The Grind Problem (My 2 Cents)

[helium3]

I really need to get my blog set-up. This post is way too long for an ENWorld thread. Oh well.

I've been running a 4E game since late May and started significantly modding 3E to be more like 4E around March. The "grindyness" of actual 4E (didn't see this problem with my modded version of 3E for some reason) was apparent right from the get-go.

At the time, the general response to the length of combat was to chalk it up to players not being familiar with the system. Since then, my groups been playing 4E and I've had a chance to explore "grindspace" a fair bit.

Here's my observations:

(1) No encounter is guaranteed to be a member of "grindspace."
(2) Any encounter can be a member of "grindspace."
(3) The higher the difficulty level of the encounter, the more likely it is to be a member of "grindspace."
(4) The higher the average AC of the monsters in the encounter, the more likely it is to be a member of "grindspace."
(5) If the players aren't good at finding the "syngergies" of 4E or don't have characters that create said synergies, the chance of an encounter being a member of "grindspace" increases.

So is the problem that monsters have a hitpoint to AC ratio that's too high or is it something else? Personally, my bet is on "mostly something else but maybe a bit of the former." Contrary to what some people have said, the game is actually rather swingy, just not in a way that results in character death.

4E PC's are HARD to kill but pretty easy to drop. The first couple of times I dropped PC's I was pretty freaked out, but I quickly learned that this wasn't usually going to end in death unless the PC was out of healing surges, the party made some really stupid choices or was so sorely pressed that they simply couldn't spare the time to assist their fallen comrade.

So how is the 4E system swingy? Our group has talked extensively about this and the best we can come up with is "the game design assumes stochastic behavior that simply doesn't reflect reality."

What do I mean by this? Simply put, when you roll a d20 repeatedly and track the numbers you've generated you will over time generate a flat probability distribution. Each outcome of rolling a d20 has a roughly five percent chance of being rolled (with very minor variations from the d20 not being "perfect").

The seductive siren song of game design then says "You can define your system such that rolling a 11 or better is a hit and use that design rule to generate hit-points, AC, damage and attack modifiers for both characters and monsters. If you then give your PC's a smidge of an edge against the monsters through the ability to regain lost hitpoints and opportunities to gain bonuses to attack you've got a system that's automatically balanced with no thought required!!"

Only, there's one potential flaw in the ointment here. The flat distribution of d20 rolls exists over only a very large number of rolls. One of these days I'll get around to generating a computer program that calculates the actual distribution. For now, I know from personal experience that the average d20 roll in a given encounter tends to bunch up on one side of the divide or the other far more than the game system seems to acknowledge.

This isn't a problem when the "skew" favors the players, it just means that the encounter progresses normally and maybe even ends more quickly than expected. On the other hand, if the "skew" favors the monsters it doesn't mean that the players are going to die. It simply means that the encounter is definitely a member of "grindspace."

How to fix this? There are a couple of approaches. You could impose an across the board reduction of monster hit points or AC. You could run easier encounters. You could find ways to give players a greater chance to hit or increase the amount of damage when they do hit.

I've got a solution that I'm going to start trying at the beginning of my next game. All PC's will now have access to an encounter power that I'll call "Heroic Stand" or something. When they use "Heroic Stand" they burn an action point and every PC gains a +1 bonus to attack for the remainder of the encounter. It'd be an interesting house-rule to try and I could see it working pretty well for solving the grind problem. The nice thing about it is that it's entirely in the hands of the players and I don't have to do any extra mucking about with the encounters.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Nice post. Your analysis of the d20 distribution was pretty right on.

Aside from die rolling concerns, it seems that 4E is not free from system mastery after all. The focus has shifted away from individual character building mastery to synergy team building mastery.

I don't mind game elements that reward player cooperation, but having to design and develop a character by committee in order to help avoid grindspace (love that term) takes too much choice away from the player (once again IF you want to avoid grindspace).

Its a deeply rooted issue in the system. Let us know what kinds of effects your solution brings.

 

[RangerWickett]

Maybe something so simple as, "If you miss all your attacks (or are denied them by some condition), you gain an action point which you can spend even if you've already spent one this encounter," could fix the grind problem.

It would seem a bit artificial, but it would help counteract PCs missing a lot. *shrug*

 

[Jack99]

I don't mind game elements that reward player cooperation, but having to design and develop a character by committee in order to help avoid grindspace (love that term) takes too much choice away from the player (once again IF you want to avoid grindspace).

Good thing that you do not have to do this.

It would seem a bit artificial, but it would help counteract PCs missing a lot. *shrug*

Wouldn't it be easier to explain players that putting a 10 in your main attack stat is a bad idea, if you wish to actually hit the monsters?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Good thing that you do not have to do this.

Of course not. Thus the (if you want to avoid grindspace) qualifier. You don't HAVE to have strikers in a party either, but (see qualifier).

 

[Thasmodious]

I've never encountered this 'grindyness'. I'm not saying it's not there, but I think its existence has much more to do with how players and DMs are approaching encounters than the system itself. 4e is designed with highly active, cinematic encounters in mind. Battles on dangerous terrain with certain death a precipice away, deadly traps, hazards, terrain, and plenty of movement. Yet, many groups approach encounters with the same mindset from 3e or other previous editions - "You open the door, there is a large trol;, roll init and then beat on the troll with pointy sticks and spells until it's dead." Now, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, at all. 3e was designed around this kind of combat. 4e is not, and that is where the potential to turn combats into grindfests exists.

In 4e, things like the slowed or immobile conditions exist because they are supposed to have a serious impact on the fight. If most everyone, especially the monster(s) are just standing still, what's the point? That's not the way it's intended. Locking down one opponent should have a big effect on the combat because the opponents have an interest in moving and positioning, same as the PCs. The PCs should begin combats looking for terrain advantages and good positioning, not just charging and letting loose with their ranged attacks. If the PCs aren't using at least 2 of their 3 actions a round, there's a problem.

Part of that "3e mindset" is the learned fear of the AoO. More hit points in 4e means an OA is much less threatening and creatures and PCs should be much less worried about taking them. They also trigger less often, do less damage, and are less likely to hit than was usually the case in 3e where letting the greataxe wielding, raging barbarian get an AoO was death.

DMs need to keep the combat moving, keep his mobs moving and encourage the PCs to do the same with interesting environments with rewards for positioning.

The encounter I ran that really drilled this into my players was a semi-random encounter against some orcs that were attacking a traveling merchant. The group included a couple of raiders, an Eye, some drudges and a Bloodrager. The bloodrager is a beast and you could really grind just standing toe to toe exchanging damage against him. The PCs went fairly "standard" the melee guys charged, the ranged guys stopped where they were and started firing. The star of the encounter was the bloodrager because he didn't just stand still and try to beat down the fighter, he slogged through the battlefield going after everybody. Anytime the fighter hit him, even with an OA, he got a retaliatory hit, if the fighters OA stopped him moving, he just moved again. At one point the fighter got cut off by a couple of the drudges and the bloodrager suddenly charged the wizard and nearly took his head off,. The wizard hasn't just stood around in the open casting spells with no thought to position ever since. The fight went many rounds, a good chunk of the last against just the bloodrager (thanks to the Eye, he didn't use his warriors surge until he was the only orc left). Bloodied and beaten the last few rounds were a toe to toe slugfest that the PCs enjoyed with the injured fighter and cleric battering the wounded orc while the ranger chimed in from behind a rock (the wizard was down and dying, as was the warlock).

 

[Jack99]

Of course not. Thus the (if you want to avoid grindspace) qualifier. You don't HAVE to have strikers in a party either, but (see qualifier).

But you base your original notion of not liking 4e on the correctness of the qualifiers.

 

[Ydars]

Haven't yet played much 4E because we haven't finished our 3,5E campaign but intend to play/DM it afterwards. I ran a few mock combats back when KoTS first appeared and even in that short time, I saw problems with the game and the grind was just one of them, but I put it down to my lack of system mastery.

However, I remember feeling, when I first read it, that 4E was a game that needed a year more in development before being released and my opinion has not changed. It has some really great innovations that, properly implimented could have been fantastic, e.g. skill challenges, the powers and the healing system. However, there are major problems or disconnects associated with all of these systems and this results from inadequate testing and tweaking, not from inherent design problems.

What effect would it have to give all powers the reliable keyword; in other words you can keep trying until your daily or encounter powers actually hit? I think this might help iron out the grind. I know this would decrease the power of the "currently reliable" powers versus those that are balanced against them and are currently unreliable.

 

[Harr]

I have encountered, again and again, the grind problem. One particularly bad session we barely got through two combats in 5 five hours of play, and at the end we were so burnt out from it we didn't even bother with treasure or XP or anything, we just stopped.

It's totally true what you (OP) say: If the dice generally go the player's way, the combat is usually fast and exciting and over quickly, while if the dice turn and generally go in the monsters' favor, you can usually expect a long drawn-out grind and mop-up afterwards.

Also, when you try to really *challenge* your players - that is when you try to make a combat that would make them go 'wow, that was dangerous we barely survived it!' What you usually end up with is an excruciating battle of attrition as the players' resources are VERY gradually wound down before they ever feel any kind of pressure, and they are more likely to end up saying 'good god is it over yet?!' than anything else.

I tried switching to flat max damage for everybody which worked out fantastically well at first, but it does bring with it the side effect that you can no longer pick from as many different monsters for your encounters (lower-level monsters tend to turn into minions while higher-level monsters tend to turn the PCs into minions). We are now trying flat-average damage, but I fully expect the grind to still be there.

I think in the end the only way to solve this is by encounter design, mainly terrain, liabilities and assets that the PCs and monsters can use to enhance their effectiveness. That fireplace you can push people into, that pit trap you could fall into if you're not careful, those spikes against the wall waiting for someone to be bullrushed into them, that trap that will spring at you just when you take a swing at the orc, those used to be nice but trivial additions to an encounter in 3e, but now they're actually required and expected by the system in order to function.

In general I've come to decide that for any one encounter, if there isn't a lot of running, shifting, pushing, pulling and sliding going on, and if there's isn't a respectable amount of 'terrain and hazards' type damage being dealt almost every round, then something needs improving.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But you base your original notion of not liking 4e on the correctness of the qualifiers.

Its more than just qualifiers but you can test them out if you want to. Take 2 fighters and 2 clerics into dungeon ( a very viable D&D party) in 4E and try it out. A combat will feel very much like trying to finish off a boss with only tank and heals. You may be successful but deep in grindspace.