• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Erdric Dragin

Adventurer
We did play without miniatures for awhile only because 2E AD&D didn't state any requirement of them.

However, after a couple of months of just starting we all did realize how extremely difficult it was to run combat without some kind of visual representation. So we bought ourselves graph paper and penciled in drawings of the terrain and letters to represent the enemies and PCs, used an eraser to change things around (We were young, it was the best we could afford).

As to this day, I don't think I can ever run combat scenes without miniatures and a map. Knowing where everything is and keeping track of it is key to making combat run smoothly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's not even really about the players, as much as it's about the DM and their ability to visualize what's going on; and more importantly, their ability to convey what they visualize to the players.

The difference between a grid with miniatures and theater-of-the-mind is that the latter requires the DM to track everything mentally, and inform the players of every relevant detail, rather than just pointing at a physical representation and letting the players see for themselves. None of the rules actually change. A lightning bolt will hit the exact same number of orcs in either model, as long as the DM is doing their job.
 

Riley37

First Post
It is convenient, familiar, and comfortable to participants in this thread to line up into "D&D is better with minis!!" versus "D&D is better without minis!" We can supplement that with a side conversation on whether that means figurines on a battlemat, or any kind of token on ordinary graph paper, or the beautiful tokens and maps you can use for free (with a ruler tool!) on Roll20. It is convenient, familiar, and comfortable to say "this is how I like to play", and compare one grogard's preferred play style to another.

All of those convenient, familiar, and comfortable arguments, have this in common: they avoid the question as asked. The question as asked isn't about the experience of *anyone* who has played so much TRPG that they've become an EN World participant. The question is about the experience of new players trying D&D for the first time, and whether those players come back for more.

Kobold Boots raised the question of whether we're arguing "minis vs. no minis", or dedicated minis vs. improvised tokens. That said, the meta-question goes even deeper: whether EN World participants are willing to put any thought into how people go from "I've never tried D&D" to "I tried it once" to "I wanna play it again". Thinking about the experience of someone who isn't an EN World grognard - now THAT is a radical challenge, and I don't see many EN World participants willing to go that far out of their comfort zones.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Kobold Boots raised the question of whether we're arguing "minis vs. no minis", or dedicated minis vs. improvised tokens. That said, the meta-question goes even deeper: whether EN World participants are willing to put any thought into how people go from "I've never tried D&D" to "I tried it once" to "I wanna play it again". Thinking about the experience of someone who isn't an EN World grognard - now THAT is a radical challenge, and I don't see many EN World participants willing to go that far out of their comfort zones.

My first experience with D&D was with minis in a school library*. The next city I lived in, my group played at the cafeteria tables over lunch- pure TotM.

I’ve also had the pleasure of initiating kids AND adults into the hobby, so I have HAD to think about what kind of experiences I wanted my rookies to have.




* East Middle School, Aurora, CO...1977!
 

I prefer miniatures but have been playing for close to 40 years (mainly as a DM) and never felt they were required. Loose change or a few scribbles on a piece of paper do fine and always have when players needed a visual reference.
 

pemerton

Legend
Question:

Is this really a minis vs. no minis matter or is it a "I'm willing to spend money on minis vs. I'm not spending money on minis" issue?

Cause heck, even before I had money to spend on things, I needed to use markers or dice or pennies to note ranges as others have said.
I know game tables that used typical plastic board game pieces, Monopoly pieces, pebbles, bottle caps, glass go/pente pieces (also sold as planter/aquarium strata), tiddlywinks, jelly beans, and what have you as game pieces. I’ve done likewise myself.
This is what I use when GMing 4e. Token do the job; there's no need for "minis" in the literal sense. In the literal sense, I've never used miniatures including in dozens and dozens of sessions GMing 4e.

I didn't (and don't) use tokens GMing other systems, as they don't have resolution systems that invoke the sort of detail that makes them necessary.

There are various rules and options that are infinitely "better" with minis than without. To give you an easy example- a feat like mobile is meh with TOTM, but outstanding if you are playing with a grid (esp. in combination with, say, a monk).
And to reverse the order of reasoning, if one is playing a system which is full of "mobile"-like capabilities, then it makes sense to use minis/tokens. (4e is an instance of this.) And vice versa - if one is not, then minis become less useful. (I would put AD&D and B/X in this category, based on my experience, and many other RPGs as well.)

The question as asked isn't about the experience of *anyone* who has played so much TRPG that they've become an EN World participant. The question is about the experience of new players trying D&D for the first time, and whether those players come back for more.

Kobold Boots raised the question of whether we're arguing "minis vs. no minis", or dedicated minis vs. improvised tokens. That said, the meta-question goes even deeper: whether EN World participants are willing to put any thought into how people go from "I've never tried D&D" to "I tried it once" to "I wanna play it again". Thinking about the experience of someone who isn't an EN World grognard - now THAT is a radical challenge, and I don't see many EN World participants willing to go that far out of their comfort zones.
I can't judge whether minis make the game more attractive or not from a market/growth point of view. (Obviously they make it more expensive, but some boardgames sell themselves on nice components, and minis can be part of that sort of experience.)

But I think there is a meta-question (different from yours) that is more interesting than minis vs no-minis (and unlike yours, it's one I'm competent to try and answer!): what features of a system, or of the way someone is playing, make minis useful/necessary; conversely, what sort of system and approach to play supports a mini-free game?
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
what features of a system, or of the way someone is playing, make minis useful/necessary; conversely, what sort of system and approach to play supports a mini-free game?

IMHO, the strongest driver for minis use is mechanics that use precise language of distance and relative position, especially at tabletop scale: powers or gear with ranges measured in inches; limiting attacks or other abilities to certain angles or facings.

The use of real world scaled mechanics like “40 foot range”, “accurate to 500m” are more directly relatable- thus, more within the scope of TotM- than expressing the same in inches, squares or hexes.

Simply answering the questions of “can I see/can I attack” a target or targets with yes or no is more imagination friendly than saying a character can’t attack someone because their facing is wrong.


...not that TotM CAN’T be done with mechanics expressed thusly, just that it’s more difficult.
 

Riley37

First Post
I think there is a meta-question (different from yours) that is more interesting than minis vs no-minis (and unlike yours, it's one I'm competent to try and answer!): what features of a system, or of the way someone is playing, make minis useful/necessary; conversely, what sort of system and approach to play supports a mini-free game?

Are you open to reframing that as tokens vs. no-tokens?

or perhaps as a three-way split, (A) spatially imprecise or TotM (B) minis, preferably 25mm hand-painted (c) tokens of any sort, including virtual tokens, on pixel maps, displayed on a screen?

Some percentage of the growth in D&D, during the 5E era, is online play. Five players, around a table, each with a laptop; or five players, in five different cities; that sort of thing. The former still gets to share pizza. The latter has a host of complications including the role of body language in communication. Online play can involve *tokens*, but will not involve hand-painted minis. So these questions overlap.
 

pemerton

Legend
Are you open to reframing that as tokens vs. no-tokens?
Absolutely. As far as I can tell (not being a literal-minis person, I might be wrong), the difference between minis in the literal sense, and tokens, is purely aesthetic (unless facing matters, I guess, and even then some tokens support facing). It doesn't go to system or approach to play.

What I was trying to get at is something like this: in AD&D, engagement in melee is all or nothing, and positioning vs multiple opponents is primarily a function of numbers (the defender being assumed always to bring his/her shield to bear, etc); and so mostly (in my experience) one only needs to track the time needed to close and the range for spells and missiles; and that can be done without minis/tokens.

Whereas 4e, with many of a PC's abilities pertaining to fine-grained movement of self and/or others within the melee context, makes positioning within melee very important to resolution, and so strongly invites the use of tokens/minis. (I've run some 4e combats, where the terrain is simple and the main issue is one of separation between combatants, without map and tokens just as I would in AD&D or Rolemaster; but in my experience not many 4e combats have that character.)

Where I think a discussion like this could go is (eg): the no-minis approach to AD&D or RM adjudication (are you in range? how long does it take to close?) gives the GM a fair bit of control over those features of resolution, because - typically, I think - it is the GM's "mental map" that is taken as the most canonical for the table, unless someone can point out that s/he has obviously overlooked or misremembered something. The 4e approach makes all those bits of resolution more "objective" or "shared" (take your pick; they may be synonyms, or may not be, but I'm not pushing hard on that at this point!). Does that make 4e "better"? Or "worse"? Is there a reason (eg the stuff in 4e comes up all the time, whereas closing and range in AD&D are more peripheral? are those who use minis/tokens in AD&D trying to achieve more "objectivity"?)
 

fjw70

Adventurer
I love minis and have a huge collection of them. But I use minis and totm pretty equally in my games. It just depends on the situation.

Back when I played 1e we didn’t use minis, then I joined a group that did use them (no grid just used them on the table top) and I was hooked. I didn’t actually start buying minis until my reintroduction to D&D in the 2000s (after no playing since 1989).
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top