No, they definitely asked the wrong question. If they ask "how can I do [thing]", it assumes it's possible to do [thing]. But if they can't do [thing], the question is invalid, and there is no correct answer.
Honestly, the way you put it, it's like they don't actually want to fix the problem. They just want their solution to be right. Anyone who doesn't tell them what they want to hear is the REAL problem, even if what they want to hear is a lie.
Do you want me to lie?
See, that's the point of the XY problem. They asked the wrong question.
Playing Dragon Age in D&D simply would not work. Even after a significant amount of effort, you'd either end up with something entirely unlike Dragon Age or something that barely resembles D&D. So I have to tell them "no" or I'm lying. And if someone stops listening and considers me hostile because I'm not willing to lie to them, then it's absolutely on them.
Why just one side? Keep pushing it in until he can feel both sides.
I have seen people try to add systems to D&D to let them play Dragon Age within the system. I have then turned my head to the left and looked at the Dragon Age RPG on my shelf. If you want to play Dragon Age as a TTRPG, I'll tell you the easiest way to do that. No gutting, no retrofitting, no ship of Theseus...
If you see that as hostile, that's on you.
I understood you. It just sounds horrible. Sorry, no, it's actually worse. Side stories are part of the story, so it goes without saying they should have the same designers as the rest of the story. If you think they don't count, that's worrying.
This is called the X/Y problem. You ask "how do I use X to do Y", and the answer is you don't. You don't even want to. You want to do Y, and just assumed that X is how you'd do it. So the answer might actually be "don't use X."
To some people, they see your question as "How can I do [thing] in [game that does not do thing]?" Since they see it as an inherently flawed question, they try to fix your root issue and explain how to do [thing]. It's not the answer you wanted, but it might be the one you need.
I will admit, some people just like to shit on [game you're playing], and will take every opportunity to hype up [game they're playing]. But just as often, I see people defending [game they're playing] just because they're already playing it. And there is no harm in playing multiple games.
I have a game on my shelf built for pure fight scenes that can't do downtime (Panic at the Dojo), and a game built for wholesome slice-of-life that doesn't let you do combat (Golden Sky Stories). They simply cannot do what the other does, and I wouldn't like either of them as much if they did.
That sounds horrible, personally. The world, story and characters should all reflect one another, so they should all be designed by the same people. Using AI to cheap out on the story is how you get rubbish stories.
Honestly, looking at some of the movies that WON Oscars, a nomination just means a studio is backing them.
I would not be surprised if someone in charge of replacing that door just paid off a 9.6 million pound loan.
I had to google, and apparently there's an indie series that just came out on youtube called Murder Drones. It took me just a second of looking at a thumbnail to say "yup, this is the kind of thing that gets an internet cult but does nothing for me."
Yes you can. There might be consequences, but that will always be the case. If obeying orders breaks the law, and disobeying orders breaks the law, then you're a criminal either way. Might as well do what you agreed to do when you joined the military: risk your life to defend the constitution.
Very kind of you to imply the guy has ever "been".