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

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.
What, there's a vague similarity between D&D and the CRPGs that imitated it?
And, it's pretty vague. Taking a short or long rest seems conceptually distinct from a 'cool down' that just happens.

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.
What? Really?

IDK what is about Forge terminology, but it always seems so utterly unintuitive to me, like a major part of the brainstorming going on there was picking out the absolute worst possible word of phrase to label a theory with. ::sigh::

Example of "purist for system" include RQ, RM, and Classic Traveller as they are typically played.
I thought you'd said in the past they were 'simulationist?'

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.
Yeah, that's more or less the sense I'd gotten from 'process sim,' I'm just taking it a step further, I guess...


None of this is "backwards simulation". It is not reading the mechanics back into the in-fiction processes.
But that is something I observe in D&D. D&D is not a simulation, not even a bad one, it's very abstract, but people do, none-the-less, treat it as if it were. The only way to do that is to reverse the normal pathway of simulation, from reality to model to simulation: so D&D is treated as a /simulation of D&D/, which, of course, it simulates perfectly.

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".
And I'd say that happens.

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".
Yet every hp thread goes there: hit points are damage, so every hit point is somehow a 'wound' that takes a long time to heal, because, back in the day, healing naturally took a long time.

I don't know what "sword damage" is.
In 1e, 1-8/1-12, in 3e d8(19-20/x2), and, in 3e & 5e, 'slashing.' ;)

IRL: gruesome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
While I agree with you, and I don't think it's been mentioned yet, there's also a similar similarity to certain card games. In fact, 4E was the first time I'd ever seen anyone print out power cards to keep in their hand for quick reference, and it instantly made me feel like I was playing Magic when I was at the table.

There are other games which go further, and actually tell you to print their powers out as cards, with convenient page formatting and everything. I think there are some that even have complicated rules about drawing and discarding, since they expect you'll have cards anyway, so they really run with the theme. With 4E, though, it definitely feels more like they started from an MMO standpoint, and the fact that it ended up resembling a card-based game was more-or-less a coincidence.
 

I thought you'd said in the past they were 'simulationist?'
"Purist for system" simulationism. That's not the only mode of simulationism that Ron Edwards discusses.

But that is something I observe in D&D. D&D is not a simulation, not even a bad one, it's very abstract, but people do, none-the-less, treat it as if it were.
Agreed, and that was what my examples were about. The purist for system FRGPs were all various sorts of reactions against D&D (RQ, RM, C&S, etc). But 3E adapting some of the tropes of those games, and emulating some aspects of their mechanics in some outposts of resolution (eg grappling, disarming, tripping), has resulted in a conception of D&D play as simulationist play. (Maybe in your experience this predates 3E? I can't rule that out, but I don't think I personally encountered it.)
 

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.
And what is the occurrence?

There are no serious injuries (we can tell that from how it heals and how it doesn't impede; plus the magic rules tell us that if anything got chopped off we'd need regenerate, nor cure X wounds, to heal it).

What damage resistance amounts to is more like When fire is being used, tieflings are able to take it better than ordinary people or If you're wearing adamantine armour, then mundane weaponry is less of a threat to you.
 

What, there's a vague similarity between D&D and the CRPGs that imitated it? And, it's pretty vague.

As I mentioned in the part of my post you didn't quote - and what Hussar I feel has been right all along, a lot has to do with 4e's presentation. The fact that there were power cards very much blew away any vagueness for many of us.

Taking a short or long rest seems conceptually distinct from a 'cool down' that just happens.

4e was so precise with its AEDU and refresh rates that many of us saw similarities between the games. This is not attack of the system, but an observation that was identified by some. And this analysis of the system and comparison was encouraged by the different presentation of the PHB.

To be honest I joined a new group during the 2009 period (as my own was on hiatus for a while). I had not be online or been following the news/style of 4e. When I heard of 4e I went and bought the PHB and to say I was very confused by its look and perhaps disappointed would be an understatement (the art did not help). And I had been playing since 88-89. I'm probably aware my experience might not be common - and others would have done their homework before buying. What made it worse was the group I joined was horrid (for me).

In 2012 I joined Enworld to get a better idea of where the hobby was going.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

As I mentioned in the part of my post you didn't quote - and what Hussar I feel has been right all along, a lot has to do with 4e's presentation. The fact that there were power cards very much blew away any vagueness for many of us.

4e was so precise with its AEDU and refresh rates that many of us saw similarities between the games.
The weird thing about this, for me, is that spell cards, magic item cards, etc, existed for AD&D. And AD&D also had abilities with precise "refresh rates": hit points, spell recovery, lay on hands, etc.
 

The weird thing about this, for me, is that spell cards, magic item cards, etc, existed for AD&D. And AD&D also had abilities with precise "refresh rates": hit points, spell recovery, lay on hands, etc.

The cards were previously for spells and magic items... not class abilities, they weren't part of an official character builder, refresh rates weren't standardized the same across all classes for all powers, previously they weren't necessary for all classes to play the game without constantly referencing the book... and so on. Each of these factors along with others I haven't mentioned made them both more prevalent in use and gave the mechanics a more artificial/mechanical feel in play for many. It's like claiming that because there is tablespoon of salt in a dish there shouldn't be any complaints when the cook ups the amount to a cup...
 

The weird thing about this, for me, is that spell cards, magic item cards, etc, existed for AD&D.

Yes true, but the actual PHB (not some D&D gimmick accessories) presented the powers in card blocks. Presentation matters a lot.

And AD&D also had abilities with precise "refresh rates": hit points, spell recovery, lay on hands, etc.

The AEDU was hard coded into the system for EVERY class.
 

The weird thing about this, for me, is that spell cards, magic item cards, etc, existed for AD&D. And AD&D also had abilities with precise "refresh rates": hit points, spell recovery, lay on hands, etc.

Indeed there were some of those things - yet the spell cards and magic cards were used by a fairly small minority of users, in my experience. They were a rarely seen convenience. Daily refresh rates also benefit from being very easy to conceptualize and grasp - those activities apparently tire the wielder out, sleep refreshes. Very easy to see how the abstraction relates to a concept of reality. Plus there's the issue of what contributes to what overbears. I love garlic - I put it in a lot of the things I cook where it enhances the flavor. Yet I don't put it on corn flakes, in my beer, or my ice cream or in absolutely everything I cook because then it would be an overwhelming element. Someone might choose to do so, someone else might avoid it all entirely. I like some resource management, I like particularly types of resource management, I didn't like 4e's structure for powers and found it overbore any fun I got out of the game.

But AEDU refresh rates, of course, weren't the only aspects of the 4e structure that invoked MMORGs to some of us. The way powers were structured and picked up, the way PC roles were reflected by mechanics, they all reminded me of City of Heroes in particular (not WoW which I have almost no experience with).

You and other 4e fans didn't see the connection - fine. I don't really care that you didn't - but I did. What always galled me (and still does in this thread) was attempts by 4e fans to 'disprove' the connections and connotations I was seeing.
 

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.

As others noted "cooldown" has been around for a long time, but the in your face aspect of it and the explicit shift to more narrative-oriented time definitely shifted things. It's kind of like making a really funky colored ketchup. It might taste the same but it looks bizarre and a lot of appeal comes from the presentation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top