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

Did removing miniatures save D&D? "Save" is perhaps too strong a term, but in concunction with the rise of people watching streaming of all sorts, online gaming, I think is has certainly boosted sales more than a reworking of 4e would have done. We played with the 4e rules but never really enjoyed them. Battles became too much about tactics and stacking abilties than about story telling and player interaction, which is where the most fun bits of RPGs lie for us as a group.
I have certainly watched new players really struggle to have fun whilst playing with the 4e rules because of the tactical nature of them. In that regard, for me personally, 5e is a huge improvement as it is much more widely inclusive. If you want to use minis then feel free. If you don't, then don't. The key thing is that the system is not so prejorative as to force players one way or the other and thus can appeal to the widest audience.

The question of whether mini use is better or worse than no mini use is as usual, unhelpfully, deliberately devisive. I do wish people, journalists etc would step away from this bad habit of trying to pigeonhole everything (not aimed at anyone here I must add). The only right way is doing things the way that suits you and your group, what ever that is.

We've always mixed use and non-use. It has always been situationally dependent. If having a physical represenatation helps then we do it. If it doesn't add anything then we don't. As others have written here, it's been useful to set out and remember marching order on many occasions, or who is next to who. Sometimes it doesn't matter if everyone has a different view in their mind's eye of what is going on, and sometimes it does.
We use dedicated minis, dice, bottle tops, bits of paper, what ever comes to hand. Recently we fought a tense, fighting retreat of a battle against a bunch of hideous aliens, represented by a mixture of physical forms, including one particularly nasty alien that was represented on the table by a small, pink, rubber hippo. To be fair, there was something even more scary about it looking like that. ;) On the other hand, as a side line to playing, I love creating highly customised minis for each character in the group. It's certainly not necessary, I'm not all that good at it, but I find it fun thing to do.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Back when I played 1e we didn’t use minis, then I joined a group that did use them (no grid just used them on the table top)
We've used the table as a play surface for tokens in our 4e game - with adjanency being used to signal "squares", or a gap between tokens signalling an empty square, etc. We've also used the table to supplement maps when distances are big (eg "the bread board is 20 squares between these two bits of grid paper").
 

The question of whether mini use is better or worse than no mini use is as usual, unhelpfully, deliberately devisive. I do wish people, journalists etc would step away from this bad habit of trying to pigeonhole everything (not aimed at anyone here I must add). The only right way is doing things the way that suits you and your group, what ever that is.

All I'll add here is that I don't blame a website with a strong community from publishing articles that have a "this or that" perspective as there's a lot to be said for driving conversation and ultimately traffic.

I do think that there's a social responsibility to avoid certain types of topics when it's clear that the threads on those fail to go well repeatedly but you have to break some eggs to figure out what will and won't fly.

Nuff said, because this conversation about minis is entirely civil and good to see.
 

I never used minis until the phrase "attack of opportunity" was invented. Although we did tend to have some kind of visualization of the battlespace, I rarely measured anything. 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.

My daughter plays 5e and her group uses little plastic superheroes, etc. They don't grid things, and play much more resembles my old 2e days.

I do think that minidependence is a barrier, because it makes it harder to play casually. This is supposed to be game, right?
 

.

I do think that minidependence is a barrier, because it makes it harder to play casually. This is supposed to be game, right?

Great point +1

Do I think I'd introduce players to the game with a mini heavy slugfest? No, not at all.
Do I think that I'd need minis when a storyline required a combat heavy or combat exclusive session? Yes, absolutely.
 

I prefer minis (because I am an amateur tactician) but I can see where 4e was overly mini-centric. Emphasizing 'theater of the mind' and 'story-telling' and 'co-operative play' allows you to skip the extra expense and shopping time. Also 5e allows you to 'fudge' area bombs (Fireball) so Team Monster gets blasted but Team Hero doesn't tear each other up.

I'm glad more people want to play D&D, and I'm glad they found a 'middle ground' where minis can be brought into play where helpful and ignored where not.
 

The question of whether mini use is better or worse than no mini use is as usual, unhelpfully, deliberately devisive. I do wish people, journalists etc would step away from this bad habit of trying to pigeonhole everything (not aimed at anyone here I must add). The only right way is doing things the way that suits you and your group, what ever that is.

This. Also, I find the article title "Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D" to be unhelpful. Why do articles need to start by spiking the topic in a deliberately divisive fashion?

Was D&D in danger of dying? Perhaps the WotC involvement was flagging, and the WotC brand of D&D was failing, but "D&D" as a whole seemed to be going fine. Certainly, my gaming group, which was invested in 3.5E and which never moved to 4E, was doing fine.

Did removing a focus on miniatures help make D&D 5E a success? I would say definitely yes. (Similarly, I think the almost exclusive focus of 4E on tactical play helped to doom it.)

Do the majority of D&D games use miniatures in some fashion? That I can't say. But I am thinking that many use representative tokens for tactical encounters. That includes simple tokens and standees, in addition to actual miniatures. I'm not sure if all of that counts the same as using miniatures. For many encounters, having a visual representation removes a whole lot of ambiguity and time spent detailing actions.

Thx!
TomB
 

I do think that there's a social responsibility to avoid certain types of topics when it's clear that the threads on those fail to go well repeatedly but you have to break some eggs to figure out what will and won't fly.

I'm all about breaking eggs...I'm just glad they haven't been thrown at me yet. :)
 


Absolutely. As far as I can tell (not being a literal-minis person, I might be wrong), the difference between minis in the literal sense, and tokens, is purely aesthetic (unless facing matters, I guess, and even then some tokens support facing). It doesn't go to system or approach to play.

What I was trying to get at is something like this: in AD&D, engagement in melee is all or nothing, and positioning vs multiple opponents is primarily a function of numbers (the defender being assumed always to bring his/her shield to bear, etc); and so mostly (in my experience) one only needs to track the time needed to close and the range for spells and missiles; and that can be done without minis/tokens.
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.

Positioning is also very important in 3e for flanking (sometimes) and attacks of opportunity (always).

Whereas 4e, with many of a PC's abilities pertaining to fine-grained movement of self and/or others within the melee context, makes positioning within melee very important to resolution, and so strongly invites the use of tokens/minis.
Never mind that 4e still has to worry about AoO considerations - as does 5e, for all that.

Where I think a discussion like this could go is (eg): the no-minis approach to AD&D or RM adjudication (are you in range? how long does it take to close?) gives the GM a fair bit of control over those features of resolution, because - typically, I think - it is the GM's "mental map" that is taken as the most canonical for the table, unless someone can point out that s/he has obviously overlooked or misremembered something. The 4e approach makes all those bits of resolution more "objective" or "shared" (take your pick; they may be synonyms, or may not be, but I'm not pushing hard on that at this point!). Does that make 4e "better"? Or "worse"? Is there a reason (eg the stuff in 4e comes up all the time, whereas closing and range in AD&D are more peripheral? are those who use minis/tokens in AD&D trying to achieve more "objectivity"?)
To the last question there, I'd say yes. It greatly mitigates the headache of the DM imagining one thing and the player imagining another, based on the same description; which otherwise IME happens all the time.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top