What constitutes Grind? What causes it?

[Lord Zardoz]

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).

<truncation>

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 ....

I suppose that is another potential element to avoid. High level monsters (Elite or not) will hit more often. If the monster has a single target attack that does heavy damage, no big deal. It will probably not cause too many problems due to healing surge availability. But area of effect attacks that do no or minimal damage yet inflict conditions like Stun, Daze, or Immobilize can be extraordinarily frustrating.

So I suppose we can add X+3 Controllers as a Grind risk. What monster is the 'regeneration + weaken + incorporeal? I would have to guess a Lurker of some form due to Incorporeal. What experiences do you (or anyone else following this thread) recall from fighting Lurkers that are a higher level then the PC's (beyond the infamous Black Dragon example, which I would blame as much on Solo as on Lurker)?

END COMMUNICATION

 

[ggroy]

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.

That's true.

For a 25% to-hit probability, I usually reserved that for a single solo monster where an entire party of 5 players are all fighting it at once.

For something like a bunch of monsters ganging up on a single fighter or paladin, sometimes I used three or four 1-hit minions against a single fighter or paladin. The fighter or paladin had a 50% to-hit probability against any one of the monsters. Even in previous editions, a 1-hit monster died after one hit and didn't cause a lot of damage when they did strike a fighter or paladin. (Frequently I made the 1-hit 'minions' weapons doing 1d6 or less damage, depending on how many hit points the fighter or paladin had).

When I had two monsters ganging up on a single fighter, ranger, etc ... usually I used two superminions which usually died after 2 hits. These superminons may sometimes also have a healing surge. The fighter, ranger, etc ... typically had a 45% or 40% to-hit probability against these superminions.

There's probably a more precise quantitative way to design these encounters with a single player character fighting more than one monster, without slaughtering the player in one round.

 

[Pickles JG]

So I suppose we can add X+3 Controllers as a Grind risk. What monster is the 'regeneration + weaken + incorporeal? I would have to guess a Lurker of some form due to Incorporeal.
END COMMUNICATION

It's a wraith - lurker indeed but the ghostly undead is why it's incorporeal. For more frustration ad Mad Wraiths that daze in a big aura.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

High level Controllers are one thing. Several Controllers are probably a lot worse! Once the monsters manage to reduce your actions significantl by dazing, dominationg, stunning, immobilizing or restraining you, the definition: "A game is a series of interesting decisions" certainly fails.

I prefer "do whatever you want, but if that's not also what I want, there will be consequences". Zones and Auras for example say "don't go here" or "please stay were you are" or "go away"- you can still stay or go as you like, but some choices will hurt. But you can still make those choices.
In a way, most PC Controllers have this type of powers, too. Scorching Burst tells the monsters: "Don't bunch up". They can still do it, but you'll hurt them more as when they don't. Defender Marks and similar abilities - including the general opportunity attack also do this. "Sure you can hurt my friends. But can you take the echo?"

 

[Ourph]

A grindy combat to me is not necessarily one that takes a very long time. A grindy fight is a fight that takes longer then it ought to, and that ends up boring.

With that in mind, consider these points before you answer (and I am not looking for answers to each point).

- How long is too long for a fight (in real minutes / hours)?
- What usually causes a fight to take too long?

If a fight is interesting, I'm not sure there is a real world time limit on how long it should take. I think tolerance for RW timing will vary from group to group. I think the main real world time factor is how long players have to wait between taking turns. If a player is waiting more than 5 minutes between turns on a regular basis, I would consider that a problem. However, I don't think waiting between turns necessarily equates to grind. Waiting longer between turns probably accentuates grind, but I don't think they are equivalent.

-- monsters with too many HP?
-- monsters with Too high AC?
-- Too many monsters?
-- Overly high player AC
-- Too many Hp / healing surges for players?

People tend to blame HP for grind, but (outside of Solo or Elite Soldiers) I'm not sure HPs are the real culprit. IME, it's monsters with too high AC and PCs who aren't using good tactics that are most likely to cause grind. The reason Soldiers are the main culprits for grind is that they couple good HPs with high AC. In general, I don't find that the PCs having high AC or lots of healing surges is related to grind.

-- Your friend Shawn canceling, leaving you 1 man short when storming Undermountain?
-- The presence of ineffective players?
-- A combination of the above?
- Does the party composition have a greater effect then the encounter composition?

Party composition can have an effect. If you've got a party of all Defenders and Leaders, the chances of fights getting into grindspace are greatly increased. If you've got a good mix of PCs, with maybe an extra Striker or Controller, the chances of grind are greatly decreased. If Shawn cancels and he plays the party Striker, again you may see more grind. If Bob and Joe are inexperienced and/or ineffective players who don't know how to use their powers cooperatively with the rest of the group (especially if one of them plays the Leader of the group) grind becomes more likely.

- What specifically makes a long fight boring?
-- Monsters that wont die and cannot kill you?
-- Being reduced to using only At Will or basic attacks?
-- Your DM disallowing alchohol consumption at the table?
-- Having sub optimal At Will attacks for the encounter at hand?
-- Your DM being too damn stingy with the loot, leaving you no magic item powers?
-- A lack of options not tied to combat powers?

The bolded above are the real culprits in my opinion. Having suboptimal at-will attacks can actually make a fight more interesting if there is real chance of the PCs dying or if the PCs use it as an excuse to rely more heavily on stunts. But there's not much exciting about stunts if it's obvious that there's no real danger but there's no way to hurry the fight along to a quick finish.

For my own answer, I would have to say that a fight only becomes a grind when the tactical situation ends up staying the same for too long and neither side has any way to meaningfully change the situation.

I would agree with this assessment. When the fight is reduced to mere dice rolling, when tactics become irrelevant to the outcome and that goes on for more than 1 or 2 rounds, that's grind.

 

[ggroy]

High level Controllers are one thing. Several Controllers are probably a lot worse! Once the monsters manage to reduce your actions significantl by dazing, dominationg, stunning, immobilizing or restraining you, the definition: "A game is a series of interesting decisions" certainly fails.

I prefer "do whatever you want, but if that's not also what I want, there will be consequences". Zones and Auras for example say "don't go here" or "please stay were you are" or "go away"- you can still stay or go as you like, but some choices will hurt. But you can still make those choices.
In a way, most PC Controllers have this type of powers, too. Scorching Burst tells the monsters: "Don't bunch up". They can still do it, but you'll hurt them more as when they don't. Defender Marks and similar abilities - including the general opportunity attack also do this. "Sure you can hurt my friends. But can you take the echo?"

Whenever I used one or more controller type monsters/badguys, I usually made them to be minion-like or superminion-like. Basically they're like a wizard or druid with sometimes an encounter or daily power, but with the hit points stripped out. They die after 1 or 2 or 3 hits, depending on the circumstances. For example, if the player party has nobody which does any half-decent at-will ranged attacks, then I'll make the controllers to be 1-hit minions. If the player party has somebody who does ranged attacks, such as an archer, wizard, etc ... then I'll make the badguy/monster controllers to be superminions which die after 2 or 3 hits.

If the monster/badguy controller is still alive and the players are just "mopping up" the rest of the monsters, I usually make the controllers flee and run away.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

People tend to blame HP for grind, but (outside of Solo or Elite Soldiers) I'm not sure HPs are the real culprit. IME, it's monsters with too high AC and PCs who aren't using good tactics that are most likely to cause grind. The reason Soldiers are the main culprits for grind is that they couple good HPs with high AC. In general, I don't find that the PCs having high AC or lots of healing surges is related to grind.

I tend to blame the combination of HP and high AC myself, with AC being more substantive. High HP can take a which to force through. But an AC that is too high ends up leading to wasted / missed powers. Even if a power has a miss effect, it often leads to not having conditional effects applied.

As for poor player tactics, I am not so sure. I am not really convinced that there is a solution to be found simply by modifying a groups tactical habits. There is too many differences between character builds, and every one of those builds affects the tactical options available.

If you want to pare it down to general tactics, there really is not a whole lot there. As a general rule, players should attempt to go for flanking bonuses, focus on single targets until they drop, and avoid being separated. Grind mostly seems to happen against small numbers of highly durable targets, so most of that happens organically anyway.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Dark Mistress]

I will just answer the primary question. I think a lot of the reasons have been covered. I think there is many reasons for it happening and no one thing.

But to me grindy is one of two things.
1) Combat that everyone knows how it is going to turn out with little chance of anyone dieing before it ends. Who wins is no longer in doubt, but the combat still has several or many rounds to go.

2) When due to the campaign the characters keep doing similar things and seem unable to really accomplish the goal. Example, PC's kill a villain only to find out they are a puppet for someone else. They go to another castle kill the next villain only to find out they are a puppet etc.

The first is when you have to keep doing something when the end result is no longer in doubt with little or no risk anymore. The second is repetition of the same or similar thing making the PC's feel like they are not really ever accomplishing their goals.

But thats just my opinion and nothing more.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I will just answer the primary question. I think a lot of the reasons have been covered. I think there is many reasons for it happening and no one thing.

But to me grindy is one of two things.
1) Combat that everyone knows how it is going to turn out with little chance of anyone dieing before it ends. Who wins is no longer in doubt, but the combat still has several or many rounds to go.

2) When due to the campaign the characters keep doing similar things and seem unable to really accomplish the goal. Example, PC's kill a villain only to find out they are a puppet for someone else. They go to another castle kill the next villain only to find out they are a puppet etc.

The first is when you have to keep doing something when the end result is no longer in doubt with little or no risk anymore. The second is repetition of the same or similar thing making the PC's feel like they are not really ever accomplishing their goals.

But thats just my opinion and nothing more.

I don't believe # 2 has anything to do with grind per se. It can certainly be a frustrating and unrewarding situation but if all the conflicts in this chain of events are resolved with excitement and a degree of uncertainty then the battles didn't really grind. At that point the campaign is merely skipping like a broken record.

 

[Ourph]

As for poor player tactics, I am not so sure. I am not really convinced that there is a solution to be found simply by modifying a groups tactical habits. There is too many differences between character builds, and every one of those builds affects the tactical options available.

I have not seen a huge effect of build. My players aren't particularly powergamers. Most of the characters they generate would be considered sub-optimal on the CharOp boards, but the characters aren't worthless in combat either. I think as long as some minimum level of effectiveness is achieved, build isn't too much of a factor. From what I have observed, the factors that contribute most to eliminating grind are focused fire, picking the right targets to eliminate early and appropriately timed use of encounter powers, daily powers and action points.

One example that occured when my group first started playing 4e illustrates the problem perfectly. They were in a combat with a group of Orcs and each PC (5 PCs total) used their class Encounter power on a different opponent. In addition, they used two Dailies and one Action Point (again, not focused on a single opponent). The Warlord used his Encounter power to grant bonuses to several other PCs, all of whom used that bonus on At-Will attacks, rather than Encounter or Daily powers. The PC who used an Action Point (and received a bonus from the Tac-Lord) used his normal action for an Encounter Power and his Action Point for an At-Will (again, using the Warlord's bonus to modify an At-Will instead of a better power). Their tactics were effective, in that the PCs won the fight, but no monster dropped until the 2nd to last round of combat, then they all died within 2 rounds. If the PCs had focused fire and synergized their powers, the fight probably would have ended 3-4 rounds sooner and monsters would have been dropping throughout the fight - keeping the fight dynamic and interesting.

I'm not sure there's a lot to be gained by taking an already good group and making them amazing tacticians, but it's definitely the case that taking an inexperienced group and improving their tactics to average or above can make a big difference (IME).