Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xamnam" data-source="post: 9629676" data-attributes="member: 7037765">I think using the words real, or objective are a huge red herring (pun obviously intended) in this discussion, hence why I put them in scare quotes. Yet, to me, both sides of this conversation are terribly clear in what they're trying to communicate about mysteries, and I do not understand why folks cannot bridge the gap. It, at times, almost feels deliberate on both sides in order for folks to bolster the point or argument they are trying to make, rather than to aid communication and discussion.  My post was merely my attempt to make clear what felt like an extreme misinterpretation. We all know that the setting someone created from whole cloth did not exist in our universe 100 years before they lived, so if they were to use the world 'real' to describe it, or some part of it, telling them that can't be true because they made up their setting feels wildly off the mark, and not actually engaging with the point they are making. Given that Bedrock liked my post, I'm going to put forth that they at least felt like what I was saying communicated what they felt was lost in translation in what I was responding to. There is value in jargon, in specific language, in being terribly careful about what words you are using, especially when you are getting into nuance and high level concept discussion, obviously. That's why I read these threads, that's why I follow discussions that you, or say Manbearcat, participate in, they're usually well argued, intriguing, and enlightening. But I personally get hives every time a person jumps down someone's throat for having said 'a character did something' with "Well, the player did that, the character can't, because they don't exist." Maybe 1 out of every 10 times, that is a distinction meaningful to the discussion, though I'm not denying those instances exists. In my experience, however, holding it over them to solely to correct tends to just stomp on any actually interesting part of the conversation.</blockquote>

Verification