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

And the total absence of debilitating or lasting injuries, too.
Very true, which is why some 35 years ago we put in what amounted to a rudimentary (but persistently robust, as is turned out) wound/vitality system to our 1e games; which by extension brought in a rudimentary lasting-injuries system (magical curing doesn't work beyond a certain very low point if you've been badly hurt recently, until a length of time - mostly set by how badly you were hurt - has passed).

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 ...
But that's just it - some of us didn't accept it, right from day 1...
actually more consistent to allow hp recovery in a short time - second wind, HD/Surges, martial healing, non-physical damage, &c.
...which is why we don't accept any of this stuff either.

MichaelSomething said:
Is that a knock against wands of cure -blank- wounds and/or healing surges??
I hope so, as both are bad things.

pemerton said:
In LotR, JRRT is ambivalent about Frodo's fate after being stabbed with a troll spear. It turns out that Frodo is OK.
As fate would have it I just this week re-read Fellowship, and what you're seeing as ambivalence is more Tolkein's way of putting us in the rest of the characters' shoes for a moment to provide a bit of tension, and to let us-the-readers join in not being sure if Frodo - the whole reason they're out here in the first place - is alive or dead.

Were that an event in an RPG Frodo's player would know he's at -2 and down for the count after that hit and might die if left untended, but can be saved with some reasonably quick aid - which is what happens in the book too.

Lan-"in the book it's a boss orc that gets Frodo, in the movie it's the cave troll"-efan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Were that an event in an RPG Frodo's player would know he's at -2 and down for the count after that hit and might die if left untended
Says who? That's a question of system design. In 4e the player knows that death saves have to be rolled, but doesn't know - anymore than the rest of the table - whether the mithril stopped the blow or rather skewered the PC to death.

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.
The bullet hits a cloak, or a sleeve, or . . ., and the target faints/swoons from the shock.

there are the other characters with more hps who can not be killed by any one blow with a sword. Even a blow from an Ogre will not be enough to take them down with a single strike. And when one of those characters only have 1hp remaining your narration that they are "fine and dandy" is ludicrous.
They move at full speed. They can still beat that ogre in an arm wrestle. Etc. Nothing in the fiction of the game suggests that they are injured, or even tired. The contrast in this respect with a system like RQ, or RM, or even a non-simulationist system like Cortex+ Heroic (where your opponent gets to put your physical stress die into their die pool), is pretty marked.
 

There were tons of new concepts, most of which had no precedent or clear root in the prior game

<snip>

dumped alignment system
Frankly, it seemed like a reversion to classic law vs chaos (with the old "neutral" split into Good, Unaligned and Evil).

power sources
I think 3E had the concept of arcane vs divine magic, and also of non-magical extraordinary abilities.

the PHB had this giant list of "spells" with levels that didn't line up to what we'd been used to seeing for literally ever
In RQ spells don't have "levels". In RM, the level of a spell corresponds (roughly) to the character level at which it can be used (a bit like 4e). To me, this seems similar to being weirded out by 3E compared to (say) Hero because in Hero different abilities have variable points costs whereas in 3E all feats have the same cost ("1 slot").

If "not D&D" = "doesn't use some version of the classic spells by level table", then D&D is being defined in a very prescriptive and (I would say) rather surface-level way.

But in any event, these changes you point to don't really seem to show that 4e is MMO-ish or M:tG-ish.

(And these things are strange. 5e radically revises the spells-per-level table, and the damage expressions for spells eg fireball is not 1d6 per level, nor 5d6 or 6d6 - which was its generic amount (eg from wand or scroll) in AD&D, but no one seem to find that weird but me.)
 

Very true, which is why some 35 years ago we put in what amounted to a rudimentary (but persistently robust, as is turned out) wound/vitality system to our 1e games; which by extension brought in a rudimentary lasting-injuries system
Thanks, that makes the point: you actually were concerned with realism, and changed that fundamentally unrealistic sub-system to suit.



As fate would have it I just this week re-read Fellowship, and what you're seeing as ambivalence is more Tolkein's way of putting us in the rest of the characters' shoes for a moment to provide a bit of tension, and to let us-the-readers join in not being sure if Frodo - the whole reason they're out here in the first place - is alive or dead.
Yep, I didn't get the choice of 'ambivalence,' either. But it is an example of the kind of thing that happens in genre - heck, in fiction - all the time. And, of D&D hp systems, new-fangled death saves handle it much better than old-school death's door, because there is actual uncertainty.
A Shrodinger's Injury.

Were that an event in an RPG Frodo's player would know he's at -2 and down for the count after that hit and might die if left untended, but can be saved with some reasonably quick aid
In AD&D, death would have been certain without aid, and a week (very inconvenient in Moria, presumably) of rest required if he survived

The whole armor saving your life, but not leaving you untouched, thing is non-existent in classic D&D (3e Fortification is the closest thing I can think of - of course, requiring magic). Systems where armor reduces damage come closer to literal simulation of that, but Frodo wouldn't have presented as fatally wounded in them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

If "not D&D" = "doesn't use some version of the classic spells by level table", then D&D is being defined in a very prescriptive and (I would say) rather surface-level way.
Except for the 'If,' that is correct. Its about familiarity.

Ok, it's not just spell tables, but the lack of them was really noticeable. In any other ed, a glance at spell progression gives you a rough, immediate, idea of the class.
 

Frankly, it seemed like a reversion to classic law vs chaos (with the old "neutral" split into Good, Unaligned and Evil).

Sort of. But it was one change among many.

I think 3E had the concept of arcane vs divine magic, and also of non-magical extraordinary abilities.

Yes, it did, and that goes back all the way to the beginning of the game to some degree. Again, yet another change.


In RQ spells don't have "levels". In RM, the level of a spell corresponds (roughly) to the character level at which it can be used (a bit like 4e). To me, this seems similar to being weirded out by 3E compared to (say) Hero because in Hero different abilities have variable points costs whereas in 3E all feats have the same cost ("1 slot").

If "not D&D" = "doesn't use some version of the classic spells by level table", then D&D is being defined in a very prescriptive and (I would say) rather surface-level way.

Hero is a totally different game family! Expectations in a totally different game are that, well, things are different. 4E purported to be the same game, new edition.


(And these things are strange. 5e radically revises the spells-per-level table, and the damage expressions for spells eg fireball is not 1d6 per level, nor 5d6 or 6d6 - which was its generic amount (eg from wand or scroll) in AD&D, but no one seem to find that weird but me.)

Those seem like fairly marginal changes to me.


But in any event, these changes you point to don't really seem to show that 4e is MMO-ish or M:tG-ish.

I wasn't really making that argument per se. Things like the action economy and movement rules with the expectation that play would be on a grid, power choice being like deck building, much more defined roles that resemble character roles in MMOs, and so on, have all been mentioned already

I'm noting that 4E had many changes to D&D's core constructions. Each one on its own might have been... meh, OK. However, the sum total of the changes was very large. There were people who really loved those changes (you, presumably, several others here clearly) but a lot of folks felt they went too far in total, even if there were parts of it they liked.

I cited the notion of the family resemblance before, with 4E clearly being quite a bit different from the rest of the D&D family. For another example not involving games, consider a longstanding band that's had an album that was markedly different in many ways from the prior albums. An established fanbase is often not happy in circumstances like these. There's an adage that a band rarely survives the departure of its lead singer. Or an established restaurant that was known as for good pub 'n grub all of a sudden deciding to shift focus to experimental haute cuisine.

Of course there are examples to the contrary, but the general rule isn't a bad one: Shifting key aspects of an identity often alienate existing fans and often do not attract additional ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The whole armor saving your life, but not leaving you untouched, thing is non-existent in classic D&D (3e Fortification is the closest thing I can think of - of course, requiring magic). Systems where armor reduces damage come closer to literal simulation of that, but Frodo wouldn't have presented as fatally wounded in them.

That depends on exactly how abstractly you want to look at it. In 3e, had that orc chief rolled a crit threat and failed to hit with the confirmation, you could argue the armor saved Frodo's life in a way that works with the depiction in the book. It was a hit, maybe the orc rolled high damage, but didn't crit which would probably have killed the hobbit.

But even in 1e, considering the attack roll didn't necessarily represent a single thrust of a spear but a minute's worth of combat, that round of attacks directed at Frodo could have included multiple attacks (if the orc was a high enough level) - at least one of which hit and at least one of which missed - and leave Frodo in a similar condition, wounded but saved by his armor.

The other realization is that mithril armor of LotR quality could be credibly represented as magical, particularly given the subtlety of some magic in LotR.
 

Except for the 'If,' that is correct. Its about familiarity.

Ok, it's not just spell tables, but the lack of them was really noticeable. In any other ed, a glance at spell progression gives you a rough, immediate, idea of the class.

Exactly. I'm not saying that 4E's way was bad. They did it the way they did it, but it's one of many, many expectations from prior editions that were altered. Spell levels running from 1 to 9 was a big one. Alter a few things here and there, especially on the margins? Most people adapt. 3E was a pretty drastic change for many folks but 4E was... wow. Despite all those changes, there were things that felt like D&D and I'm not saying it was a bad game (despite my overall evaluation being negative).
 

That depends on exactly how abstractly you want to look at it. In 3e, had that orc chief rolled a crit threat and failed to hit with the confirmation, you could argue the armor saved Frodo's life in a way that works with the depiction in the book. It was a hit, maybe the orc rolled high damage, but didn't crit which would probably have killed the hobbit.

D&D really doesn't have a good way to represent "he's stunned and out of the fight". Your crit example works well: He got knocked down to 0 hit points but wasn't killed because the crit didn't confirm. Of course, the way hit points work has some "Murphy's Rules" aspects. This is but one.

The other realization is that mithril armor of LotR quality could be credibly represented as magical, particularly given the subtlety of some magic in LotR.

IMO this is a good interpretation. The mithril coat is a magic item. In D&D this usually is run as "has a higher AC" which has a uniform and evident effect. However, the way it's described in LotR, it also has other properties, such as "protecting from what would have been a death blow."

LotR also tracks encumbrance... only Gimli wears armor or carries a shield due to the burdens of the road. D&D style systems aren't great at that. :heh:
 

Note one possible interpretation of hit points that worked for us and didn't require any real wound system.

The combat system represents combat.
HP are a measure of what can kill you in combat.
Therefore HP are abstracted such that they represent your experience in combat. You can take more damage as you level because you're better at avoiding mortal damage.
Therefore when you hit zero, someone finally nailed you with that mortal blow. Until then you can assume that damage was being soaked by armor or avoided by skill.

This is complicated by the popular use of the term critical, which for most means, oh it's more than a flesh wound but in terms of this view simply means that the attacker caught more of the defender than they would otherwise.

If you want to make the game more deadly you don't need to modify hit points. You just need to create situations where zero hit points is an absolute term instead of doing X amount of HP in damage. An arm break should make a combatant functionally less competent in combat and is worthy of being at 1/2 HP. Anything that impacts mobility is worthy of being at zero due to making the target easier to hit.

Just two cents.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top