Is it better for a GM to be too hard on the players, or too easy on the players?

I know I enjoy a GM that makes me sweat, more then a GM who gives me everything on a silver platter.  But in the game I'm GMing it seems like my players may want things to be easier.  So I guess I'm interested what other people have to say, from player and GM standpoints.

As you've stated it, it's a bit like asking a fella if he wants a punch in the mouth or a stomp on the foot.  The obvious answer is neither, but I don't think that's really what you're asking.

As a GM, your real decision has to come down to this: Are my players willing to play the sort of game that I want to play, or do I need to adjust my expectations?  Fact of the matter is, everyone sitting down to a roleplaying game has to ask themselves that sort of question, because roleplaying is an inherently cooperative past time.

Should you softball your players when they demand it?  Not if you don't enjoy it.  But what if they walk from the game if you don't tone down the action to their expectations?  Well, then maybe you need to compromise and meet them somewhere in the middle.  What if you don't want to compromise, or you don't enjoy the compromise?  Then you need to find a new group of players.

There isn't a simple solution.  Provided you don't have an ideal group where everyone's spectrum of expectations are already in alignment, then you need to work as a group to find that right concordance.  There is no "too tough" or "too soft", there's only the right mix of players.

!i!

Definitely a carrot and stick situation. Idealy I think you want things to be challenging. But for the players not to feel like things are impossible, or too much. Not an easy thing to answer.

I think it's better to come down hard then soft. In my line of work they teach you from the beginning it's easier to change a no to a yes than to change a yes to a no.

I think that's one of the truest things in life.

Too hard.

Players can adapt to too hard, and appreciate their accomplishments when they do succeed. If you're too soft, the game just goes flat.

...any chance i'm going to answer this then have the question rephrased with a third option later?  :raise:

like goldilocks, i like mine just right.

It's easier to start hard, then relax a bit if you need to. It's hard to go the other way.

Too soft.

If they get off easy, you can alway gack their characters later.

Death tends to be a more difficult condition to recover from. At least without REALLY giving them the impression you are soft.

Quote from: HaffrungToo hard.

Players can adapt to too hard, and appreciate their accomplishments when they do succeed. If you're too soft, the game just goes flat.

I'm with you.  

Pete

"13 And the king answered the people harshly, and forsaking the        counsel which the old men had given him, 14 he spoke to them according to        the counsel of the young men, saying, "My father made your yoke heavy, but        I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will        chastise you with scorpions."

I'd rather err on the side of tough.  I think a lot of people need a challenge, and will play up or down to the level you give them.

For me, it's on a campaign-to-campaign basis.

Like, my last D&D campaign was pretty much a cakewalk, with plenty of optimism and heroism. But the next one will be ugly.

I've asked each of my five prospective players to roll and create fifteen (15!)  1st level characters. It will be a war extravaganza and one very intense campaign switching from various viewpoints.

Players have been warned that the death toll will be high and they love it, because they expect it.

As a player, I am much the same way. There are times where I feel fine if things are easy. There are nights where I want something challenging but fair. And there are nights where I'll be thrilled if every roll is a potential catastrophe.

When I become a bit soft, my players complain.

Thanks guys.  

The reason I didn't really offer a in between, is because I'm GMing 3.5, and the challenge rating system was designed by a crack head. Plus there are 5 members in the group, and three of them are really pretty smart.  So I can go with the CR, and have it be too easy, or just find the big bad asses, and let them decide if they want to fight.