Why isn't WotC acknowledging Grind issue?

[keterys]

But, wouldn't that only be true if the encounters were also scaled for more players? I would have thought RPGA adventures were pretty much static - if you have four players, you meet X number of opponents, if you have six players, you still meet X opponents, not X+2.

RPGA encounters are, in fact, scaled for more players. They scale in a variety of ways - sometimes they just increase the level of a particular monster, for instance, but it is very common to fight 4 creatures with 4 players and fight 6 creatures with 6 players, and such variants.

 

[Nymrohd]

By the gods, 4E truly did turn into Warcraft; people complain about things with no real ground . . .

~ this is an example of threadcrapping. Don't do it. Admin ~

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Maybe "grind" is the 4E version of "15 minute adventuring day". Some people notice it all the time and it bothers them, others don't notice it or aren't bothered by it. Should definitely be an improvement point for upcoming WotC products, be it in better adventure design, better DM advice or new Monster Manuals.
The +1/2 level damage, -25 % hit point and +1 level damage and -50 % hit points "mods" should probably be added into the character builder.

 

[Piratecat]

(and I do mean horrific. I experienced a game with so much grind this weekend that it almost makes me want to swear off playing LFR for good)

Out of curiosity, where was the problem: monsters, character classes, DM, or something else?

 

[Jack99]

While I agree that 7 players is a lot (I myself would not want to DM for more than 6, and my preference is for 4), it's hardly unreasonable. The game system should be able to handle it with no more than a moderate slowdown. Hell, I remember back in the day playing in 2E games with 8+ players; the largest group I was ever in topped out at 14! Now, granted, things were pretty bogged down at that point, but the game could still move. Try to imagine a 14-player combat in 4E.

I wonder if WotC would be willing to add the "half hit points, +level to damage" rule as an option in the Monster Builder?

Two things

For what it is worth, I definitely agree that combat scales with the number of players. Anything else would surprise me greatly. With that said, I have had both 6 and 7 players regularly in my campaign (at the beginning) we were still running 4 solid combats per 5-hour session with little trouble. And yes, we do other things than combat. So in short, I do not feel that the length of combat scale as much as other claim, so apparently, it is yet again one of those things that depends on the DM and the group.

Regarding the monster builder, why would they? It's just one of many ways to speed up play, and hardly a precise one. TBH, it is so quick to fix by myself, that while it would be nice with a +33% damage/-25% hit points would be nice, it would only save me a few seconds per session. The MB in itself already makes it superfast.

 

[LostSoul]

But the main issue, in my opinion, is not that 4E is too grindy, but that it wasn't designed flexibly enough to cater to a variety of play styles. No game can possibly please everyone, but this game (and edition) seems a bit too narrow in its focus, at least compared to previous iterations of D&D.

I don't know how true that is - I consider a lot of the "DM advice" to be pretty solidly in one camp (the "we all play badass heroes, don't question it" one) - but the mechanics can go either way. I don't think it's too hard to switch between modes; one simple way is, instead of having everything scale to the PC's level, scale it to the environment.

Anyway... I agree that it would have been nice to include different forms of resolution for combat. I'm reminded of Burning Wheel here; you can either resolve a fight with a Fight!, in which you keep track of what happens during each heartbeat, or you can make a Bloody Versus check - just one roll.

I have been trying for months, if not longer, to come up with some way to resolve combats after just a few rolls. It seems to be working better than the other variations I've made, but I need to run it through more tests before it's even ready for playtesting.

Here's a sample:

- Damage/Hit Points:
NPC Hit Points
		Role
Level	Minion	Normal	Elite	Solo
1-3	1	4	8	20
4-6	2	6	12	30
7-9	3	8	16	40
etc.
Brutes add something.

	PC Hit Points / Level
Level	4	5	6+
1-3	6	8	10
4-6	9	12	15
7-9	12	16	20
etc.
Add 1/2 CON modifier to the number of hits.

Level	Damage Dealt
1-3	2
4-6	3
7-9	4
Modify by power used and other modifiers (sneak attack, etc.).

 

[Nathal]

In prior editions I usually ran things without a battle mat. But whenever I brought out the Chessex battle mat it usually increased the length of combat. Why? Some players started thinking more tactically, often increasing their decision time. I had fun with either the quick battles or the longer battles, depending on the context of each encounter (big battles are great if climatic).

So, since 4E uses a battle mat and minis by default, and tactics is a bigger part of the game (perhaps more than ever before?), maybe it just feels grindy to gamers who dislike miniatures-oriented, tactical combat? I'm thinking reducing monster hit points or increasing "swing" is offsetting the natural consequence of introducing an inherently tactical combat system. What do you think?

 

[Shazman]

Out of curiosity, where was the problem: monsters, character classes, DM, or something else?

Well, we only had one striker in a 6 person party, but I think the main issue were the encounters themselves. One encounter had 4 standard monsters and one elite all with displacement effects (so even if you hit, you would have 50/50 chance of missing). Another encounter was composed of almost entirely difficult terrain and had an elite soldier plus several standard soldiers, and several enemies out of reach on rooftops.

 

[samursus]

I wonder if WotC would be willing to add the "half hit points, +level to damage" rule as an option in the Monster Builder?

Nice idea, I like it!

I experienced my frist major bit of grind last night in our weekly game. This is the first time we have had 5 players, and 3 are still kinda new to RPGs in general (this is their first campaign) and one is a bit rusty with 4e (been awhile since he played). But after a 2 hour combat, I am ready to try the 1/2 hp +level dam idea. This is tI will be happy. And its actually pretty easy to implement.

 

[Mercurius]

While I agree that 7 players is a lot (I myself would not want to DM for more than 6, and my preference is for 4), it's hardly unreasonable. The game system should be able to handle it with no more than a moderate slowdown. Hell, I remember back in the day playing in 2E games with 8+ players; the largest group I was ever in topped out at 14! Now, granted, things were pretty bogged down at that point, but the game could still move. Try to imagine a 14-player combat in 4E.

Yes, exactly (emphasis mine).

In my group of 6-7 players some of the slowness has been due to players vacillating about what powers to use, but I've encouraged them to make decisions more quickly and that has helped some, although not fully solved the problem.

I think it really comes down to monsters having too many hit points in relation to the amount of damage PCs do. This is compounded by the fact that each class is now assigned a different role, and thus limited to the qualities of that role. For example, wizards have no or few spells that can actually do a fair amount of damage to a single foe. In other words, it may be that WotC simply didn't get the proportional relationship of damage to hit points quite right.

Maybe "grind" is the 4E version of "15 minute adventuring day". Some people notice it all the time and it bothers them, others don't notice it or aren't bothered by it. Should definitely be an improvement point for upcoming WotC products, be it in better adventure design, better DM advice or new Monster Manuals.
The +1/2 level damage, -25 % hit point and +1 level damage and -50 % hit points "mods" should probably be added into the character builder.

Good point and I think you're right (again, thus my Annie Hall analogy). And, as you imply, regardless of whether it is a "different strokes" issue, enough people are bothered by it that it should be a major consideration in the future, if not in upcoming 4E products (which we would have seen already), then for 5E or, gods forbid, 4.5E.

But yeah, I like the idea of adding the modifications into Monster Builder, although it isn't absolutely necessary as you can scale monsters up and down by level and role already. That Solo monster have too many HP and is a bit too tough? Change it to an Elite. Too weak now? Raise it a level. And so forth.