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

People I talked to at game stores back in the end of the 4e era. Sorry if I can't give you phone numbers.

Those guys at your stores at the end of the 4e era? Man, I wish you would have mentioned that it was those guys. That would have saved me a lot of writing.

I talked to those guys at your stores right after you talked to them. They all were just pulling your leg. It was a troll-job. They wanted to see if 6 years later you would use the (faked) testimony of some dudes at game stores at the end of the 4e era as evidence for a conversation on an internet forum!

Now that you're convinced and that is settled, lets cycle back to something I posted earlier in the thread that didn't get any traction. Hopefully that can spark some actual interesting conversation.

Quote Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
@Manbearcat, another curious thing about responses to 4e is this idea of "DM-proofing". There's a very strong ethos, I think, among D&D players that the GM's job includes deciding outcomes. Which also underpins at least some of the discussion about TotM vs minis/grids.

Absolutely. Or at the very list, there is a very strong ethos among many D&D players that the GM's job (as lead storyteller) is primarily about curating play generally (and in some cases very specifically) with the abstract/broad play agenda of what (the GM thinks) makes the best story and entails (what the GM thinks is) the most fun. Its this overly broad/subjective agenda and the extreme discretion/latitude afforded by "the lead storyteller" (coupled with a certain approach to/design of resolution mechanics) that creates a stark contrast with a game like Dungeon World (where agenda/principles/resolution mechanics are hyper-focused/transparent and GM discretion/latitude is very constrained by comparison).

And yes, that coincides nicely with TotM vs minis/grids. When you have combat resolution machinery that is as intensive as D&D (action economy, ranges, durations, spatial relationships all interfacing EXTREMELY intimately and therefore player-decision-points become enormously dependent upon the parsing of such variables and their inter-connectivity), removing the concreteness moves the spectrum of agency in combat-related decision-points from player overhead to GM discretion.

I don't see how that could be argued differently. It can certainly be argued that it makes for a better game because other consideration a, b, or c, but the above remains intact.

So Dungeon World is several orders rules-lite-er than any brand of D&D. No Initiative, or combat rounds, and spatial relationships/ranges for interaction/attack are just fictional descriptors (actual natural language; eg "whites of their eyes", "shouting distance", "hand's reach and no further") rather than numerical units that interface spatially with other units (that also have numerical units to measure things like speed, range, etc). Yet, even when I'm running Dungeon World I'm still using a hand-drawn map to represent where creatures are with respect to each other and with respect to battlefield obstacles/terrain.

Why is that?

If a player declares an action/makes a move, I want to make sure that they know (and I know) precisely:

1) what may impede their capacity to do so without having the fiction change dynamically (either positively or adversely) before that move can fully materialize...

and/or

2) whether or not there is one or more obstacles in the way that might require a Defy Danger (the DW equivalent of a D&D saving throw) in order to get to the point where the fictional trigger for their declared move will occur (thereby allowing them to make their playbook/world move).

This affords them optimal agency within the parameters of the system and within the fiction. Otherwise, I would have to fiat away all the mechanical interactions with either a hand-wavey "yes" or (potentially perceived as) an adversarial "no". Even in a rules-lite system like DW, my agency as GM would be importing a heftier signal than I would have otherwise if the player would have been able to navigate those spatial relationships beforehand by referencing even a roughly scrawled map-as-proxy (with spatial relationships/Tags).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Those guys at your stores at the end of the 4e era? Man, I wish you would have mentioned that it was those guys. That would have saved me a lot of writing.

I talked to those guys at your stores right after you talked to them. They all were just pulling your leg. It was a troll-job. They wanted to see if 6 years later you would use the (faked) testimony of some dudes at game stores at the end of the 4e era as evidence for a conversation on an internet forum!

Now that you're convinced and that is settled, lets cycle back to something I posted earlier in the thread that didn't get any traction. Hopefully that can spark some actual interesting conversation.

The only thing I'm convinced of is that this is a waste of time. Enjoy your game.
 

Man, I wish you would have mentioned that it was those guys. That would have saved me a lot of writing.
Small world, i'n'it?

Dungeon World is several orders rules-lite-er than any brand of D&D. No Initiative, or combat rounds, and spatial relationships/ranges for interaction/attack are just fictional descriptors (actual natural language; eg "whites of their eyes", "shouting distance", "hand's reach and no further")
Sounds perfect for TotM.

Yet, even when I'm running Dungeon World I'm still using a hand-drawn map to represent where creatures are with respect to each other and with respect to battlefield obstacles/terrain.

Why is that?
The cartographers guild knows where you live? Those guys bet you couldn't do It? As a quiet homage to JRR Tolkien?

If a player declares an action/makes a move, I want to make sure that they know (and I know) precisely:

1) what may impede their capacity to do so
and/or
2) whether.. that might require a (the DW equivalent of a D&D saving throw)

This affords them optimal agency within the parameters of the system and within the fiction

...oh, that's reasonable.

Otherwise, I would have to fiat away all the mechanical interactions with either a hand-wavey "yes" or (potentially perceived as) an adversarial "no". Even in a rules-lite system like DW, my agency as GM would be importing a heftier signal than I would have otherwise if the player would have been able to navigate those spatial relationships beforehand by referencing even a roughly scrawled map-as-proxy (with spatial relationships/Tags).
Thats an interesting point. I was thinking that 5e's lip service to TotM was 'orthogonal' to its DM Empowerment goal, but, you've pointed out that it's at least tangential, in that it does present more need for DM judgement, even if the system is rules-light & supports it, let alone in 5e, where frequent rulings would be called for, as well.

I'm so used to running games, even wildly hex-dependent Champions!, in that mode that I'd not given that factor much thought ( or maybe I had, & forgot... heck we may have had this discussion here before...)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sigh.

A wizard or magic-user always has 'spellcasting' as a class ability, as opposed to a fighter who does not. A ranger always (or should always!) has 'tracking' as a class ability even if she's currently blind, deaf, and tied up in a cave somewhere; as opposed to wizards who never get tracking as a class ability.

Having an ability as a class feature and whether you can actually use that ability right this minute are two completely different things; which is also true for encounter abilities.

Though not perfect as written, as you note, you still have to admit it's quantum leaps more realistic than the 4e-5e model in which you can get the livin' tar beat out of you (i.e. go to 0-and-unconscious and get stood up each time before dying) several times during a given day and wake up in perfect condition the following mornng after an overnight rest.
(1) It's not "more reallistic". It's different, but it's not realistic.

(2) What makes you think a 4e PC who swoons in combat, and then recovers to fight on, has "had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her"? Maybe you're into nonsense narration, but I'm not.

Also, have you worked out yet what encounter means as a duration in 4e?
 

I was thinking that 5e's lip service to TotM was 'orthogonal' to its DM Empowerment goal, but, you've pointed out that it's at least tangential, in that it does present more need for DM judgement
I made this point somewhere upthread:

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], another curious thing about responses to 4e is this idea of "DM-proofing". There's a very strong ethos, I think, among D&D players that the GM's job includes deciding outcomes. Which also underpins at least some of the discussion about TotM vs minis/grids.
 

(1) It's not "more reallistic". It's different, but it's not realistic.

On a continuum between realistic and not realistic - the older school version is definitely a number of steps closer to the realistic end than the 4e/5e version. It's still far from it, but that doesn't mean you can't compare their relative position on that scale. This isn't just "different", this is different in a particular way that offers a bit more of a nod to the necessities of time (and having to get out of a hazardous environment altogether) in order to recover from a serious beatdown.
 

Though not perfect as written, as you note, you still have to admit it's quantum leaps more realistic than the 4e-5e model in which you can get the livin' tar beat out of you (i.e. go to 0-and-unconscious and get stood up each time before dying) several times during a given day and wake up in perfect condition the following mornng after an overnight rest.

Lanefan

Maybe the reason that Ruin Quest is doing so well is that you can get your leg broken and your hand chopped off when fighting a bunch of mooks. :shrug:
 

I dunno if it saves D&D. I know that the lack of slavish adherence to a grid brought my entire group back to gaming and created new player too.

Instead of looking down at a bunch of minis counting squares we look at one another.
 

(1) It's not "more reallistic". It's different, but it's not realistic.
[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] already covered this one, so...what he said.

(2) What makes you think a 4e PC who swoons in combat, and then recovers to fight on, has "had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her"? Maybe you're into nonsense narration, but I'm not.
Even in the most gamist and-or disconnected versions of what hit points represent in any edition that I've seen posted in those arguments, a common theme is that going to (or below, pre-4e) 0 h.p. means you've taken enough of a beating that if left untended you're quite possibly going to die. The rules of all editions also have it that going to or below 0 is auto-death (0e), is auto-death* if not treated or cured quite soon (1e-2e-3e), or presents a significant risk of death if not treated or cured quite soon (4e-5e). These deaths aren't being caused by fainting.

So to suggest someone repeatedly going to or below 0 within a short time "has had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her" is "nonsense narration" falls well below your usual standard, sir; and the tar on the ground that wasn't there before will back me up on that. :)

* - auto-death if below 0 and untreated. Going right to 0 but no lower and being left untreated is auto-death in 1e but my be less auto in 2e-3e; not sure.

Do this several times in a day (or even several times in a single combat) and then feel 100% fine the next morning? Far too far toward the unrealistic side of the spectrum for my tastes.

Lan-"or has swooning now been declared a potentially-fatal condition in D&D in some memo I missed"-efan
 

Even in the most gamist and-or disconnected versions of what hit points represent in any edition that I've seen posted in those arguments, a common theme is that going to (or below, pre-4e) 0 h.p. means you've taken enough of a beating that if left untended you're quite possibly going to die. The rules of all editions also have it that going to or below 0 is auto-death (0e), is auto-death* if not treated or cured quite soon (1e-2e-3e), or presents a significant risk of death if not treated or cured quite soon (4e-5e). These deaths aren't being caused by fainting.
This has been covered before, though I won't fault you for forgetting it, since the argument is profoundly non-sensical.

Basically, the logic of hit points in 4E is that they don't correspond to anything, until such time as the damage is healed. If you recover from going to zero, whether naturally or through inspiration (or possibly even through magic), then it turns out you were never actually wounded in the first place! If you heal from it, then you must have just fainted. If you die from your injuries, only then does it turn out that you actually were seriously wounded all along.

And if you try and check whether a fallen character is actually wounded, or just unconscious, then the answer is always indeterminate. You can't possibly observe that state, because it hasn't been determined yet.

Seriously.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top