did it partly because I want those connected with the Zuma (the Zuma GM and Artemesia) to OOCly start to understand how frustrating it is to work with them, also because I was hoping it would provoke an interesting RP where I could learn about the Zuma (the Zuma GM has opted to respond with RPs where said Zuma Triunists are summarily executed without much explanation; and OOC saying that I'm RPing something that, as I understand it, cannot exist: I apparently didn't play Zumamaster long enough to know that 99% conversion rates aren't high enough to have a couple Zuma monks; I guess you need a perfect 100%?).


Perhaps the issue here is less that their are Zuma Triunuist and more that the Masters feel that adopting the position of monk is tantamount to abandoning their duties to the masters. The last view RP's I've had with the Zuma Humans implies that everything revolves around doing their duty. So long as they are not lax in that duty they seem to have a fair bit of leeway.
Previously of the De-Legro Family
Now of representation unknown.

Zuma GM

  • Knight
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #582: February 09, 2012, 07:48:21 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.

I am not getting involved with the other debates as it seems that no matter what I say, unless I agree completely with everything you say, that it will be wrong.

You make OOC assumptions about how things are done. How do you know how Garret passed on that information to me? How do you know how my characters then took that information?

You complain about the fact that the Daimons instantly know everything that is going on everywhere without trying to see if, IC, there is a way that such things could be justified. I have to deal with player characters that know almost instantly of things that have gone one nowhere near them, yet for me to be able to do things this way it is somehow unfair. No, I do not send multiple messages between all my characters, as has been said, I spend enough of my time on all this already.

I am not going to explain how things are done via the forums, some people have discovered this IC (by staying IC and not immediately complaining OOC how I must be abusing something somehow). This includes people within your own realm.

Dealing with you in an OOC manner is incredibly frustrating due to your attitude. So I will step in and correct things when people flat out lie (not necessarily intentionally, but perhaps due to them taking their assumptions about how something must have been done as fact), but I will not get involved with the debate on the way ahead as it just drains my interest and my time.

Indirik

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 10849
  • No pressure, no diamonds.
    • View Profile
Re: Zuma/Daimons
« Reply #583: February 09, 2012, 02:50:42 PM »
I'm going to call this thread done. Everyone has had a chance to say their part. We're just going in circles now. Any final decision on what to do with this issue will have to be taken by Tom and the ZumaGM.
If at first you don't succeed, don't take up skydiving.