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

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
"
I don't know about the (singular) saving grace; I do know that there is some number of players and DMs (including me) that would not play it if miniatures were a requirement. And considering that I (and, I assume, people/grognards like me) are teaching a new generation of people to play D&D, I think that matters at least a little, right? :)

I think this is another one of those discussions where the game needs to support minis with rules but doesn't need to make them mandatory. Let the DMs and players do what's right for them.

Honestly, and this goes for a lot of things in life, the knee jerk massive pendulum swing responses to problems needs to be avoided. "4e had a problem, it must be minis so lets not include them at all in the game and go 180 in the other direction" is flawed. If anything that data should show that giving people choice expands the market. However, I'm sure there's some budget reason or deadline reason to back up why writers can't just create a system to support flavorful mini based combat without taking over the whole system in the process. 4e shouldn't have gone as far as it did, but 5 going full on in the other direction isn't good (in my opinion) either.

KB
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
Maybe. There is a fine line between support, and taking over the system.

For example, I can tell you from experience that 5e supports minis- but in the same way that older editions did. There are various rules and options that are infinitely "better" with minis than without. To give you an easy example- a feat like mobile is meh with TOTM, but outstanding if you are playing with a grid (esp. in combination with, say, a monk).

That is why it is a YMMV-type of situation.

Completely agree, but my mileage doesn't get to vary as much if I don't have better rules support for using the minis. Therein lay the problem. Of course, the best solution for me is to write my own rules as relying on any set of authors to write something good for me is a low probability outcome sort of like winning the lotto. :)
 

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
We never used minis during the pre 3.x era, though hit was obvious that 1e had a lot of stuff that would work with them, movement in inches and whatnot. For 3.0 I really go into that and that carried over to the 5e games. My S&W game will probably resemble a table top wargame at times with all the terrain and crap I've been making for other wargames. I love painting them and their utility though there is a drawback since players don't have to pay as much attention I find.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Did Eric and his DM use miniatures, to play out Eric's assault on the gazebo, and the gazebo's response?

Did the players in the Head of Vecna incident need minis to establish relative position while one of the PCs cut off the other's head?

Did the player who delivered the Powder Keg of Justice speech have a mini on a board, at the time, and did it matter whether the paladin was 1 square or 2 squares away from the captured cultist?
In all of these cases, as I wasn't there at the time and thus don't know what other factors may/may not have been involved, I can only answer with "I don't know". But to carry on with the example, if one PC is cutting off another's head to replace it with the Head of Vecna and my PC wants to intervene and prevent this, having minis or some other visual representation would quickly tell me whether I'm close enough to even attempt such.

You write as if the combat pillar were the entire game. It's a part of the game; it's how the game *started*; but some of the Great Moments in D&D History happened in the other pillars.
Combat's not the only pillar of the game, I fully agree.

But it is the pillar that most requires minis or some other form of visual representation of what/who is where. With 7 PCs fighting 6 Orcs, an Ogre and 3 Giant Badgers in a mostly-open field, yeah I want something more concrete than just imagination to tell me where everything is in relation to everything else, because I know I'll never keep it straight otherwise.

billd91 said:
It’s not that different if you’re clear with your descriptions as DM and players ask questions and are also reasonably clear about their positioning. It just takes a little practice - and puts us right back where we were when we started playing Basic and 1e and didn’t own a megamat. And that’s right where we like to be.
Even using minis etc. I've - both as player and DM - got into arguments over the positioning of things, largely because no matter how clearly someone thinks he or she is describing something somebody is going to:
- misinterpret what's being said; the DM is trying to describe one scene but the player is from those words picturing something quite different
- mix up left and right or north and south or some other simple thing
- not hear everything correctly
- interrupt the description (and thus the DM's train of thought) such that something relevant gets left out

Not using minis just makes this a thousand times worse...and this is assuming good-faith play from all involved, which also isn't always the case.

Lanefan
 

cmad1977

Hero
In all of these cases, as I wasn't there at the time and thus don't know what other factors may/may not have been involved, I can only answer with "I don't know". But to carry on with the example, if one PC is cutting off another's head to replace it with the Head of Vecna and my PC wants to intervene and prevent this, having minis or some other visual representation would quickly tell me whether I'm close enough to even attempt such.

Combat's not the only pillar of the game, I fully agree.

But it is the pillar that most requires minis or some other form of visual representation of what/who is where. With 7 PCs fighting 6 Orcs, an Ogre and 3 Giant Badgers in a mostly-open field, yeah I want something more concrete than just imagination to tell me where everything is in relation to everything else, because I know I'll never keep it straight otherwise.

Even using minis etc. I've - both as player and DM - got into arguments over the positioning of things, largely because no matter how clearly someone thinks he or she is describing something somebody is going to:
- misinterpret what's being said; the DM is trying to describe one scene but the player is from those words picturing something quite different
- mix up left and right or north and south or some other simple thing
- not hear everything correctly
- interrupt the description (and thus the DM's train of thought) such that something relevant gets left out

Not using minis just makes this a thousand times worse...and this is assuming good-faith play from all involved, which also isn't always the case.

Lanefan

This a table issue. Not a ‘minis or no minis’ issue.
 


Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
Question:

Is this really a minis vs. no minis matter or is it a "I'm willing to spend money on minis vs. I'm not spending money on minis" issue?

Cause heck, even before I had money to spend on things, I needed to use markers or dice or pennies to note ranges as others have said.

KB
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Question:

Is this really a minis vs. no minis matter or is it a "I'm willing to spend money on minis vs. I'm not spending money on minis" issue?
I hadn't even considered that aspect of it.

I kind of internally assumed the phrase "assuming reasonable access to minis or equivalent" as being part of the question.

But yes, if you're starting from scratch "proper" minis can get expensive in a hurry. That said, your local dollar store will (probably) have some cheap DM-side alternatives:
- packs of little plastic dinosaurs and animals that can be used for monsters
- packs of replacement game pawns that can also be used for monsters (and which work great for this, as I can attest!) :)
- packs of toy soldiers or equivalent that can be used for all sorts of things
- replacement poker chips that can be used as tokens to indicate invisibility, flight, or whatever other conditions need to be tracked

Kitting yourself out with all the above should leave you with some change from ten bucks.

Then, all you have to do is ask each player to provide a mini for each character he-she plays. Individual minis can be had for under $5; the only headache can be finding a place that'll sell them individually, so you might have to buy online and wait for it to arrive.

So, overall not as great a barrier to entry as one might assume. :)

Lanefan
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
I know game tables that used typical plastic board game pieces, Monopoly pieces, pebbles, bottle caps, glass go/pente pieces (also sold as planter/aquarium strata), tiddlywinks, jelly beans, and what have you as game pieces. I’ve done likewise myself. (And I have THOUSANDS of metal and plastic minis.)

Heck, when one guy in my group mistakenly wrote up his Paladin as “6’5” and 135 lbs”, I stuck a sewing machine needle into a cork and handed it to him.*

So, no, you don’t have to spend big bucks to have physical representations of characters for combat.





* which actually inspired me to do something else along those lines. I take simple sewing needles or pins, put them through beads, and mount THOSE in cork or plastic bases to mark centerpointa of AoEs without using templates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top