Not trying to criticize anyone's playstyle, just wondering.

I always play on adept, because it gives me freedom to make any kind of character I want.

I can understand the excitement of the challenge of playing on master, but doesn't it limit the type of character you can make when you have to focus so much on damage output and reduction? It seems like it almost forces you to wear armor, use a shield and some kind of physical weapon, and take some smithing perks. Then you have to max out all the 5/5 damage and defense perks for those skills. So that's about 20 perks you're spending on damage reduction/output. It seems you can't waste perks on skills like alteration, destruction or speech when playing on master. Even using poisons on master seems like a bad idea, because you're gonna get rocked by undead and automatons. And playing a destruction mage who uses flesh spells seems to be reserved for a certain type of gamer-masochist. Is master level only viable if you are an armored warrior?

My current character's main form of attack is with greatswords, but he also wears expert robes of alteration and uses flesh spells and alchemy. I play on adept, but it would give me headaches playing him on master. Even now at level 33 with ebony flesh and all 3 mage armor perks, I can get two-shotted by deathlords...and that is exciting enough. I can't imagine having fun with a character who gets one shotted by every archer in the game. I like playing this character because it is a nice balance of magic use and warrior skills. I'm guessing this character would not be possible on master.

Am I wrong?

Agreed, I prefer to play mages on adept. Playing on adept allows you to simply play the game without being forced to use crafting and grinding. It allows a much more is much natural and diverse gameplay when you don't have to minmax.

I agree with this somewhat, in fact I looked up one day while playing Legendary and realized...I wasn't enjoying the game anymore. All my characters basically ended up the same way, taking the same skills save for maybe a difference in their primary mode of attack. You can't survive at that difficulty without tweaking your gear and that means crafting. Using just the stuff you find in the world on legendary is just asking for trouble. I'm always torn though, while I can make any type of character I want really on adept or below, things feel a bit too easy after a while, I just can't find that balance of difficulty while still having the option of diversity, it's what pisses me off at times about the game's design.

yeah i decided not too long ago to jump back into skyrim, but on legendary mode. enemies are unreasonable tanks that could probably both eat and pass a nuke through their stomach, and apparently my armor is made of grass. i get one hit by everything, really.

I play on adept all the time. I make it more challenging by not using health/stamina/magic potions during combat. Higher difficulty levels just seem artificial to me. It's just a multiplier on the player and enemies damage values.

I play on Adept or Apprentice, usually jump between the two of them depending on my mood.

I can understand why people would want a difficult challenge but personally I play games not to get frustrated with constant death but for fun, I can understand why others do it it just isn't my thing.

I usually go easy mode in games.

I find it actually makes some skills relatively more useful. Conjuration, Paralysis, and Illusion spells are a lot more valuable on higher difficulties compared to on Adept simply because they retain their effectiveness, whereas on lower difficulties enemies are easy enough that you don't need to use those skills.

Greatsword + Alteration is pretty good, actually anything + Alteration is, simply because most enemies have no counter to Paralysis spells (especially with the Stability perk) and poisons, and the Atronach perk makes mages a non-threat. Not to mention Alteration is a very easy skill to level up.

I mostly went through all of Legendary with nothing but One-handed and Alteration.

I've bumped up my difficulty to Expert and the 2 characters I have aren't having problems, granted they both use Smithing (and one uses Alchemy). One character is a paladin and the other is a ranger so there's a bit of a difference. My paladin is level 18 and my ranger is level 2 and I'm not having hardly any problems. Hell, my level 2 ranger killed a Bandit Chief with little problem.

I have no clue as to why some people do. Giving enemies a billion HP and making all weapons do as much damage as a dull butter knife is just boring to me, but eh, to each his own.

I usually play on apprentice.

I play on Expert, i feel like thats a nice balance between too easy and too hard for my playstyle (since i often play gimp builds for RP purpose)

This doesn't happen in Elder Scrolls games. The difficulty slider only affects damage taken and damage done.

You took that....literal...okay....

Also, In Skyrim, What "slider" is there? All we have are options to change the "difficulty" to turn enemies into damage sponges.

I dont like it. I play DID all the time so master and legendary is not really my thing.

I keep it on adept but use some mods to make the AI better and combat harder.

If I want to make the game harder, I don't raise the difficulty...I just put all my perks into pickpocket, lockpicking and speech. Oh the poor thief class.

Now I will wait for someone to come on here and tell me they only perked speech and pickpocket and beat the dragonborn dlc and it was easy.

In 5...4...3...2........