Is it just me or for an average tabletop player, you can pretty much make them feel a game is "fun" and "enjoyable" by making them powertrip and turning the game easy, as opposed to providing a challenging setting where the enemies are tough and they might have to think outside the box?For example, let's say the party is fighting a group of enemy mercenaries. These enemy mercenaries are experienced, decently intelligent, and without gaining an advantage against them like ambushing them or attacking them while their guard is down, the fight can easily be lost. The party just decides to fight them head front and when they realize they're nearly evenly matched, the enemy "controller" is shutting some of them down, and they're getting injured, they start to get frustrated. The game sucks for them.On the other hand turn the enemies in to complete morons. Their archer decides to expose themselves easily. There is no "controller" shutting the players down. They utterly suck and go down in like one or two swings. They don't act tactfully whatsoever and it's just the party turning them in to their playthings. Players are now having fun and feeling like they're gods.I absolutely despise the latter and nothing bores me more than a world full of retards where the players can do whatever they want without consequences. But I feel for the vast majority of people it's the opposite. They want a world and setting that is in "Easy" mode as opposed to "Hard."
didn't read but Kal'tsit sex
>>97682105>for an average tabletop player, you can pretty much make them feel a game is "fun" and "enjoyable" by making them powertrip and turning the game easy, as opposed to providing a challenging setting where the enemies are tough and they might have to think outside the box?Yes, that is correct.
There is no mode easier than being the GM, since you have infinite resources.
How big is your sample set on this one?And what's the (approximate) age distribution?
>>97682137Not the OP, but I had my players tell me that "No, we do not want to be challenged." The ages are: 2x 40+, 2x 30+, 1x nearly 30.
>>97682105It's not about power tripping, it's about being able to accomplish your game plan in a straightforward manner which sometimes intersects with difficulty. For these people, if you make Big Stick Hit Guy, and then the GM keeps putting obstacles in the way of hitting things, they are not playing the game. There is no argument you can make to persuade them otherwise.It's the same reason a subset of players will always bitch about control decks in MtG. For them, playing the game is accomplishing what they set out to do, NOT winning, NOT adapting to circumstances on the fly, just wanting to do a thing then doing it.
>>97682105Counterpoint, my DM decided to toss like 25 beholderkin at a group of 3 people + one lower-leveled NPC liability, and even though we were like level 15 we lost that because I alone was taking 28 eye rays every round. That was not fun. I guess it fits some definition of a challenge, but...there wasn't a lot of counterplay exactly
>>97682105The average tabletop player is a disgusting autistic unfuckable faggot, that has "fun" just by virtue of him being around other unfuckable freaks that don't hate him. That's the actual purpose of tabletop games.
>>97682105OP, based just on the sour grapes tone of your post, it would be easy to assume that your idea of a “challenge” is less fair than you think. But I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think your issue is more that you haven’t yet put together a group that wants the same kind of game you do, and the mismatch between your expectations and the players’ is dragging your experience down. I guarantee you that once you find players that explicitly enjoy challenging opponents and difficult combats, you’ll be a lot less frustrated overall.
