• 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

A lot of WoW, for a lot of players, comes down to raid-boss encounters. (Presumably it's also a feature in WoW-clones, but I haven't played any of those to end-game, so I can't say for certain.) The way that they integrate once-per-encounter powers in WoW is to give them a re-charge time around ten minutes, since that's about how long it takes to attempt a raid-boss and then re-group if you failed (or fight your way through the trash, if you succeed).

More generally speaking, when I started playing 4E (well before I had done any raiding), encounter powers seemed directly analogous to the two-minute cooldown powers that you could use about once per fight while questing, and daily powers seemed like one-hour cooldown powers that you had to save unless you absolutely needed them. They didn't seem analogous to CRPGs or card games in any way, because I'd never played a CRPG that had once-per-encounter abilities (unless you count FF7, where spell usage per combat was limited by materia growth), and turns in a card game just didn't seem analogous to individual combat encounters in any way.

I'm not saying that the AED system was copied from World of Warcraft, or that it couldn't have been influenced by any number of other sources. I am saying that, if someone had been tasked with directly converting the WoW style of class abilities where everything had a different length of cooldown, then they probably would have ended up with something very similar to AED. And given the probability of ending up with the AED system if they had intentionally taken that approach, compared to the probability of ending up with the AED system if they'd looked at any number of CRPGs (most of which still resembled the classic D&D model, with daily-only resources) and card games, it's statistically meaningful evidence for the former over the latter.

There are some problems with what you've written above.

Back in 2006 and 2007 when 4e was being designed, WoW was at Vanilla and Burning Crusades. At that point in its history you're looking at Cooldown schedules almost universally at the following intervals:

6 seconds (standard specials)
15 seconds (nonstandard specials or specials that interfaced with/required other abilities)
30 seconds (short term cooldowns)
1 minute (mid-term cooldowns)
3 minutes (major cooldowns or build-defining cooldowns that were typically 31 point talents)
6 minutes (eg major-er cooldowns that were typically build-neutral but class-defining)
10 minutes (eg Rebirth or in-combat rez)

Depending on the class function/utility, build, damage/threat/healing rotation, you would have some number of these. Most boss fights were in the neighborhood of 6-12 minutes (depending on the fight, the skill of your players/execution, and the construction of your raid group). In no way did the WoW endgame raid environment cooldown setup (which was completely asymmetrical across classes, unlike AEDU) resemble the 4e paradigm. You had nothing resembling cross-class, or even cross-build resource scheduling symmetry (like in 4e). Further, the paradigm wasn't remotely reminiscent (on paper or in play) of at-will (A), once/scene (E), once/adventure or day (D). You had a mish-mash of:

* Specials-spamming (dozens and dozens of deployments)
* short term CD timing to coincide with other abilities (10+ to optimize payload)
* mid-term CDs (6-8 deployments which were pretty much universally for utility or an assist in managing some aspect of an offensive/support rotation)
* long-term CDs several times (3-4) for (pretty much universally for massive damage/healing spikes/AoE or survivability)
* your huge CDs (should you even ave them at all...several classes/builds didn't) once or twice or not at all if the situation couldn't leverage them

So, yeah. Under even the slightest of rigor in examination, one can see that 4e and WoW's resource scheduling weren't like each other (in the important aspects of 1 cross-class symmetry of scheduling, 2 scheduling analogue generally, and 3 fiction/scheduling relationship).

Again, very, very, very superficially like WoW and like dozens of other games/media. I never saw people who (a) liked/played/understood WoW and (b) liked/played/understood 4e make this comparison. I only saw it from edition warriors who had contempt for one or both games and were ignorant of one or both paradigms because it could be easily weaponized to call 4e shallow and get like-minded ignorant and angry edition warriors to disingenuously repeat the meme.

4e combat, when run (both GM and players) correctly/coherently by people who knew what they were doing resembled something much closer to a thematic, fiction-relevant (short-term and long-term stakes and relevant, dynamic fictional positioning) game of opposing M;tG teams with some sort of wild-card feature in play (where stunting/terrain would come into play). It felt nothing from a mechanical overhead perspective or a general feel/ambiance of a WoW raid.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
I have heard about the White Wolf system, but I still don't understand it. What exactly is a "scene" in the context of how the world is supposed to work?

It's very much like in a movie.
A scene could be various things: Combat, a chase, a social interaction, investigation, etc. For example, thinking in a game like Vampire: the Masquerade, a social scene might be:

You're new in town. You need to get introduced to the Prince. You had already made yourself known to the prince's agent and he sets up a meeting inside the nightclub that he uses for his headquarters. The scene happens when you're brought into the Prince's office. He sits you down, offers you blood in a crystal glass and starts asking you questions. This may involve several rolls, usually on social skills, depending on how RP goes. Some of these may be by you, others by the prince. Depending on how things go, he offers you a provisional place in his city, tells you to get lost, or as you are leaving carefully pushes the concealed button under his desk that indicates that the two vampires and six ghouls waiting outside with loaded shotguns are to finish you off when you leave.... The scene ends when you leave the Prince's office.

In 4E terms these would be encounters or skill challenges.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Most 4E adventures were written as a series of narratively connected set pieces, either combats or SCs.
Having converted a few 4e adventures to my old-school system and run them I can very much concur with this statement at least as far as the 4e adventures I've seen/converted/run go.

What I found was that the combat set-pieces were mostly* very good - a true strength of 4e adventure design, IMO - but the SC set-pieces needed to be stripped out and converted to either role-play or exploration pieces in a more old-school sense.

* - my one almost-universal complaint was that the writers tended to ignore the consequences and what-ifs of the party going off script and-or not approaching the encounter as expected; and while modules from all editions and eras have had this issue, for some reason I found it most problematic in the 4e modules.

Lanefan
 

It's very much like in a movie.
A scene could be various things: Combat, a chase, a social interaction, investigation, etc.
Okay, but how is that supposed to work in context of actually living in that world? When I'm playing as my magical elf, or vampire or whatever, how do I know that my once-per-scene ability has been refreshed?
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Having converted a few 4e adventures to my old-school system and run them I can very much concur with this statement at least as far as the 4e adventures I've seen/converted/run go.

What I found was that the combat set-pieces were mostly* very good - a true strength of 4e adventure design, IMO - but the SC set-pieces needed to be stripped out and converted to either role-play or exploration pieces in a more old-school sense.

Yeah, SCs were very railroad-y. They did a good job with the combat oftentimes, partly because 4E was a pretty solid minis game for the most part. There were flaws: For example, early 4E monster design left many monsters as essentially punching bags with too many hit points and not nearly enough offense.


* - my one almost-universal complaint was that the writers tended to ignore the consequences and what-ifs of the party going off script and-or not approaching the encounter as expected; and while modules from all editions and eras have had this issue, for some reason I found it most
problematic in the 4e modules.

This is a general problem with narratively-driven games, of course.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Okay, but how is that supposed to work in context of actually living in that world? When I'm playing as my magical elf, or vampire or whatever, how do I know that my once-per-scene ability has been refreshed?

Scenes didn't delineate when an ability was refreshed. Instead they delineated when a duration ended. They would typically end when the Storyteller said "OK, the scene ends." A good ST would make it pretty obvious, though. Refreshing usually required rest or some other resource gathering. For instance, in VtM abilities were driven primarily using blood. You had to pay blood costs to activate an ability. How much that would cost depended on the ability. Blood was recovered when you fed and was also lost when you were active, thereby requiring you to go hunting to keep active. Of course, clever vampires had backup supplies, such as old blood bank blood, to make sure they stayed topped up. Finding a source was a key part of the game. Other games had other resources. In Mage: the Ascension, often your effects didn't require any particular resource, but you could use some to make it more likely your casting would succeed or do well.
 

Certainly, had the DMG1 had better explanation of when to use/ how to use / why to use AND had actually proofed the math so that the mechanic gave the results advertised then I think they'd have gone over more smoothly.

I don't disagree. Explanation and iteration were certainly part of the problem, but smuggling in play priorities that don't mesh with dramatic/abstract scene resolution (whether rightly or wrongly) is also a problem (which can circle back to explanation). I also think if most everyone who ran/played 4e had experience playing/running dramatic scene-based games, the machinery would have been easily understood and deployed in a coherent fashion.

For instance, you don't see Blades in the Dark GMs/players or Cortex+ GMs/players complaining about Competing Clocks or Social Action Scenes or Heists being static, dice-rolling affairs.

Even if you're a GM who can and has run more scene-based / narrative-based games, it doesn't mean you want all RPGs you run to operate that way. That's why I choose different games after all, to change the feel at the table.

I'm sure you know I agree with that (hence my post above), which is the same reason why I run a great many different types of games.

With respect to D&D though, the same thing works the other way (and a third way if you feel like D&D is really a gamist, puzzle-solving, dungeon-exploration test of hard-earned skill).

At its heart, much of this discussion (and the last edition war) comes down to "what is the essence of D&D" and "who does it belong to." There is an enormous contingent of (remaining) folks on ENWorld who feel "the essence of D&D" is (something like) D&D kitchen sink tropes/AD&D default cosmology, Sim priority with related granular exploration (with attendant task resolution) of granular/established setting and/or AP/metaplot, non-mythic martial heroes, and a GM who is very heavily involved in action resolution/plot trajectory.

Given that there are always going to be significant disagreement on "the essence of D&D" and "who does D&D belong to" along with EXTREME variance in investment in those questions, entertaining those questions (and relating them to your quote from above) is always going to (effectively) be either a battle cry or a reason to say "eff it" and walk away from conversation.

I think the video game stuff came from some superficial similarities with WoW (and other MMO) power/recharge mechanics. Looking at 4e, I didn't see that I saw an attempt for tying resource constraint to narrative arc more than anything.

Covered this in my post above and the one before that.
 

Again, very, very, very superficially like WoW and like dozens of other games/media.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. To me, and to many others, the similarity seems obvious. It's not exact, any more than you'd expect a translation from real-time-with-cooldowns to turn-based-in-six-second-increments would be, but it's close enough.

One innovation in 4E was in tying every class to exactly the same schedule. In that way, early WoW more-closely resembles 5E, where each class has a different allocation between short-rest and long-rest abilities.
I never saw people who (a) liked/played/understood WoW and (b) liked/played/understood 4e make this comparison. I only saw it from edition warriors who had contempt for one or both games and were ignorant of one or both paradigms because it could be easily weaponized to call 4e shallow and get like-minded ignorant and angry edition warriors to disingenuously repeat the meme.
That could be biasing your perspective, then. In my local scene, even the big fans of 4E will call it very WoW-like, and everyone is very quick to acknowledge how that's not a bad thing at all.
 

Scenes didn't delineate when an ability was refreshed. Instead they delineated when a duration ended. They would typically end when the Storyteller said "OK, the scene ends."
The Storyteller doesn't exist within the game world, though. My character can't ask the Storyteller whether the scene is finished or not, or hear what they tell me at the table. That's my issue with a lot of scene-based mechanics, is the disconnect between player and character. (If Vampires regain resources by resting, or feeding, then that's fine; it's something that actually exists within the world, which the character can understand and interact with.) It happened in late 3.x, as well, as soon as they introduce "per encounter" abilities; you had players trying to trigger the encounter flag by initiating trivial encounters, and the DM was left fumbling for excuses as to why it didn't actually work that way.

I feel like the only way to interact with scene-based game-play is as a player rather than as a character, because if the character tried to understand it, then it wouldn't make sense to them.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
The Storyteller doesn't exist within the game world, though. <...> I feel like the only way to interact with scene-based game-play is as a player rather than as a character, because if the character tried to understand it, then it wouldn't make sense to them.

That could certainly be an issue and they did have a time limit for scene-based powers in case it mattered... 5 minutes sounds right, but I don't really recall for sure. Despite it sounding wishy-washy, I generally found that it worked OK because our group navigated fairly well what "a scene" meant to us. We all knew reasonably well "yeah, that felt like the end of a scene."

As to players initiating trivial encounters, in a game like VtM that's gonna get you. Recall that your resource spend is blood, which is a hard currency. In MtA you started running risks for casting over and over in the form of the dreaded Paradox. And, ultimately, there's no game-mechanical benefit for doing that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top