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

Honestly, I think the bard still fulfills that role pretty well - Song of Rest offers bonus healing other characters are already spending some of their hit dice to heal.

Having played a bard, I find that ability largely superfluous in most circumstances. It's so small as to be relatively meaningless unless you take a lot of short rests and it barely scales. It's MUCH more useful in Adventures in Middle Earth, where healing is rare, as are long rests, so your hit dice are very helpful and getting more or less a free one every time you rest is useful.

The kind of thing I'm thinking of is having the bard be able to activate your hit dice during combat, possibly with a "kicker" of some sort, say having the ability to use Bardic Inspiration (ugh... terrible name given that it's the same as Inspiration Inspiration) for healing too.

Example of my thinking: The bard can use Bardic Inspiration. One use of Bardic Inspiration is to spend a hit die and add the Inspiration die to it. The character can spend 1 hit die per tier when Bardic Inspiration is used this way. Note that the bard has a pretty large supply of inspiration, particularly at mid to upper levels; it's the number of hit dice that is the limited resource. In this sense, the bard can't really drastically do anything you can't do yourself, although you're getting a bit of extra juice when the bard helps you and you get the benefit in combat. Correspondingly, I'd take Cure Wounds and Healing Word off the bard's list (though of course those could be "stolen" with Magical Secrets).

Part of this comes from my tendency to run a cleric-less game but I also just really like things to feel different.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

oh, what the hell.
To me, virtually all the criticisms of 4e are pretty much self-indulgent twaddle. For evidence, I simply point to 5e and 5e's popularity.
There are almost no criticisms of 4e that you can make that don't equally apply to 5e. Yet, 5e is heralded as the second coming of D&D and 4e gets pilloried. FOR EXACTLY THE SAME STUFF.
It's not exactly the same stuff - it's the same concept, but with very different levels of availability & effectiveness - complaints may have been phrased around the conceptual aspects, but they were not about them.

And, really, it was no different before 5e. 4e was criticized for things that 1e (dissociated mechanics!) and/or 3.5 (grid dependence!) had always done, too.

But, ffs, just admit that you don't like the edition and move on and quit trying to "prove" that there is anything of any actual substance to your dislike.
There are very substantive differences between 4e & real D&D. Class balance, dependability of encounter design guidelines, impact of magic items, genre fidelity, rewards for system mastery, difficulty of DMing, impact of pacing, handling of challenges other than combat, impact of progression, etc...
...they're just not things that are often complained of, directly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


So your logic is: because 5e is popular therefore 4e is popular?

o_O

No, my logic is, "If you're going to criticize something and something else does exactly the same thing, you should criticize that too." If X bothers you, it shouldn't matter which edition it's from, it just bothers you. But, that's not what happens. It's, "4e is bad because it does X", "But, edition Y does the same thing and that doesn't bother you so what's the problem?" "NO, 4e suxxors and that other edition is fine because I like it".

Like I said, most of the criticisms are hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt. If encounters powers bother you, fair enough. But, don't then turn around and say that encounter powers are perfectly fine in another edition. If fast healing is a problem, then it's a problem. The "e" shouldn't matter.
 

Of course there are movies where the hero appears to get shot but does not just as there are movies where the hero does not look like they were shot but turns out that they were. That is the whole point of Schrodinger, two events are possible and you dont know which one actually happened until afterwards.

I guess the bit that is particularly stupid to me is if the person in your example narrates that, rather then the bullet being stopped by the lead game token, he was not actually shot at all.

Well, individual aesthetic tastes are, notoriously, individual. I reckon, though, that there are instances where narration that "he was not actually shot at all" might work best. But, again, YMMV.

There's a substantial difference between such false-deaths being a thing that could happen, and being a thing that must happen in every instance. Only the former is well-founded in both fiction and reality.

More to the point, the idea that reality could be inherently unfixed until the time of observation, is one which is completely inconceivable. There is no possible reality which could correspond to such a thing. Whether the cat is dead or not is a fact which is already true, regardless of whether we observe it. Whether or not that hit was substantially physical is already set in stone at the moment of impact, if that game world has any semblance of similarity to any believable world.

My point is that in a game, until such things are actually determined through the outcome of play and game mechanics (which, in this case, won't happen until we see if the character dies of their wounds or if, being revived through some healing mechanic, they are able to continue along in play with little or no discernible effects as compared with "pre injury"), they are not set in stone. "Whoo, was I lucky, I was just struck by the flat of the blade, which knocked the wind out of me momentarily." "Good thing I drank that bitter herbal tea this morning, which must have counteracted that spider's poison." "Yes, my eyebrows and lashes are all singed off, but somehow that fireball's blast didn't catch me full on." Etc.

But I suspect you disagree with such a viewpoint if your previous statements on similar topics are any indication. To each their own.
 

No, my logic is, "If you're going to criticize something and something else does exactly the same thing, you should criticize that too." If X bothers you, it shouldn't matter which edition it's from, it just bothers you. But, that's not what happens. It's, "4e is bad because it does X", "But, edition Y does the same thing and that doesn't bother you so what's the problem?" "NO, 4e suxxors and that other edition is fine because I like it".

Like I said, most of the criticisms are hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt. If encounters powers bother you, fair enough. But, don't then turn around and say that encounter powers are perfectly fine in another edition. If fast healing is a problem, then it's a problem. The "e" shouldn't matter.

I think before you throw around descriptions like hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt then you could at least provide quotes of the people you claim are saying that 4e suxxors and 5e roxxors.

Not that I expect you will when that strawman you built was demolished so spectacularly. Bravo for that at least :clap:
 

My point is that in a game, until such things are actually determined through the outcome of play and game mechanics (which, in this case, won't happen until we see if the character dies of their wounds or if, being revived through some healing mechanic, they are able to continue along in play with little or no discernible effects as compared with "pre injury"), they are not set in stone.
That's not possible, though. You can't have a world where such a thing would be the case. Reality always operates in straightforward causal processes. Not just our reality, but any conceivable reality.

Unless the rules only describe a game, and don't describe any underlying reality whatsoever, in which case why all the rigamarole? We don't need 300 pages of rules, if none of those rules actually mean anything.

Edit: Actually, please ignore the second part. We're getting way off topic here. The whole point of this tangent is just that hitting zero doesn't always mean you were actually injured in 4E, because those rules don't follow causal processes, which isn't under dispute by anyone. Why they would make such a decision is irrelevant right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Well, individual aesthetic tastes are, notoriously, individual. I reckon, though, that there are instances where narration that "he was not actually shot at all" might work best. But, again, YMMV.

I am sure that you are right. In my experience an instance where they were never shot at all usually happens to the comic relief guy so if that is the type of character that you are playing then maybe that is the best description for why you can bounce back to your feet so quickly.

My point is that in a game, until such things are actually determined through the outcome of play and game mechanics (which, in this case, won't happen until we see if the character dies of their wounds or if, being revived through some healing mechanic, they are able to continue along in play with little or no discernible effects as compared with "pre injury"), they are not set in stone. "Whoo, was I lucky, I was just struck by the flat of the blade, which knocked the wind out of me momentarily." "Good thing I drank that bitter herbal tea this morning, which must have counteracted that spider's poison." "Yes, my eyebrows and lashes are all singed off, but somehow that fireball's blast didn't catch me full on." Etc.

But I suspect you disagree with such a viewpoint if your previous statements on similar topics are any indication. To each their own.

The only problem that I would have with your descriptions would be the retro active tea drinking because that is the type of thing you should have given to the whole party. You should never hog all the poison antidote to yourself.
 

That's not possible, though. You can't have a world where such a thing would be the case. Reality always operates in straightforward causal processes. Not just our reality, but any conceivable reality.

Look, I'm not a physicist, but it's my, admittedly incomplete, understanding of quantum physics that the things you claim are inconceivable are not only conceivable but so. Even things like cause and effect don't necessarily work temporally, sequentially according to what we expect.

I'm sure any particle physicists in the audience will correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Unless the rules only describe a game, and don't describe any underlying reality whatsoever, in which case why all the rigamarole? We don't need 300 pages of rules, if none of those rules actually mean anything.

You, sir, have nailed it precisely. the rules only describe a game, and we need them only as a means of consensus for playing that game.

The narration of what rules mean in the fiction can be infinitely malleable. Some games support or even advocate for such malleability; others constrain it.

EDIT: Just saw your edit, after I posted this. Hope you don't take it amiss that I responded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

You, sir, have nailed it precisely. the rules only describe a game, and we need them only as a means of consensus for playing that game.

The narration of what rules mean in the fiction can be infinitely malleable. Some games support or even advocate for such malleability; others constrain it.

EDIT: Just saw your edit, after I posted this. Hope you don't take it amiss that I responded.
Let this be the last of the topic, for this thread, because I think we are in agreement as to the root of the divide between 3E fans and 4E fans; which is that the fans of 3E want the rules to describe some sort of underlying reality, and the fans of 4E don't necessarily want that to be the case.

Look, I'm not a physicist, but it's my, admittedly incomplete, understanding of quantum physics that the things you claim are inconceivable are not only conceivable but so. Even things like cause and effect don't necessarily work temporally, sequentially according to what we expect.

I'm sure any particle physicists in the audience will correct me if my understanding is wrong.
I'm technically a rocket scientist, but my understanding of causality is that cause and effect are part of how time is defined. Time moves forward in the direction by which cause leads to effect. Perhaps that breaks down at the quantum level, but if it does, then I cannot imagine it; for my brain does not work at the quantum level, and can only model temporal processes in one direction.

Does anyone remember what this thread was about before we went off on this tangent? Did we solve the question about whether miniatures are good or bad? Or does an argument against miniatures inherently constitute an attack against 4E?
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top