As long as i get to be the frog
I’m going to leave it at this. The wanting of fair and balanced encounters has nothing to do with wanting the threat of death to be an illusion. These 2 concepts are orthogonal. That’s why you keep getting pushback - because you are using words to describe a concept and motivation for it which are not actually present.And that’s my point in a nut shell. In following a scheme of fair and balanced encounters, it’s the “illusion of challenge” I referred to in my original post.
They want to feel challenged, but don’t want the risks of an uncontained confrontation. Which is fine, I’m not saying one play style is inheritantly better than the other.
You can test this, offer to run your group a DCC funnel with the randomly generated 0 level characters. Explain to them the concept.
Your group might be game for it. They might reject it.
If they reject it, I can predict the reasons are :
A) “we don’t want to play with that level of lethality”
B)”we don’t want to play with randomly rolled, potentially low stat characters”.
That there is the inherent challenge of the game. Make do with what you’ve got and become a hero through surviving. To control for system variance, you could also convert a funnel adventure for a 1st level 5e group. It would massively break the basic “agreed illusion of challenge” expectation. See how they react.
Instead, many players prefer the power fantasy. They want to make their character, have control over every aspect of their hero, bravely overcome the (balanced) odds and win the epic quest.
It’s fine, some want to play Diablo, swatting demons aside through their builds than play dark souls. And that’s cool, but that challenge isn’t on the same level.
@Fanaelialae is absolutely right. What you are trying to talk about is the combat as war and combat as sport difference and it doesn’t appear you actually understand that difference.