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

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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.

I might suggest not trying to exaggerate lack of clarity or obtuseness here. The fall category is pretty clear about what it means and when you consider the item descriptions, it's pretty clear that it gives you an idea how to determine if a mirror that's dropped more than 5' breaks or not. Plus there's the tidbit on p80 about Non-Magical Items.

It is assumed that the item in question is actually exposed to the form of attack, i.e. the blow falls on the item, the fall is such as to not cushion the item, the fire actually contacts the item, etc.​

It's reasonably clear that when the item is directly exposed to the hazard, you make the save - though with a modifying footnote about liquids in their containers.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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.

But not entirely unique. I assume it's to introduce complications for the player, particularly since it can explode prematurely if it hits an intervening body (such as an invisible wall). Burning Hands is, perhaps, even more specific about its somatic components, presumably, in order to justify its fan-like area of effect rather than other methods creative players may envision.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don't think the DMG says this.
Then where does it come from? I'm 99.9% sure it's not one of our houserules.

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.
The entry for Lightning Bolt in the PH says (in typical unclear Gygaxian terms) to refer to the Fireball entry for how saves work, strongly implying both spells work the same in this regard.

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.
There's quite a few spells that give some indication as to their somatic components (e.g. the spread fingers for Burning Hands) but true, not many specify the verbal ones.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.
OK.

But why not have all this info in one place - the spell write-up - rather than having to check three places to piece it together? Further, having the effects on objects be in the DMG rather than the PH or spell write-up doesn't make it all that accessible to players, most of whom probably wouldn't own the DMG unless they were also DMs.

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?)
I'm not saying 5e is any better in some of these regards; if it wants to perpetuate what I see as mistakes then so be it.

What I want from a spell write-up (any edition) is that where necessary it go into some of the more obvious what-ifs and rulings said spell is liable to generate. 1e's Fireball and Lightning Bolt entries kind of try to do this, though both could certainly go further.

Also different is that both spells have been "simplified" since 1e - Fireball no longer fills to a volume and Lightning Bolts no longer rebound, thus requiring less verbiage in their write-ups.

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.
Are they more clear? 4e doesn't have the convenience of by-material saving throw matrices, so a DM is left on her own to determine how difficult it is for wood to save as opposed to soft metal or hard metal or leather. Seems odd for what otherwise came across as a rules-not-rulings type of system.

This makes me wonder where you do your karaoke; and also where you played 4e
Can someone explain what karaoke has to do with any of this? That's the third or fourth time it's come up...

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.
Perhaps, but I'd still prefer to see these things in the spell write-up anyway - even if it repeats what's written elsewhere - just so it's all in one place.

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).
It was 33 10x10x10 cubes (33000 cu ft); each 10' cube would hold 8 5' cubes, which would mean 264 5' cubes would be about the same volume as a 1e fireball.

But despite 4e's famous Rule 0 (or page 42, whatever it was), there wasn't much encouragement to houserule it or change it much; unlike 1e which carried a strong sentiment of "make the game your own" (even though Gygax then railed against people doing exactly this!).

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.
And here, oddly enough, I agree with you. But someone else already making that ruling saves me from having to do it; equals less work for me (and "official" backup should anyone want to argue the point). :)

Lanefan
 


Relevant to the current topic of conversation; below is the entry for Dungeon World’s Fireball Spell:

Fireball
Level 3 Evocation
Description

You evoke a mighty ball of flame that envelops your target and everyone nearby, inflicting 2d6 damage which ignores armor.

Nothing about setting aflame the target(s). Nothing about collateral damage to “things” (the text only says “everyone”, just like 4e’s “creatures”). Nothing about setting aflame unattended objects. No related keyword tech to cross reference (though DW has plenty of keyword tech).

So, presumably every D&D player who has wargaming and/or rules as physics bent would smuggle them into DW and assert that (a) this is evidence that DW is clearly a boardgame which is divorced from a shared fiction and (b) a DW Wizard can’t immolate “things” because the text says “everyone”.

I’m sure I’m incorrect, but I’d like someone who asserts that (a) and (b) apply to 4e but don’t apply to DW to explain why that is?
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
You evoke a mighty ball of flame that envelops your target and everyone nearby, inflicting 2d6 damage which ignores armor.

So, presumably every D&D player who has wargaming and/or rules as physics bent would smuggle them into DW and assert that (a) this is evidence that DW is clearly a boardgame which is divorced from a shared fiction and (b) a DW Wizard can’t immolate “things” because the text says “everyone”.
It also 'ignores armor,' so not only does it not explicitly affect objects, it explicitly has no effect on a specific sort of object.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Relevant to the current topic of conversation; below is the entry for Dungeon World’s Fireball Spell:

Fireball
Level 3 Evocation
Description

You evoke a mighty ball of flame that envelops your target and everyone nearby, inflicting 2d6 damage which ignores armor.

Nothing about setting aflame the target(s). Nothing about collateral damage to “things” (the text only says “everyone”, just like 4e’s “creatures”). Nothing about setting aflame unattended objects. No related keyword tech to cross reference (though DW has plenty of keyword tech).

So, presumably every D&D player who has wargaming and/or rules as physics bent would smuggle them into DW and assert that (a) this is evidence that DW is clearly a boardgame which is divorced from a shared fiction and (b) a DW Wizard can’t immolate “things” because the text says “everyone”.

I’m sure I’m incorrect, but I’d like someone who asserts that (a) and (b) apply to 4e but don’t apply to DW to explain why that is?
As written that's a rather pathetic - or at best extremely lazy - spell description.

First off, how big is the fireball? A rather glaring omission. The only reference is "everyone nearby", but what constitutes "nearby"? And does "everyone" include living things that aren't people e.g. a passing rat or a wizard's familiar?

Second off, how long does it last? There's no duration listed, so are we to default to the D&D version that's pretty much instantaneous or does the fire hang around a while?

And third - yes, what else does it or can it affect besides creatures? Or is this the DW equivalent of a smart bomb: hurts living matter but leaves everything else intact? Does it light dry grass on fire? Trees? Does it melt gold or other soft metals?

Fourth, is the "ignores armor" clause there to indicate the fire bypasses any damage reduction due to armour worn (which makes sense) or to indicate the fire cannot damage or affect armour at all (which doesn't make sense)?

Obviously this spell write-up is going to force each DW DM to make her own series of rulings on how it works and what it does, which only means more work for her as she then has to note these rulings so it'll work the same next time. Eventually her own write-up for the spell will end up resembling what's in the 1e D&D PH in length, if not necessarily in agreement depending on how she sees it.

Lanefan
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
As written that's a rather pathetic - or at best extremely lazy - spell description.

First off, how big is the fireball? A rather glaring omission. The only reference is "everyone nearby", but what constitutes "nearby"? And does "everyone" include living things that aren't people e.g. a passing rat or a wizard's familiar?

I dunno. Is "mighty" a keyword that indicates how big the fireball is? Or does it indicate it's a member of the BossToneS?
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top