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


log in or register to remove this ad


Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
My friends and I play online using roll20 and we do use maps and tokens but we didnt before when we played in person. We tried it theater when we switched but was very confusing for majority of the group. I have heard from other groups that when they switched to online gaming they had to start using maps and tokens as well too idk.

I agree. I never played with minis back in the old days. College apartments, not enough money, lack of artistic talent, etc., meant we had few. I did get a bunch of metal painted by a talented guy I knew who did it for a reasonable cost in the 3.5 days and still have some of those. Even so, minis were optional, though they definitely helped a lot.

What we did start doing in the mid '90s a lot was the paper tactical map or battlemap done with markers and maybe a few tokens. A piece of paper, a pencil, and some quick sketches went a long way to establishing the nature of the situation and as time went on the call of "can I get a tactical?" became more common. What we didn't have was a lot of formal tactical rules though we had a number of group heuristics to handle the lack of formal maps. For instance, we would give negating saves to a few monsters vs. area effect attacks to represent the fact that they might be on the edge of the effect and thus take no damage. We would often have a caster make an Intelligence check to target a spell. We never really did think of Attacks of Opportunity or good reach rules, though.

The tendency was there in 3.X already with the introduction of map-reliant tactical things like Attacks of Opportunity. I don't have any 3.X books anymore but I'm pretty sure that they said "Minis are great, use them." 4E just continued that and made it a key part of the business strategy. It was quite obvious that 4E was explicitly designed with minis in mind and WotC clearly intended to push minis, though that seemed to flop. It was almost a minis game and was designed to compete with the numerous mini games around at the time, along with having a lot of things pulled in from competitors like WoW.

As far as today, the online world, lacking the information-rich environment that comes with all being in the same room together really benefits from a map. In general I try to come up with something decent but there can be some real limitations due to lack of good maps (or time/ability to draw them). One thing I have found playing with a map has changed is the kinds of encounters I run. I used to run much more simple things like, oh, 8 orcs, due to the fact that without a map it was often easier to do that. That kind of encounter seems rather troublesome for a map, so I tend to run larger set pieces when I go through the trouble of making a map. On the other hand, I would also run in multiple dimensions or other things that are hard to depict on a map, so there are some definite advantages not using one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ace

Adventurer
Playing D&D theater of mind is not a new thing. My groups played 1e and 2e and 3e and 3.5 as well as Pathfinder sans miniatures without any issues (we never played 4)

In any case lending a character a figure and teaching them how to use the grid is a very low barrier of entry.

Now there was loads of fantasy in the 1980's but it was never as mainstream as it is now and it was somewhat age segregated, middle aged people with few exceptions didn't play, women played in smaller numbers and while many people you wouldn't expect whiled away a summer playing, it was a kids/young adult thing

What's helping D&D now and this is my opinion here is that fantasy is more popular than ever and new people are exposed to the tropes via video games, streaming play and the myriad of books and movies . This has lead to a broader player base which is great for the hobby

A last thing, the last time D&D was hugely popular was when the rules were simple and streamlined like they were in Basic/Expert. Overly complex games can act as a barrier of entry for a lot of otherwise great players. Now there is market for such things, Rolemaster is still out there and GURPS is doing every well but on the whole, its a niche within the hobby

5E balances the various aspects very well, low barrier of entry but enough meat for more experienced gamers. It might be the best D&D yet
 

I think pretty much everyone who started in 1974-76 were miniature gamers, and most used miniatures. The numbers dilute as you go out from there. We continued our war gaming habits; using rulers / yardsticks to measure distance outdoors, using templates for areas of effect, and laying out terrain as needed. D&D was an extension of our miniature gaming. From the beginning I laid out "dungeons" on graph paper (10' to the square) and used cardstock with 1 inch squares penciled on it (equal to 5') for indoor combat. Town, village, lairs and castles ended up being laid out dungeon style on graph paper. My dad was an engineer and we had access to large rolls of graph paper (up to 42" wide and measured in yards). My players were very tactical in their approach (wargamers...), they were aware of cover, chokepoints, lines of sight and so on. We had a blast. It was a series of skirmish level battles played out with miniatures. The game just kept supplying us with new scenarios. My group loved the social / roleplaying aspects too. D@mn, I was lucky :)
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Playing D&D theater of mind is not a new thing.

Definitely.



What's helping D&D now and this is my opinion here is that fantasy is more popular than ever and new people are exposed to the tropes via video games, streaming play and the myriad of books and movies . This has lead to a broader player base which is great for the hobby

I think this is right. It's not the giant reach for a lot of people it used to be.
 

Henry

Autoexreginated
I and the groups I’m in rarely play without minis, and back in AD&D1 and AD&D2 days, we played with minis of some sort, too (back then it was Risk pieces, with the I’s and III’s representing mooks and big bad guys, and the V’s representing the PCs.)

Since then I’ve found a LOT of people who played without minis, and it was quite the adjustment to realize I was probably in the minority. However, I note that even well-known actual plays like Critical Role and Glass Cannon still use minis, despite this article talking about how lack of minis play helps enable podcasting, etc.
 


S

Sunseeker

Guest
I'd like to add our minis are mostly representational. We don't really use them for grid-based tactical play, and I personally don't feel they're necessary for tactical play. I only bust out the grid when I need to draw up a picture or diagram of something the players are looking at. Or when I'm using my Random Dungeon Tiles.

It's really just too darn easy to bump minis around. I've yet to come up with a good solution to that. Would be really killer if someone made a magnetic dry-erase tile board, and magnetic mini bases. I'd buy soooooo many of those.
 

Paul3

Explorer
It is great that the game supports both those who use minis and those who don't, but connecting not using minis with the rise of streaming games (many/most of which do in fact use gridded combat) seems like a pretty big jump.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top