• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! 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

I could never get into 4e, because it felt like a purely "combat" game with little personality. I love 13th Age, however, and have been hearing lots of differing opinions on 4e. Maybe should take another look.:)

What's the difference between having no role playing rules because you'll assume everyone will just freeform it versus having no roleplaying rules because you think it isn't important?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Staffan

Legend
I think people whine way too much about minis. Literally anything can be a mini. I've used pewter minis, I've used plastic minis, I've used LEGO minifigs, I've used dice, I've used pennies. This isn't like World of Warcraft where you need to actually create your character in order to play. Also: Almost every D&Der I know loves minis! People complaining about a $5 mini being a barrier to entry to a game whose player-facing book is $50 and a standard set of dice is another $5-$15 is just silly.
The problem is that it's usually not a $5 mini. It's one per PC, plus all the crap you're fighting. For example, take the monsters from The Sunless Citadel (the first 3e adventure Wizards published), with the highest numbers you can fight at once:
[sblock]Twig Blight 10
Dire Rat 3
Oversized dire rat 1
Skeleton 5
Quasit 1
Kobold 15
Kobold sorcerer 1
Goblin 8
Goblin cleric 1
Hobgoblin 3
Hobgoblin chief 1
Troll 1
Water mephit 1
Cave rats 8
Gnome cleric 1
White wyrmling 1
Bugbear 1
Thoqqua 1
Shadow 1
Druid 1
Paladin 1
Wizard 1[/sblock]
That's about 70 monsters - for one adventure. That's a lot of dough if you want to have minis for everything.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The problem is that it's usually not a $5 mini. It's one per PC
Which you get the players to provide, for the character(s) they play.

plus all the crap you're fighting. For example, take the monsters from The Sunless Citadel (the first 3e adventure Wizards published), with the highest numbers you can fight at once:
Some cheap but perfectly functional alternatives for each of these:

Twig Blight 10 - any little bits of wood you can find e.g. saw a pencil into ten pieces
Dire Rat 3 - coloured glass beads
Oversized dire rat 1 - a bigger coloured glass bead, or just one of a different colour
Skeleton 5 - game pawns (10 or 12 for a buck at your local dollar store)
Quasit 1 - game pawn or something distinctive - a chess piece?
Kobold 15 - game pawns or anything else small - toy soldiers?
Kobold sorcerer 1 - whatever you used for the quasit if they're met at different times
Goblin 8 - game pawns again
Goblin cleric 1 - whatever you used for the quasit, above
Hobgoblin 3 - toy soldiers (20+ for a buck at your local dollar store)
Hobgoblin chief 1 - different-colour toy soldier, paint one if you have to
Troll 1 - a king or queen piece from a chess set
Water mephit 1 - whatever you used for the quasit, above
Cave rats 8 - glass beads
Gnome cleric 1 - whatever you used for the quasit, above
White wyrmling 1 - a plastic dinosaur (5 for a buck at the dollar store)
Bugbear 1 - a king or queen piece from a chess set
Thoqqua 1 - a piece of coloured chalk
Shadow 1 - a game pawn, or a piece of black fluff if you want to be creative
Druid 1 - a game pawn, or an actual mini if there's any extras e.g. from dead PCs
Paladin 1 - as per the druid above, or a painted toy soldier
Wizard 1 - as per the druid above

That's about 70 monsters - for one adventure. That's a lot of dough if you want to have minis for everything.
The point is, you can have "minis" for everything without having to buy actual costly minis for everything. Other than maybe the three classed characters at the end of the list, even if you couldn't find any of these things (or reasonable substitutes) lying around the house the whole lot would cost at most 5 or 6 dollars; and you can easily re-use the same objects at different times to represent different monsters as shown above.

Lan-"though I've got lots of 'real' minis now, I still most often use the game pawns because finding the right minis for the monsters just takes too long"-efan
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
I could never get into 4e, because it felt like a purely "combat" game with little personality. I love 13th Age, however, and have been hearing lots of differing opinions on 4e. Maybe should take another look.:)

I'll agree that the rules of any game, focus the players. However, the biggest determiner of the personality of the game is the personality of the group playing it. If I ran a combat only session then yes, it's a pure combat game. If I ran a session where all characters were at court, then it took on the personalities of the players and their characters.

Generally, role-playing doesn't change when you staple combat rules on top of it. But if you have a DM and players that obsess over the grid all the time, then sure, the game isn't an RPG in the best sense of the term.

Edit because I hit submit too quickly. The best campaign I ever ran was done with 4e. The reason it was the best was because the players were hardcore larpers at one point in time with at least two of them theatre majors. By then I had also done a bunch of improvisation and public speaking work. When it was time to turn the game into minis and monsters, everyone was ready for some good 'ole blowoff.

YMMV but I really appreciated 4e.

KB
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
The problem is that it's usually not a $5 mini. It's one per PC, plus all the crap you're fighting. For example, take the monsters from The Sunless Citadel (the first 3e adventure Wizards published), with the highest numbers you can fight at once:
[sblock]Twig Blight 10
Dire Rat 3
Oversized dire rat 1
Skeleton 5
Quasit 1
Kobold 15
Kobold sorcerer 1
Goblin 8
Goblin cleric 1
Hobgoblin 3
Hobgoblin chief 1
Troll 1
Water mephit 1
Cave rats 8
Gnome cleric 1
White wyrmling 1
Bugbear 1
Thoqqua 1
Shadow 1
Druid 1
Paladin 1
Wizard 1[/sblock]
That's about 70 monsters - for one adventure. That's a lot of dough if you want to have minis for everything.

Solution

30mm miniature bases that will fit inside a 1" square - usually 5 bucks for 30 of them.
1" hole punch for sticker paper. - 10 bucks.
8.5" x 11 white sticker stock - shop around, usually 100 count for anywhere between 12.95 and 50 bucks depending on gloss
computer - you already have one. - sunk cost
gimp - free version of photoshop
find a tutorial online from one of the DM sites - free
search for images of your desired monsters - free

The above list would take about 3 hours of your time to set up the first time you did it.
70 monsters total cost 45 bucks. Most of which you'd find the ability to reuse and reduce cost for your next module.

Whether or not that's cost effective for your example.. YMMV

Be well
KB
 

JonnyP71

Explorer
Back in the 80s, I was a DM for BECMI D&D. I never understood how miniatures would be useful, or even what the rules would be to use them. We occasionally put down some sort of jury-rigged tokens to mark marching order, and that was it. When I saw advertisements for miniatures, I thought they looked cool, and I even bought like two or three, but they were just nice little "D&D statues" to me. At the most, I just used it as a symbol of marching order. That's just the way we rolled.

That's precisely how we saw them, in fact that's all we assumed that they were for...

I dropped out of the hobby from about 1992-2012, when I came back I looked at a few videos on that new-fangled Youtube thingy and saw lots of people using grids and moving things around. My initial thought was 'That's not D&D!! What's happened to it????'

Still refuse to play/DM using a grid (grognard gnashing of teeth), but nowadays we do use an ungridded whiteboard and move minis around on it because my current (younger) group have the attention spans of Goldfish... we only use them for general positions though, nothing precise. No counting of squares, no measuring 30', nothing like that.
 

aramis erak

Legend
Solution

30mm miniature bases that will fit inside a 1" square - usually 5 bucks for 30 of them.
1" hole punch for sticker paper. - 10 bucks.
8.5" x 11 white sticker stock - shop around, usually 100 count for anywhere between 12.95 and 50 bucks depending on gloss
computer - you already have one. - sunk cost
gimp - free version of photoshop
find a tutorial online from one of the DM sites - free
search for images of your desired monsters - free

The above list would take about 3 hours of your time to set up the first time you did it.
70 monsters total cost 45 bucks. Most of which you'd find the ability to reuse and reduce cost for your next module.

Whether or not that's cost effective for your example.. YMMV

Be well
KB

Sampler set of Meeples: $9.50 (21 colors); $65 for 10 of each color
Set of 10x 12mm cubes: $2.45 x3 (to allow for 3 kinds of monsters)
Shipping $5 -ish
Sharpie to number said cubes $3

Looks great on the table, and less work than stickering.
Plus, allows using 16mm hexes or 3/4" squaregrid, if you choose, for smaller table footprint.

Swap for minimeeples, 8mm cubes, and 1/2" grids for even smaller tablespaces.
 

aramis erak

Legend
That's precisely how we saw them, in fact that's all we assumed that they were for...

I dropped out of the hobby from about 1992-2012, when I came back I looked at a few videos on that new-fangled Youtube thingy and saw lots of people using grids and moving things around. My initial thought was 'That's not D&D!! What's happened to it????'

Still refuse to play/DM using a grid (grognard gnashing of teeth), but nowadays we do use an ungridded whiteboard and move minis around on it because my current (younger) group have the attention spans of Goldfish... we only use them for general positions though, nothing precise. No counting of squares, no measuring 30', nothing like that.

Photos of play at conventions in 1975-76, shown in photos in Strategic Review (the precursor to Dragon magazine) show minis on grids, and 3D terrain. Especially for the EPT variant of D&D. Early issues of Dragon, as well, show extensive use of minis and terrain.

My own conversations with Dave Arneson (via email) note that he did use minis for combat "a good bit" but not all the time.
 

JonnyP71

Explorer
I played here in the UK from about 1983 to 1992, and apart from a copy of White Dwarf once in a blue moon, never read the magazines. Thus my gaming knowledge was limited to my own social circles though school and University - none of which used grids and minis.
 

Arilyn

Hero
I'll agree that the rules of any game, focus the players. However, the biggest determiner of the personality of the game is the personality of the group playing it. If I ran a combat only session then yes, it's a pure combat game. If I ran a session where all characters were at court, then it took on the personalities of the players and their characters.

Generally, role-playing doesn't change when you staple combat rules on top of it. But if you have a DM and players that obsess over the grid all the time, then sure, the game isn't an RPG in the best sense of the term.

Edit because I hit submit too quickly. The best campaign I ever ran was done with 4e. The reason it was the best was because the players were hardcore larpers at one point in time with at least two of them theatre majors. By then I had also done a bunch of improvisation and public speaking work. When it was time to turn the game into minis and monsters, everyone was ready for some good 'ole blowoff.

YMMV but I really appreciated 4e.

KB

Usually, when I finish reading a new rpg, I get excited about making a character. This didn't happen with 4e, which was odd for me. Made a character anyway, and we ran a few adventures, but the usual roleplaying didn't happen. Couldn't get into it.

I would like to try again, because we may have sold the game short. It shares some similarities with 13th Age, after all. And people who have similar play styles to mine are seeing things in the game that I didn't. I still have my books, so I would like to give it another shot.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top