The Grind Problem (My 2 Cents)

[catsclaw227]

Hey Jack, how do your PCs get +6 for ability at 8th level? Did they max out scores at 18 and then with racial bonuses get a 20 score in their main ability?

Not a lot of parties will be set up like this...

Am I mistaken?

 

[Harr]

Just make sure every combat is held in an area with rough terrain, a pit with lava or other nastiness below, some dangerous moving automation to avoid, teleporting obstacles, mysterious effects that push combatants randomly every other round, and super sticky walls that restrain if touched and you are good to go.

Haha, can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but yeah that's what I have in mind pretty much.. though I'd stop at three or so of those for a single encounter. So far the most memorable fights we've had (aside from an adult dragon 4 levels over the party who came 3 hp away of wiping them) have all been the ones incorporate stuff like a big obelisk you need to climb, random slides and tunnels, channels of water the PCs could fall into, and so on.

I wish there was like a database of that kind of stuff that I could just look through and cherry-pick at random to build an encounter area up. Just a long list of weird stuff ideas to put in, like magic mirrors, carnivorous grass, twisting walls or ceilings, etc. The little list of fantastic terrains in the setting section of the DMG is a nice start, but I think a LONG list would 4e DM's improve their game a lot. Like a sort of Adventurer's Vault but for terrains and hazards. Is there one of those anywhere?

 

[helium3]

The phenomenon you are referring to is called "random walk" in probability theory. For more information than you probably want, try (for instance) this page.

Heh. I know what a random walk is. Monte Carlo simulations are the same thing. We studied those pretty extensively in my graduate level statistical mechanics course.

I just never thought to apply it to rpg mechanics before.

 

[helium3]

I would disupte #1 to some degree. There are elite and solo monsters that are almost guaranteed to grind. Fight a hydra, and watch the dynamic tension just drain away. The hydra can't do anything interesting to shake things up, and all the PC's can do is wail away.

Fair enough. I was just being generous anyway. I have yet to run an n+4 encounter that wasn't deep into grindspace.

However, the real determining factor here, which I'm surprised you didn't touch on, is whether the PC's land their encounter and daily attacks. These attacks represent large chunks of DPS that have no better chance of hitting than an at-will attack. When they miss, the wind really leaves the players' sails, and the players have to make up for the damage defecit by mashing their at-will hotkeys even more.

Good point. I'd completely forgotten about that, and they can make quite the difference. I've toyed with the idea of a house rule giving "Lead The Attack" the reliable keyword for that very reason.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A solution that I played around a bit with in FFZ (and might still implement in a later revisions):

Every attack always hits (unless something MAKES you miss).

HP attrition, because of the lower variation of d4 to d12 rolls for damage, is easier to track, and easier to design around.

You just give monsters a few dangerously swingy attacks, and PC's a way to heal from them, and you've got a pretty balanced design scheme.

Of course, it also means you're not rolling your attack rolls anymore...which might be OK, but it is very different from D&D proper.

 

[helium3]

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.

Who said anything about my monsters just standing there? My encounters are (as near as I can tell) about as dynamic as they should be. Players and monsters are running all over the place.

That being said, I haven't provided a lot of potentially damaging terrain in my encounters so far. Perhaps if I make a conscious effort to do that more frequently things will pep up a bit.

 

[Oni]

I've wondered why they chose to design around a 50/50 hit/miss ratio.

What would happen to the balance of the game if you changed it to a 75/25 hit/miss ratio?

If you just subtracted 5 from everthing's def scores, would the game break?

 

[Celebrim]

I have no experience with 4e, and no desire for it, but your analysis seems sound.

I think that there is alot wrong with 4e, but to just consider this one problem...

There are many good games that have the implicit assumption of evenly distributed probability and which similarly suffer when confronted with reality. Probably the most familiar example is Settlers of Cataan. It's a great game, but quite frequently one or more players at the table are basically unable to participate because the dice simply don't fall the way that they 'should' and as a result they get boxed into an unprofitable corner and spend the rest of the game basically watching everyone else. I don't know any group that is as fanatic about having 'fair' dice as Settlers players.

But even perfectly 'fair' dice don't solve the problem. The most common solution is to create a deck of 36 cards representing the possible outcomes of the throw of a 2d6. In this way, you are gauranteed to have the desired smooth outcome over a relatively short term. The game loses something, but there is alot less 'grindspace'.

My first suggestion would be if you think this is the problem, try losing the dice. Make a 60 card deck representing evenly distributed d20 outcomes (3 of each number, obviously), and shuffle and draw from this rather than using dice. The game will lose something, but if you are right about the origin of the problem it should reduce some of the 'grindspace'.

 

[Harr]

What about if a player who misses a Daily gets an Action Point to compensate.. an action point that avoids the usual limits on AP spending (I did away with those limits in my games a while ago anyway). This way at least he can compensate the drag a bit by taking a double action on his next round or something.

I don't think I'd go with the "All powers are Reliable" idea because there are high-level features and items that revolve around the giving and refreshing of spent powers, and I'm leery that it would invalidate of lot of that stuff. Similarly with "All attacks automatically hit", there are MANY powers and features and items that revolve around letting you hit easier... you'd just be slicing away a whole part of the game.

However, an "All attacks that hit do average damage or more" is, in my opinion, crucial (I have playtested this through about a dozen combats so far) and one of the best things you can do to nip the drag is to establish flat maximum damage for everybody, or flat average damage rolls for everybody (which works out to about a flat 75% of maximum damage when you count in the flat stat bonuses and such).

 

[FireLance]

Actually, I think one of the biggest contributors to grindy combat is the over-use of soldiers. Just think about it: soldiers have high AC and defenses, so attacks have a greater chance of missing than hitting. Soliders also have good attack bonuses but tend to do less damage. Put too many soldiers in a fight, and you have opponents which the PCs tend to miss, and which slowly but surely chop small bits of the PCs' hit points.

This gets even worse if the soldier is:
1. Either an elite or a solo and/or
2. Higher level than the PCs.

This makes its AC and defenses even higher, and if it gets to the point where only 1 in 4 attacks from the PCs hit, it's going to be a very frustrating fight.

Controllers and lurkers should also be used sparingly. Controllers because they often have attacks that hamper the PCs or shut down their abilities (slow, immobilize, blind, daze, stun, etc.), which frustrates the players and slows down fights, and lurkers because they are usually able to enter some kind of "lurk mode" which makes it difficult for the PCs to target or damage them. Again, this frustrates the players and slows down fights.

So, my advice to you, if you want to avoid grindy fights is:

1. Use brutes. They hit hard and are easy to hit. The PCs will either take them down quickly, or get into serious trouble quickly. Either way, the fight is unlikely to be either grindy or boring.

2. Use skirmishers. They have average defences and attacks, but usually have some way to move about the battlefield. The fight won't seem as grindy if the PCs face a new tactical situation each round.

3. Use artillery. They have good ranged attacks but relatively poor hit points. They are like ranged brutes: able to deal significant amounts of damage, but go down quickly when the PCs get close to them or focus fire on them.