@sunny said in Alternative Formats to MU:
How is that related to her point?
Faraday picked up on it.
Of course if you want special, unique features you'll need a coder. That will always be true. But right now you need a coder even if you don't want special unique features, and that's silly.
And Apos did as well, sort of.
Yeah, I don't mean this as a slam on WoD at all, but it seems to me that a core reason for its popularity is the already existing softcode that can be plugged into it.
I concur with Apos, and sympathize with Faraday. My comment was, by no intent, a knock on what she's doing on her end. (I'm a Faraday fanboygrl.)
I have ideas. I always have ideas. But I lack the skills to turn those ideas into functional code. Yes, I could learn how to code, but that's a barrier due to time and personal responsibilities. So, for now, I must rely on a coder, or someone with enough proficiency to take Ares out of the box and make it work (chug chug chug). I love BSG:U and will continue to promote it, but what I want to do slightly differs in that I foresee the need for an entire block of other commands that don't exist yet (as far as I know).
That said, I want whatever project I have in mind to work with Ares. I think it, and Evennia, are the way of the future. I want to promote both.
But I still have a problem doing this myself. So the "do I have a coder" flowchart is still stapled to my ass. And I think that successful games need something unique to themselves, so there'll always be a need for a coder, no matter how much Faraday adds to the standard toolbox. If innovation will help the hobby flourish, then games will need coders to push that envelope. And, from a non-coder perspective, I think this is a fact that makes the "do I have a coder" flowchart a truism.

I would be so much more enthusiastic about reading words dead people wrote. Jealous.