• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! 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

S

Sunseeker

Guest
We tend to most closely associate with people that game the same way we do. For example, I don't know anyone into minis, but that's because I've played with the same group of people for years, and because all the kids I teach to play D&D I teach TOTM. But that's also because of my OD&D/1e TOTM background; I have always preferred TOTM to miniatures.
I play with a mixed bunch, and my playstyle is a mixed style. I enjoy minis likely for the same reason I enjoy Transformers toys or anything else. I'm a collector at heart. The more unique minis I can get, the better.

If you're curious about my particular playstyle breakdown, it's typically "minis if they're really necessary". I'll usually draw maps on tiles and whiteboards so that people can get a better idea of what I'm describing, since I'm not always the best describer.

Minis are, by and large for me, representational, not tactical.

Of course, I am also aware that many people do enjoy miniatures. There's nothing wrong with that- but I try not to confuse my personal experience with universal experience. IIRC, when I ran a poll on this, a little under 60% of people on this board said that played/ran minis.
I chuckled a little when I read this.

Finally, I am always hesitant to assign a universal truth to cost concerns. The stater set (and OGL) is free. The PHB can often be found for $20, and the kids that I have taught often pool their money together to purchase new books as they come out on sale. You can buy all the dice you ever need for $20, $30 max (a huge vat of them). The problem with miniatures is that if you want to do it right, it can become a very expensive hobby. To paraphrase the late, great Robin Williams, "A good miniature collection is God's way of telling you that you are making too much money."

Of course, you can get the same visual and tactical benefits of a miniature collection with cardboard, or tokens, or pennies, or tiny little action figures if that's what you want.
Which I addressed in my post, of how one can use "just about anything" as a mini.

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 the issue at heart here is that Crawford isn't really talking about "minis" when he says "minis". What he's talking about is tactical combat. Which I don't think anyone would deny is sort of a learned art. Because that's really what 3E started, 4E demanded and 5E eliminated: tactical combat as an implicit element of gameplay. Tactical gameplay is best visualized by people using minis and a grid, so naturally when people think of minis, what they're really thinking of is "tactical gameplay".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

aramis erak

Legend
I've discovered that using abstract tokens instead of minis has several benefits...
1) tend to be cheaper
2) much more flexible
3) Players are more prone to ask, "What is it?" and "What can I see?" instead of assuming the mini is accurate

It is a pretty minor difference, but it does change things notably.
 

Gibili

Explorer
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.

:) Yes totally agree. There's promoting discussion and there's setting up a fight :D
Sometimes I feel that these days, in order to attract an audience, discussions on the likes of news programmes do not invite contrary views in order to promote sensible debate, they do it in order to promote conflict, which is good for viewing numbers. Click bait if you will. :hmm:

When I'm DMing, I never set up situations aimed at specific players knowing how they will react in order to get a rise out of them. Nope, never. Not me.
...did my nose just get longer?
Would I give my party an overpowered Rod of Lightning with a big, red, shiny button on it, knowing damn well that someone will eventually crack and use it? Oh yes I would! A big, red, shiny button! A Big, Red, Shiny Button!

Sorry, drifting way off topic here.
 

Gibili

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

Yes, I suspect that this is the case too. In my experience players tend to be very creative and imaginative people and are more than happy to accept a beer top as an orc, or say a small Santa Claus candle as a fire giant. I still have said candle too. It is, and shall always be, a fire giant.
Beer tops have the advantage that a) you have to drink the beer, b) they come in many useful colours, c) with enough players they are also plentiful, although not at the start. :)

Sometimes whipping up a quick physical layout of events saves a lot of time in setting out a scene, especially if you have something like a map or layout prepared, pre-printed or ready to be quickly drawn on paper or wipable sheet. A picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words. It also means you can save those words for being more descriptive about who or what the players are seeing. So rather than spending 2 minutes talking about the juxtaposition of all the characters you can spend 2 minutes telling the players what they look like, what their mannerisms are, and thus give them more life and substance.

Two of our group are also keen wargamers but they prefer role playing to be about the story and the adventure and keep the heavy tactics to their wargaming exploits.
 

Gibili

Explorer
I think the issue at heart here is that Crawford isn't really talking about "minis" when he says "minis". What he's talking about is tactical combat. Which I don't think anyone would deny is sort of a learned art. Because that's really what 3E started, 4E demanded and 5E eliminated: tactical combat as an implicit element of gameplay. Tactical gameplay is best visualized by people using minis and a grid, so naturally when people think of minis, what they're really thinking of is "tactical gameplay".

Very nicely put Sunseeker! I agree. In my mind this is really what this debate boils down to. It's great that there are so many games and gaming systems out there so that there are genres and styles to suit everyone. What with the interweb thingy, there is so much more access to that wonderful variety too. If only we had more time to play!
 


dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
Back in the 70's, the minis in the game store were a big attraction to playing D&D, not that I could afford many, I had a few though. I have seen some of the terrain and set of minis people have built up over the years, wonderful, glorious stuff. That said, D&D's success is because it's there to be sold, Hasbro has it's four P's in a row, a good marketing plan, for a product with strong name recognition; in the end I'd be leery to assign any measure of it's success in not needing minis.
 

Saplatt

Explorer
We alternate between minis and TotM, depending on the situation, sometimes in the same 5E session. The biggest factor in the choice tends to be the scale and nature of the battlefield. If it happens outdoors or involves a lot of 3-dimensional movement, we tend to use TotM. If it's more of a standard dungeon crawl, then we're more likely to use the minis.

Another factor is the real environment. If someone can only attend via skype or if we are crammed for space, we're more likely to use TotM.

For whatever reason, 90% of the most memorable battles and events seem to have been TotM. That seems contrary to conventional wisdom re visual aids, but maybe internal visualization is more dramatic than a gameboard.
 

Queer Venger

Dungeon Master is my Daddy
One thing I particularly love about 5e, (ok, besides advantage/disadvantage) is that I can play it with mini's or theatre of the mind; I typically run both, I love big tactical climatic battles and smaller, theatre of the mind scenes.
I love mini's, I paint mini's, I collect mini's and particularly big boss mini's; but not every game needs them.

In otherwise, I can have my cake and eat it too ;-)
 

Roni Shamay

First Post
roll20 has about 3 million users ans fantasy grounds also has a ton... miniature kickstarters like bones by reapermini's are already in the 5th round i think with each outselling the other... not to mention the pawns series (cardboad upright tokens) by paizo that are very popular as well.
you can play with minis or without, in 3.5 we play some with and some without same for 2e and ad&d and even 1e
4th ed was problematic bucase they turned dnd into a warcraft mmo type pnp game with many many problems that led to lack of immersion and SOD (suspension of disbelief).
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top