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

pemerton

Legend
The "milestone" daily item use limit was... ugh. I know this is so last week, but that was one of the worst examples of a gamist/dissociated/whatever you want to call it I've literally ever seen.
As far as the mechanics-to-fiction correltion is concerned, I don't see that this is any different from attunement in 5e. The idea that a person has a certain amount of "inner power", without which the powerful magic is just a lump of metal in his/her hand, doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. (And if you don't like it, you can just drop it as you would attunement. What's going to happen? It's not as if 4e item daily powers are super-strong, and anyway most of those who would want to make this sort of change aren't so worried about balance.)

As far as inherent bonuses go, they're hardly a cunning thing! The DMG2 was the first book to mention them (not Dark Sun, as some posters have suggested in this and other threads), but I think I first saw them suggested on these boards about 5 minutes after the PHB came out!
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Tony Vargas

Legend
As far as the mechanics-to-fiction correltion is concerned, I don't see that this is any different from attunement in 5e. The idea that a person has a certain amount of "inner power", without which the powerful magic is just a lump of metal in his/her hand, doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.
Neither did Jay, he doesn't like 5e attunement, either.
(And if you don't like it, you can just drop it as you would attunement. What's going to happen? It's not as if 4e item daily powers are super-strong, and anyway most of those who would want to make this sort of change aren't so worried about balance.)
Optimizers could load up on low level item dailies, seems the obvious potential issue.
As far as inherent bonuses go, they're hardly a cunning thing! The DMG2 was the first book to mention them (not Dark Sun, as some posters have suggested in this and other threads), but I think I first saw them suggested on these boards about 5 minutes after the PHB came out!
I know they were used that way in 3e, too, but have never found the reference...
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Yes. It's easier to drop elements - ban a class or source or race or not use magic items - than to add them (though monsters were particularly easy to re-skin or create), but that's really broadly true, it's always easier to pick what you want than to create it from scratch! Since most options in 4e were reasonably balanced, dropping or re-skinning some for flavor/theme/whatever was relatively painless, while creating a new one, you'd feel obliged to make it as balanced as the existing options, which was a fairly high bar by D&D standards.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. I often didn't like the choices that WotC made, but felt that changing them was difficult because of how well-constructed things were. It was like a very well-built house with an interior layout I don't want, I guess.


When you might be tempted (oh, I'm going to run steampunk, let's see if I can kit-bash something from 4e...) I often found that re-skinning, alone, covered it. Because all those little italic text blocks on every power (and thus every spell, item, etc) could just be changed willy-nilly without impacting mechanics, re-skinning was just very easy compared to re-designing rules.

Yeah, reskinning definitely went a long way all the way back in prior editions and it's still useful so I definitely think that's worthwhile. My general reason for wanting to do more was to realize a particular vision of some sort. In a highly defined system like 4E this was difficult. Combined with the general need for the CB, I felt it simply wasn't possible for the games I would have been able to run.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
As far as the mechanics-to-fiction correltion is concerned, I don't see that this is any different from attunement in 5e. The idea that a person has a certain amount of "inner power", without which the powerful magic is just a lump of metal in his/her hand, doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.

I don't see how going through a few encounters builds up a charge to make your magic item work better. I guess I'd like at least a fig leaf over my game balancer done to try to encourage longer "work days".

I don't like the way 5E attunement is implemented, as I've said, but the notion of having some limited amount of attention to master makes sense to me. My issue is that WotC just decided that the number is three and three is the number, hard stop, meaning that things like Arcana, feats, class, or ability scores play no role in it and that items don't have varying difficulties to attune.


As far as inherent bonuses go, they're hardly a cunning thing! The DMG2 was the first book to mention them (not Dark Sun, as some posters have suggested in this and other threads), but I think I first saw them suggested on these boards about 5 minutes after the PHB came out!

I wasn't on these boards then though I'm sure that clever folks did figure that out.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
.
Yeah, reskinning definitely went a long way all the way back in prior editions and it's still useful so I definitely think that's worthwhile. My general reason for wanting to do more was to realize a particular vision of some sort. In a highly defined system like 4E this was difficult. Combined with the general need for the CB, I felt it simply wasn't possible for the games I would have been able to run.
While 'skin' comes to us from videogames, the idea in RPGs goes way back, in paleo-D&D as a designer/DM tool: the familiar phrase 'counts as,' in rulebooks & modules, for instance. In 3e, finally, extended to players being able to describe the appearance of their characters and gear - so you didn't have to wait for some rule to say what an way if counted as, you could take a rapier and describe it as such. 4e, as above took it further than any other ed...

...but the ultimate use of re-skinning in an RPG long antedates the term: Champions! 'special effects,' c1981.
 



Jhaelen

First Post
You're the first person I've heard say that designing monstersin 4e is hard.
Well, I think it's not easy to design good solo monsters in 4e. Also, presumably, it's hard to design challenging epic monsters.
But run-of-the-mill monsters up to mid-paragon tier? easy!
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Well, I think it's not easy to design good solo monsters in 4e. Also, presumably, it's hard to design challenging epic monsters.
It certainly must've been hard for Heinsoo & company to design good solo monsters, since it took them until MM3 to get it right. But, now that it's been done, and we see what's needed, it's pretty easy. Epic monsters aren't hard to design, either, by the numbers. Epic PCs do start to approach the sheer number of options and game-warping abilities that casters tend to get in the low double-digits in other eds (though nothing like 3.x polymorph shenanigans or scry/buff/teleport is ever enabled in 4e, even at 30th), so that's not a big problem, either. But, epic encounters, epic challenges, and especially Epic feel take some thought. The danger with a perfectly useable/challenging epic encounter is that it can end up feeling no different from a Paragon encounter, just with bigger numbers (before the DMG2, when Paragon was still a bit fuzzy, a one-off epic game could feel much like Heroic, but with bigger numbers!). So you're kinda on your own when designing epic challenges to actually feel Epic....

....y'know, the way you've been with designing any challenges at all in every other edition. ;P


But if the table in question doesn't care about "balance", then what's the problem?
Well, no problem with dropping 4e item-daily limits, since they wouldn't be playing 4e. But, there could be similar problems with dropping attunement, just not so structural as introduced by 3.x/4e make/buy. You wouldn't have to worry about PCs buying or cheaply making a bunch of low-level items that would otherwise have been limited by attunement, but you might have issues with one character retaining too many items, or with the PCs retaining items that were intended to be 'replaced' or the like. It'd just be the DM throwing a tool away, really. If you want to make sure an item gets to a given character, and the other character who might be able to use it is full up on attunement, you can make it an attuned item, and it won't be as obvious (or effect, but still, sometimes subtlety is worth it) as just making it only useable by the target PC...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top