Grind

[Mengu]

a) the battle is pointless
b) the battle drags on because the monsters have too many hit points
c) you have too much time to do text messaging between turns (one of my players used this as an argument to not have a 7th player join our group)
d) the encounter takes too long (like 1.5 or 2 or more hours)

For our two regular groups:

a) rarely happens. When it does, I try to make it serve some comic relief purpose.
b) nearly never happens. I (and our other DM) have learned how to design encounters minimizing this aspect, and take liberties behind the screen if there is a mess up in encounter design.
c) not so much texting (though a bit of that goes on too), but more so ponderous decisions, movement, etc, and players not paying attention to when their turn is coming up, not paying attention to what else is going on on the battle field can happen quite a bit. And then there is the long pause after a miss, while the player again ponders what to do next only to take 2 minutes to say "I guess I'm done".
d) happens moderately often due to c), but I consider a 1.5 hr fight to be quick, and 2 hr fight to be normal.

In other groups, playing LFR, I can get through some RP, and 2-4 combat encounters in under 4 hours, so I don't really know what the deal is with our regular groups.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, it appears that Grind is alive and well in 4E with less than 40% of respondents not really experiencing Grind anymore, but with over 60% still experiencing it, at least on occasion.

27.8% never experience Grind
11.4% used to experience Grind
35.4% sometimes experience Grind
25.3% often experience Grind


With regard to the perception of the respondents to their fellow players, it appears that Grind is slightly more prevalent. Often and never are actually tied at the moment here.

21.5% never experience Grind
15.2% used to experience Grind
41.8% sometimes experience Grind
21.5% often experience Grind


With only 1 in 4 never experiencing it and only 2 in 5 total not experiencing it now that the community at large is taking steps to avoid it, it seems likely that Grind is at least partially mechanically inherent to the rule system itself. It seems unlikely that over 60% of the community "are just playing wrong".

If I were to theorize, I would conclude that the grind is basically exacerbated by four basic things: a) the high number of monster hit points; b) the increased bookkeeping based on the large numbers of conditions, states, forced movement, and interrupts that PCs and NPCs can impose on their foes; c) the more complex duration rules where conditions and effects have a wide variance on when they expire; and d) slower players for whatever reason (non-attentive, overwhelmed by options, busy telling jokes, whatever).

I further opine that the high number of hit points of monsters has been partially alleviated by the introduction of splat books and easy access to Internet discussions and optimizations of builds, where PCs are considerably more effective than they were with the core rules, hence, they are more efficient at defeating foes than with just the core rules. The high number of hit points can be more easily whittled through then they used to be and would be one reason as to why a significant percentage of respondents and their fellow gamers no longer experience Grind (i.e. their combats are faster because their PCs are more efficient).

It's also likely that DMs are putting more effort into purposely making their encounters less grindy with specific encounter design ideas (such as Stalker0's Guide to Anti-Grind suggestions, having fewer stun, insubstantial, and weakening encounters) and with specific table rules ideas (in order to more quickly handle conditions, their durations, and the occasional slow player).

 

[Squire James]

It depends on your perception of "sometimes". I'd say there's a fair number of "seldom" entries in there that are clearly not "never" and not "often" either, but we really don't know because "seldom" wasn't an option.

Your main question seems to be "Is there too much grind?" and you count "sometimes" responses as "yes" votes. Given those assumptions, your conclusion is likely correct.

However, if "sometimes" were considered a neutral response ("maybe" instead of "yes"), I think the conclusions would be much different (~40% no, ~35% maybe, ~25% yes).

I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong (I suspect there's a lot of truth in it, actually), it just seems like you made assumptions in creating the poll and interpreting the results that supported a particular hypothesis. I am not convinced that the poll results necessarily match your conclusion.

 

[Herschel]

Recently when the PCs were 15th level, I threw a level 13 Adult Mercury Dragon with no class template (an NPC foe that was supposed to just be a brute that the PCs had fought several levels earlier and who had fled) along with a level 17 Elder White Dragon with a Cleric class template (an NPC Clerical follower of Tiamat where Tiamat followers are starting to show up in the campaign).

Wait, so you were taking TWO monsters you think are basicaly weak-attacking sacks of HP and gave them access to.... MORE HP ?!?!?!?!

That's a self-fulfilling, loaded modification. "I want to prove there's grind, so I will add elements to enhance the ability to have grind."

Adding damage templates would be fine as it strengthens what you consider a weakness. But when the monster's strength is something you see as a problem, you added to the perceived already existing problem, not mitigated it.

 

[MrMyth]

With only 1 in 4 never experiencing it and only 2 in 5 total not experiencing it now that the community at large is taking steps to avoid it, it seems likely that Grind is at least partially mechanically inherent to the rule system itself. It seems unlikely that over 60% of the community "are just playing wrong".

Whoa. Note the majority of the Grind present is of the "sometimes experience it variety". I voted that, since I'll generally run into the grind in one combat out of every 3 or 4 sessions. I can't speak for others, but I think you might be making some rather unreliable assumptions about your results.

Now, even aside from that, 25% of players regularly experiencing grind is an issue. What I would be curious about, for a more informed poll, was knowing how large some of those groups are, along with whether they have experienced grind in other games or other editions.

I know that for myself, when grind does happen it tends to be partly due to group size and player inactivity. When it arises as a result of the rules, it tends to be the result of specific mechanical issues - likely a combat full of insubstantial creatures, for example - more than general hitpoints and book-keeping.

 

[KarinsDad]

Whoa. Note the majority of the Grind present is of the "sometimes experience it variety". I voted that, since I'll generally run into the grind in one combat out of every 3 or 4 sessions. I can't speak for others, but I think you might be making some rather unreliable assumptions about your results.

Such as?

Now, even aside from that, 25% of players regularly experiencing grind is an issue. What I would be curious about, for a more informed poll, was knowing how large some of those groups are, along with whether they have experienced grind in other games or other editions.

Yes, more details would be good. But even so, the game system should be able to handle 6 PCs or even 7 PCs without grinding. Shouldn't it?

I know that for myself, when grind does happen it tends to be partly due to group size and player inactivity.

In regard to group size, why is just adding one or two players detrimental to the game system to the extent that 2 in 9 players often experience Grind (if one were to make an assumption that group size is a major contributing factor)?

When it arises as a result of the rules, it tends to be the result of specific mechanical issues - likely a combat full of insubstantial creatures, for example - more than general hitpoints and book-keeping.

No doubt that insubstantial adds to the issue. By definition, that effectively doubles the hit points of the creature if it can be insubstantial most of the time.

But, insubstantial is a game mechanics feature. So my statement that you responded "Whoa" to: "it seems likely that Grind is at least partially mechanically inherent to the rule system itself" is reinforced by game mechanics like Stun, Insubstantial, Blind, Weakened, Regeneration, etc. And since percentage-wise, more PCs and NPCs now have these types of abilities than in earlier editions, by definition these types of game mechanics are adding to the duration of encounters. Both by adding rounds to the length of an encounter, and by adding bookkeeping which players have to keep track of.

Stun is especially Grind conducive. I have seen a player miss his save for Stun 4 or more times in a row, effectively taking that PC and player almost completely out of an encounter.


But consider. What if 4E had a simpler duration system? All Ally beneficial non-zone effects last to the end of the encounter. All Enemy detrimental non-zone effects last until the enemy makes a save at the end of his turn. How much real time would this save both in doing bookkeeping, and in things like forgetting that an effect expired? In a one hour encounter, wouldn't it be possible for a rules change like this to save 5 or more minutes?

As players, some of us get used to the system as we play it and do not really take out the time to think about a better system.

But I think that Grind is not caused by just one thing, but a combination of many things that add up. Effects like Stun or Insubstantial can add to Grind, doing excessive bookkeeping can add to Grind, high number of monster hit points can add to Grind, slow players can add to Grind, larger groups can add to Grind, more challenging encounters can add to Grind, traps can add to Grind, etc.

I have seen traps that require Teleport or one of a few skills for the PC to get out of the trap. If the PC doesn't have that ability, it's possible that other PCs might have difficulty (or even lack of time) helping out that PC. The player might experience Grind as rounds go by and s/he cannot make a skill roll and is not contributing to the encounter. I've seen this happen in Skill Challenges as well.

Most players want to contribute. Game elements and mechanics that minimize their contributions can be perceived as grindy.


When 3E came out, it introduced a circular initiative system. This was a vast improvement over earlier systems that required an initiative roll every round. Bookkeeping adds up and is just one factor in the Grind equation, even if it is not as obvious to some people.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's a self-fulfilling, loaded modification. "I want to prove there's grind, so I will add elements to enhance the ability to have grind."

Actually, I posted a poll to determine whether there is Grind in people's games.

The example didn't illustrate Grind in the game system at all. That was just an anecdotal extreme example that happened in my game. It wasn't meant to illustrate anything other than an encounter that should have increased by slightly more than 50% in duration due to a healing capability actually increased by more than that. XP-wise, it went from N+3 to N+4. But just based on XP, the duration of the encounter increased a lot more than N+3 to N+4 typically would based mostly on one type of ability gained.

 

[Antronach]

I often find that the people who complain about grind, are the only ones that know what they're going to do on their turn. I have two people at one of my tables that are causing a slow down. If it happens next week they will have 10 seconds to choose their action, or i'll pick a default at will for them.

BOCTAOE

 

[Kinneus]

Depends on the DM (we rotate frequently) and the encounter (I'm looking at you, Scales of War).

That said, we went from "Often" to "Sometimes" once the DMs became more aware of the problem. Anti-grind techniques have really helped.

This sums up my experience quite nicely.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

I find that 90% of grind comes form either poor encounter building, or poor play on the part of the players (could be because of non-synergistic PC choices or not paying attention/being prepared for the game).

Example: Recently, one of the regular players in our group decided to try his hand at DMing a one-shot. It was rather disastrous in terms of level of grind, and there were two why.

1) The Players: I had sent out an e-mail to the group informing them that I was playing a higher leveled version of a character that was a Fighter MC Cleric, while another player I knew was playing a higher level version of his Rogue MC Sorcerer. I asked the other players to perhaps talk about what sorts of PC's they were bringing. I did this both so we could try and create a synergistic and balanced party, but also because it would let me know if I should maybe tweak my build some (ie - add more Cleric feats to increase my Leader abilities, or add more damage).

Instead, I never received any kind of a response and what we ended up with on the day of the game was 3 Defenders and 2 Strikers, all melee builds. One of the Strikers was not-that-optimized Monk MC Cleric (it was Tiefling...pumping DEX and STR...do the math) that would've been okay in a more well balanced party...but 3 Defenders and 2 Strikers is not balanced.

With no Controller to provide battlefield control and inflict status effects on enemies, and no Leader to buff allies and help deal with conditions and defensive battlefield control, this meant we just ended up all ganging up in melee and throwing all of our middling damage at the enemy. Very grindy, and very boring if you ask me.

2) The Encounter Design: The DM had never DM'd a game before, and rather than just following the DMG advice and making some straight up recommended encounters he wound up experimenting with a lot of stuff.

The first encounter was with a solitary Solo Dragon that was under-leveled. This meant two things: not only was it not a threat, it had a buttload of HP to grind through. Add to this the fact that he had this fight in a sandstorm that didn't allow the dragon to fly, and you end up with a long fight where we just stood toe to toe with the Dragon at ground level and beat through it's prodigious HP.

Oh, and there was also pretty much no terrain present in the fight. With an all melee party, this meant that the Dragon was pretty much surrounded from round 1 until it died.

After that fight, the next encounter again started with just a single enemy. The Rogue MC Sorcerer almost ended this fight in a single round with a rather amazing sneak attack roll, leaving the enemy with only about 20 HP.

Since it survived the initial attack, the DM's "special" (read: custom designed, not from anything in the MM's or Dungeon) monster started up with his tricks. Basically, he wanted the feel of a "summoner" monster, and so each round this thing would toss out a few enemies that we would have to deal with. We eventually defeated it before it had even summoned all of the creatures it could, and without hardly breaking a sweat. While this wasn't really a grind per se, it was quite boring.

For one, there was again zero terrain on the map, which was how the Rogue closed so quickly. This meant that we were all able to close very quickly, and the entire fight took place pretty much within in a 5 square radius.

Secondly, since none of the "summoned" monsters started in the fight they were never able to form any sort of a strategy. We had all closed by the end of round 1, which meant that there was no sort of defensive line or interesting battle lines that would cause issues. It was just one big clump. One of the monster types even inflicted immobilize on a successful hit, but since they didn't come out until the party was already engaged, this was a mostly wasted ability. Had they come out in the beginning, they almost would've acted as a sort of hindering terrain and changed the tactical situation drastically. If there had been say, some kind of a pool of water in the middle of the map, with the immobilizing monsters on either side, it would've totally changed the fight. Party members that could fly or were just highly mobile (Myself, the Rogue/Sorcerer or the Monk) could've bypassed them or gotten around behind them in some way, whereas the rest of the party would've had to slow down or go around the sides and deal with the immobilizing. While it might've made the encounter longer, it would have made it more fun and therefore less of a grind.

Lastly, the choice of monsters had some issues. There was a nasty creature which lowered all my defenses by 5, and then followed that up with another attack that lowered my Will by 4 (which was overkill to throw on one player, especially one with a Will that could be hit on a 3 before it was lowered at all). As cool as this monster was though, there was not a single creature in the encounter which could attack Will (amongst those that were summoned, but since we beat the summoner before he could summon everything he had, there might have been others), and I think only one other creature could attack anything other than AC, which meant that this power was mostly wasted. What would've been an interesting and dangerous enemy ended up going down within a round of appearing because it was spawned within easy reach of the melee members of the party and had almost no effect on the battle because there was no one around to capitalize on the penalties it was dishing out.

The last encounter was essentially a rehash of the second. The summoning monster wasn't quite dead, and it suddenly came back and dominated one of the PC's (me, actually) to use him to help summon more monsters. The dominating action was done as a sort of "surprise round" (I put it in quotes because it was more of a "cut scene" surprise round, in that it was written into the adventure with no way for the players to avoid it...which is always a bad idea), which meant that I started the encounter without really being able to act. However, the creature got kinda shut down and never even got to summon another monster, and was quickly brought down by the combined might of the rest of the party (all surrounding it in melee). I, however, was not involved because the dominate was a proximity ability, and (to go back to #1) we didn't have any Controllers or Leaders that could separate the two of us.

So, the last fight ended up being, once again, very long and boring. Daze effects kept the creature from summoning, and then it was just a matter of whittling HP while I sat and watched...unable to act.

(Note: The summoning monster was a custom monster made up by the DM for his first time DMing. This is not a good idea. You shouldn't really tweak or create monsters until you have a lot of DMing experience, specifically so you can avoid some of the pitfalls he fell into)