[Delerak]

I'm posting this thread to find some feedback on what actual builders might look for in a MUD, and their building habits.

My initial questions would be.

1.) Type?
Do you look for a certain type of mud to build at, like roleplay enforced, PK only, etc. Why do you want this type of mud.

2.) Style?
What style do you try to adhere to when you build. Do you prefer to do only certain types of areas, like geography only. Or perhaps cities only. Do you lean towards building a vile, sinister area, full of crime, sex, and drugs, or would you rather build a bright shining city of light, the bastion of good and purity.

3.) Room length?
What room length do you like to build to? 4 lines? 5? 6? 1? What is a good room length in your opinion. And why?

4.) NPCs?
What types of NPCs do you like to build. Good? Evil? Certain types of races? Why?

5.) OLC?
Do you prefer a huge, intricate OLC system with all sorts of features or a more simple offline building program.

6.) Mud setting?
What mud setting do you look for? General medieval fantasy? Sword and sorcery? Hack n slash? Or are you more stringent and seek out muds based on books like Wheel of Time, Dragonlance, etc.

7.) MUD rules?
Do you look for a mud with lots of building rules, strict guidelines etc. Or a more laid back style where you're allowed almost free reign of an area.

8.) Color?
Do you require color on a mud to build at it?

9.) Established mud?
Do you look for a MUD that has forums, website, and a player community, with a deep rooted base to build at? Or are you more of a creator that wants to find a mud that is up and coming and help the needy.


10.) Anything else you can think of mentioning here!

Thanks.
-D

[Jazuela]

RPI or at the very least, RP-enforced. Because I wouldn't play anything else; therefore I won't build for anything else.

I like gorey stuff, blood and guts and congealed fat and coagulated blood and leg-bones sticking out through torn flesh.

Anywhere between 4 minimum and 15 maximum. Most people skim over anything more than 6 lines, and the people who -do- read the full paragraph will only do it once. So I try to say what needs to be said within 6-8 lines for -most- rooms, and certain "special" rooms would get extra detail.

I'm really bad at building NPCs, but I've created a few non-mob types, such as avatars used to promote plotlines - little lost/kidnapped girls, orphan kids, oracle witches, etc. etc. Those are pretty fun to do.

I'm accustomed to the DIKU-style building system, and the MOO building system. I like them both and would probably go nuts if there was a way to combine the two into a single system.

General though I got a kick out of doing some building for a steampunk once and would love to see more of those.

I like it when *I* have free reign, but I also like being the one to make the rules when it comes to building. I've seen some pretty ridiculous guidelines in the past, and I've seen games with no guidelines at all. There needs to be someone setting limits, and the limits have to be reasonable, and have to address a *reader's* perspective.

No.

Either or.

Not at the moment

[shadowfyr]

5) OLC?

Seriously ugh! Now, I do agree that they get two things right. There is a) a consistent "base" system for things like combat, shops, NPC code, etc. This is a good thing, but still something someone "could have" done for the older style full-mod capable muds. Its main feature might be described as, "security through not letting you change anything in the core library". Ok, not a horrible idea, as long as you have some sane way to change that code. Recompiling the entire engine to either change how something works, or add new protocols, is ***not*** sane imho, especially if you are running something like Windows, and you don't necessarilly have direct access to the box its on. I really think we need an alternative. One with a clear, uncomplicated, non-obfuscated library, which you can access ***on a different security level and port*** than the coders for rooms, etc. In other words, make the library and things like protocols "plugins", so you can still change them via telnet, but only through **their** port and security. And make sure they operate in a way that is a) clear and concise, as well as b) in a way that can easilly be modded to do other stuff not currently supported. Let the normal coding of rooms, NPCs, etc. from this library still happen in the other security layer, where you can limit what is done, without preventing someone who wants to from suggesting alternate code for something. Heck, for that matter, if they want to change stuff in the library, to do something different, have some way to limit "those" changes so they can "only" effect the code, NPCs, rooms, etc. in "their" area, or something. But don't tie some creative persons hands with, "No, you can't do that, because while it sounds really cool, the library doesn't support it." I would hate to code on some place like that myself, but heh, to each their own.


8) In what sense, no?

Seriously, if there are reasonable rules to limit its use to where it makes sense, and you where only allowed to use it in room objects. I.e., you *have to*, "look object" to see it, I don't think its so bad. I do agree that the ones which bury it in the main room, and then only support straight ANSI as well, are ugly. I don't see anything wrong with someone a) supporting MXP style colors, so that when someone is *specifically* describing a flower or the like, they can give a visual of the color (or for a puzzle that relies on it and uses more than red, green and blue, or something), but I just wants to slap the idiot that uses ANSI red to hilight their "violet" flowers with a magenta fish (being as they couldn't even pick a color *close* to the one they intended, never mine the exact color, and this happened ***on*** a mud that supported MXP...), b) having a sign that is a particular color, because its that color. If the goblin's inn, which sells bog swill tea, has a sign that is putred green (because they, yuck, actually like that color) it would be funny to actually have the sign object in the room, or at least its title, i.e., "A sign that reads, "Muglop's Innn'", actually *be* a sickly green color.

Point is, its not color that is the problem, its that people are stupid about how to use it properly, and they figure that if they can use it, they should use it often and in the most idiot ways possible. Though, the ones that take the cake are the RL cases where some religious wacko uses Comic Sans, random bold text and 15 different colors to babble some incoherent rant against your support of toothpaste, or some similarly insane nonsense. Don't believe me? Then you probably haven't recieved one. And they **always** seem to be in Comic Sans, even on their websites. lol If I ever wanted to write a supposed text, holding some tiny clue to some puzzle, in the middle of the incoherent babble from a fanatic who once lived in a cave and raised bats, on the theory that his god wanted them to destroy the world for its use of toe nail clippers, I know precisely the color scheme, font and layout needed to make it believable on a mud. Sadly, most of them would never allow me to do it justice. lol

But seriously, as I said. Color isn't bad, bad use of color is. Why the only reaction anyone that recognizes bad use of color ever has is to run away and avoid it...

[Delerak]

I totally agreed with your whole post shadow. Wtf, are you my twin.

[crate]

First off, great thread. I like this immensely.

Definitely roleplay encouraged, if not greater. IC in public rooms at the least.. PK is alright, but I don't like open PK games. I would want to build in a MUD that I could play in, and so I would want something with roleplaying that wasn't just hack and slash. Unfortunately, these are vague and I'm rather picky. So something in the style of Iron Realms' smaller games that have more RP would be nice.

I like a variety of styles to keep me interested. Building the same thing over and over again is obnoxious.

4-6 lines. Maybe less on areas like a swamp or a path. I don't like room descriptions to repeat, but variety becomes more difficult if you have to write 6 lines for each desert room.

Personally, I like good or evil, humanoid races. They're easier for me to describe.

I've had limited experience with OLC, and I like building online, but at the same time, too many features causes people to want to utilize every single one of them whether a place needs it or not.

Original setting. No stock rooms. Not based on books or movies. The only exception might be Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series. That I could work with because I know the subject matter. But even then, original is best!

There should definitely be set guidelines and a standard of quality that is maintained. Some rules I love are:I like color, but only if it is used sparingly. Room exits. Seperate chat channels. Iron Realms utilizes color well.

Ideally, I'd love to start with a MUD from the ground up. However, I don't want to waste my time on a game that will never get off the ground. I was about to apply as a builder for Ilyrias when that game fell through. (I am still terribly sad about that.) So to start from a new MUD, I'd love the opportunity to start on a new IRE game, or something similar, where the player base would be guaranteed. Logging into a MUD that will have less than ten players on at any given time would make me sad.

Working with an established MUD can be fun, but seriously, I would absolutely love a new MUD that had real promise.

Stock rooms make me sad. Areas with purpose are the best. I would never just write for a MUD that didn't have an overall theme and quality standards. The admin should have a vision for what he or she wants to see.

[Delerak]

Yeah I pretty much agree with you Crate. I've found it very hard to keep a presence of builders and or coders when I'm not around at my mud. It can be frusterating as the admin as well as flattering. In the sense that if you're gone everything crumbles, which sucks.

[Molly]

I obviously prefer a Mud type where zones and descriptions are important, as well as depth in the zones, since that is where Builder skills are required. This probably rules out pure PK and pure hack'n'slash. Roleplay Muds usually look for depth and quality, but my favourite Mud would be focused on exploring and questing, like the one that one I build for presently. Designing quests is one of the more fun tasks you can do as a Builder.

I like change, so I do all kinds of zones, anything else would soon bore me to death. I prefer working on pretty dense surroundings with lots of extra descs and secrets embedded in the rooms, but the building style obviously needs to adapt to the type of area you work on. For instance the room descs in travel areas would be much shorter than the ones inside a house or a castle, where you would put a lot of depth and extra descs. I am not saying that extra descs would not bee good in a forest or grassland too, only that somewhere you have to make a choice between quality and quantity. If every room in the Mud would have lots of extra descs, you'd probably end up with a very small world.

I think 4-8 lines are ideal, too short looks puny, too long gets spammy and just makes players turn on brief mode. It's better to put everything above 8 lines into extra descs. (Although I must confess I sometimes break my own rules here. I often get carried away while writing, and my descs become too long). Pure travel areas can have shorter descs, but not less than 2 lines.

Race, alignment and such details don't matter to me. What does matter is if I can make the mob interesting in some way, give it some sort of background history, or make it an integrated part of a quest or the overall plot of the zone.

One thing that is essential to me is that the Mud has DG_scripts, or the equivalent, and that the scripting code is kept updated. Scripts is what makes a zone come to life.
Generally I'd say the more tools us builders can get, the better. We don't HAVE to use them all, but they should be available when we do.
And I want access to ALL the tools. I hate the system some muds have, where you first only get access to room edit, then possibly to mobs, and finally objects and scripts. Some muds even only let a small set of trusted builders work with the mobs and objects, while the main part are supposed to just fork out room descs. To me that is slave labour, and I'd never build in a place like that. All parts of a zone need to work together, rooms, mobs, objects and scripts, and you have to work with them as a whole to get good results.
Whether you like to work in OLC, with an off-line building program or directly in the files, like I do myself is a matter of personal preference, but it's nice if the Mud can offer alternatives.

Personally I wouldn't like building for a Mud that is based on a book or a series of books, it would put way too much restraint on my creativity. I am also growing increasingly tired of medieval fantasy, even though that was my first preference when I started building many years ago. I like to have SOME sort of consistent theme though, since having a sort of platform to start out from makes building easier. Nowadays I love to indulge in Ancient Greece and Egypt - the combination of historical facts and myths give enough foundation for my fantasy to spin off.

I think the Mud must have some building rules, as long as they are sensible ones. Consistency is important; ideally the player should not even notice when they pass from one zone to another. If every Builder gets to follow their own taste, you'll end up with a total patchwork. You also need to have rules about the balancing of mobs and objects, or you'll end up with a steadily escalating set of addaffects and other stats on objects, since that is the easiest way for Builders to attract players to their zone. And finally there needs to be rules about the use of colour, unless you want the Mud to end up looking like a badly decorated christmas tree. (see below)

Personally I like colour in a mud, when used tastefully, consequently and not to the excess. I think colours in general should not be left to the builders to choose however, with the exception of small highlights here and there. The colour scheme should be part of the Mud design and built into the code. Rightly used colours help with the readability, and consequently with the playability of the Mud. For instance different colour on room names, room descs, exits, mobs and objects all make it easier to get a quick grasp of the room you enter, and different colours on channel makes it easier to single out important messages from the rest. Above that, colour should be used sparsely.

I can see how it would be more fun to build for a new and upcoming mud, where you have a real chance to put your mark on the game. However, for me stability and consistency is everything. I would absolutely hate to put months of my work into a mud, only to see it fold before it even opened. So if I ever went on the lookout for a new Mud to build on - (which seems unlikely) - I'd probably go for an established Mud, unless the new Mud was run by people I knew well enough to trust that they'd carry out their project.

Most important of all to me is an environment where Builders' rights and skills are acknowledged and respected.
Also it is important that the coders in the mud really listen to the builders and provide them with all the tools they need to do a good job.

[Vanth]

I'd only build at a MUD I'd want to play (or preferably, currently play). I prefer RPIs. As a builder, that preference is still there because I want people to actually read my descriptions and interact with my writing, rather than my writing just being background noise while they interact with the code.

I prefer areas that are neither black nor white, but gray. I do prefer writing city areas to wilderness ones, in great part because cities have lots of people, and (to me) it's more interesting to write about people than animals.

4 lines minimum, 8-9 max. Anything less than 4 and I don't think enough is said about the area. If you can engage at least 3 of the 5 senses in less than 4 lines, my hat's off to you. But too long a description and my own eyes glaze over, nevermind the players'.

As stated above, I prefer humanoids or those who have human characteristics. And again with the gray rather than black or white. Every otherwise nice character should have a flaw, every otherwise odious character should have a redeeming or endearing quality.

How the system is handled is less important to me than the following 3 qualities: 1) Intuitiveness of use--commands or procedures should be consistent and easily understandable. 2) Ease of quick building--if I'm on a roll, I don't want to have a lot of extraneous typing or need to create a macro to make my life easier. 3) Idiot proof--I don't want to have to worry that rolling back a mistake will be a laborious process.

I don't like high fantasy. I like a setting with some 'grit' to it. I guess my taste is the same as my taste in TV shows: gritty realistic drama like Deadwood, BSG, or Rome.

There has to be an overarching vision and a system of oversight that makes sure individual builders are all working toward that vision. But I don't need to be micro-managed. It helps a lot if I can come up with my concept, spell it out to whoever's providing oversight, then be left to my own devices to implement it once I'm given the go-ahead.

The less color, the better. But that's also my preference as a player.

I'm currently building for an established MUD, which has certain benefits:
The style of the MUD is already well-established, so I'm reasonably certain that what I build will fit in.
I know and trust that what others build will also be of good quality.
I know the rest of the staff and am sure that interpersonal drama will be minimal.

I don't know if I could build at an up-and-coming MUD unless I was sure that the head admin(s) could ensure those kinds of things. Most can't get that kind of positive momentum early on. If I did build at a starter MUD I'd want a lot of creative control/license. As someone else mentioned in this thread, I don't want to be just a writing slave.

As I touched on in #9, interpersonal relations are a big deal. If you want people to stick around they need to feel like they're part of a team, not an isolated cog in some impersonal machine. Oh, and there's little a builder hates more than being made to feel like they're a second-class citizen and not as important as coders.

[Muirdach]

I generally like roleplay encouraged at least, and little-to-no PK because those are the kinds of games I would play. Especially the PK one. These are the first basic things I'd want to know before playing any game.

I really just build what needs to be built or what I think would be appreciated. I am not an artistic person, I do a job because I get my satisfaction from helping. I honestly have no idea what I personally lean towards. If building wasn't needed, I wouldn't do it - I don't gain any pleasure from the act itself.

I hate writing descriptions. Rooms, mobiles, objects, whatever. I try to do 4 lines. More than 6 is like squeezing blood from a stone. I would much rather bring my areas to life through quests, neat programs, something unusual and fun to do, rather than beautiful writing. I do put a lot of time and effort into all my areas, I just prefer action rather than reading.

Generally not very creative ones. Did I mention I'm not a writer? I'd much rather build a fairly standard wizard with a marvellous quest or some special feature, than describe some weird fantastical creature from the depths of my imagination. I'm an accountant, give me a break man!

Both! I like having an offline program that I can work on totally away from the game. I would get a lot more work done that way and would get less distracted. Sometimes though, you really need to be in there to get inspiration or to tweak something as play is going on. I like that flexibility that OLC brings.

General. I don't mind whether it's fantasy or historical or whatever, but no books or TV series please, because I don't read or watch series. I honestly have read like 2 fantasy books ever in my life, and none as part of a series. I don't want to be on a mud swarmed by fanboys.

A mixture of both. I want some flexibility, but I need there to be some rules as assurance that someone cares and is watching. I wouldn't build for one of those "build whatever, whenever you feel like it" muds. I need some kind of professional feel to be present. I would be fine working on a game with deadlines.

Gyah, no. Some colour is nice, but almost everyone overdoes it. Plus, everyone has a different taste in colour, both builders and players. I don't mind if people build with it, but I hardly ever do, I prefer quiet neutrality.

Really torn here. Honestly for me, the community makes the mud. I'd most like to build for one that's up and coming and needs help - as long as it's really up and coming, not just another admin who's excited and then loses their enthusiasm once they don't get 100 players online during the first month.

I think it's important to remember that not every builder is an artist. Some people, like me, are just doing a job and trying to make a difference. I don't particularly enjoy building as a technical or artistic activity, and that's a very different target from a real area writer.

[Delerak]

Thanks for all the replies people.

[Milawe]

I don't have a real preference in TYPE of mud since muds will call themselves all sorts of stuff whether or not they really fit that genre. What I do prefer is a consistent world story and a consistent writing style. Also, I prefer a limited number of builders with one builder in charge of determining the style of writing, the rules for writing, and double checks most entries before writing is accepted and implemented for the world. The reason I require this is because I believe in a seamless world rather than a world where you can point out, "This area has bad writing" or "Build B built areas A, C, and F while Builder X definitely built areas E, G, and K." I require a consistent world story because I believe that the world really shouldn't be as believable as possible rather than chopped up in distinct areas.

I'll build it all. I honestly have no preference. Sometimes I like to do something that's very nature-ish, and other times I want to build a polluting, nasty, encroaching city. I keep multiple building projects open at once in order to take advantage of whatever mood I'm in. This sometimes causes delays in some areas, though, so it's not always the best way to work, especially if you have deadlines.

The total room description (including exits) is never any more than 23 lines for me.

I prefer to build exotic, non-sentient NPCs, usually magical or mutated in construct. I usually base them off creatures that really exist and then decide how they got from their original form to their current form. I'm a biology major with an emphasis in ecology and genetics. This is a chance to actually use that degree.

I prefer no program and simply hard-coding everything I build. I have total control over what I'm doing then.

Medieval fantasy, sword and sorcery, muds based on books, they're all fine for me as long as the storyline is solid and consistent.

See the answer to #1.

I like color, but I like the sparse use of color. I like strict rules on where to use color because if color is splashed everywhere, then it ceases to really have any impact on me.

I like both having done both.

I realize that my ideals for building are pretty exacting. I don't think that what I like is best, but it works best for someone like me.

[Ide]

Any type will do, it depends on more than type; see below.

Again, I'll build in any style.

There is no good room length. Variety is the key, so sometimes I'll want one line or just a few words for a description, and other times five or six lines. The important thing is to consider that room description in the context of the flow of the zone, and not just look at all the room descriptions as chunks that need to follow the same general rule.

Anything over six lines normally is too much, and should be reserved for very special rooms -- preferably those without a lot of player or mob traffic as well.

Any type -- the more interactive the better.

Offline programs probably are more productive but I like the ability to chat and build at the same time.

What would be really cool is a zone editor with integrated mud chat, so you would just login to the mud, open up your zone editor, and work away in the editor while being able to run a who and chat commands in the chat box. Your character would show up in the who list but unless you switched to your client you would basically just look idle.

Any setting, but I usually shy away from muds where I would need to read 24 books in some fantasy series I wouldn't otherwise read.

Definitely laid back. I think the mud owner should vet their builders at the application stage and then let them exercise their creativity to the fullest. I understand what Mina is saying about consistency but I do like to see a builder's individual style in a zone come through.

I don't require color but I do like it and always enable it. My preference is for user defined color sets (with some intelligent default of course), applying to important game messages, room titles, mob names, etcetera.

I like both but the advantage of an established mud is that you can play it first. See below.


It's very important to me that the gameplay of the mud is interesting and fun. I find it hard to build on a bog-standard DIKU-like. Even a new mud should be somewhat playable before builders start doing their thing, I think.

I also appreciate any attempt at builder collaboration.

I usually am playing a lot of very different games at once (i.e., not just muds), so I admit it's hard to hold my interest -- it's true that this has been a problem for me in the past where I start building somewhere and don't finish a zone. Though obviously motivation starts with the builder, anything on the mud that maintains this motivation and drive is a good thing, whether these are friendly contests, a tight builder community, etcetera.

[Fizban]

Opt In-Pk (without having to RP the scenario). RP encouraged or accepted, preferably encouraged.


Anything with the ability to make come alive via scripting.


Somewhere in the 4-6 line range, typically long enough that it's descriptive and short enough that people don't think their being forced to read a book every few steps.


Anything, though preferably something with character that either does something or talks, just something to engage the player.


Intricate OLC, specifically OasisOLC.


Usually Medieval Fantasy, but not to the 100% exclusion of all else.

Lots of rules, I'm nitpicky with my own building standards and tend to be so when reading others zones as well. Also I see no need to build on a mud where the overall quality of zones from the builders as a whole is crap.

Nope, in fact I require that if it DOES have color that it's used tastefully, and not in abundance.

I used to like working on small muds and trying to help them grow, after 10 years and watching many muds sink after putting in countless hours, I look for larger more developed muds that will still be around no matter what next week so I needn't fear wasted time.

[Zeta Thompson]

Doesn't matter

Areas must have a story. The story is reflected in the area descr.. If it is tragic then my area has a heavy tone to it, if amusing it is lighter. (though I do mix these up sometimes to mess with players) I seem to prefer structures,
castles and the like and towns, but sometimes i get an idea for a wooded area or something i just HAVE to build.

2 -7 at 80 char wide. It is easier on people using speech clients and gives me enough room to throw in any hints they may need for searching for things like secret doors or loose changes in cushions (yes I did do that once)

The type that kill PCs. Actually I like neutral ones best because they react to the PC based on actions rather than alignment.

Off line and compile as i go

General medieval fantasy, Sword and sorcery, etc.

Consistant SOPs are all I look for

No
Doesn't matter
It must be a MUD I play for a while and have a feel for. If I like the place enough to play it then i will do a good job building for it. I can see better what it needs and what the players want. I have real issues with builders who create a character and 3 days later want to build for the MUD without understanding the needs of the players.

[nasredin]

Hi,

It's interesting how differently we approach the issue of building.

For me, almost all the questions mentioned in the list are irrelevant - I don't care what is the room length, whether NPCs are good or evil, whether they're orcs, elves or space mutants; which colours are available (if at all) etc.



First of all, when I do something, I usually have a goal in mind. In case of writing, the goal usually defines the audience that I'd like to reach and the impression that I'd like to produce. I see little interest in small talk with complete strangers.

On the other hand, I enjoy solving logical puzzles and the most interesting brain twister is composing a puzzle of your own. It's like scientific research; in fact, the scientific research IS defining the problems and solving them. However, too abstract research is void, the tight limitations is what makes the puzzle interesting. To illustrate what I mean, there is no big deal in checkmating the chess king once you already got a decisive advantage, but checkmating in 3 turns may be tricky. Composing a non-trivial chess problem where the checkmate in 3 turns is possible, but not immediately obvious (and better yet still not obvious even after some thought) is even more tricky. However, a chess problem only makes sense within a community of chess players - an outlander will miss the intricacy of the little masterpiece.

The same reasoning applies to MUD building - one can join a generic MUD and create a generic unheeded area for it, but what's the point? To appreciate the subtlety and imaginative touches of your creation, the players must belong to the same community as you. Thus, my answers:



9.) Established mud?
Of course, Arctic MUD to be precise.


10.) Anything else
As I already mentioned, a builder must have a goal in mind. Arctic is skill-based and every skill is useful, but some skills are less universal than the others and many players overlook and never practice them. I decided to make a zone that would urge the players to master and appreciate these skills. The brute force solution is still possible but would require incomparably more time and effort: to get into the castle, the player may kill a gatekeeper NPC or simply steal the key from it. The actual setting is different (and steal is not anywhere near an overlooked skill in Arctic), but you got what I mean.

After I had the zonelets dealing with the skills, the rest of the zone was built around them to merge everything in a seamless integral whole. Why would the adventurers enter the village? Why would they go from the village cemetry to a forest? When should they learn what actually happened in the mage tower and who tells them?

Next, there are lots of technical details to take care of. The strength of the NPCs, the powers of the objects they carry...

Finally, everything is aligned with various reference books and Dragonlance sources to make sure everything makes sense and creates a proper impression. If my scribe has a quill, I read an article about quills to make sure it's made from a correct feather. If there's an ant, it gets mandibles, not jaws. When I draw a celestial map on the ceiling, that's the sky of Krynn with the three Moons and the constellaion of the Dragonlance deities in their right places.

My zone is still not finished, but it's a great fun making it. And I learn a lot of new things (quills, ants etc., see above) in the process!




1.) Type?
2.) Style?
3.) Room length?
4.) NPCs?
5.) OLC?
6.) Mud setting?
7.) MUD rules?
8.) Color?

Whatever is available in Arctic MUD, otherwise I don't care.

[locke]

If you're talking about The Isles OLC / ILAB / ROMolc / NiMUD OLC you are talking about the "security" setting on players. All you have to do is make your administrative immortal security level 9 and it lifts this restriction. A warning to heed, however, is: changing certain required objects may have unpredictable results.

[Fizban]

He meant that OLC's main feature, in his opinion, is the security of letting people edit areas but not the code itself. He's likely used to LPC where they are more or less and one and the same.