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?

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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Riley37

First Post
You can tell the story of Eric and the Dread Gazebo, or the Head of Vecna, or the Powder Keg of Justice, without miniatures. I see that as evidence that miniatures are not at the heart of the most awesome moments in D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Back in 1e we used graph paper and imagination. Now we use graph paper, minis, and imagination. During the heyday of 3e lots of people bought minis. That was the first time used a battle mat. Now that we already have the minis there's no going back. We're buying new minis, battle mats, markers, and building terrain. It's a fun part of the hobby.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
Meh. I'm not so sure about that. Imho, 4e had the most enjoyable tactical combat system I've ever seen in any RPG (or board game).

Even if you don't like playing with battle maps, minis (or tokens, dice, or whatever else you choose to represent the PCs and their opposition) are incredibly useful to indicate the rough position of everyone. We found that indispensable even back in the 1e days to avoid endless discussions.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
It's really just too darn easy to bump minis around. I've yet to come up with a good solution to that.
A lot of metal minis have bases that are too small and-or have imperfections on the base that cause them to wobble or lean over. Gluing a penny or nickel to the base can help a lot, or a heavy plug or washer for particularly top-heavy pieces.

The downside to this, and to all plastic minis, is they then become too horizontally big to place reasonably in a small area on a standard 2-inch-to-10-foot grid.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
You can tell the story of Eric and the Dread Gazebo, or the Head of Vecna, or the Powder Keg of Justice, without miniatures. I see that as evidence that miniatures are not at the heart of the most awesome moments in D&D.
I can tell almost any D&D story without minis, after the fact; and all of these are stories being told after the fact.

Playing through it round by round in the here and now is a completely different matter.
 

Riley37

First Post
Playing through it round by round in the here and now is a completely different matter.

Did Eric and his DM use miniatures, to play out Eric's assault on the gazebo, and the gazebo's response?

Did the players in the Head of Vecna incident need minis to establish relative position while one of the PCs cut off the other's head?

Did the player who delivered the Powder Keg of Justice speech have a mini on a board, at the time, and did it matter whether the paladin was 1 square or 2 squares away from the captured cultist?

You write as if the combat pillar were the entire game. It's a part of the game; it's how the game *started*; but some of the Great Moments in D&D History happened in the other pillars.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I can tell almost any D&D story without minis, after the fact; and all of these are stories being told after the fact.

Playing through it round by round in the here and now is a completely different matter.

It’s not that different if you’re clear with your descriptions as DM and players ask questions and are also reasonably clear about their positioning. It just takes a little practice - and puts us right back where we were when we started playing Basic and 1e and didn’t own a megamat. And that’s right where we like to be.
 

pemerton

Legend
I have generally adapted my use of techniques to a system and its expectations.

Back (a long time ago) when I used to GM B/X and AD&D, in dungeon exploration games, I would track the PCs' position on a grid map.

When I started GMing a less dungeon-y sort of game (using AD&D and then Rolemaster), that sort of position-tracking became less important but occasionally I would draw a little picture of the lay of the land where that would be helpful for keeping track of people's positions. A relevant factor is that in those systems, the ranges of effects, movement rates, etc often mean that you only need to track separation in general terms, and - if a fight breaks out or is in the offing - "rounds until engaged" rather than detailed positioning.

When I GM 4e, I normally used grid maps and tokens as part of the framing and adjudication of combat, as the system relies heavily on the details of positioning. (It's not just "how many rounds until we engage?")

When I GM Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic, I don't use any maps or tokens, as the mechanics of that system don't involve that sort of detailed positioning at all.
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top