Why isn't WotC acknowledging Grind issue?

[Hussar]

Not really. I've tried a variety of things, from reducing hp/increasing damage to changing initiative, to using more opponents, more minions (in waves), changing up my tactics, using terrain, fewer brutes/soldiers, more skirmishers, minimizing elites/solos, etc. The trick is finding a balance between faster encounters and challenging encounters. A quick combat is not the solution if it's not challenging. A challenging encounter isn't if it takes forever to get through. The ideal solution for me would be to get 3 challenging encounters into a session, which means a maximum of 1 hour per encounter. That's yet to happen.

The problem I found is that it is taking me too much time and effort trying to find the right combination of fixes to make my game work. Even if I do find a combination that works, it's not like I can use that same combination for every encounter I design, so an ongoing solution has eluded me thus far.

So, I'm taking a break from that campaign until I can come up with more ideas. If I can't, then I'll have to go to another game system for my 7 player group.

I'm just going by what you list here, so, obviously that's an incomplete picture. But all the solutions you list are on your end. You've not said anything about the players. Are they helping? Do they see the problem? Is it possible that the players are the problem? Have you done anything to nudge problem players into getting into gear?

I know in my one group, it's two players who basically refuse to learn the mechanics which are currently slowing the pace to a crawl. I'm wondering if you are having the same issue.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I
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?

Being an Admin for LFR I believe I can provide some insight. Most LFR adventures I've played haven't really had any grind.

There are a couple exceptions. There are lessons we learned on what NOT to write into adventures. Encounters with insubstantial creatures who weaken are a bad idea. Maybe one of them is ok, but to have 3 or 4 in the same encounter creates grinds. Encounters with multiple creatures who have at will stuns or dazes cause grind. Solo creatures with insubstantial who can heal themselves are also bad.

Generally any "controlling" type effect is good when there is one, maybe 2 in an encounter so as to provide the PCs one opponent that is a target for their own control effects and adds interesting effects. 5 or 6 of these types of monsters cause a lockdown preventing most of the group from acting at all.

Also, our Writer's Guidelines prevent some of the grind to start with. Our policy is to never use more than Average Party Level+4 for normal monsters, APL+3 for Elites and APL+2 for Solos.

Group size matters a lot, however. If you run an adventure with 4 players, you can often finish it in 3 hours. 5 players almost always uses the full 4 hours. And 6 players normally uses about 5 hours.

The amount of time to complete adventures goes up as levels go up. Monsters and players alike have more complicated abilities and more of them so it takes them longer to decide what to do and figure out how to resolve them. At the higher levels with a group of 6 people who are kind of dragging their feet I've seen adventures take up to 6 hours.

 

[Hussar]

Majoru Oakheart, why do you think adding one player also adds a whole hour to the proceedings?

 

[MerricB]

Majoru Oakheart, why do you think adding one player also adds a whole hour to the proceedings?

This one is pretty easy: it's because combat length scales with the number of players. That's how it is designed.

Unlike previous editions, most characters deal damage to one opponent at a time. (There are some exceptions, but overall combat is dominated by that observation).

Each new character added to a combat also adds a matching opponent.

So, if it takes one character 12 minutes to take down one opponent, this scales linearly with the number of characters. Four characters: 48 minutes. Five characters: 60 minutes. Six characters: 72 minutes. Note that the 12 minutes is half (or thereabouts) dealing with the action of the character and the other half dealing with the actions of the monster.

These figures can be adjusted slightly by good tactics - if five characters attack one monster, they can eliminate it quickly. So, instead of spending 6 minutes on that monster's actions, you only spend a minute or two. However, this is a relatively minor effect. (It's often hard to actually put these tactics into play; and more combatants also means more complex tactical situations that work against this effect).

So, length of combat (and therefore session) is almost linearly proportional to the number of players. In RPGA sessions, you can thus say it will take 48 minutes per player or thereabouts.

(4 players = 192 minutes or 3 hours 12 minutes; 5 players = 240 minutes or 4 hours; 6 players = 268 minutes or 4 hours, 48 minutes).

Hmm. I hadn't analysed that before. Interesting.

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

But, wouldn't that only be true if the encounters were also scaled for more players? I would have thought RPGA adventures were pretty much static - if you have four players, you meet X number of opponents, if you have six players, you still meet X opponents, not X+2.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm reminded of the split-camera therapy scene in Annie Hall where the therapist of Woody Allen and Diane Keaton is asking them the same question separately: "How often do you have sex?" Keaton says "All the time, like three times a week." Allen says "Hardly ever, like three times a week."

The point should be clear, but if it isn't I'll spell it out: Different folks enjoy different length combats. While it may not be universal that 4E is inherently grindy (although it seems a bit disingenuous to say that it is not, given the prevalence of threads about it and suggested patches by WotC designers), it certainly is for many people. Some consider an hour-long combat too grindy, some feel it is just right. Some, like myself, feel that it depends upon the encounter, and a range is nice from "quick and deadly" combat encounters of 10 minutes to "grand finales" of a couple hours.

But the main issue, in my opinion, is not that 4E is too grindy, but that it wasn't designed flexibly enough to cater to a variety of play styles. No game can possibly please everyone, but this game (and edition) seems a bit too narrow in its focus, at least compared to previous iterations of D&D. Hopefully 5E will address that.

While I do tend to agree with the folks that feel 4E is too grindy, it seems that it has a relatively quick and easy fix: Reduce monster HP by up to 50%, and add monster damage by up to their level. Or it could be reduce HP by 25% and add damage by half level for a middle ground. Or, and imagine this, it could depend upon the encounter and how long the DM wants it to last (remember DM Fiat?).

I kind of like the idea of scaled encounters. Let's say the DM designs a session to include three combat encounters. The first encounter is supposed to be quick and get people into the action, so it will follow the -50% HP/+lvl damage alteration. The second encounter is moderate, so it would follow -25%/+ half lvl. The last encounter is the climax of the session, so the HP and damage would remain the same. But the DM can choose quick modification he or she uses, depending upon how important the combat is. Like so:

Quick-and-deadly: -50% HP, +level damage.
Moderate: -25%, + half level damage.
Climactic: No change.

(Maybe someone can think of more appropriate terms).

 

[Mistwell]

While it may not be universal that 4E is inherently grindy (although it seems a bit disingenuous to say that it is not, given the prevalence of threads about it and suggested patches by WotC designers), it certainly is for many people...But the main issue, in my opinion, is not that 4E is too grindy, but that it wasn't designed flexibly enough to cater to a variety of play styles. No game can possibly please everyone, but this game (and edition) seems a bit too narrow in its focus, at least compared to previous iterations of D&D. Hopefully 5E will address that.

So let me see if I get this right:

1) It is not universal that 4e is inherently grindy, but
2) it is disingenuous to say that it is not, and
3) let's compare it to prior editions, in a negative way, to make this point.

Why? Why would you tell people that if they disagree with your view, they are being insincere, and then compare the edition to prior editions in a negative manner which you must know drastically increases the chance of an edition war, as people respond to that aspect of your post?

It's not disingenuous to disagree with your opinion that 4e is too grindy. It's not helpful to make the issue about a comparison to prior editions. You can defend your opinion that you think 4e is too grindy without telling others they are wrong if they disagree. And you can defend your opinion that 4e is too grindy for you without making it about a comparison to other editions.

Mistwell, I think you're overreacting to a fairly even post. Back off, please. You're taking offense when none is intended. ~ PCat

 

[Mercurius]

Mistwell, not everyone feels that 4E is too grindy, which is why I say that it isn't inherently, or universally, too grindy, thus the Annie Hall reference. I don't take issue with that at all. And I am not saying that it is disingenuous if you or someone else feels that it is not too grindy, but that it is disingenuous to say that there isn't a problem when for a large number of people there is. "Disingenuous" might be too strong of a word; "lack of awareness" might be more appropriate.

There may not be a problem for you but if there is a problem for a fair number of folks, with a recurring group of threads on the topic and even, evidently, a split perspective within Wizards of the Coast itself, then it is at least ignoring "the problem" to say that there isn't one (not to mention the snark directed at the OP for having a problem and expressing it, as some have done within this thread).

And, as I said, I think the problem has more to do with the narrow focus of 4E for a certain kind of game play. It isn't flexible enough, imo, which is why I posit using a scaled--even modular--approach to combat, depending upon what sort of time-frame the DM wants to play with.

 

[Dausuul]

To the OP: its seems obvious, from where I stand, you particular issue with grind in a 7-player game is outside of the scope of what easily can be done about grind. There just isn't much you can do with a tactically rich combat system like 4e when you exceed the recommended party size. You ever tried playing Risk with 7 people?? It can be done, but most of the onus will have to rely on your players. IMO RPGs in general work best with 3-5 players.

While I agree that 7 players is a lot (I myself would not want to DM for more than 6, and my preference is for 4), it's hardly unreasonable. The game system should be able to handle it with no more than a moderate slowdown. Hell, I remember back in the day playing in 2E games with 8+ players; the largest group I was ever in topped out at 14! Now, granted, things were pretty bogged down at that point, but the game could still move. Try to imagine a 14-player combat in 4E.

I wonder if WotC would be willing to add the "half hit points, +level to damage" rule as an option in the Monster Builder?

 

[Shazman]

To answer the original question. WotC is not going to come out and say. "This new edition that we have put out, which we are banking the future of D&D on, has combat that is so lenghty that the game is practically unplayable." The only official way to fully address the horrific grind of 4E (and I do mean horrific. I experienced a game with so much grind this weekend that it almost makes me want to swear off playing LFR for good) is to make a revision similar to 3.5 which they also will not do because of the possible backlash.