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

As I posted upthread, as a former RM player/GM, and someone who was pretty familiar with the drfit from AD&D to RM, RQ etc in the 80s/early 90s, it remains very strange to see posters arguing for AC-&-hp combat on "realism" grounds.
Indeed, I wasted much breath (actual face to face conversation) back in the day, defending hps, AC, saves (esp poison saves), and the 1 min round, from "realism."

Realism was still a real(npi) thing, then, there were more wargamers still in the hobby relative to kids like myself, and realism must've been much more important in the context of historical wargaming.

- the most trivial tinkering possible to a RPG is to change the short and extended rest durations in 4e or 5e. (I don't know how common it is with 5e; based on dicsussions on teese boards it was extremely common with 4e.)
It's a variant right in the 5e DMG.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] - [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s reply makes the point that needs to be made aboout "realism" in a hit point paradigm.

Not really. Everyone’s going to have different tolerances for the differing levels of abstraction, even in variations on dealing with hit point loss and recovery. Assuming that just because there’s one level of unrealism going on means that any other level must be accepted is really just a fallacy.

pemerton said:
As far as narration of hp loss and zero hp is concerned - if you're narrating hp loss, and dropping to zero hp, in surgical detail, and then having your suspension of disbelief disrupted by the recovery that the game rules provide for, well, I would suggest changing your narration!

No surgical narration is required to see a disconnect in starting death saves and being at 100% after just a night’s sleep and finding it jarring, even in the fantasy genre. It’s one of the elements of 5e I’m not too keen on myself, and I otherwise really enjoy the game.
 

No surgical narration is required to see a disconnect in starting death saves and being at 100% after just a night’s sleep and finding it jarring, even in the fantasy genre. It’s one of the elements of 5e I’m not too keen on myself, and I otherwise really enjoy the game.
But the fact that you're fine and dandy at 1 hp in AD&D, so that every injury in AD&D is one that causes death unless tended to in which case it lays you out for a week, causes no issues?

I'm not the one who raised the AD&D zero hp rules as a marker of realism, precisely because the above is not very realistic!

(Whereas death saves, for instance, are easily treated as a metagame mechanic rather than a marker of ingame status.)
 

No surgical narration is required to see a disconnect in starting death saves and being at 100% after just a night’s sleep and finding it jarring, even in the fantasy genre. It’s one of the elements of 5e I’m not too keen on myself, and I otherwise really enjoy the game.

It takes less effort to say you recover everything then spending a day casting all of your cure spells to recover your missing HP and then resting another day to restore your healing spells.

If you're one of those unorthodox parties without any source of healing, spending 2 weeks to heal after every major battle could get real old real quick.


Though partial recovery rules could go a long way for making resource attrition/time management more of a thing, ease of use is always an issue.
 

But the fact that you're fine and dandy at 1 hp in AD&D, so that every injury in AD&D is one that causes death unless tended to in which case it lays you out for a week, causes no issues?

I'm not the one who raised the AD&D zero hp rules as a marker of realism, precisely because the above is not very realistic!

That is true, being almost dead and then being brought back to life and only having to rest for a week is not very realistic.

But in any case it is simply not true that having 1 hp left in ADnD means that you are "just fine and dandy". It would mean that any injury is going to be the one that potentially kills you. As you yourself say, descrbing your 1hp character as "just fine and Dandy" is simply nonsense narration. Frankly Gary Gygax himself does a much better job of describing such a character in his explanation of hps.

(Whereas death saves, for instance, are easily treated as a metagame mechanic rather than a marker of ingame status.)

Which is exactly the Schrodinger approach that @Saelorn described, it does not make sense narratively in the moment. Only after you have resolved the scenario can you actually describe what happened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

But the fact that you're fine and dandy at 1 hp in AD&D, so that every injury in AD&D is one that causes death unless tended to in which case it lays you out for a week, causes no issues?
And the total absence of debilitating or lasting injuries, too.

The explanation of hps going back to the 1e DMG, combined with the system eschewing any sort of wound spiral or lasting injury, makes it clear that it can't be modeling any too-serious/difficult-to-recover-function-after injuries, right up to actual death. Its unrealistic, of course, but, having accepted it, actually more consistent to allow hp recovery in a short time - second wind, HD/Surges, martial healing, non-physical damage, &c.


(Whereas death saves, for instance, are easily treated as a metagame mechanic rather than a marker of ingame status.)
Death saves are OK at modeling the uncertainty the reader/viewers (and presumably other characters in the story) have when a character 'drops' in a genre story. Not great, but a bit better than a countdown to certain death at a certain time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

It takes less effort to say you recover everything then spending a day casting all of your cure spells to recover your missing HP and then resting another day to restore your healing spells.

If you're one of those unorthodox parties without any source of healing, spending 2 weeks to heal after every major battle could get real old real quick.


Though partial recovery rules could go a long way for making resource attrition/time management more of a thing, ease of use is always an issue.

It does take less effort, sure. It takes even less effort than that to just say everyone regains all their hit points after every fight - and even less to not even count hit points for a PC at all. But the lines gotta be drawn somewhere, right? We can't all go by the "it takes less effort" rule for everything - there'd be nothing to do if we did.
 


Brings to mind old homebrew rules. We were wargamers and the abstraction of HP bothered us.

We were too happy with the game to worry about it at first. We house-ruled wound penalties and tried it during our later original edition and 1E games. Over 25% lightly wounded, -1 to Hit. Over 50% Moderately wounded, -2 hit probability and -25% movement. Over 75% badly injured and -4 to hit and -50% movement. At 0 you were unconscious. At low levels it didn't take much to render you non combat effective. Bandaged up and you could hobble along without losing more hit points. No first aid and you had to save or lose a hit point. To heal you needed to stay put. It worked better as PCs increased in level, it tended to hamstring low level PCs too much back in the day of fairly low hit points.

Given the higher hit points of PCs in more recent iterations of the game it might work better at low level, but it still cuts into PCs adventuring ability. Might give some room for healing tool kits though... with kits short rests could allow up to 25% recovery, long rests up to 50% and more would take increased time. Have 0 HP conscious but unable to mover negative HP unconscious... still roll HD to recover points but cap it at the percentages. Player has to choose to spend more dice or less to hit the cap. My mind is wondering through well worn paths.

Damn well make you appreciate magical healing :) Increased "realism" (verisimilitude might be a better term) I suppose, but increased book keeping and probably increased PC fatality. On the other hand it would apply to NPCs / Monsters too... or not? A "ferocity" trait that allows some Monsters / PCs / NPCs to fight on unhindered... especially Barbarians, Constructs (?), Golems (?), Undead, Non material beings...

*sigh* Hit points, why is it always hit points? Given how many other abstractions there are in this game, this one always gets the attention. Still, fun to think through on that nostalgia train :)

As I recall there were a number of similar variants (some in The Dragon maybe?) on wound levels back in the day and I'm sure other old geezers have their variations on it.
 

Wow, I skip a few pages reading the thread and it turns from an interesting discussion about mini use to yet another edition war wank. Don't you folks get tired of it?
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top