You shouldn't, and that's my point.
But when someone - be it a boss in retail or yourself in gaming - expects you to not only keep trying to sell that pig but to be successful at it, you're hosed.
If, hypothetically, I pitch a game or campaign and nobody's interested in it, where's the disconnect? Should I try pitching a different game or campaign (i.e. admit the game or campaign I'm pitching is a pig)? Should I pack it in and become a forever player (i.e. admit I'm the 'pig' in the scene)? Or should I take the retail approach and just keep hammering away pitching the same thing in hopes I'll get a bite someday?
IMO, the disconnect is clearly either in the pitch, or in the thing being pitched. It's not the game's fault that your current and/or prospective players don't bite for any idea--regardless of whether it is easy or hard, light entertainment or ultra-serious, casual or hardcore. That doesn't necessarily mean it's
your fault either (though I would argue that most campaign premises have
some interested people, so if you genuinely come up totally empty that suggests there's a flaw in the pitch technique being used.) It just means there's a disconnect.
Trying to leverage any of that into, "And thus the system should be innately biased to the maximum difficulty, that way I never have to persuade anyone" is innately ridiculous.
I think you might have either got a wrong impression somewhere or are really taking this to extremes, not sure which.
Your argument, as I have understood it, is as follows.
1. My players will not listen to my requests to play in an extreme-difficulty campaign, or at least are intensely resistant.
2. They will not listen (or are resistant) because they are aware that the system does not mandate non-extreme difficulty.
3. Hence, the game should have extreme difficulty as its default value, that way I don't have to convince anyone of anything.
The second point is the one I dramatized (and, yes, I recognize that it was provocative language--that's the point. People don't respond when I don't use provocative language, I've noticed.)
To the bolded: same here.
That said, every time - and I mean every bloody time - I've ever heard anyone say "We should compromise on this" in any context* not involving a decision that has to be immediately resolved, what they're really saying is "I can see I'm not going to get my way right now so let's punt on this to give me time to lobby-persuade-etc. enough support to allow me to get my way later".
In other words, it's the ultimate expression of passive aggression.
* - including around the gaming table, both in-character and out.
That absolutely is not the only nor even the primary usage of the word. I'm sorry that that has been your experience, but it simply isn't representative. Flatly.
Any time you talk with your significant other and agree on a place to eat that wasn't your personal first choice, and also wasn't their personal first choice, that is automatically a compromise. Presumably, you and your SO (I believe you've mentioned that you're married? Please correct me if I'm wrong) would have a delightful time at this third-option restaurant that is neither your first choice nor theirs. Does this mean both of you were "dissatsified" with that restaurant? I don't really see how that could be the case.
