What constitutes Grind? What causes it?

[Lord Zardoz]

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.

Fair point, though I think build may not have been the optimal choice of word (though I would still consider that an element). Party composition has a pretty strong effect on the specific tactics available. Specific build options can have a large impact on party mobility. Focusing fire on a single target requires that every player is able to attack that target without putting themselves at risk. A party with access to 2 or 3 ranged at will powers is going to do better at focus fire then a party that has all melee optimized Strikers (Think Fighter, Warlord, Rogue, Melee Ranger, and Paladin).

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).

My reading of that does not sound necessarily grindy. The biggest impact on the fight would be that the DM would need to make more attacks on average since his monsters lived longer, and that the players would have lost more HP and more healing surges. Depending on the secondary effects of the Encounter or Daily attacks, there might be compelling reasons to spread the pain around a bit.

The biggest factor on length of the fight would not be the lack of focus fire, but on how often the Encounter or Daily powers missed due to not trying to guarantee the best chance to hit. Focused or not, X orcs have X*Z hp, and the players have to inflict X*Z HP damage (give or take some overkill, hitting a 4 hp Orc for 15 dmg). I suppose that by having the opponents live longer as a whole, the players may prolong the combat by needing to use 2nd Wind actions, sacrificing an attack action for a healing action. If anyone was dropped, that would also affect the combat duration (due to losing 1/5th of their offense).

Of course, if the DM or the people at the table say a fight is a grind, then it was a grind. However, I would say that the fight was not necessarily a grindy fight as much as a potentially more dangerous one for the players due to sub optimal tactical choices. Using the definition of a grind as having no options to speed things up, I would say that the players had those options but ended up not making those choices.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[S'mon]

ITheir 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.

IMC spreading damage around the monsters might actually make sense as a way of maximising the chances of a TMK - Total Monster Kill. If monsters are getting hacked apart rapidly the survivors are likely to flee, but if none drop the fight may seem undecided - until it suddenly all goes pear-shaped.

 

[Dark Mistress]

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.

Well it depends a lot on what exactly one considers grindy, I was covering the two main types I have seen. That I believe could feel grindy and why.

 

[Ourph]

My reading of that does not sound necessarily grindy. The biggest impact on the fight would be that the DM would need to make more attacks on average since his monsters lived longer

The main reason this particular combat felt grindy was (IMO), that the fight started out with 11 combatants (5 PCs, 6 monsters) taking turns in round 1 and there were still 11 combatants taking turns in round 8. Not only did this mean that the fight was very much the same from round to round (it didn't feel like any progress was being made) but it also meant that the monster's turn was just as long in round 8 as in round 1, which means more time for the players to wait around while the monsters go.

Focused or not, X orcs have X*Z hp, and the players have to inflict X*Z HP damage (give or take some overkill, hitting a 4 hp Orc for 15 dmg). I suppose that by having the opponents live longer as a whole, the players may prolong the combat by needing to use 2nd Wind actions, sacrificing an attack action for a healing action. If anyone was dropped, that would also affect the combat duration (due to losing 1/5th of their offense).

In addition to the things you point out, the lack of focused fire also meant the PCs weren't taking advantage of flanking and were more exposed to monster tactics that disrupted the PC's effectiveness (tactics that would have been less prominent if there were fewer opponents dishing them out). Fighting monsters one-on-one makes it more likely that PCs will go down and spend several rounds out of the action until they can be healed. Focusing fire and reducing the number of opponents early in a fight can really reduce the chances that any PC will go below 0hp, which makes for a huge gain in the overall number of PC actions available in a particular encounter.

Using the definition of a grind as having no options to speed things up, I would say that the players had those options but ended up not making those choices.

It definitely came down to player's choices. The main reason that particular fight felt grindy was less about the total number of rounds or the total amount of real world time it took to finish and more about the fact that it didn't feel as if any progress was made during the first 8 rounds of the encounter. Then, by the time the monsters were on their last HPs, the players were reduced to chipping away at the last few HPs with At-Wills.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

The main reason this particular combat felt grindy was (IMO), that the fight started out with 11 combatants (5 PCs, 6 monsters) taking turns in round 1 and there were still 11 combatants taking turns in round 8. Not only did this mean that the fight was very much the same from round to round (it didn't feel like any progress was being made) but it also meant that the monster's turn was just as long in round 8 as in round 1, which means more time for the players to wait around while the monsters go.

That is exactly the point I wanted to make, though I did not spell it out as clearly.

Fighting monsters one-on-one makes it more likely that PCs will go down and spend several rounds out of the action until they can be healed. Focusing fire and reducing the number of opponents early in a fight can really reduce the chances that any PC will go below 0hp, which makes for a huge gain in the overall number of PC actions available in a particular encounter.

Again, total agreement regarding the consequences of your players actions. That is what I meant when i said

If anyone was dropped, that would also affect the combat duration (due to losing 1/5th of their offense).

However, I am of the opinion that having a PC get dropped, even for a few rounds, is a significant change to the tactical situation.

It definitely came down to player's choices. The main reason that particular fight felt grindy was less about the total number of rounds or the total amount of real world time it took to finish and more about the fact that it didn't feel as if any progress was made during the first 8 rounds of the encounter. Then, by the time the monsters were on their last HPs, the players were reduced to chipping away at the last few HPs with At-Wills.

To my mind, I would say that one of interesting elements of 4th Edition is that we now have a condition that should change combat as a result of sustained damage; Bloodied. However, that condition by its self does not really have any consequence its self. Most monsters and PC's can stay Bloodied for the entire fight, and probably have nothing inconvenient happen. A few PC's gain a bonus to hit. A few monsters (Dragons) get a free breath weapon attack immediately. But by its self the Bloodied condition will almost never change the tactical situation.

If I was able to change any one element about this fight so that it would have seemed less grindy for you and your players, I would have applied some worthwhile tactical consequence to having bloodied an opponent. Probably something along the lines of letting the attacker decide if the defender is knocked prone, pushed, immobilized, or grants combat advantage until end of its next turn. Generally something that will have an immediate affect on the tactical situation without requiring any significant extra book keeping.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Rechan]

Here's something else that occurred to me. This may not effect GRIND, but certainly combat length:

The map is too freaking big!

I have a DM who will regularly put maps so large that it takes about 1-2 rounds just to reach the enemies. And in some cases the enemies are so spread out that the only one who can reach them within the same round is the barbarian (who can pump his speed up significantly).

I've been in an encounter under a different DM where several rounds encompassed pure movement alone, because the place was so dang big. And no one wants to RUN because that causes Combat Advantage. So at least you're double moving.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

The map is too freaking big!

I have a DM who will regularly put maps so large that it takes about 1-2 rounds just to reach the enemies.

Now that has to be the most unique cause of any sort of Grind that I have heard here. I suspect that 4e is much more prone to this problem then 3e becuase no one really ever chooses to make Basic Attacks. However, in all fairness, not every character would bother purchasing a Bow and Arrow in 3e either.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I've found a few things on the DMs end can cause grind. I'm not saying avoid these things, just use them deliberately instead of randomly, when you want a longer lasting fight.

Soldiers and Controller enemies slow combat down. Controllers tend to take actions away from the PCs, and Soldiers are tough to kill and interfere with the party. Elite Soldiers and Controllers are worse, since they can't be burned down quickly. I don't use these enemies casually anymore. One trick I have found is to use Soldiers of a lower level than the party. They are accurate enough and have high enough defenses to hold their own, but they are easier and quicker to deal with.

Don't fight to the death. Artillery, Skirmishers and Lurkers can often get away easily when things go wrong. Teach your players to let enemies go. First, use DM intervention to prevent pursuit(dial this back after they start accepting fleeing enemies), and then show the players that no negative consequences result from fleeing enemies. My players still get cheesed when monsters bail, but they accept it better than they used to.

Higher level combats are also slower combats. More enemies and higher level enemies slow things down. One way to make a more challenging, more interesting yet faster fight is to use well rounded groups. Put a mix of enemies, well balanced with melee, ranged, and mobility. Use Soldiers and Controllers sparingly and deliberately, and don't overload on them(avoid 3 Soldier fights).

Use a timer, and place a limit on how long a player can spend choosing what to do. Have players choose an auto attack(an at-will), which when the timer runs out is the only action they are allowed to take. That or make them delay if they take too long. Encourage them to pay attention to the fight and be ready with a plan before their turn comes up. Do this for a period of time and they'll learn.


Also on the players end:

Use a well balanced party, and if you don't, deal piles of damage. Dealing damage is the one thing you can't have too much of. Encourage players to optimize their damage, as the faster damage is dealt the faster combat goes. Don't use 2 leaders if you can help it. 2 leaders gives a lot of survivability, but slows things down as leaders tend to have the least offense. Encourage Defenders, Controllers and to a lesser extent Leaders to care about their damage.

Learn to focus fire. The fastest way to end fights is to gang up on and kill single enemies 1 at a time.

 

[LostSoul]

I think one of the main reasons I was able to avoid a lot of grind while I was running was because I would have the NPCs run away, try to alert other allies, surrender, or grab a downed PC and threaten a coup de grace (not that big of a deal, but still).

There would come a point where I realized that I could not win the battle, so I had the NPCs react to that. Too often I just had them fight to the death, though. That's something that's hard to get away from.

 

[S'mon]

Once half the monsters are dead and the rest are clearly losing I pretty much always have the survivors try to flee.

Re very short combats - I have these sometimes, the trick is that the goal is not PC survival but something else, like stopping minion guards from raising the alarm, or freeing a prisoner before they kill him.