What constitutes Grind? What causes it?

[Lord Zardoz]

One thing that I advise everyone to keep in mind before making specific comments about grind.

[SIZE=+2]Direct comparisons between two different groups of players might not carry over directly.[/SIZE]

There are presently 22 Character classes and 18 Races from PHB 1, PHB 2, and PHB 3. when you include Eberron and Forgotten Realms options, it becomes 24 classes and 22 Races, and that is before you count the Hybrid options, and whatever Dragon Magazine stuff your DM allows (I permit the Revenant). Within each class, there are several other variables relating to build. Some races (human shifter, half elf and others) offer benefits that are dependant upon a choice made during character creation. Beyond that there are different choices possible for stat allocation, feat choice, equipment choice, power choices, and more.

Now, even if you control for all that among players, the one thing that people will over look is that different DM's have different habits with respect to what kind of combat they like to run, and how they run them. One DM may end up with grindy combats because his monster choices are heavy on soldiers a few levels higher then his PC's, which means lots of misses. Another Dm may use very large quantities of minions. This may to a fight of only a reasonable number of rounds, but it may lead to each of those rounds taking a very long time.

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

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. But I have not really had any fights that I felt became too grindy, neither as a PC or as a DM.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Rechan]

Stalker0 many moons ago posted a how-to avoid Grind. In it, he says

From the majority of discussions, grind seems to be widely defined as the point in combat where the party has effectively “won”, but have not yet beaten the monsters. Bereft of encounter powers, the players begin beating the remaining creatures down with an endless series of at will powers while the monsters continue to attacks. The monsters at this point have little chance of harming the party past anything a short rest can’t fix. In other words, it’s combat with no purpose.

Now I begin to speak for myself.

The point of "grind" hits when the fun has left the encounter and everyone is waiting for it to end. So, a LONG combat can be non-grindy if everyone is still interested and having fun. Meanwhile, a short combat can be grindy if it's not interesting or threatening. The trick is that "Fun" differs for different people and groups, so "Grind" vary. Piratecat for instance claims to have never really had a "grindy" combat because all his players seem constantly engaged.

I think there are several elements to grind. Beyond "Too many monster HP/too high defenses", there are a few other bugaboos:

-Predictable. There's nothing else that's going on, all the surprises have been exposed. There's also nothing posing a real significant factor. If the terrain is different (such as a very high vantage point where archers are), the threat of those guys up there we can't charge, or the threat of being pushed off, makes it "less" predictable, than if everyone is in a nondescript room.

Predictability also has the subset of goals. If the goal is just "beat eachother until one side stops moving", this contributes to nothing else exciting coming down the pike. If there are different objectives, the objective gets to play alongside "beat one another's head in".

-Limited Threat. Part of what I think makes encounters "fun" is when there's a definite risk. So when things are "Predictable", and when monsters are out of powers and Pcs are at too high HP, then they just feel they're not in much danger. This even occurs even if they've used all their powers; there's no worry that they'll die.

A contributing factor to this is too many leaders. The more leaders you have, the more healing you have, the less likely you are to really die. A group with a bard versus a group with a cleric and a warlord are going to differ quite significantly in what they can "take". With PCs being durable as it is, and monster damage not being all that hefty, things Aren't that risky.

This also deals with group makeup. If you have no defender, your weaker characters are going to get in more danger more easily. If you have a lot of strikers, your enemies are going to die faster, making combat faster.

 

[LostSoul]

1. When the fight has been decided and you only have to go through the motions to see what you know is going to happen.

2. When the fight has no impact on future situations.

3. When the PCs don't have much at stake on the outcome of the fight - that is, the outcome of the fight won't change the PC's situation for the better or worse.

Hmm, you could replace fight with "skill challenge" or "conflict", or even "skill check".

 

[Lanefan]

Regardless what it consists of or how it's defined, I've concluded the primary cause of grind in any edition can be boiled down to these few factors:

1. The AC on both sides is high enough that physical attacks have poor odds to hit.
2. For whatever reason, there is nothing available on either side (e.g. spells) that can intervene to noticeably speed things up.

To some extent, the DM can mitigate this over the long haul by not giving out magic defenses (+x heavy armour, +x shields, etc.) often if at all and by also keeping the opponents' AC rational.

A more extreme approach to crits and fumbles, to add swinginess, can also tilt the average towards a bit more speed.

This all comes at a cost, however, and that cost is likely paid in PC mortality. A predictable combat is usually predictable in terms of the PCs are able to predict they'll win it without casualties. Me, I don't mind this; others might.

Lanefan

 

[Rechan]

1. The AC on both sides is high enough that physical attacks have poor odds to hit.

This is also can happen if dice are just not with those involved. If a Player, despite their bonus, just CONSTANTLY rolls badly, no matter the enemy AC they're going to miss.

And the more misses, the less damage getting moved around.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

The point of "grind" hits when the fun has left the encounter and everyone is waiting for it to end.

That is a pretty good definition.

-Limited Threat. Part of what I think makes encounters "fun" is when there's a definite risk. So when things are "Predictable", and when monsters are out of powers and Pcs are at too high HP, then they just feel they're not in much danger. This even occurs even if they've used all their powers; there's no worry that they'll die.

Not all monsters have access to limited powers. Rechargable powers could arguably prevent this. The same can be said with powers that are more situational (ie: extra damage dice when target is prone or grants combat advantage).

A contributing factor to this is too many leaders. The more leaders you have, the more healing you have, the less likely you are to really die.

Possibly, but that is very dependant on the DM. The ability to use healing surges does not automatically guarantee grind or necessarily make the fight easier. It depends on how often the DM is able to make doing so to avoid death necessary. If someone needs to heal at least once each round after the 4th round, there is no grind there. I could argue that the use of many surges in an encounter is a negative indicator against grind, since players are trying very hard not to die.

If you have a lot of strikers, your enemies are going to die faster, making combat faster.

I could say that the presence of Strikers is not a guarantee of fast enemy death. Lets say your DM likes Kobolds. Kobolds are shifty, so your Rogue may not be able to get flanking often enough to have a big impact. Your Warlock or Archery based Ranger may have difficulty staying out of melee due to Kobolds always shifting adjacent to them, forcing them to eat Opportunity Attacks. Or maybe your DM really likes Minions. Extra damage dice do not matter as much as area attacks.

Besides, based on what I have read on these boards, it seems multiple strikers in a party are one of the most common options for a party build. If multiple strikers were the solution, I would expect less complaint about grind.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Lanefan]

This is also can happen if dice are just not with those involved. If a Player, despite their bonus, just CONSTANTLY rolls badly, no matter the enemy AC they're going to miss.

And the more misses, the less damage getting moved around.

True that, but it averages out: sometimes the dice wil rock, everyone hits every time, and the combat's done in minutes.

I'm looking at the big picture. Every point of AC on each side without a corresponding opposition +1 to hit has just - on average - made the combat longer.

Lanefan

 

[Rechan]

As far as avoiding/reducing grind, there are lots of mechanical methods out there (the popular - reduce HP, increase damage) method.

However, I'd like to make some non-mechanical, more structural suggestions.

1) The Unpredictable Happens. Stalker0 touches on this with some suggestions (hold onto your lurkers until after a few rounds, send your monsters in in waves), but that's more an example of the premise:

At some point, the encounter must be different from what it was at the beginning. Something new needs to happen that effects the battle.

I once did this by an Earth spirit the PCs were battling; at the 0 initiative, either a wall 5 would appear on the battlefield, or a close burst 2 pit would appear, that lasted the entire encounter. It meant that the terrain was constantly shifting. Other examples are the ceiling collapsing, creating a blocked area and difficult terrain. The room/building is on fire, and so the PCs must deal with increasing smoke/damaging terrain that moves towards them.

2) Objectives. The DMG2 talks about this, but they're offered in more depth here. Basically, encounters where there's more going on than beating the snot out of the opposing team. Now, the trick here is to iron out the rules of accomplishing the objective in the first place (when I try to make objectives, the rules of the mini-game get in the way).

... OK I lied. I do have one bit of mechanical advice:

Hazards. A hazard increases the Xp budget of the fight, but doesn't put another bag of hit points the PCs have to hit. It just Does Damage. And, it might have the potential to Do Damage to monsters as well as PCs. So it's a damage effect in a can. Part of the encounter - for the players - can even involve pushing the opposition INTO the hazard, offering something beyond their powers to do.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

As far as avoiding/reducing grind, there are lots of mechanical methods out there (the popular - reduce HP, increase damage) method.

However, I'd like to make some non-mechanical, more structural suggestions.

Good ideas, but a bit outside topic. I am not looking for suggestions. I am looking to define what a grind is (has probably been done already), and to identify the causes.

Based on your suggestions, you would say that overly durable monsters and overly static encounter management are the primary causes. Would you agree with that?

END COMMUNICATION

 

[ggroy]

If an encounter is at its attrition "mopping up" stage (ie. players spamming their at-wills repeatedly to kill off the remaining bloodied monsters left), frequently I'll just have the monsters flee.

For some monsters I'll have them leave in the middle of the combat, such as backline archers, wizards, etc ... when they run out of arrows, daily/encounter spells, etc ... For some lurker type monsters, I'll just have them sneak away into the dark after taking some potshots on the players.