By that I mean: In many of his shows, he sets up truly impossible odds and situations for his heroes and heroines to overcome. But they do. He'll have some shootout after he's set the stage so there are hundreds of "bad guys" surrounding two or three protagonists, with all the tech also favoring the bad guys. But his protagonists manage to defeat them.
A far more believable way to go is to dial that back a bit. Yeah, set up conflict, find dramatic resolution, but at least make it plausible. The good guys can still be outgunned and outnumbered, but not to such a degree that it's absolutely crazy when they manage to survive.
Lower the severity of obstacles at least enough to make the audience think, "Yeah, it would be really, really tough. But I can see them surviving because they did X, Y or Z."
When I watched the trick mentioned above, I was thinking that the old "degree of difficulty" was waaay too steep for them to accomplish without serious help. They set the bar too high for their own good. And they worked too quickly under those circumstances, with no errors, at any time along the way. Setting the bar low enough to at least make it plausible and in accord with human limitations, and
then "scoring"? I can be impressed by that.
