Plus, most people - infused by the Action-RPG sub-genre - believe that RPGs are nothing but power games.
Action RPG sub genre acts as a usual suspect. There is a cause behind it: players who like action RPG sub genre and players who dislike it usually share as a common point their lust for power.
They expect to prevail, to dominate no matter the vid product.
There is something else behind it.
BG3 has moved away from anything similar to action RPG (aka RT) yet it is structured so that players can feel powerful at little cost.
It has nothing to do with action RPG, it appears no matter the vid product.
Rimworld is a story generator. It originally started locking players on a single tile. Then a full world, made of thousands of tiles, was added. Opening travel tied story lines.
Including travels that might result from temporary weakness: a threat might be overwhelming, causing a community to abandon the settlement to move elsewhere.
It never digged with players. When it started, threats were made obvious as non manageable, flight was the solution. It happened rarely but already too many times for players and their insecurities. So threats had to diminish by design.
The situation has grown up to the point that the last DLC has lines trying to sell the idea that surrendering a colony is not that bad, the story goes on. By design, this option was obvious, design worked well to put flight as a credible option. When devs are compelled to point out one way to play their game, it is an issue.
Players do not want it, they prefered to sacrifice a colony rather than settling elsewhere and keep the story going on. Leaving a colony on an exterior pressure makes them feel weak. And they are strong. They prevail. They dominate.