Why isn't WotC acknowledging Grind issue?

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, not everyone feels that 4E is too grindy, which is why I say that it isn't inherently, or universally, too grindy, thus the Annie Hall reference. I don't take issue with that at all. And I am not saying that it is disingenuous if you or someone else feels that it is not too grindy,

You said "While it may not be universal that 4E is inherently grindy (although it seems a bit disingenuous to say that it is not...).

How is that "I am not saying that it is disingenuous if you or someone else feels that it is not too grindy"?

I warned you above. Bye. ~ PCat

but that it is disingenuous to say that there isn't a problem when for a large number of people there is. "Disingenuous" might be too strong of a word; "lack of awareness" might be more appropriate.

Well, that isn't how I read what you wrote. You seemed to be saying it's disingenuous to say that it is not...which is the words you used. Why would I have read "disingenuous to say that it is not [universal that 4E is inherently grindy]" as "disingenuous to say that nobody has this too-grindy issue"? Who here was saying that nobody has that issue?

There may not be a problem for you but if there is a problem for a fair number of folks, with a recurring group of threads on the topic and even, evidently, a split perspective within Wizards of the Coast itself, then it is at least ignoring "the problem" to say that there isn't one (not to mention the snark directed at the OP for having a problem and expressing it, as some have done within this thread).

I agree some people have a problem. If you look at the threads in question, they tend to go with a majority of people saying they do not have the problem, and a minority saying they do. Then they have lots of advice on how to solve the problem that some people have, and lots of folks say those solutions worked for them. I don't see the snark directed at the OP over it...I see a lot of advice given. What is it you see as snark?

And, as I said, I think the problem has more to do with the narrow focus of 4E for a certain kind of game play. It isn't flexible enough, imo, which is why I posit using a scaled--even modular--approach to combat, depending upon what sort of time-frame the DM wants to play with.

Sure, and I just thought there was no need to drag in prior editions for that kind of point. But hey, if PC didn't see it as the start of an edition war, fair enough.

 

[keterys]

I'll say... if the _group_ wants a less tactical and faster-paced 4e it's very possible to pull off. The problem is that usually it's some who do, some who don't, and a couple who are completely spaced out.

But, it is entirely possible to do combats quickly without minis and a grid. Merric has talked a bunch about it.
It is also entirely possible to run 4e combats, on a grid with minis, with full tactics, in 15 minutes or less. I've run multiple sessions of that.

Both require the group to actually be on board. Doing 1.5 minute rounds only works when one person isn't taking 6 minutes to do their turn

You can also design out, from monsters and players, many abilities that delay combat. Excessive control, any penalties to hit or bonuses to defenses, immediates, etc. You can actually simplify things a lot by just choosing appropriately. I suspect that's not desirable for many, but... the power is yours, use it wisely?

I will say that drastic hp reduction will _not_ work for many groups. Monsters just won't get a chance to go at all, and you won't even get a chance to go through all your encounter powers. That's actually already the case in a lot of games that I see... at full hp.

 

[Mercurius]

Mistwell, I already reiterated and clarified what I meant; I see no reason to go back and pick at my original post again, unless you are trying to (nit-)pick a fight, which I'm not interested in.

I also don't see any point in singling specific instances of snark out unless I want to pick a fight, which I don't. Suffice it to say it does seem to me that the OP received some unnecessary grief. Nothing too serious, but the snark was there.

As for "edition wars," in my perspective they are often started by Person B accusing Person A of starting edition wars more than what Person A actually said. Discussing different editions in relation to each other is not inherently an "edition war" unless it degrades into "X edition sux, but Y is the shizzle," which I wasn't doing.

 

[MrMyth]

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.

Yeah, poor encounter design will be a problem no matter what game you are playing. I had another LFR adventure where we fought an entirely encounter of insubstantial, regenerating creatures with at-will attacks that weakened (save ends). Enter a party with few strikers, no radiant damage (to turn off regen), and generally non-optimized PCs... and it was a long, dull combat. The next fight, with an elite soldiers 4 levels above us with a rechargable ability to heal 1/4 of his health, was not much better.

But the problem wasn't the system, but a terrible adventurer writer who wasn't interested in entertaining encounters, but instead in ones designed to 'beat' the party. This outlook of DM vs Player mentality was really terrible in Living Greyhawk, and I've been sad to see similar creeping into LFR.

For myself... I run a 6 player game, and some combats run long, and some run short. Sometimes long combats are even a good thing - we had a 3 hour combat in the last session, but it also consisted of two distinct waves of enemies punctuated by a complex skill challenge in between. To deal with a fight with ~30 enemies and ~20 skill checks, as the climax of that level's story arc, 3 hours didn't seem grindy during the time playing it. It was a little shocking after the fact, but as long as everyone remained involved during the battle, it felt perfectly fine.

There were two other fights later that session that ran maybe 30-45 minutes each. One involved a bunch of high-damage enemies (soldiers with high-crit weapons) and the other a solo that ignored status effects like stun, and instead just became more and more vulnerable to damage as the fight went on.

So while I think the potential for grind is there, it comes down to encounter design more than system limitations. WotC has clearly made some adjustments for it already, and included advice on dealing with it in various places. I don't think there is any need for them to directly 'address' it - though sure, more advice or guidance is always welcome, along with more products to make running encounters quicker and seasier. (Whether in the form of dungeon tiles or more DDI programs.) But I don't think there is need for an 'official response' on the issue.

 

[Eridanis]

Stop sniping back and forth and get back on topic, please.

 

[Herschel]

By the way, in this section of this forum alone there are no less than 3 active threads on this topic on page 1. You tell me if it's an issue or not.

I'd say there's a problem with people not paying attention to what others have asked/written and feel the need to start their own thread to complain about it. (Sorry, but you served that one up like a ripe watermelon at a Galagher concert).

There are not only multiple drivers, but multiple solutions. As others have said on this page (because page 1 is already enough as I write this) the solutions are there. With 7 players, you need to likely limit the number on non-minion baddies, for one thing. Add more aura/burst/contoller baddies too as to not have a bunch of one vs. one battles around the board. Encourage and practice focused fire.

 

[webrunner]

The reason they last that long is usually due to several encounter areas being alerted to the presence of the party and then converging on them all at once.

This wont nessisarily make an encounter longer, but it'll sure make it less interesting and feel longer (and then the turns take longer to do because people stop being excited, people don get extra damage from using terrain to their advantage, etc)

I call this the "entrance problem": in a regularly designed scenario, if the players don't or fail to stealth (which most groups wont even try as they usually only have one stealthy dude) and they enter a room, the monsters and players see each other. This results in no surprise round: Then, if the monsters beat the players initiative, they rush into the entrance and clog it up in melee. The interesting parts of the fight take place in four squares, two with the enemy and two with the allies, with no ability to maneuver, and god help your party if more than two of them are non-reach melee.

Ambushes, having multiple or wider entrances, and having more ranged enemies can mitigate, but there's only so much you can do.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I have experienced grind issues, including several multi-hour slugfests. The reason they last that long is usually due to several encounter areas being alerted to the presence of the party and then converging on them all at once.

Several encounter areas = multiple encounters, even if you take them all at once. You should expect several encounter areas to add up to a longer battle.

In general, the best way I have reduced grind is to have enemies flee. Once they are bloodied and have no more tricks to pull I try to have them flee (depending heavily on the creature, their leadership and the area). Getting away even allows them to access their heling surge(s) and join in a later fight sometimes.

I also try to play my creature's tactics to their intelligence and overall savvy. I let them provoke OA's. This makes the defenders feel more useful and shortens the combat.

As to the original question: I think WotC has addressed grind in their podcasts, articles, DM advice in later DMGs and design of new MMs. I'm not sure there is much more they can do to acknowledge that some people are having this issue.

 

[Wolfwood2]

The terminology here confused me a little, because there's a distinction (for me) between combat being a grind and combat lasting too long in real time.

I see "a grind" as being when a combat stops being interesting, because it's devolved into the party and the monsters just slugging it out. Every round everybody is doing pretty much the same thing, and nobody is moving around all that much or to much effect. I don't see much "grind" in 4E at the higher (paragon) levels, where everybody has at least 4 encounter powers to be throwing around, plus dailies and utilities and such. In my experience, fights tend to be dynamic and interesting all the way through.

However, I do see a lot of combats lasting too long in real time. Every round of the fight is interesting in itself, but when we finish the interesting fight, we look up and it's three hours later. That frustrates me, because I want to be able to do both fights and roleplaying and inworld problem solving. Fights are fun, but I hate to see single fights taking up almost all of a game session.

I'm not sure what can be done about this, though, because a large part of it is that on many people's actions there's a group discussion in tactics, where the mosnter needs to be movied, who we should focus fire on, and how things need to be set up for the next few PCs. That stuff is cool and fun, making combat interesting as a group activity. However, it takes a lot of time.

Reducing monster hitpoints would mean that combat would last fewer rounds. That would reduce the total real time the combat takes to play out, but it also means that we don't get to see the tactical situation develop over the course of the combat. That's a bad thing; combat that lasts a lot of rounds means that there's a definite feeling of the advantage swinging back and forth. That's fun.

Not sure what to do about this.

 

[webrunner]

However, I do see a lot of combats lasting too long in real time. Every round of the fight is interesting in itself, but when we finish the interesting fight, we look up and it's three hours later. That frustrates me, because I want to be able to do both fights and roleplaying and inworld problem solving. Fights are fun, but I hate to see single fights taking up almost all of a game session.

I just recently started a new campaign as a DM, and we could only get 4 players: fortunately they all took the right roles (Fighter, Warlord, Wizard, and Ranger). Other than difficulty in creating level one encounters (higher levels have the luxury of taking a few lower-level monsters.. at level 1 you have to take 1s and 2s with the occasional 3 if they dont have any huge damage or crit effect, so fitting together for less xp as harder) I found combat went at a reasonable clip, although what would have been the 'grindiest' encounters had named elites that ran away at bloodied, or in one case had damaging floor areas so they had a damage bonus.

That said, an encounter taking a long time isn't necessarily a bad thing if everyone's having fun. I took to having less encounters and giving a lot of bonus quest XP at the end.