Wherefore "mini-less" D&D assumptions?

[rogueattorney]

OOP D&D was hardly consistent with how it handled miniatures in the game, and one's view on minies may vary depending on what source you came in with. For example, miniatures are mentioned once in the entire 1e Players Handbook, and only then as a very obscure footnote with regard to range and rate of fire of missile weapons. On the other hand, miniatures are referred to in four different sections of the DMG, which came out about a year and a half later and presented miniatures as preferable but optional. (Not coincidentally, I imagine, the first range of official AD&D figures came out at about the same time.)

The DMG attitude is in marked contrast to OD&D's statements on miniatures, which seem to go out of their way to stress that miniatures are not required:

It is relatively simple to set up a fantasy campaign, and better still, it will cost almost nothing. In fact you will not even need miniature figures, although their occasional employment is recommended for real spectacle when battles are fought. A quick glance at the Equipment section of this booklet will reveal just how little is required.

Miniature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire, but miniatures are not required, only esthetically pleasing...

The only other reference to miniatures in the original rules in on page 25 of vol. 3 with regard to aerial combat. None of the supplements prior to Sword & Spells mention miniatures at all.

The Moldvay and Mentzer Basic rule books both have three short mentions of miniatures more in line with the OD&D rules. To my knowledge, nothing in the ECMI works mention miniatures. To the contrary, the Companion War Machine rules seem designed in such an abstract way as to obviate the need for miniatures. From Brian Blume's Forward to the Companion set:

Many thanks to Garry Spiegle, Doug Niles, Mark Acres, and Carl Smith for development of the “War Machine” mass combat system included in this set. They merged years of experience in wargames with the current range of fantasy role playing styles. The resulting system can handle the clash of armies without miniatures or boardgames-and thus, the very roots of the D&D game surface once again.

EDIT - I should mention, in contrast to the 1980's Basic sets, the 1990's Black Box sets came with stand up counters and a "battle board" as did most of the "Beginners Series" supplements that went with these sets.

 

[rogueattorney]

Following my last post...

Contrast these 4e quotes with that of the quotes in my post above:

Miniatures: Each player needs a miniature to represent his or her character, and the DM needs minis for monsters.

When a combat encounter starts, it’s time to turn your attention to the battle grid. The combat rules assume that you use D&D Dungeon Tiles, a poster map, a gridded white board, or an erasable, gridded mat to show the area where a battle takes place. The rules also assume that you use D&D Miniatures to represent the adventurers and the enemies they face.

Beyond players, to play the D&D game you need space to play, rulebooks, and supplies such as dice, paper, pencils, a battle grid, and miniatures.

Items to Depict Combat Encounters: Battle maps and miniatures are perhaps the most fundamental props.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Following my last post...

Contrast these 4e quotes with that of the quotes in my post above:

Miniatures: Each player needs a miniature to represent his or her character, and the DM needs minis for monsters.

This quote is introduced by the following though:

You might find some of the following items and accessories useful at your game table.

Still though, I think your point is well made. About the only thing I could add is that effects are interpreted in squares rather than feet and that distance has been made a more abstract quantity, something that irks me no end but have gotten used to reluctantly in play.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mark]

The only other reference to miniatures in the original rules (. . .)

Unless you count Chainmail as part of the original rules.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

All a part of the experience that is... Doughnuts & Dragons

Quick! Run! It's a carrion cruller!

Those are a serious threat...but remember that the Blancmanges aim to take Wimbledon!

 

[nicholasgeorg]

In fact, I've found that if I use dice of the same type to represent the same kind of creature--for instance "d10s are bugbears, d6s are goblins"--and I turn the dice so that different numbers are facing up for each one, I actually find that easier to keep track of than if I'm using a bunch of miniatures.

I agree completely. My players have started to understand a loose vocabulary - d6s are almost always minions, d4s tend to be stabby little lurkers, d8s skirmishers, etc. It is not consistent, but in general the bigger the die the bigger looking the threat. I'll usually use a mini for the BBEG.

 

[nicholasgeorg]

Actually, I guess I should mention that our last session was our first experience with mini-less combat in 4e. We are playing an Eberron game, and I did a very loose conversion of Grasp of the Emerald Claw. Because they are exploring giant ruins, it is utterly impossible to draw out all the maps - the scale is huge. I worked it out and it would take about a 10' x 10' battlemat per level. So as long as I expect the fight to be fairly trivial (i.e. quickly taking out a handful of guards) it was totally great to not interrupt game time by drawing out a map.

Then the 'set piece' encounters feel as they should.