Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?

Dungeons & Dragons is doing better than ever, thanks to a wave of nostalgia-fueled shows like Stranger Things and the Old School Renaissance, the rise of actual play video streams, and a broader player base that includes women. The reasons for this vary, but one possibility is that D&D no longer requires miniatures. Did it ever? Picture courtesy of Pixabay Wait, What? When Vivian Kane at...

Dungeons & Dragons is doing better than ever, thanks to a wave of nostalgia-fueled shows like Stranger Things and the Old School Renaissance, the rise of actual play video streams, and a broader player base that includes women. The reasons for this vary, but one possibility is that D&D no longer requires miniatures. Did it ever?

bird-5537142_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay

Wait, What?​

When Vivian Kane at TheMarySue interviewed lead rules designer for D&D, Jeremy Crawford, about the increased popularity of D&D, here’s what he had to say:
It’s a really simple thing, but in 5th, that decision to not require miniatures was huge. Us doing that suddenly basically unlocked everyone from the dining room table and, in many ways, made it possible for the boom in streaming that we’re seeing now.
In short, Crawford positioned miniatures as something of a barrier of entry to getting into playing D&D. But when exactly did miniatures become a requirement?

D&D Was a Miniatures Game First (or Was It?)​

Co-cocreator of D&D Gary Gygax labeled the original boxed set of Dungeons & Dragons as “Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures.” Gygax was a wargamer himself, which used miniature games to wage tabletop battles. His target audience for D&D were these wargamers, and so use of miniatures – leveraging Chainmail, a supplement he created for miniature wargaming – was assumed. Miniature wargaming was more than a little daunting for a new player to join. Jon Peterson explains in Playing at the World:
Whether fought on a sand table, a floor or a yard outdoors, miniature wargames eschewed boards and the resulting ease of quantifying movements between squares (or hexagons) in favor of irregular scale-model terrain and rulers to measure movement distance. Various sorts of toy soldiers— traditionally made of wood, lead or tin, but by the mid-twentieth century constructed from a variety of alloys and composites— peopled these diminutive landscapes, in various attitudes of assault and movement. While Avalon Hill sold everything you needed to play their board wargames in a handy box, miniature wargamers had the responsibility and the freedom to provide all of the components of a game: maps, game pieces and the system. Consider that even the most complicated boardgame is easily retrieved from a shelf or closet, its board unfolded and lain across a table top, its pieces sorted and arranged in a starting configuration, all within a span of some minutes— in a pinch the game could be stowed away in seconds. Not so for the miniature wargamer. Weeks might be spent in constructing the battleground alone, in which trees, manmade structures, gravel roads and so on are often selected for maximum verisimilitude. Researching a historical battle or period to determine the lay of the land, as well as the positions and equipment of the combatants, is a task which can exhaust any investment of time and energy. Determining how to model the effects of various weapons, or the relative movement rates of different vehicles, requires similar diligent investigations, especially to prevent an imbalanced and unfair game. Wargaming with miniatures consequently is not something undertaken lightly.
D&D offered human-scale combat, something that made the precision required for miniature wargaming much less of a barrier. Indeed, many of the monsters we know today were actually dollar store toys converted for that purpose. It’s clear that accurately representing fantasy on the battlefield was not a primary concern for Gygax. Peterson goes into further detail on that claim:
Despite the proclamation on the cover of Dungeons & Dragons that it is “playable with paper and pencil and miniature figures,” the role of miniature figures in Dungeons & Dragons is downplayed throughout the text. Even in the foreword, Gygax confesses that “in fact you will not even need miniature figures,” albeit he tacks onto this “although their occasional employment is recommended for real spectacle when battles are fought.” These spectacular battles defer entirely to the Chainmail rules, and thus there is no further mention of miniatures in any of the three books of Dungeons & Dragons other than a reiteration of the assertion that their use is not required. The presence of the term “miniature figures” on the cover of the woodgrain box is, consequently, a tad misleading.
James Maliszewski states that this trend continued through Advanced Dungeons & Dragons:
Even so, it's worth noting that, despite the game's subtitle, miniature figures are not listed under D&D's "recommended equipment," while "Imagination" and "1 Patient Referee" are! Elsewhere, it is stated that "miniature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire, but miniatures are not required, only esthetically pleasing." The rulebook goes on to state that "varied and brightly painted miniature figures" add "eye-appeal." The AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, though published five years later in 1979, evinces essentially the same attitude, saying "Miniature figures used to represent characters and monsters add color and life to the game. They also make the task of refereeing action, particularly combat, easier too!"
Gygax himself confirmed that miniatures weren’t required in a Q&A session on ENWorld:
I don't usually employ miniatures in my RPG play. We ceased that when we moved from CHAINMAIL Fantasy to D&D. I have nothing against the use of miniatures, but they are generally impractical for long and free-wheeling campaign play where the scene and opponents can vary wildly in the course of but an hour. The GW folks use them a lot, but they are fighting set-piece battles as is usual with miniatures gaming. I don't believe that fantasy miniatures are good or bad for FRPGs in general. If the GM sets up gaming sessions based on their use, the resulting play is great from my standpoint. It is mainly a matter of having the painted figures and a big tabletop to play on.
So if the game didn’t actually require miniatures and Gygax didn’t use them, where did the idea of miniatures as a requirement happen? For that, we have to look to later editions.

Pleading the Fifth​

Jennifer Grouling Cover explains the complicated relationship gamers had with miniatures &D in The Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-Playing Games:
The lack of a visual element may make spatial immersion more difficult to achieve in D&D than in more visually oriented games; however, this type of immersion is still important to the game. Without the visual component to TRPGs, players may have difficulty picturing the exact setting that the DM lays out. Wizards of the Coast's market survey shows that in 2000, 56 percent of gaming groups used miniatures to solve this dilemma…Because D& D combat rules often offer suggestions as to what you can or cannot do at certain distances, these battle maps help players visualize the scene and decide on their actions…Even though some gamers may get more interested in the visual representation of space by painting and designing scenery such as miniature castles, these tools exist more for showing spatial relationships than for immersing players visually.
In essence, Third Edition rules that involved distances seemed to encourage grid-based combat and miniature use. But the rise of Fourth Edition formalized grid-based combat, which in turn required some sort of miniature representation. Joshua Aslan Smith summed it up on StackRPGExchange:
The whole of 4th edition ruleset by and large is devoted to the balance and intricacies of tactical, grid-based combat. There are exceptions, such as rules for skill challenges and other Role Play aspects of the game (vs. roll play). To both maximize the benefits of 4th edition and actually run it correctly you need to run combats on a grid of 1" squares. Every single player attack and ability is based around this precept.
This meant players were looking at the table instead of each other, as per Crawford’s comment:
Part of that is possible because you can now play D&D and look at people’s faces. It’s people looking at each other, laughing together, storytelling together, and that’s really what we were striving for.
It wasn’t until Fifth Edition that “theater of the mind” play was reintroduced, where grids, miniatures, and terrain are unnecessary. This style of play never truly went away, but had the least emphasis and support in Fourth Edition.

Did the removal of miniatures as a requirement truly allow D&D to flourish online? Charlie Hall on Polygon explains that the ingredients for D&D to be fun to watch as well as to play have always been there:
Turns out, the latest edition of Dungeons & Dragons was designed to be extremely light and easy to play. Several Polygon staff have spent time with the system, and in our experience it's been a breeze to teach, even to newbies. That's because D&D's 5th edition is all about giving control back to the Dungeon Master. If you want to play a game of D&D that doesn't require a map, that is all theater of the mind, you can do that with Skype. Or with Curse. Or with Google Hangout. Or with Facetime. Basically, if you can hear the voice of another human being you can play D&D. You don't even need dice. That's because Dungeons & Dragons, and other role-playing games that came after it, are all about storytelling. The rules are a fun way to arbitrate disputes, the maps and miniatures are awful pretty and the books are filled with amazing art and delicious lore. But Wizards of the Coast just wants you to play, that's why the latest version of the starter rules is available for free.
D&D’s always been about telling a good story. The difference is that now that our attention – and the camera or microphone – can be focused on each other instead of the table.
“What 5th edition has done the best,” according to game designer Kate Welch, “is that idea of it being the theatre of the mind and the imagination, and to put the emphasis on the story and the world that is being created by the players.” That’s the kind of “drama people want to see,” both in their own adventures and on their screens.
If the numbers are any indication, that makes D&D a lot more fun to watch.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Or it tries to save you having to go through all the same rulings headaches they already hit and solved.

Yes, this is very much another way to look at it, and of course, unlike karaoke, no Game Police were going to show up and tell you that you had to run it that way.


Easy one first: a great many 1e spells, particularly arcane, specify their material components.

Indeed they do. Components were a common thing throughout D&D incarnations except for 4E (as I recall, except for rituals) and possibly BECMI.


There's no denying the same information could be given in fewer words, but having all the info there is both useful and flavourful. I'd rather have that than no guidelines at all.

As I've said before, Gygaxian verbosity was one of the best builders of a high vocabulary.


No more prescriptive, but a lot less flavourful and a lot less exciting (that 1e fireballs filled to a volume no matter what led to some wonderful unforeseen - and at times painful - results). :)

That could be both exploited---oh boy could that be exploited if you were slick about it---and helped ensure that fireball was super dangerous to cast into blind spaces. I understand why 3.X and subsequent editions got rid of that but think a lot got lost by making spells so much safer.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Whenever you failed a save vs anything damaging, technically. One of the most-ignored rules in D&D history, right after weapon v armor adjustments...

I'm pretty sure your spellbook needed to make its own save, but I could be wrong about that and, of course, 1E sometimes contradicted itself. Weapon vs armor adjustments were an incredible pain. Definitely not one of 1E's better ideas, at least in implementation.
 

Sadras

Legend
If the wizard (or anyone else) fails to save then anything carried also then has to save, as per the 1e DMG. And yes, this has caused loss of all kinds of things, spellbooks and scrolls among 'em.

@Lanefan it is impressive to have found a group of players that enjoy that much admin.
I'm imagining several copies of spell books and their locations along with the specific number of spells included for each spell book. Is that about right?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Whenever you failed a save vs anything damaging, technically. One of the most-ignored rules in D&D history, right after weapon v armor adjustments...
Not in this house, bucko. :)

We did rule a long time ago that if the damage dealt on a failed save was less than 10 points then only the most fragile of things (e.g. a scroll in hand when hit by a 7 point fire effect) needed to save.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
That could be both exploited---oh boy could that be exploited if you were slick about it---and helped ensure that fireball was super dangerous to cast into blind spaces. I understand why 3.X and subsequent editions got rid of that but think a lot got lost by making spells so much safer.
Too safe, IMO: an aspect I very quickly came to dislike about 3 (and later, 4-5e) spell design

Never mind that a long time ago we also put in a rule that the caster of any such spell had to roll to aim it properly - usually pretty easy, but rolling a 2 and having your fireball wreck on an obstacle halfway to its intended destination...yeah, there's risk when using this magic stuff. :)

Sadras said:
@Lanefan it is impressive to have found a group of players that enjoy that much admin.
I'm imagining several copies of spell books and their locations along with the specific number of spells included for each spell book. Is that about right?
Not really. Just some people getting clever about how their books are protected.

Every time they kill a red dragon, for example, a fair bit of its hide comes home for use in constructing fire-resistant spellbook covers and-or containers.

But yes, ideally what spell is in what book is recorded - in practice it sometimes comes down to random roll if the player hasn't kept good records and has more than one book.

Lan-"as a character I got hit with friendly fire(ball) so many times I ended up buying a wizardslayer longsword - if you hit me now you'd better hope you kill me, as otherwise it'll be the last thing you do"-efan
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Too safe, IMO: an aspect I very quickly came to dislike about 3 (and later, 4-5e) spell design

Never mind that a long time ago we also put in a rule that the caster of any such spell had to roll to aim it properly - usually pretty easy, but rolling a 2 and having your fireball wreck on an obstacle halfway to its intended destination...yeah, there's risk when using this magic stuff. :)
IIRC, 3e had a suggestion about requiring a targeting roll when sending one through a small space...

Yep:
SRD said:
If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

... funny how much of 3e was "everyone's house rules...."

...or Len Lakofka's at any rate.
 

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
Too safe, IMO: an aspect I very quickly came to dislike about 3 (and later, 4-5e) spell design

Never mind that a long time ago we also put in a rule that the caster of any such spell had to roll to aim it properly - usually pretty easy, but rolling a 2 and having your fireball wreck on an obstacle halfway to its intended destination...yeah, there's risk when using this magic stuff. :)

Not really. Just some people getting clever about how their books are protected.

Every time they kill a red dragon, for example, a fair bit of its hide comes home for use in constructing fire-resistant spellbook covers and-or containers.

But yes, ideally what spell is in what book is recorded - in practice it sometimes comes down to random roll if the player hasn't kept good records and has more than one book.

Lan-"as a character I got hit with friendly fire(ball) so many times I ended up buying a wizardslayer longsword - if you hit me now you'd better hope you kill me, as otherwise it'll be the last thing you do"-efan

I'm constantly fighting with my players over the idea that you need clear LOS to target a spell. In 3e, 5e, ad now S&W. To them you just fire that fireball through the legs or under the arms of the line of fighters in front. The spell caster sits back, sips wine, and fires spells though his own lines.

I keep expecting them to ask me to house rule that AOE spells cannot effect friends so you can just detonate them on your own position like easy mode Neverwinter Nights. Their shenanigans vex me to no end!
 

pemerton

Legend
If the wizard (or anyone else) fails to save then anything carried also then has to save, as per the 1e DMG.
Whenever you failed a save vs anything damaging, technically. One of the most-ignored rules in D&D history, right after weapon v armor adjustments...
I don't think the DMG says this.

On page 80 there is the item saving throw chart, but other than descriptions of effect types (keywords, anyone?) there is no description of how to use the chart. The following page (p 81) does have a heading "Item Saving Throws", but it only offers the following:

These saving throws are self-explanatory in general. It is a case of either saving or failing. Potions and liquids which do not make their saving throws should be noted secretly by you - unless the player concerned has his or her character check to determine if the fluid was harmed. Such failure will not otherwise be notable without examination and testing.​

Furthermore, there are a few things on p 80 which suggests that the GM can call for item saving throws in circumstances other than when a player fails a saving throw. The first is that "fall"is a category, but falling in AD&D doesn't normally involve a saving throw. Second, the entry for "crushing blow" says that this includes "a blow from an ogre's or giant's weapon". Third, a normal blow includes "an attack by a normal-strength opponent". Fourth, any item "gains +5 on saving throws against attack forms in its own mode, i.e. blow vs. shield". It's not made clear when a GM might reasonably call for a save to see if a giant's blow smashes armour, or if a blocking shield is shattered (eg on any attack? on any hit? on a "called shot", however eactly that would work?), but those cases are being contemplated by these rules.

Anyway, the only place I know of in 1st ed AD&D that suggests that if a character saves then his/her items are safe is the fireball entry. I have a feeling that 2nd ed AD&D may have had an express rule to this effect, but I'm not sure as I haven't read much of the DMG for that edition.
 

pemerton

Legend
pemerton said:
Why does this spell have its verbal and somatic components specified, when very few others do?
a great many 1e spells, particularly arcane, specify their material components.
Components were a common thing throughout D&D incarnations except for 4E (as I recall, except for rituals) and possibly BECMI.
I didn't say anything about material components. Why does fireball have verabal and somatic components specified in the rulebook (ie pointed finger, and speaking height and distance)? That's not a common thing in any edition of D&D. In AD&D fireball is almost unque in this respect.
 

pemerton

Legend
I think you're cherry picking my quotes and making a false dichotomy. 1E fireball is one example of a clearly often problematic spell hence it got a ton of rulings. 4E had a very heavy hand of the designer all over the place. Clearly some people really liked it and others didn't, but the whole fact that 4E is a pretty radical redesign of what had been a fairly static system in many respects for a long time.
4e is different in some ways from 3E and AD&D. Each of those is different from the other also. (Eg 4e uses 3E conventions for ability scores and for defences; it's skill system is no more different from AD&D's than 3E's is, and arguably is closer to AD&D in spirt as level matters; its approach to monster design is intermediate between the two systems; but it departs from AD&D and 3E's spell charts; etc, etc.)

But that seems pretty separate from this "heavy hand of the designer" thing. 3E was designed too. So was AD&D, although much more haphazardly (each component was designed, but their interaction often was not).

As to fireball in Moldvay Basic... wait, how is that even in there? Basic only covered levels 1-3. (I don't have a copy of it anymore... long gone.)
There was a small list of 3rd level MU/Elf spells and 2nd level Cleric spells to be used for NPCs above 3rd level.

If 4e fireballs also didn't cause flammable things within them to (more or less likely, depending on the material) catch fire, then my face and palm meet yet again.
I think you've missed my point.

The 4e rules don't say that a fireball doesn't et things alight. They say that a fireball is a fire effect, which is defined as "explosive burss, fiery rays, or simply ignition" (PHB p 55); while the DMG, in the rules for damaging objects (p 66), says "you might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against certain objects and grant the object vulnerability to that damage type. For example, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerability 5 to fire because any spark is likely to destroy it." It was some posters on these boards who nevertheless asserted that, because the fireball targer line says "creatures in the burst", it doesn't burn things. And that is the sort of thing that gets held up as an example of 4e being "dissociated", and/or showing the "heavy hand" of the designer.

My point is that (i) Moldvay Basic has identical wording - it describes a fireball as doing damage to creatures caught in the burst - but no one argues for that reason that Basic is "dissociated"; and (ii) there are posters on these boards who say that fire spells in 5e don't set things alight unless they mention it, but no one uses that as an arguemnt that 5e is "dissociated" or has the "heavy hand" of the designer - they just diagree with those posters; hence (iii) it makes no sense that 4e is evaluated differently from those other editions in these respects. (Which you yourself do in yoiur signoff. What is your basis for saying that 4e is different from Basi c or 5e in respect of the way it presents the fireball spell and establishes a framework for its adjudication?)

Or it tries to save you having to go through all the same rulings headaches they already hit and solved.
The same question applies: why is a couple of hundred words in the AD&D PHB judged useful stuff for solving headaches, but a clear presentation of the spell in the 4e template judged the "heavy hand" of the game designer? The point of the 4e template is exactly the same: it provides guidelines for adjudication. But they're less presecriptive than Gygax's stuff (see eg the GM-ruling approach to object vulnerabiity I just quoted from the DMG) and more clear.

this is very much another way to look at it, and of course, unlike karaoke, no Game Police were going to show up and tell you that you had to run it that way.
This makes me wonder where you do your karaoke; and also where you played 4e, such that the Game Police came and beat up on you if you ran things differently from what the books suggested!

There's no denying the same information could be given in fewer words, but having all the info there is both useful and flavourful. I'd rather have that than no guidelines at all.
I don't see how 4e can in any way be conisdefred more presecriptive than tha
No more prescriptive, but a lot less flavourful and a lot less exciting (that 1e fireballs filled to a volume no matter what led to some wonderful unforeseen - and at times painful - results).
I don't see that it is very exciting to be told how many dice a fireball wand does. And there are contradictions also: the spell has no significant pressure but "detonates with a low roar"; it "ignites all combustible materials" but "tems with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered as unaffected." Those aren't very exciting either. All that stuff seems to me like it should be either in generic rules for affecting objects, and/or generic rules for magic items.

As far as the expanstion-to-volume issue is concerned, nothing stops a 4e GM adjudicating a fireball in 4e exactly the same as they did in AD&D (ie saying that it filll 343 5' cubes, a little bit more than the earlier version).

Which goes also to the karaoke point: if that ruling is exciting, then why do you need the rulebooks imprimatur to implement it? After all, the first time that Gygax (or whomever) made that call, the rulebook didn't tell them too. To me it's a facepalm moment that people need the permission or even prescription from the rulebook to adjudicate effects in ways they think are appropriate.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top