@Eddie Davidson
If it's wish fulfilmment/mary sue where the MC has more wealthy than they can ever imagine with more on the way, and they can wish anything into existence/all things are no challenge/barely an inconvenience then it's a yawnfest.
If in Indiana Jones, he didn't get beat up, dragged through the mud first, and he just walked up and defeated the bad guys without taking a punch, it wouldn't be as satisfying when he ultimately overcomes.
Pain is a crucible, which can make someone stronger, or break them entirely. It doesn't have to be physical, it can be stress/mental and those challenges are what (to me) make for a satisfying story.
Using the Indian Jones series is not a good example, as they are movie-length omages to the 1930's through 50's matinee serials. So, they are "over the top" and have numerous "cliffhangers" and other tropes.
Beyond that specific criticism, I believe that it is not an all or nothing: life of Mary Sue vs. life of Job.
Challenges and threats are a spectrum, not an either / or. A story is almost certain to be challenging if there are no (or extremely low) stakes: "Will the character be able to get a piece of bubble gum." (However, getting a package of Twinkies well into a Zombie Apocalypse...) So too, a Gary Stu who can "triumph" over any challenge with seemingly no effort nor preparation.
Now, on occasion, I may enjoy a "Slice of Life" story, with no particular challenges, nor stakes. Such as the MC is baking a pie and hopes to win a ribbon (not even the Blue Ribbon) at the county fair. Relaxed pace "Feel Good" stories can be a nice break from the troubles of the world. I enjoy food, and typically enjoy considerable description of meals, and sometimes even their preparation. I am not alone in enjoying this type of story. Besides slice of life stories, there are popular sub-genres of both Mysteries and Romance novels that have food/cooking as a key element of those stories.
While I might enjoy a non-challenging "feel good" story on occasion, I have no interest in the opposite end of the spectrum. My life might not be terrible, but I have more than my "fair share" of pain and trouble; as do my friends, those who are still alive. Like most people, I enjoy when a Villian or antagonist suffers a comeuppance; I don't want to watch, nor read about a crapsack world!
I do enjoy some survival or triumph over adversity stories, even if the MC is the sole survivor, or one of the few to escape from a plane crash, ship sinking, nuclear war, or the beginning of a zombie apocalypse, even if many other people, perhaps billions, died horribly. If the story focuses upon the survivors, I can enjoy the story. Sometimes, for reasons of plot, important characters must get hurt, or even die. But I don't enjoy a "Ten Little Indians" trope (each of the characters die off one-by-one).
I don't know which I hate more, characters who consistently fail to take obvious precautions; or an author who has a story where even well-made and executed plans always fail. I know: "the best laid plans o' Mice an Men, aft gay aglee." I don't expect constant success, nor total success. I do expect a well-conceived plan, decently executed should be "rewarded"; even if things don't go according to plan, or if a villain/threat, even the forces of nature, overcome the plans of the MC; as long as things occurred logically. I don't enjoy an author who Diabolically schemes to destroy everything the MC does, or that another enjoys the fruit of the MC's labors.
In those stories it is the Villian who is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu.
I prefer stories that have a variety of challenges, they don't have to be "life or death" they could be rather mundane, but still have a significant consequence. A student falsely accused of cheating; they are not expelled, merely given an F on that one test. But, that one test could bring down their overall grade from an A to a B, and thus they won't be able to get into Harvard; or won't get a scholarship. Sure, they could go to State U, or find other ways to pay for a decent education. High stakes for a high school student; but not life or death.
Pain is a crucible, which can make someone stronger, or break them entirely. It doesn't have to be physical, it can be stress/mental
I was a soldier for 28 years. In addition to my own experiences, I studied my profession extensively, including matters of Leadership and the psychological issues that often afflict soldiers. There is considerable evidence that people have a "well of courage" few people have very much. Some have more than others. What appears to be "Acts of Courage" are sometimes merely desperation, or a misunderstanding of the stakes, of foolishness. Often, some soldiers fear letting down their comrades, or being seen as a coward, so they act courageous. Even a truly heroic person is (nearly) certain to be ground down by repeated tests of that courage.
Both LTC Grossman and S.L.A. Marshall state that the "Well of Courage" is finite. It is supposed that it may be replenished, but that is not certain. "Fatigue equals Fear" and constant draining of energy will make a person more vulnerable to fear. Also, fear, either intense bursts of terror, or prolonged concern (such as being relatively safe in a well-constructed trench during a barrage; or hours on patrol, uncertain when you might be ambushed or killed by a sniper) will drain a person of physical energy (making them more vulnerable to fear).
The USMC has its week long "Crucible" and the US Navy SEALs have "Hell Week" US Army Special Forces, Army Rangers, various nations SAS, or Russian Spetsnaz" all have similar prolonged tests of those who aspire to become one of their members. If it was of similar intensity for a year, or even a month, no one, or at least too few to be a viable formation, would ever pass the test.
During my military career I accomplished a number of challenges, attending Airborne School to become a paratrooper, Recondo, SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance & Escape), Amphibious Warfare, etc. At first, I was surprised by the number of men, stronger, faster, more agile, smarter, etc. than me who
Quit!
But I also served alongside many men, and a few women, who were much better soldiers, Marines, sailors, than I was. I have a bunch of medals and other awards; most significant to me the CIB (Combat Infantryman's Badge). I have accomplished my duties while under hostile fire; I have advanced against enemies shooting at me. I am humble for I have served alongside individuals who earned Silver Stars, other awards, I know some men who are recipients of the Medal of Honor. Even those remarkable individuals have breaking points.
Stories that exceed such capacities (almost always) cause me to stop reading. Conan or James Bond stories suffer from escalating stakes. The author/script writer feels they must make the next challenge much greater than previous challenges. To me it just becomes ridiculous! I prefer a story where the "Warrior-King" has defeated a more powerful foe by battle prowess / Allies / a Magical Sword, whatever. The next enemy doesn't need to be more powerful. Instead, a drought or a horde of locusts threaten, or a trade deal must be negotiated, or other challenges that the MC is not as well prepared to deal with are interesting.
as seaotter said, "To each their own."
