What constitutes Grind? What causes it?

[Roger]

In a different context, Sid Meier defined a game as " series of interesting choices." I'm inclined to think that grind occurs when:

1. The players are not making choices, or

2. The players are making choices but they're not interesting.

So the classic grind situation is "For the 17th round in a row, I stand there and swing my sword."

(I'm playing a bit loose here with "the players"; I'm not entirely sure how to resolve the situation when 1 player is grinding but all the rest are not, or when every player but 1 is grinding, and everything in between. So forgive me.)

Approaching it from this angle avoids things such as duration, hit frequency, etc, as considerations on a primary level. I think they're generally subsumed in the "interesting" part, but I'm not absolutely sure about that.

I'll get to "what causes it?" in a little while, to give everyone a chance to address this definition (or description) if they like.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[Lord Zardoz]

In Theory, Theory and Practice are identical. In Practice, they are not.

3e CR isn't really comparable to 4e level.

Agreed. However, as a game it is the nearest convenient point of comparison I can come up with. The rest of your comment has one element that I want to focus a bit on, so empahsis within is mine.

In 4e, a 5th level monster is 1/5 of a moderate challenge for a party of 5 5th level PCs. It's twice as powerful as a 1st level monster, so 2 of them in theory make a suitable challenge for a 1st level party. [size=+1]An Elite is twice as powerful as a standard monster[/size], so a single 5th level elite is, in theory, a suitable challenge for a 1st level party, or a rather easy challenge for a 2nd level party. And that's true - they'll usually beat it, but often its high defenses and hp can make the fight very grindy.

Everything you have said there is true, but I will pick apart one element of it. An Elite is not necessarily twice as powerful. It is twice as durable. Elites and Solos, at least as a formal concept, did not exist until 4th edition. In 3rd edition, if I wanted to have a monster that could stick around for a while, I would have to find a high CR monster, and deal with the higher damage output, making for a very dangerous fight.

Now, you are correct that based on the XP vs party level value, the 5th level elite should be a viable encounter for 1st level characters. However, I suspect that in this case, viable only means that the players can win the fight. Not that the fight is one that would be advised as a regular type of occurance.

Here is a thought experiment. Throw together a 1st level party of 5 PC's, with only mild optimization (Not going to try to pump attack bonus to theoretical max). Go for the 'classic' mix of Defender-Leader-Controller-Striker-Striker. If I actually were to do this, I would probably go for Fighter-Cleric-Wizard-Ranger-Warlock. (I expect factoring in sneak attack vs flanking will be a huge pain due to it being situational). I would then set up a few different encounters. Lets say two 5th level Elites, A comparable number of level 1 monsters, and then some level 3 monsters. No Minions.

Then lets compare the total HPs and typical Defenses of each encounter group to what the 1st level players can actually expect to inflict. Then we could determine a reasonable number of rounds that it will take the 1st level characters to end each encounter. I am probably not going to do this myself because of the unholy pain it will be to work out with any reliable accuracy, simply because I could expect debates of "but in this case, shouldn't the warlock use this power instead because it will attack Reflex which is weaker here...". It would also take a while to do.

What I would expect to find is that despite each encounter being equivalent as measured by XP value, that the fights against the higher level opponents take significantly longer to end, due to higher defences and higher HP. I also expect if you did a level 1 party vs non Solo / non elite level 5 monsters, you would end up with a truly hideous encounter and a risk of a TPK.

As noted earlier, I can absolutely drive a Smart Car or VW Beetle offroad in the mud. However, I would not be stunned to discover that I get stuck in situations where a Humvee would not. Going 4 or 5 levels higher then the PC's when selecting a monster is pretty much at the limit of what is reasonable to attempt.

Still, since I have not run those numbers, I could be wildly incorrect.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[S'mon]

An Elite is not necessarily twice as powerful. It is twice as durable.

Well, the 4e designer's intent is explicitly that an Elite can replace 2 Standards, ie that it is exactly twice as powerful as 1 Standard. Originally it did this by being more than twice as durable (raised defences and x2 hp) and only slightly more damaging, than a single standard. With the 'errated' reduced Elite defenses, Elites need more damage output to remain comparable to 2 Standards, but I think those in MM2 generally manage it ok.

Re PCs fighting over-level monsters - maybe 1st level PCs is not the best starting point; they are much more vulnerable relative to the 5th level monster than say 11th level PCs would be vs a 15th level monster. My experience is that 1st level PCs can fight some 5th level monsters, but not all - some Brutes can be quite easy, but Soldiers are difficult. It's not a simple equation - a 1st level party that can take on 1 5th level elite brute may struggle with 2 standard 5th level brutes, and could easily be wiped out by 3 3rd level Orc Raider skirmishers who got a few lucky rolls.

I agree with you that +4 levels is around the most that PCs can take on, with the exception of some brutes that can go up to +7 levels, and the range may increase a bit as levels go up.

 

[Rechan]

I also expect if you did a level 1 party vs non Solo / non elite level 5 monsters, you would end up with a truly hideous encounter and a risk of a TPK.

Heh. Back before the 4e core was out, folks were running mini-games using the various rules that had leaked out, including pregens from D&DXPs. I remember one such occasion where someone did a play-by-play of six level 1 PCs vs two 6th level gnolls. The PCs could take down the gnolls, but 2 PCs died.

I like using higher level monsters. Simply because I think the higher level monsters are more interesting/fun.

 

[LostSoul]

I agree with you that +4 levels is around the most that PCs can take on, with the exception of some brutes that can go up to +7 levels, and the range may increase a bit as levels go up.

I've had PCs fight monsters +6 to +8 levels higher; they were good encounters.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I will not deny that using higher level monsters can result in exellent encounters that have a great mix of tension, risk, and player involvement.

At this point, I am implying (with only anecdotal evedence at best) that using such monsters will generally increase the risk of running a grindy encounter, as you will often end up increasing the durability of the opponents. I am also implying that Elites and Solos in particular are going to pose a huge risk of a grind when the Elite or Solo in question is several levels above your players current level.

If we take that implication as a given, then I am not at all surprised that games run by DM's which especially enjoy building and running that type of an encounter will run into grind situations. Being able to only damage one or two PC's in a round, you are going to take a very long time to create any real risk of character death, as the injured PC can just fall back and use 2nd Wind, or have a Leader use a Minor action to heal him.

For the moment, I would say the following hold true as the most likely causes of grind in a 4th Edition game.

Grind Definition: Any fight where the tactical situation fails to change for more then 3 rounds with no obvious means for either side to change the tactical situation (so daily, encounter, or utility powers worth using, no action points). Specifically, having many rounds where the effect of having every combatant miss in one round is no different between having every combatant hit with every attack (no one dies or is in danger of dying).

Most likely grind causes:
- monsters with too many HP
- monsters with Too high AC
- The Dm not having enough damage output to overcome the PC's access to healing surges
- The above most likely occuring against small numbers of high level monsters who are also Elites or Solos.

Does any of that sound wildly inaccurate?

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Rechan]

Well in all honesty, I find an almost need to use monsters higher level than the Pcs, so the monsters hit and do enough damage. I mean, it's either that or just universally give all monsters an extra +2. Brutes by the book, to me, are useless, because they have such a weak attack, they're just standing there taking hits and not able to connect with their own.

Reducing monster defenses is fine, but like my players who hate missing wtih their encounters, I hate missing.

The last time they battled a solo, it was a brute n+2, and they killed that one in round three. (Granted, it was earlier than it "should" have been; the monster had a rule that permitted an early kill if a certain condition was met, necessitated by crits/excessive fire or acid damage). And in that fight, the solo only hit once out of those three rounds.

 

[ggroy]

Grind Definition: Any fight where the tactical situation fails to change for more then 3 rounds with no obvious means for either side to change the tactical situation (so daily, encounter, or utility powers worth using, no action points). Specifically, having many rounds where the effect of having every combatant miss in one round is no different between having every combatant hit with every attack (no one dies or is in danger of dying).

If one wants to avoid having more than 3 rounds of the players missing their attacks on average, the players' probabilities to-hit should be in the range 30% to 50%. This range would correspond to approximately rolling greater than or equal to 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 on a raw d20 (with the bonuses and other mods/adjustments backed out).

On average, the number of attacks it takes to hit a monster is 1/p. (p is the probability of a player hitting a monster). So for a to-hit probability of p=30%, the average number of attacks it takes to hit a monster is about 3. For a to-hit probability of p=50%, the average number of attacks it takes to hit a monster is 2.

For to-hit probabilities lower than 30%, the average number of attacks it takes to hit are:

p=25% -> 4 attacks to hit
p=20% -> 5 attacks to hit
p=15% -> 6 attacks to hit
p=10% -> 10 attacks to hit
p=5% -> 20 attacks to hit

As one may have experienced, requiring a minimum raw d20 roll of 17, 18, 19, or 20 for a hit can be very frustrating.

In practice, I'll adjust the AC and other defenses of harder monsters such that the players have at least a 25% probability to hit. Anything lower than 25% to hit, can make things very frustrating for the players.

 

[Pickles JG]

Here is a thought experiment. <snip>

What I would expect to find is that despite each encounter being equivalent as measured by XP value, that the fights against the higher level opponents take significantly longer to end, due to higher defences and higher HP. I also expect if you did a level 1 party vs non Solo / non elite level 5 monsters, you would end up with a truly hideous encounter and a risk of a TPK.

As noted earlier, I can absolutely drive a Smart Car or VW Beetle offroad in the mud. However, I would not be stunned to discover that I get stuck in situations where a Humvee would not. Going 4 or 5 levels higher then the PC's when selecting a monster is pretty much at the limit of what is reasonable to attempt.

Still, since I have not run those numbers, I could be wildly incorrect.

END COMMUNICATION

This seems to mesh with my experience. The higher level of the bad guys involved the greater the risk of grind. 4e is surprisingly intolerant of what level enemies to use to get the most fun fights (beating up -3 guys is not fun either).

Elites & solos are IMO intented to allow the DMs to have bosses & monsters in very small teams & still have them threatening & not tedious to deal with (the extra actions they get also do this). If I wanted to use a level 9 monster against level 5 PCs I would be better advised to make it a level 5 elite of the same XP value but with more apropriate defences & attack bonuses. It would also need to essentially double its damage output from its delevelled form.

Back on topic I have also noticed "controller grind". Monsters that deny the PCs effective actions at the cost of damage output can give grind. The most defining experience I had was fighting a Lamia with an AOE stun on a recharge IIRC that did no damage. Once we had disposed of most of its allies we were all stunned every couple of rounds while it did a little damage back. Then we would nibble it for a while before more of the stunning. This encounter also suffered from it being higher level than the PCs & not very well designed in composition.
Fighting anything that dazes stund & imobbilises can be frustrating - a little control goes a long way IME.

Other horrors have been regenerating weakening incorporeals ....

 

[Lord Zardoz]

If one wants to avoid having more than 3 rounds of the players missing their attacks on average, the players' probabilities to-hit should be in the range 30% to 50%. This range would correspond to approximately rolling greater than or equal to 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 on a raw d20 (with the bonuses and other mods/adjustments backed out).

<truncation>

In practice, I'll adjust the AC and other defenses of harder monsters such that the players have at least a 25% probability to hit. Anything lower than 25% to hit, can make things very frustrating for the players.

Fair points, but I would point out that how often you want your players to hit does hinge on how many opponents the PC's need to deal with. Against an elite or solo, that may be viable. But a 25% hit rate (on average for all PC's present) in a fight against a mass of level X-3 could also very likely turn into a grind. However, I will concede that an Level X-3 opponent is not likely to have an AC capable of causing that problem.

And a minor nitpick: I said 3 rounds where there all hits or all misses cause no appreciable tactical change in the encounter.

END COMMUNICATION