How hard should a game be?

There are many different types of games. There are also many ways to define difficulty.

If characters can achieve any reasonable goal and the question is not if they will succeed, but is they are willing to accept the cost and consequences - is the game difficult, or not? Or if a well build character beats nearly all in-game challenges without much trouble, but one that is unoptimized can't do it - is the game difficult?

The playstyle I like the most works well with quite high difficulty, but also a lot of player agency and interesting consequences of failure. That is, players can't expect to succeed every time without consequences, but the failures lead to interesting complications, not game-stoppers, and it is possible to push towards success by accepting some painful consequences. We want the play to focus on choice and story - and there is no interesting story without a meaningful conflict.

Another style I also like focuses on tactics. If the players cooperate efficiently and use the resources at hand, while staying within the bounds of the genre, they should win. If they don't, they should lose. It is possible to achieve a string of flawless victories (not "no HP lost" flawless, but "lost nothing of value" flawless), but it is also easy to get beaten or outsmarted, if one plays poorly.

steenan said:

...there is no interesting story without a meaningful conflict. Another style I also like focuses on tactics. If the players cooperate efficiently and use the resources at hand, while staying within the bounds of the genre, they should win. If they don't, they should lose.

Click to expand...

[OOC-OT] I am reminded of Aliens or other movies where an "impressive" fighting unit came apart as their discipline was compromised.[/OOC-OT]

A cooperative, successfully party might encounter new challenges when the crafty DM occasionally introduces (not forces) temptations and events that might give individual party members pause according to their motivations and agendas. The "wedge is driven between them" as it were. And if not, then they have proved themselves even further and are ready for even greater challenges.

steenan said:

It is possible to achieve a string of flawless victories (not "no HP lost" flawless, but "lost nothing of value" flawless), but it is also easy to get beaten or outsmarted, if one plays poorly.

Click to expand...

I agree completely.

Holy Bovine said:

It should be just hard/easy enough to allow every player in the game to have fun.

Click to expand...

Bravo!

howandwhy99 said:

D&D increases in difficulty as it increases in level. Not PC level, but game level. 1st level should be easy. 10th level is the hardest, but even after 10th the game keeps increasing in difficulty.

Click to expand...

My experience is the exact opposite -- 1st level is the most dangerous, challenging, and interesting. Higher level play bores me -- too many capabilities, too much complexity, and not enough real risk.

I usually stop playing around 11-13th level (in non-4e terms of levels; for 4e, we're at 7th so far, and 1-7 feels more like 3rd-4th in traditional D&D).