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

pemerton

Legend
Mystery. A lack of perfect knowledge (for the players) and the need to discover what exactly is going on. Personally I enjoy watching them figure it out when I DM. I, and my players in short, find that exciting. Not so much (for the players) if they already know. Ymmv.
Solving GM-authored mysteries is not a big part of the sorts of games I run. That's not to say that there are not unknown things, but generally they're unknown to the GM as well as the players.

If the player has created the story then I'd ask why you need a DM? To administer the players story? I understand that players contribute to the world and story, but (imho) the DM has more input on that than any single player certainly. Ymmv.
Well, I referred to the player driving the story. That is not an uncommon approach to RPGing. The role of the GM is to frame the challenges.

The games I've plaid in are not driven by one players conception of his or her character. What about everybody else? Did every one else say "we're all about them"? I understand that different characters will shine at different moments in a game, Each may have a storyline in which they are more important. But the rest have to be happy too.
In my personal experience it's not that hard to run a game that integrates the concerns of multiple PCs as presented and played out by their players.

I suspect we play different types of games. We were all about exploration and discovery and that is still the style of game we play. That was more important than the characters in many ways. I suspect we are each happy with our own style.
Here are session reports from 4e at paragon and epic, Classic Traveller and Burning Wheel. They give a reasonable sense of the sort of game I enjoy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It was quite a range. There were Thief Kits that were a sentence or two and a minor bonus, Fighter kits that were a paragraph of flavor, and at least one Wizard kit (Mystic, IIRC, I played one for a minute or two) that was a page long and gave a couple of significant special abilities. Later kits in, like, the Complete Boook of Elves were notoriously broken, too.

I think it would heavily derail the thread getting hung up on kits. But I would once again, just say to folks, check them out yourselves. My experience of them is they are generally pretty light mechanically and don't have the optimization heft of say 3E builds with multi-classing or prestige classes. Also the flavor tends to be robust, but the 2E line is pretty big. There are a huge number of books with kits in them. Some were better than others. The Bard book for instance had some great material, mostly as an aid to making a fleshed out character (and as an aid for the GM to draw on for setting material). But again, folks ought to investigate and decide for themselves.
 

I can't recall: could you take more than one Kit, if you were cleric/wizard elf could you take an Elf Kit, Cleric Kit, & wizard Kit?

I can't remember off the top of my head on this one. But if you do go looking for the answer, one point of caution I would give is 2E wasn't always consistent so you might want to check a few different places to see if the answer is always the same. I remember being in a heated discussion over Ranger abilities (pretty sure it had to do with the Ranger at least). It may have had to do with dual wielding or multiple attacks, but so long ago can't remember. It turned out me and the other poster were both right in a sense because the players handbook said I was right, but the Fighters handbook said he was right. And the two positions were mutually exclusive, so depending on how you look at it, it was either just a blatant contradiction or oddly placed errata.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I think it would heavily derail the thread getting hung up on kits.
It's OK, I was just bringing in a historical perspective. Kits were, by the standards of TSR era D&D, something of an innovation, but they were all over the map. Later build mechanics - backgrounds, themes, feats, archetypes, etc - often were a bit like Kits, because kits were so varied in what they tried to do.

I can't remember off the top of my head on this one. But if you do go looking for the answer, one point of caution I would give is 2E wasn't always consistent so you might want to check a few different places to see if the answer is always the same.
Yeah, I gave up on 2e about half way through the run, and don't have nearly all the books, so I wouldn't go digging around in it like I sometimes do 1e. ;)

The inconsistency among the early Complete Books that I do have, though, was striking. Complete Fighter seemed kinda 'meh,' until Complete Theif came out and was just... IDK, 'why did you even bother?' While Complete Wizard had some comparatively OP stuff. And, in stark contrast, Complete Priest had some great stuff that almost didn't seem to come from the same game. (And Complete Elves I know only by reputation.)

... the players handbook said I was right, but the Fighters handbook said he was right. And the two positions were mutually exclusive, so depending on how you look at it, it was either just a blatant contradiction or oddly placed errata.
2e wasn't any worse than 1e, that way, and it at least had the excuse of more different folks writing for it. ;)
 

Solving GM-authored mysteries is not a big part of the sorts of games I run. That's not to say that there are not unknown things, but generally they're unknown to the GM as well as the players.

Often I (as DM) know the answer. Sometimes I don't and it evolves with the players choices. I never let them know that I don't know though :) My campaign setting is over 40 years old. There are a lot of things to be explored and a lot of material developed over the years that none of my players have discovered. I enjoy detailing my world.

Well, I referred to the player driving the story. That is not an uncommon approach to RPGing. The role of the GM is to frame the challenges.

Common yes (I guess), just not my style. If my world was less... complex and developed I could see it.

In my personal experience it's not that hard to run a game that integrates the concerns of multiple PCs as presented and played out by their players.

That depends entirely on the players. If they are cooperative (with each other and the DM) I'm certain it would be fine.

Here are session reports from 4e at paragon and epic, Classic Traveller and Burning Wheel. They give a reasonable sense of the sort of game I enjoy.

I need to spend some time looking over these. I always enjoy seeing another game "at work". What is odd is that I'm only starting to pay attention to streamed games. I skipped 4E but I love Traveller (especially Classic with the DGP task resolution system or Megatraveller).

*edit* Sigh. Spelling and grammar.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pemerton

Legend
Common yes (I guess), just not my style. If my world was less... complex and developed I could see it.
I don't think that player-driven RPGing is at odds with a complex/developed world. It does affect the way the development takes place.

I skipped 4E but I love Traveller (especially Classic with the DGP task resolution system or Megatraveller).
Well . . . if you look at my Traveller play report you'll see my mini-rant against MegaTraveller (sorry, it seems like I'm destined to be taking a different perspective from you even though I'm not really trying to be that contrary!).
 

I don't think that player-driven RPGing is at odds with a complex/developed world. It does affect the way the development takes place.
[?QUOTE]

The problem arises in the lack of knowledge on the players part. You could re-write the world to suit their story, but the advantage of a detailed existing world is reduced. If the players story is basic it could be folded in fairly easily, but the more involved their ideas, the harder it gets. I have background handouts for players to make sure they know the basics that their PCs should know. It gives them a basis to start with. My game is a sandbox with adventures interwoven in it. The players / PCs have a lot of choice in what they will do.

Well . . . if you look at my Traveller play report you'll see my mini-rant against MegaTraveller (sorry, it seems like I'm destined to be taking a different perspective from you even though I'm not really trying to be that contrary!).

I like the task resolution system, but that's no big deal. Setting difficulty numbers as needed was OK. There is a lot of unnecessary grit in MegaTraveller though. After designing a ship in MT I feel like I really built it :) That kind of pushed me back to Classic Traveller.

If you like game play springing from the die rolls you should look over Stars Without Number by Kevin Crawford. There is an incredible amount of inspiration in that book (and there is a free PDF version of it). If you don't know it, it's a Travelleresque OSR game built on three classes. There are extensive resources for different areas in books and freebies (the books tend to parallel Traveller books IV+). I robbed it blind for my Traveller game. For science fiction I prefer skill based systems rather than class based. Still it's a game I would play or GM without hesitation.
 

pemerton

Legend
If you like game play springing from the die rolls you should look over Stars Without Number by Kevin Crawford. There is an incredible amount of inspiration in that book (and there is a free PDF version of it). If you don't know it, it's a Travelleresque OSR game built on three classes. There are extensive resources for different areas in books and freebies (the books tend to parallel Traveller books IV+). I robbed it blind for my Traveller game. For science fiction I prefer skill based systems rather than class based. Still it's a game I would play or GM without hesitation.
I've got a couple of (free) PDF versions of Stars Without Number, but have never read it closely. I thnk [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] on these boards is a fan.

I should take a closer look at it.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
The following post is certified fee of transfats, GMOs, and seriousness, but may have been processed on machinery used in processing of peanuts & tree nuts, or just nuts in general.

Here are session reports from 4e at paragon and epic, Classic Traveller and Burning Wheel. They give a reasonable sense of the sort of game I enjoy.
Doesn't really help: all I can tell from those is that you seem enjoy fun. (I can't even say "enjoy games that don't suck," because I've actually played Traveler back in the day, and it was every bit as good as D&D.)

I won't make any blanket statements about that - everyone has their own preference, and, yours may not be representative...
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top