Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Jazuela · 06-22-2006, 08:04 AM

I've been a head builder, a lead builder, and a grunt builder for several games so far. I'm currently a "grunt" (meaning, just a regular builder, not in charge of anything but my own zones). So that's my background. Here's why I might not work for a game:

1) The code is too difficult to work with. If I have to type out some long unintelligible_under_scored_command every time I want to add a description to an object, I won't last long. Builder tools need to be created for the ease of the builder. The easier the tools are to use, the more time the builder will spend actually writing, and less time trying to figure out which letter of their command was the typo that rejected the whole paragraph. And no, I'm not going to write an alias for every single ridiculous tool command provided. A couple of things like making "home" bring me to the first room of my current zone is easy enough, but I don't want to spend hours replacing all your "#make_room_with_weather_light_dark" with "rcreate outside."

2) The other zones. I was initially trained for print journalism. Subsequent creative direction involved very strict room-building criteria. My current building style is a slightly relaxed combination of the two. If other builders of the game use a drastically different style, mine is going to look very strange. Or players might even prefer mine over the others. This kind of style split prevents cohesion and continuity, which is very bad for a game.

3) The game style. Is this a game I would ever want to play? I've had my fill of tolkeinesque games, and so I'd have no interest in building an Orc Cavern or a dozen platinum-haired, doe-eyed, porcelain-skinned elven NPC rangers.

I'm not interested in building for yet another game that insists it's RP-intensive, or RP-enforced, yet has OOC chat-channels and no permanent death, where killing a critter is the primary method of advancing to the next level, just so you can become a Lord and - hunt at the next tier. I don't want to build for a game where the administrator doesn't even realize his game is just a glorified hack-n-slash. I might, however, build for a hack-n-slash, IF the administrator truly understands that's what his game is.

----

Regarding replacing temporary rooms with completed rooms: I actually like doing that. I find it easier to rewrite someone else's stuff than starting from scratch. I can go through a dozen rewrites in an hour, but if the zone is a 500-room blank slate with no exits, and I have to map the whole thing myself, it'll take me a whole lot longer to create it. I -enjoy- writing from a blank slate, but it is definitely more time consuming and if someone is looking to me for expediency, they're better off hiring me as a copy editor rather than a creator.

06-22-2006, 08:04 AM	#25
Jazuela Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: New England Posts: 849	I've been a head builder, a lead builder, and a grunt builder for several games so far. I'm currently a "grunt" (meaning, just a regular builder, not in charge of anything but my own zones). So that's my background. Here's why I might not work for a game: 1) The code is too difficult to work with. If I have to type out some long unintelligible_under_scored_command every time I want to add a description to an object, I won't last long. Builder tools need to be created for the ease of the builder. The easier the tools are to use, the more time the builder will spend actually writing, and less time trying to figure out which letter of their command was the typo that rejected the whole paragraph. And no, I'm not going to write an alias for every single ridiculous tool command provided. A couple of things like making "home" bring me to the first room of my current zone is easy enough, but I don't want to spend hours replacing all your "#make_room_with_weather_light_dark" with "rcreate outside." 2) The other zones. I was initially trained for print journalism. Subsequent creative direction involved very strict room-building criteria. My current building style is a slightly relaxed combination of the two. If other builders of the game use a drastically different style, mine is going to look very strange. Or players might even prefer mine over the others. This kind of style split prevents cohesion and continuity, which is very bad for a game. 3) The game style. Is this a game I would ever want to play? I've had my fill of tolkeinesque games, and so I'd have no interest in building an Orc Cavern or a dozen platinum-haired, doe-eyed, porcelain-skinned elven NPC rangers. I'm not interested in building for yet another game that insists it's RP-intensive, or RP-enforced, yet has OOC chat-channels and no permanent death, where killing a critter is the primary method of advancing to the next level, just so you can become a Lord and - hunt at the next tier. I don't want to build for a game where the administrator doesn't even realize his game is just a glorified hack-n-slash. I might, however, build for a hack-n-slash, IF the administrator truly understands that's what his game is. ---- Regarding replacing temporary rooms with completed rooms: I actually like doing that. I find it easier to rewrite someone else's stuff than starting from scratch. I can go through a dozen rewrites in an hour, but if the zone is a 500-room blank slate with no exits, and I have to map the whole thing myself, it'll take me a whole lot longer to create it. I -enjoy- writing from a blank slate, but it is definitely more time consuming and if someone is looking to me for expediency, they're better off hiring me as a copy editor rather than a creator.