• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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


log in or register to remove this ad

But the medium is the message when it comes to D&D. I could not disagree more with the statement that ToTM and miniatures are the exact same game, with just one occurring in your head. That's not how ToTM works (imo). ToTM streamlines some issues, many of them combat and distance related, for narrative purposes, and requires a bit of table trust and buy-in.
The rules for grid-less play, at least in 5E, provide convenient guidelines for approximating results without visualizing them exactly. For example, instead of stating a fixed position and declaring the fixed positions of everyone else around them, they just cut to the chase and tell you that a medium-sized creature can only have eight other medium-sized creatures adjacent. This isn't 13th Age, though, with its brute-abstract fireballs that can hit exactly X enemies or Y enemies if you also choose to hit your teammates; your spell still hits everyone within 20' of the target point, whether friend or foe.

It's the same reality, in either case, which the DM is describing. Both rulesets accurately reflect the same information; it's just presented differently. (It's a lot like the difference between cartesian coordinates and polar coordinates, which can be used to represent the same information, but where one is often more convenient than the other depending on the nature of the task at hand.)
 


tomBitonti

Adventurer
The rules for grid-less play, at least in 5E, provide convenient guidelines for approximating results without visualizing them exactly. For example, instead of stating a fixed position and declaring the fixed positions of everyone else around them, they just cut to the chase and tell you that a medium-sized creature can only have eight other medium-sized creatures adjacent. This isn't 13th Age, though, with its brute-abstract fireballs that can hit exactly X enemies or Y enemies if you also choose to hit your teammates; your spell still hits everyone within 20' of the target point, whether friend or foe.

It's the same reality, in either case, which the DM is describing. Both rulesets accurately reflect the same information; it's just presented differently. (It's a lot like the difference between cartesian coordinates and polar coordinates, which can be used to represent the same information, but where one is often more convenient than the other depending on the nature of the task at hand.)

I think this gets to a key issue which needs to be clarified: When we say "miniatures", do we mean simple representations put in approximate locations with only very rough attempts to have accurate distances and positions, or do we mean very precise representations, with figures in definite squares, and having very precisely defined movements and actions?

I expect that miniatures (and tokens, and whatnot) to be used very frequently in the first sense, and much less often in the second.

I don't mean to make this a 4E bashing session, but the issue really seems to be about moving the core game experience away from the tactical definite that was core to 4E. The issue is not *miniatures* but instead having a *tactical core to the game*. (You can play 4E with simple tokens. Miniatures aren't what is important.)

Thx!
TomB
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
1e had facing rules of a sort, though I can't recall whether they were optional. It certainly had splash rules for thrown liquids which needed clear positioning of those possibly affected.

But the biggest thing requiring almost pinpoint positioning of melee combatants was weapon reach - could you reach your intended foe or not? Not everyone cared too much about this, but in 1e RAW it's a thing.

In my estimation, the reach of weapons was a much smaller issue in 1e - to the point of being largely irrelevant - because of the way the movement and combat rules worked. If you weren't in direct contact (over 10 feet away indoors, 10 yards outside) with the enemy and weren't shooting at them from range, your basic move was Close to Striking Range. If you were already within that 10 foot distance, you attacked. That general terminology covered all sorts of minor fiddly variations in weapon lengths and certainly helped you stay off the miniature mat.

If you needed to know who struck first at the end of a charge, you simply looked at the weapon lengths on the weapon characteristics table, noted which one was longer, and ruled they struck first. Then you went to the next shorter weapon, and so on. Where exactly were the PCs as measured on a grid? Close enough to hit each other - good enough.

Facing is only a little more complex. The player can just say that they want to move in to flank with their buddy and if the DM agrees they can move that far in a round, he can say it is so. Or he can present a choice - "You can get there and still attack this round if you cut it close and risk an AoO or you can take the extra movement to get there safely and be ready to strike next round." That gives the player the same sort of choices they have on a battle map but just makes it a little more abstract. It's not any harder, really, you just have to be able to relinquish control of picking the exact squares/hexes moved through.
 

I think this gets to a key issue which needs to be clarified: When we say "miniatures", do we mean simple representations put in approximate locations with only very rough attempts to have accurate distances and positions, or do we mean very precise representations, with figures in definite squares, and having very precisely defined movements and actions?

I expect that miniatures (and tokens, and whatnot) to be used very frequently in the first sense, and much less often in the second.
Since there's only one underlying ruleset to D&D, it doesn't actually matter whether you use miniatures at all, or to what degree you care about their precision. Most people will use the minimum precision that they think they'll need in order to convey what needs to be conveyed. If that means a cave outline formed by a handful of dice, with a coin representing a group of goblins and a peanut representing the party, then so be it.

Something specific to the ruleset and how it's written is the maximum degree of precision which the system supports, and that's five feet. You should never need to know anyone's position more accurately than that.

The big difference between 4E and 5E is that 4E features many effects which care about distances between 5' and 15', such that you would usually need to stay at 5' precision while playing the game; while in 5E, you only really need to worry about it when casting certain spells.
 

Vondren

First Post
My current group uses them for fighting rounds. My son has fun collecting them and painting them. But as with most I didn’t grow up using them only 5e.
 

There are other games, such as Feng Shui, where positions are deliberately kept undefined because they don't want to constrain the players in their attempts to narrate actions. In such games, the GM may not even have a full vision of the scene, because they want to keep an open mind in case a player suggests something fun that they want to throw in.

I wonder how many people are confused by the terminology, because they assume that is Theater-of-the-Mind, when it only bears a superficial similarity to how the term is used in 5E.
 

pemerton

Legend
I don't think its the minis themselves so much as a heavy rule dependence on the spatial reality of the game. The early edition rules about space and positioning were easily handwaved. Not so much with 3e or 4e.
That's what I said!

But the biggest thing requiring almost pinpoint positioning of melee combatants was weapon reach - could you reach your intended foe or not? Not everyone cared too much about this, but in 1e RAW it's a thing.
Rounds in AD&D are 1 minute, movement rates as 10s of feet per minute, and there are no rules for actually positioning in melee - only for getting cut down when you try to disengage from it!

So while weapon reach can matter (eg in establishing first strike in a charging situation; for establishing how many soldiers can work together or fight one another in a confined space; etc) I don't actually see how you need minis/tokesn to track the ways in which it matters.

(And I see that [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] has made much the same point.)
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
I only used minis in one edition of DnD. In every other game the most fancy we got was scribbling a quick map on some paper with some X's for the enemy and some other X's for the Party.

So if removing the necessity of miniatures was a successful move then it is only returning DnD to its base roots and then trying to claiming credit.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top