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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

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.

Though if you limited the game to those GMs experienced with dramatic scene-based games, you are certainly limiting the potential pool of games. I'm not sure even then you'd get coherent cross-table play; I don't think WotC knew what it was they were delivering sufficiently well to target a specific play style. Hence the relatively poor "influencing the baron" example SC.

Could specific DMs perform well with the game? Absolutely proven to be true. By all accounts I've read, later iterations of advice was much better targeted and focused on the type of play well-supported by the tools provided (and the tools themselves went through a whole bunch of iterations to fix the math, extend options, and generally become more usable).

In many ways the original SC could be viewed as a formalization of extended skill use seen in a lot of games and a lot of tables even those with "sim" priorities.

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.

It is a problem often seen in sequels and later versions of pretty much everything. What can we change to suit *our* preferences and/or answer generalized criticism about the product without seriously annoying the more passionate customers of our previous version? The more passionate the customer base, the greater the risk. When you decide the change the basic expectation for play style, you really need to prepare the audience, provide copious well-designed examples, and be prepared to answer the terrible question: "Why?" over and over again.

If the change is large enough or the divisions run deep enough, you may even want to have a couple of versions available for purchase. It helps to prevent defections en masse to a savvy competitor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

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?

A scene generally is defined more by when it ends...
As I understand it for White wolf, pretty much a scene ends when...
  • PC's change location significantly
  • focus changes from PC's at location A to those at location B
  • PC(s) leave(s) with NPC(s) for "Private Scene", even if in same overall space as the preceding scene
  • Combat has ended and any immediate follow-up is done (tying up prisoners, first aid, or defacing the bodies)
  • You go to downtime activities
  • all PC's sleep or enter torpor (or go on extended watch over others who are)
  • for Vampires, sun-up/sun-down can be used as a scene end, as well.
 

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.

I think that it is quite interesting that two people can look at the same data and not only draw the opposite conclusions but also accuse the other of being disingenuous.
 


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.
Or even just /hadn't/ internalized the sort of rules-as-laws-of-physics backwards-simulation ('process sim' I guess the Forge called it) that seemed so common in D&D circles.

I did notice that the 'real roleplayer'/'storyteller' set that I happened to know took to 4e easily, as did entirely new players, while long-time D&Ders who weren't into a lot (or any) other games were stymied by it. A big part of the appeal of D&D is the consistency it's had from edition to edition over the decades - I know, it doesn't seem like a lot of consistency, but going Basic>Advanced>2e>3e>PF>5e is a lot less change/more consistency than going 0D&D>Traveler>RQII>Superworld>Over the Edge>Storyteller>FATE>Godlike>Gumshoe>etc.

Dunno about you but I always smell a rat whenever I'm told "yeah, we didn't do something... but, really, you're better off because we didn't bother, so you should be the one thanking us!"
To be fair, D&D has done that sort of not doing a /lot/. So have the few games that seriously challenged it, like Storyteller and PF.

Presumably part of the organisation of organised play includes supplying material. My understanding is that the organised play for 4e included a lot of stuff.
Encounters had complete little modules that were laid out in a very easy to run, linear, session-by-session way, with poster maps, tokens, and pregen characters - all you needed was dice.
But, yeah, the 4e default 'setting' was not a setting, but a suggestion of a setting, rather like Greyhawk in the early days of the hobby.
 

backwards-simulation ('process sim' I guess the Forge called it)
As far as I know "process sim" is a phrase that is used on these boards but not at the Forge. The closest Forge term is "purist for system" simulation.

Example of "purist for system" include RQ, RM, and Classic Traveller as they are typically played. I have nuch less experience of Harn Master and none of Chivalry & Sorcery other than a bit of reading but I'm pretty sure these would fall into the same camp.

What distinguishes those systems as typically played, and what (I think) the term "process sim" is meant to capture, is that every mechanical determination correlates in a pre-given fashion to some identifiable event or process in the fiction.

So in RM, a roll to hit is literally that - a roll to see if weapon contacts body. There is a chart that reflects different sorts of armour, which encoude the principle (true in the fiction, and at least purportedly grounded ina real-life principle) that heavier armour makes it harder to dodge blows, but will reduce the damage they inflict.

In RQ a roll to hit is slightly different - it is a roll to see if an attack forces the opponent to parry or dodge to avoid being struck. If the parry or dodge check then fails, the blow does strike. There is then a further mechanical process to determine if armour absorbs/deflects the blow.

Traveller's rules for attacking in person vs person combat are closer to D&D's - armour simply adjustts the roll to hit, and the attack resolution process doesn't tell you how a successful attack hurt its target (whereas RQ does this via hit location, and RM via the crit charts) - and so to that extent less "process sim". But there are other ingame phenomena and events that it tracks more rigorously than RM or RQ, such as morale (for both PCs and NPCs).

None of this is "backwards simulation". It is not reading the mechanics back into the in-fiction processes. (An example of backwards simulation in RM is the PC build rules: these are designed to, among other things, acieve a degree of class balance, and reading those back into the fiction, to reach the conclusion that they model a world in which studying magic causally impedes one's ability to master weapon play would be a case of backwards simulation.)

3E and PF are often described as "process sim"/simulationist games, but I think that's too simplistic. The grapple rules in 3E clearly do try and simulate a series of ingame events/processes that culminate in a creature being grappled; the disarm and trip rules are comparable in this respect. But the core combat mechanics remain similar to classic D&D, and are not naturally conducive to that sort of simulationist approach, because there is nothing in particular that (i) getting a defensive bonus corresponds to , and (ii) that losing hp corresponds to.

Eg of (i) - the rules label a red dragon's AC bonus as "natural armour", but it's not clear what - in the fiction - that equates to: given that the best bonus from magical plate armour is only half some of the upper end nautral armour bonuses, it is clear that the "natural" armour of a red dragon can somehow outstrip what even the greatest dwarven artificer can forge, but why? Reading this back into the fiction would be a type of "backwards simulation".

Eg of (ii) - any hit points thread ever will remind us that the rules don't mandate that losing hit points corresponds to any particular sort of occurence in the fiction other than the tautologous "that bit of fighting went against you".
 

3E and PF are often described as "process sim"/simulationist games, but I think that's too simplistic. The grapple rules in 3E clearly do try and simulate a series of ingame events/processes that culminate in a creature being grappled; the disarm and trip rules are comparable in this respect. But the core combat mechanics remain similar to classic D&D, and are not naturally conducive to that sort of simulationist approach, because there is nothing in particular that (i) getting a defensive bonus corresponds to , and (ii) that losing hp corresponds to.

Eg of (i) - the rules label a red dragon's AC bonus as "natural armour", but it's not clear what - in the fiction - that equates to: given that the best bonus from magical plate armour is only half some of the upper end nautral armour bonuses, it is clear that the "natural" armour of a red dragon can somehow outstrip what even the greatest dwarven artificer can forge, but why? Reading this back into the fiction would be a type of "backwards simulation".

Eg of (ii) - any hit points thread ever will remind us that the rules don't mandate that losing hit points corresponds to any particular sort of occurence in the fiction other than the tautologous "that bit of fighting went against you".

I would disagree that either Defensive Bonus or Losing HP correspond to nothing in particular. Usually it is obvious from both the fiction and the narrative that if you have a shield giving you a Defensive Bonus or even magical Dragon scales for example. And usually it is very clear that being attacked by someone with a sword will give you sword damage to your HPs rather then some kind of miscellaneous tautology.
 


I don't know what "sword damage" is.

Damage you take from a sword attack is sword damage. Damage you take from a fire attack is fire damage.

What is the difference, are they not just the same miscellaneous damage to hit points?

Well, no. If you are a Tiefling with damage resistance to fire then you would be taking less fire damage. If you wear Adamantine armour you would be taking less damage from swords.

Therefore the rules do mandate that losing hit points must correspond to the particular occurence in the fiction.
 

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.

I do not know if this has been mentioned already but a fair amount had to do with presentation and more specifically the presentation of the powers in the PHB (which Hussar has mentioned plenty on these boards) - similar to many PC games (including D&D games, Diablo, WoW, DotA, HoN...etc) when one activates a ability or spell and watching the ability or spell slowly refresh itself.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top