Not that I'm picking on you, but I have only seen 1 player over the past decade that wanted to optimize the fun out of the game. They were the type of person that stood in the back and pouted if their PC got a single scratch. But they were the exception to the rule.
"Optimize the fun out of the game" means a lot of things.
As an example, I'm fairly sure that you are among those on this forum who have (rightly!) complained that 5e is really quite garbage at survival experiences, because the mechanics will fight you tooth and nail. Why is that the case? Because players know that survival mechanics are often frustrating--and if given the choice, they will, essentially always, choose to obviate survival as a concern. It's a simple Maslow's hierarchy sort of thing. But that choice--
effectively always obviating survival concerns whenever the opportunity presents itself to do so--is a form of "optimizing the fun out of the game," because overcoming meaningful challenges is the whole point.
And this isn't some new phenomenon that cropped up with 5e, or WotC D&D, or anything else. It's been with us since the very beginning. It's literally the reason ear seekers exist, because before the ear seeker was introduced, players had settled into a comfortable, safe, and above all
reliable pattern, which hinged on listening at doors and similar ambush tactics. The Gygaxian solution to this is the blunt, brute-force, and fairly short-lived one of a gotcha monster that turns listening at doors into an instant kill, until the players (a) identify what is different, (b) determine how the obstacle can be overcome, and (c) integrate this into their SOP. Once step (c) is complete, the cycle begins again. Ossified SOPs were quite literally old-school players optimizing the fun out of the game.
So I reject this idea of adversarial DM vs players or that people just want cakewalk fights.
I mean, I never said they do? I certainly reject adversarial DMing. If you've learned nothing else from my postings, I should hope you've learned
that. But I did not say players want cakewalk fights. Look back at my earlier posts, and you'll clearly see that I said players want to feel they've accomplished something meaningful. The problem is that the completely natural, reasonable player instinct is to do things that are effective and which lead to greater success, and to avoid things which are ineffective and lead to greater failure. Like...that's literally what learning to play
is.
It depends on the group and individual. I also reject this idea that in order for the DM to have fun you have to run a game the players don't want. Seriously?
I'm not sure who you're talking about, because I absolutely would not ever advocate such a thing. I don't think it's possible to be
more diametrically opposite my beliefs. How many times have I spoken about the incalculable value of earnest, sincere player enthusiasm? How many times have I said that I believe the DM must
earn their players' trust, their players' desire to participate?
Push the players too far and you'll just have unhappy players. If the game were more deadly than D&D 5E (whatever that means) it just means that the same players who don't like a DM that runs a challenging game won't like the game system that is more challenging by default.
Certainly. This is why rules matter as much as they do--and why the rules need to apply bidirectionally, not unilaterally upon the players alone. Rules
are the system telling the DM what is a bridge too far, unless and until said DM collaborates with the table to do something else.
Did you reply to my post intending to speak to someone else? Because I'm
deeply confused here.
