I, myself, like fumbles

[eggynack]

Consider different types of terrain and obstacles/hazards. Those are hardships that are out of a player's control but there existence increases the variety and number of meaningful choices since 2 squares are no longer equivalent.

Their existence is out of player control, but the way you can deal with them tend to offer some tactical complexity, both because you know about the terrain before you encounter it, and because there are a few different ways to deal with them. For example, with a large patch of difficult terrain, you can move through it, or take one or two paths around it. Choices, right there. By contrast, a rule that causes you to hit yourself or an ally doesn't really expand options. There's no way around it, and the way to deal with the aftermath is incredibly straightforward. The same is the case with most fumbles. A bad thing happens, and then that's it. No options involved.

I used hyperbole, but that does not change the fact that certain forum members were reacting with hostility towards someone stating a mere personal preference in their thread made for the sole purpose of merely stating their personal preference. Surely even you can see the absurdity of that?!

I'm aware that it was hyperbole, but I still think it absurd even in non-hyperbole form. The only thing you've pointed to is, "This doesn't add options," and that strikes me as ridiculously far from hostile.