No, it's just
your posts that I often don't understand for whatever reason. I don't mean that as much of a criticism, and I don't ever mean to look like I'm "shaking a finger" at
anyone. I'm not some sort of authority on anything (except maybe if we're talking about
selling D&D, I think I could qualify as having expertise in that.) I've DMed a LONG time, but so have many others here, and we don't always agree, and that's great. I'm just here to chat, and to learn things.
Zealots? I think that's a bit extreme to call anyone here.
Nah, I think that it goes without saying that Both Sides of Anything when it comes to this game have got to Play Nicely With Others. I absolutely DON'T think any the onus is on only one side, not even in this discussion! If I seemed like I was on one side more than another, it's because of some specific arguments being made that I objected to - the idea that they "Don't Make Sense" or are "Illogical" comes to mind as the thing that got me involved in the first place. The only point I was ever trying to make in opposition to that is "they don't have to not make sense or be illogical if you come up with logical stories that make sense - and I don't think that doing that is all that difficult". If you CAN'T or DO NOT WANT TO come up with logical stories that make sense, then that's fine, don't - Play How You Like! But please, don't tell us that it
can't be done, or that we play Illogical or Senseless games if we feel differently. That's it.
I never made any secret that I think the background features suck as written. I sympathized with
some of
@Hriston's position (mostly in that I'm sympathetic to anyone who likes a feature and finds it useful when that feature goes away) and somewhat in some of the details of his discussion. But not in EVERY part of his discussion. We're not the same people. I disagreed with some of the things that
@Oofta and
@mamba said in their discussions, but not with EVERYTHING that they ever said! In fact, I gained a greater respect for both of them and for their games in "listening" to what they had to say. I actually probably use Backgrounds very similarly to
@Oofta in my actual games.
I don't actually use the background features in my games! That we're probably more alike than we think, is the lesson I learned.
Of course it involves both! I think you'll find that I took the time to point that out several times. But either way, I agree. I believe that it is a misunderstanding to think that anyone ever meant to suggest that a GM must allow a solution that didn't make sense.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I still do not believe that anyone advocates for "always yes" with no room whatsoever for "making sense" - the argument on that side was that it's not hard to make it make sense (most of the time). And if it doesn't actually make sense, then a player who is playing the game in good faith would not actually USE it.
If a "side" actually exists that is advocating for a background feature to ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS work, even to the point of stupidity, then I AM NOT ON THAT SIDE.
Agreed.
Mmm. I think they're saying that you can get close to it without throwing it out, but I don't think anyone wants to play it by any kind of purest RAW - at least not without also using other parts of the game, like DM/Player back-and-forth, checks, Role-playing... though I think a case could be made for all of that being
brief. I think
@Hussar goes way, way too far though.
It's another point to these "sides" we're talking about (as if they're actually a thing): If we break it down further, there's as many sides as there are posters!
I simply don't agree with you that that is happening here. I think both sides actually have points, and have the occasional foolish wording (I know
I do!). Internet communication is
terrible. As I've said before - I don't even
understand you much of the time, and I'm
trying to, because I think that you have interesting things to say!