Why isn't WotC acknowledging Grind issue?

[Dannager]

Anyone who has read the multitude of grind-related threads would know that there's not one solution to the problem because there are multiple drivers to the problem. Increasing damage and reducing hp is not the cure-all.

Look, I am not bashing 4E. I play it and I like it, better than the previous editions. It is because of this that I want WotC to pay attention, because this is a problem for a segment of their customer base. Based on the number of threads that continuously pop up about it, I'd have to say the problem is significant. If I worked for WotC, I'd be addressing it.

By the way, in this section of this forum alone there are no less than 3 active threads on this topic on page 1. You tell me if it's an issue or not.

It is clearly an issue for some people. However, it is very likely not an issue that will be resolved simply by fooling around with the underlying system. The combat encounter system is pretty darn solid. If you're playing with 7 people, or course combat's going to take longer. This shouldn't surprise anyone. You're increasing the number of options each participant has, increasing the number of actions for the party, and increasing the number of actions for the DM. Cut back on your player count, or increase the efficiency of your table.

I mean, could you give an example of the sort of acknowledgement you're looking for that hasn't already happened?

 

[Paul_Klein]

By the way, in this section of this forum alone there are no less than 3 active threads on this topic on page 1. You tell me if it's an issue or not.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/273290-combat-length-adventure-pacing.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/272050-combat-length.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/273174-why-d-d-4th-edition-so-grindy.html

Sorry, that's four. I missed one.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/273193-what-constitutes-grind-what-causes.html

So you felt that you should add another one....

(And easily the worst of the lot)

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I concur with Paul Klein and brainstorm. There are already enough threads on this topic. But this is at least a different sort of question. So I will try to address that question.

I've seen, and contributed to, quite a few "grind" threads on this board and the WotC forums, but I've yet to see an official response from WotC on the issue. I think it would be wise of them to address the issue early on in the life cycle of this edition before the problem drives players to other editions or games.

There are a few reasons that come to mind.

1) It is not the sort of problem that can be fixed by a simple mechanical tweak.
2) Grind is a hugely subjective term.

Grind is not a simple problem like a badly worded power that makes it too effective and can be fixed by 2 or 3 lines of errata. I created a thread to see what people think causes grind, and what constituites a grind. The most frequently recurring cause seems to be due to overly durable monsters being used in combat that are unable to inflict sufficient damage to kill the players in a timely fashion.

My thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/273193-what-constitutes-grind-what-causes.html

[sblock]Some DM's really enjoy running fights built around small numbers of very powerful opponents, and the monster of choice is typically going to be Elites or Solos for these encounters. Elites and Solos did not exist as formally in 3e as they do in 4e. They have slightly tougher AC / Def scores, and about 2 to 4 times as much HP. This works fine if the Solo or Elite is close to the players level. But if you put PC's of level X against Elites and Solo's of level X+4 or higher, you are significantly magnifying the HP and AC relative to what the players should handle. The Higher AC will mean that the encounter and daily powers are more likley to miss. Having few monsters means that the combat rounds will pass very quickly, so after a very short amount of 'real time', your players will have used up the encounter and daily powers, and be reduced to at will attacks.

The reason this is a grind and not just an unfair fight is that the monsters, while having plenty of hp and a very good AC, the damage output is still going to be limited to a single attack per round. The attack will hurt, but since PC's are very durable, and the monsters wont have many attacks in a round, the players will not be at any great risk of dying during the fight.[/sblock]

Now, the Durable Monster problem is especially bad with Soldiers. But grind can also happen if you use Lurkers of level X+4. Or if you use enough Controllers with powers like Daze to consistently daze many of your players (Or stun, or immobilize, etc). The problem can also be magnified by players using very poor tactics. Or a grind can happen if the combat area is too open and the monsters are way to scattered. Or if the DM is just using way too many monsters. Or if the players happen to have some crap luck with their dice.

Any problem that crops up in game that is hugely dependant on the way the DM chooses to run his game is not really a problem that WotC can issue an errata based fix for. Any of the fixes that does get widly circulated is usually highly situational. What works reliably for your game wont necessarily work for my game. 2 Hit Minions? That basically screws strikers and negates gains to player damage. A flat reduction in AC? That may work for the X+4 Soldier, but what about the DM who only uses that monster when it is at level X? Suddenly the monster is too damn easy to hit.

The only suggestions I can think of is to first, just use the rules in Chapter 10 of the DMG to scale those elites back down to your players level. It is functionally the same as reducing the HP and AC anyway. Beyond that, just apply whatever fix or house rule you like to your game and call it a day. That sort of fix has been used for every edition for D&D for every other shortcoming that has been preceived, and the results have usually been pretty good.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Charwoman Gene]

My guess as to why this issue came out of nowhere to some extent is that playtesting and "game-break" has always focused on over-power, rather under, which is one of the things that causes more grind.

 

[Windjammer]

I have no clue which one, unfortunately; I'm pretty sure it was Mearls talking about it, probably in a Q&A/letterbag podcast, maybe around the end of last year. I'm sorry I don't remember more clearly.

IIRC, he pretty much says "when I want combat to go more quickly, I raise damage and reduce hit points."

IIRC, the 'Rich Baker houserule' which you state here existed at the WotC offices from June 2008 on. Mike Mearls references it in a discussion on his blog - in reply to this question:

Q: Mike, last year there was an anti-grind house rule being talked about where folks in R&D were cutting monster HP, increasing monster damage - did that work out? I think some kind of formula like that is compelling - to increase the number of encounters in a night, and maintain a threat level - but I could see it increase the swinginess quite a bit too (suddenly monster crits become very threatening). Anyway, curious what are your thoughts.

Emphasis added. Here's Mike's response:

I'm not familiar with that specific house rule, but the general guidelines I've seen people use is to drop hit points by 50% and give a creature a bonus to damage equal to its level.

I understand he's saying "people at R&D use" this houserule.

And then there's the contentious claim that when R&D first explained to the public how "[W]" worked in the preview article on paladin smites (see here), they implied that while the number of dice which attaches with the [W] doesn't scale with level (it's still 2 for a level 2 or level 22 encounter power), the bonus damage which attaches to the [W] scales with level.

If that is true, then they playtested at one point a rules version which basically pre-empts all the later fixes with weapon expertise and so on. I'm not sure it is true, but when key folks at R&D start to mathematically fix the damage output from day 1 the indication is that they preferred an earlier version.

So, in short, WotC isn't officially acknowledging this because the opinion at WotC R&D is apparently divided (as it is in the fanbase). Some developers like Baker have houseruled it from day 1 and/or switched back to an earlier version of the rules. Others, like Mearls, do so rarely implement that rule that (as per the quote above) they have difficulty to even recall it correctly.

Finally, you can be sure that when the 5E promo videos show up that Grind is going to be the number 1 target of R&D mockery. HUGE issues with a game are always delegated to 'this calls for an edition overhaul!!! 11!!".

So I've bookmarked this thread. This is SO going to come up when that promo video is released to wide acclaim by the previous 4E "grind? no issue!" loyalists here.

 

[Starfox]

It's very much a playstyle dependent issue, that's likely why it is not seen by everybody.

I think its a genre issue. 4E is not a game for everyone. People who like and are good at tactical combat will enjoy longer combats and also play the combats faster. People who are more into other aspects of the game are generally not so good at tactics, meaning they spend more time in combat, creating a vicious circle.

In many cases, the best advice for people with issues with 4E is simply to change to another game and leave 4E to those who like it.

 

[Jack99]

I have no clue which one, unfortunately; I'm pretty sure it was Mearls talking about it, probably in a Q&A/letterbag podcast, maybe around the end of last year. I'm sorry I don't remember more clearly.

IIRC, he pretty much says "when I want combat to go more quickly, I raise damage and reduce hit points."

Didn't Mearls talk about speeding up the game in one of his blogs as well?

 

[Nathal]

...but the general guidelines I've seen people use is to drop hit points by 50% and give a creature a bonus to damage equal to its level.

I've seen this before. 50% certainly sounds like a drastic change to apply across the board. Yet, I know some DMs that swear by that house-rule. I haven't played 4E enough to judge yet, but it's interesting to note. Sounds like maybe using more minions would have a similar effect?

 

[Fabio Andrea Rossi]

For what matters, I totally agree with the OP.

I too run a 7 players group and, after a long and satisfying D&D4 one year and half campaign we chose to change to WFRPG 2 for a couple reasons, main one being that 4e is far too grindy for 7 players, the powers are too many, the time needed to run a tactically decent fight too much.

I know that 7 players are many for an RPG, but these are my friends and I'd rather change the system than them.

I had the same issue with 3e, which didn't last much at our table, butnever with BECMI or AD&D 2.

As you may have guessed, I love D&D in general, and I'd really like that in one of the many player's handbooks, DDI material (I was a subscriber) and perhaps more importantly DMG, WOTC would dedicate some serious space to optional rules that could signifcantly change the game experience by providing those elements which by now should be obvious that some old goats like myself would love to find, with perhaps some disclaimer like "use it at your own risk" for the numerous picky players.

Which elements? You know which ones, the ones usually rantled about by grognards like "too much mathematical balance balance", "more really magical items", "less grind more bloodhsed", "less reliance on the battlemat", "quicker combat", "dangerous solo monsters" and so on.

A single manual with many options like this could be the only miracle bringing me and my friends back to D&D before , perhaps, 5e.

I know that many of these items have been discussed in detail on forums, I read and applied Stalker0 and many others' wise suggestions, but they did not solve the biggest issue, not for us, of a slow and overpowered game when 7 tactically minded players are around, which not only makes combat slow but also makes DM's life worst than ever by making a must to put together a group of valid enemies of different powers with working combos and at least vaguely believable thematic sense.

Hey, you've got the standard 4e with tons of material for you likers, let us grognard dream of a possible ray of light in our D&D future

 

[crash_beedo]

IIRC, the 'Rich Baker houserule' which you state here existed at the WotC offices from June 2008 on. Mike Mearls references it in a discussion on his blog - in reply to this question...

I was the one that asked Mike about the house rule on his blog... I think the first reference I had heard to R&D using a half-hit-points house rule was in an old podcast from a con session - maybe DDXP 2009?

We've used half hit points / increase damage by the monster's level for the past few months and it's done the trick. I can only get the guys together for 3 hours or so at a time, so now we always get in 2, sometimes 3 encounters per night, with time for other things (exploring, roleplaying, etc).

My group is slooow and agonizes over every combat decision... if the players were a little faster, and if our sessions were more like 4-4.5 hours, I don't know as we'd use the rule.

And I agree with Windjammer, there appears to be a split at WOTC whether such a rule is a good/necessary house rule, so maybe we won't see any official endorsement or discussion (as it points to misreading how serious gamers would differ from casual gamers).

How about this though... aren't there thousands of LFR games that are consistently trying to fit in 3 encounters in a 4-hour slot? Can anyone chime in on the LFR experience?