This thread has taken a negative turn. I don’t feel the need to contribute to that, however, this…
Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
Oh, trust me, if I let them my players would never face more than one encounter per day and would spend years in town grinding money from professions if I let them.
…
They always find some argument for making extra money; they will find other adventurer's and meet them in the middle, they will live in a shack and live off bread and water to avoid living expenses, they will trade outside city walls to avoid taxes... always some scheme to squeeze every last copper out of the system and then complaining "but realism" if I shoot any of them down or try and enforce consequences.
…
This also assumes that the players know what they want and are in full agreement, which is something that is very rare. Virtually every guide to playtesting I have ever read says something along the lines of "People are pretty good at noticing when something is wrong, but terrible at telling you exactly what it is, and even worse at telling you how to fix it."
…
Also; some people just like to complain or find excuses for their failures, and I can't accept that these criticisms are automatically valid.
…
Although hopefully I can figure out a way to come to terms with them without actually removing consumables, at that really fundamentally changes the game and takes away their "safety net" if things really do go bad, which will only lead to more drama and grief.
…
They aren't. They simply assume that if they had a hard time it must be because I threw an imbalanced fight at them.
…
Also, "interesting" fights are the last thing they want. They want straight forward fights where they can charge in and hack stuff to pieces (or stay back and blow it up with fireballs).

The biggest complaints I have gotten so far were fights against a fomorian whose goal was to throw them off a bridge rather than kill them, and avatars of the god of violence that when one was killed two would take its place. Both were very interesting non-traditional encounters, but both were absolute bitch-fests.
…
Do note that my players demand balance, so saying "any benchmark is bad" won't fly with them, or me for that matter.
…
For example, as I said above I let players convert unused spells into scrolls. One session (in a previous game) the wizard player missed almost the entire session, came in with about 5 minutes to go without casting any spells, and then demanded I let him convert his entire repertoire into scrolls.
…
Which is not to say I don't agree that there is value in varying the challenge of missions; some should feel harder and some should feel easier. The problem is, my players complain about both; if its too easy they complain that I am wasting their time by not providing them with as much XP and treasure, and if it is harder they complain that it is, well, too hard and therefore "imbalanced".
Indicates to me that this group dynamic (at least as you report it) is basically broken beyond all recall. It sounds like your group wants to succeed without any actual risk or challenge or expenditure of resources, throw a fit when this does not happen, and cannot or will not explain what it is that they do want (also unaware or uncaring that this is both unfulfilling and nearly impossible to keep up for you). I just can’t imagine how one could have run a game (much less a sandbox one) that meets this criteria long enough for this dynamic to have developed. I am not saying you are misrepresenting this, but honestly, with me reading back my impression of your situation, is there any part of it you think I misinterpreted?