Would this solve the "grind" issue?

[Chzbro]

As I said before, I'm quite sure that some people do experience grind in their games, but I simply don't agree that it's "hard-wired" into the game. Honestly, if you already believe that the system mandates grind, you're going to "experience" it each and every combat because you've already determined it's there.

Instead of asserting that grind is inherent to 4E, a much more productive discussion might be to take all of that analysis and determine how to use it to build encounters that don't result in (what you personally define as) grind. I won't claim that I've never seen encounters get "grindy," but for the most part I viewed those as mistakes that I could learn from.

Today, I played in a session where my group of 4 level 26s took on Yeenoghu (after 3 other fights). We only had a few dailies left between us (3?), and the demon lord had an elite soldier backing him up, but the fight still only took us 4 rounds and around 45 minutes to finish. Rather than grind, it was actually kind of easy. We could talk at length about why this was (I believe in one round the rogue dished out about 300 damage), but my point (anecdotally, I admit) is that there really isn't any reason to assume that fights are going to last 6-7 rounds at minimum. And while there is a lot of bookkeeping, if you play with the same characters over and over you ought to quickly get pretty familiar with what everyone can do and figure out ways to make that bookkeeping trivial. Observations about hit points and bookkeeping are exactly the kind of thing that we should be talking about in a thread like this, but they should at least be couched in a helpful manner.

It's simple enough to say that some people experience grind and some people don't. If you do and don't wish to discuss ways to avoid it or don't believe such ways exist, what can be said? I'm fairly certain that I could build grindy 3.x or Pathfinder encounters too, but that doesn't mean such encounters are a product of the system. Isn't it at least as likely that the reason the Pathfinder encounters run quicker is because the individual building them is good at doing so? Most of us had a lot of time to practice it, after all. Unfortunately, I don't think those encounter building skills translate well between the editions as the games as the combats are just much, much different.

 

[mneme]

Not getting into editions wars, but having played a 3.5 game from 1st to 17th...4e grind has nothing on 3e. 3e grind at high levels starts hours before the combat starts, and the plethora of 1 round durations in 4e are competing against countdowns on a dozen different status effects in 3.

But yeah, the real definition of grind is whether you're having fun -- and whether things are staying the same and just repeating vs changing constantly.

 

[Shazman]

I understand that things can be done to mitigate grind in 4E, but I don't see how it can be eliminated. When you are fighting a lot of monsters, can expect to hit them only about 50% of the time (sometimes less) and do less than a quarter of their starting hit points in damage even on a good hit, it is going to take a lot of time to get through their hit points. So unless the DM makes creatures run when they get bloodied, calls the fight when the PC's have the upper hand, or the party just starts critting like mad it is going to take time. I have experienced grind in practically every 4E combat I have played in, so I guess it colors my view of the 4E "grind" phenomenon. Maybe if I actually got to play in a better balanced encounter, it would seem less "grindy", but I have yet to see that. LFR mods are all I have experience with because that's all the people I 've played 4E with are interested in, and I have noticed that they have terribly designed encounters. They always use higher level creatures, especially soldiers, brutes, and elites, and throw difficult terrain and chokepoints around the map like candy. They also rarely use minions. I've heard that WotC's published adventures are also notoriously bad for this. I wish we could get WotC to realize how horrible their encounter design is and get them to correct it. Don't they ever play test their encounters? Do they think it's okay for a combat to last 4 hours? Listen up WotC! Taking forever to get to engage enemies, and even longer to drop enemies does not make for a tactically interesting or dynamic fight. It makes for a frustrating, boring experience that makes you want to quit playing altogether.

 

[Herschel]

Tactics, tactics, tactics. Really, that can be the key. Something as simple as focusing fire can get lost and turn a routine battle in to a slugfest (slogfest?).

One "issue" with LFR is that you can either end up with a: a really lousy party mix or b: a bunch of 'solo' players who aren't used to working with the group. The length of combat also has almost nothing to do with 'grind', it's the way combat is run and it's components.

 

[KarinsDad]

Instead of asserting that grind is inherent to 4E, a much more productive discussion might be to take all of that analysis and determine how to use it to build encounters that don't result in (what you personally define as) grind. I won't claim that I've never seen encounters get "grindy," but for the most part I viewed those as mistakes that I could learn from.

...

And while there is a lot of bookkeeping, if you play with the same characters over and over you ought to quickly get pretty familiar with what everyone can do and figure out ways to make that bookkeeping trivial.

Why don't you explain your system of bookkeeping since it is trivial?

Isn't it at least as likely that the reason the Pathfinder encounters run quicker is because the individual building them is good at doing so?

Explain what you mean by "good at doing so". Are you claiming that it's easier to wipe out foes in Pathfinder than it is in 4E?


I've been playing D&D for 32 years and I really don't see a difference between foes coming at the party from all directions in Pathfinder and 4E from an encounter building skills perspective.

The difference I see is what has to be done to keep track of the encounter itself.

In 3E, if the Cleric casts a protective spell on the Fighter, it lasts one round per level. Sure, there is some bookkeeping that has to be done there. Every round, a 3rd level Cleric had to subtract 1 to a counter for each of the two protective spells he had up and if one got to zero, he had to tell the Fighter "you are no longer protected". But once the PCs got to 5th level or so, even that level of bookkeeping mostly disappeared. For the most part, players made a penciled in change to their character sheet for the entire encounter.

In 4E, players have to add and subtract stuff all of the time. They either remember it (which some players are good at and others or not), or they write it down and then cross (or erase) it out, over and over again.


And, there is sometimes unnecessary bookkeeping. The PCs daze or slow their foes (or vice versa), often to no great outcome (i.e. slowing or dazing a marked foe next to the Fighter often does nothing other than adding unnecessarily bookkeeping, but the bookkeeping has to be kept track of, just in case it does become necessary).

 

[Shazman]

The numerous 4e conditions are a headache to track and can really add a lot of time to combats. Everyone is constantly having to remind other players or the DM about conditions, and even some turns have to be redone when someone remembers "I can't do that. I'm dazed" or "I couldn't move there because I am slowed." Every 4E combat seems to be like a seriously buffed 3.5 party that just got hit by an area dispel magic and have to recalculate a bunch of modifiers. The only difference is that you take care of that mountain of bookkeeping in little bits over the length of the encounter instead of all at once.

 

[Obryn]

The numerous 4e conditions are a headache to track and can really add a lot of time to combats.

...or you stay organized? At mid-levels, conditions fly everywhere. We track them with either Alea Tools magnets, or just pieces of scratch paper. For my own purposes, I track everything with the Masterplan software I'm using.

There's no doubt that conditions change around a lot. The key to tracking them is coming up with a system and sticking with it.

-O

 

[KarinsDad]

...or you stay organized?

Yes, people MUST do this. That's part of the problem.

At mid-levels, conditions fly everywhere. We track them with either Alea Tools magnets, or just pieces of scratch paper.

We use the colored plastic rings from the tops of plastic soda bottle. One or two players are in charge of placing the plastic rings on the miniatures and taking them off.

It's not just the issue of constantly adding rings and taking them away. That takes time, but I can handle that. The real issue is that the rings do not tell anyone when the condition ends (we do not have different colors or markings on the rings for that).

So if the Cleric forgets that Daze ends at the end of her turn, the Daze plastic ring might still be on the miniature for a while until someone finally remembers.

Writing duration expiration down on paper also takes a while if one does not want to rely on everyone's memories.

It's tough for the DM to remember all of this stuff because he has a ton of other stuff to handle.

For my own purposes, I track everything with the Masterplan software I'm using.

The fact that you are using a computer to keep track of all of this should shout volumes to you.

There's no doubt that conditions change around a lot. The key to tracking them is coming up with a system and sticking with it.

That doesn't mean that the system is fast or effective. It just means that the players/DM are forced to do all of this extra work.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I am the DM in my current group and I am doing the tracking for the monsters. At the same time as I note the damage I note the condition (default duration: save ends), after a while I learn all the PC abilities and write shorter and shorter notes.

If somebody - including me forgets about a condition, it's not the end of the world, but we usually manage quite well without using much time doing it.

What does take time is players with new characters - even if they are level 1. Or if somebody has made a needlessly complex monster that I haven't edited.

I do agree that they should just have stuck with one mechanic for duration, and save ends is the best one in my eyes.

Regarding buffing in 3.x, I am currently playing in a level 17 party, and planning before a big encounter can easily take 1-2 hours with the 5-10 buffs each character wants/gets.

Buffing in 4e takes place in combat and makes combat a little more time consuming, but it beats the hell out of 1 hour pre-battle buffing.

Oh yeah, and my 3.5 level 17 cleric has three different strength buffs, two different con buffs, 3 different to-hit buffs and 3 different damage-buffs that I call use regularly in combat. There is some overlap in the buff-types so I am constantly re-calculating my character to-hit and damage for his 3-5 attacks a round. I know several of the players I am playing with couldn't have played the character well. There are too many bits and pieces.

 

[Obryn]

Yes, people MUST do this. That's part of the problem.

I disagree that it's a problem. You think it is. I don't see a productive solution to this, so I'll just agree to disagree if you can stipulate that it's not a problem for all 4e groups, and move past it.

The fact that you are using a computer to keep track of all of this should shout volumes to you.

I ran 4e just fine for most of this campaign, without the use of a computer. Masterplan just makes it easier, much like the Character Builder makes character building easier and the Monster Builder makes monster building easier. What should this be shouting to me?

-O