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

For all the things I disliked about 4Ed*, ultimately- perversely- I think it failed as a “war game” because too often, combat was slooooow. I liked playing my character in and out of combat, but I think a DM favoring a more narrative campaign would have been a better fit. (And the guy who ran our campaign was pretty narrative-focused for a traditional D&D game.)

I didn't love 4E either, although there were aspects of it I think were pretty good. For instance, it's skill system is pretty decent and skill powers were a cool way to make skills really matter, sometimes in fairly surprising ways such as through Arcane Mutterings suddenly giving the wizard an ability to be much more persuasive than one would ordinarily suppose (having just substituted Arcana).

But, 100%, yegads was it slow, especially past about level 12 or so. It also had a marked "dead spot" in the high teen levels for some characters. I forget who said that it had trouble with the handoff between combat and non-combat, but that was definitely true. The economy got nutty, as well. As a former DM of mine said "They simultaneously managed to make magic items necessary and boring."

All that said, there were definitely some good aspects to 4E and a few things that got dropped from it in the transition to 5E I really wish they'd kept. One thing that I think 5E's skill system really would benefit from is a return to some of the good aspects of the skill challenge, which allows DCs to be kept lower by requiring multiple successes. IMO 5E also has too many different types of saving throws, which makes it hard to balance things. That's something 4E had done fairly well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would like to try again, because we may have sold the game short. It shares some similarities with 13th Age, after all. And people who have similar play styles to mine are seeing things in the game that I didn't. I still have my books, so I would like to give it another shot.

I think you'd get most of the benefit of 4E from 13th Age.
 

I'll agree that the rules of any game, focus the players. However, the biggest determiner of the personality of the game is the personality of the group playing it. If I ran a combat only session then yes, it's a pure combat game. If I ran a session where all characters were at court, then it took on the personalities of the players and their characters.
I sort of agree, but I played a lot with the same players and 4E seemed to bring out the inner rules lawyers in all of us. By having defined nearly everything it seemed like it was necessary for them to play that way. Having switched to 5E, we don't tend to play that way and things feel more like they did back in the pre-4E days.
 


Sampler set of Meeples: $9.50 (21 colors); $65 for 10 of each color
Set of 10x 12mm cubes: $2.45 x3 (to allow for 3 kinds of monsters)
Shipping $5 -ish
Sharpie to number said cubes $3

Looks great on the table, and less work than stickering.
Plus, allows using 16mm hexes or 3/4" squaregrid, if you choose, for smaller table footprint.

Swap for minimeeples, 8mm cubes, and 1/2" grids for even smaller tablespaces.

Good stuff. I simply prefer to have custom chits specific to the type of monster hence my approach. If I wasn't OCD like that, yours is far better.
 

Usually, when I finish reading a new rpg, I get excited about making a character. This didn't happen with 4e, which was odd for me. Made a character anyway, and we ran a few adventures, but the usual roleplaying didn't happen. Couldn't get into it.

I would like to try again, because we may have sold the game short. It shares some similarities with 13th Age, after all. And people who have similar play styles to mine are seeing things in the game that I didn't. I still have my books, so I would like to give it another shot.

TBH, the first time I made a character for 4e (session 0 for my group) we had all just jumped in without pre-reading anything. Left the experience with some serious apprehension because we all realized at different times how table oriented or video gam-ey it felt. Half of the table mentioned at one point in time or another that if we didn't know each other well, we'd just go play a group based video game together every week for a few hours and get rid of the prep. Now that the game is over, we're glad we didn't.

If you decide to try it again, I hope you enjoy it.

Be well,
KB
 

I sort of agree, but I played a lot with the same players and 4E seemed to bring out the inner rules lawyers in all of us. By having defined nearly everything it seemed like it was necessary for them to play that way. Having switched to 5E, we don't tend to play that way and things feel more like they did back in the pre-4E days.

I agree with your experience. When everything is codified, people pay more attention to the code. After a few sessions (we started with Keep on the Shadowfell) we had to institute table rule 0.1

Rule 0: DM as final arbiter
Rule 0.1 - The group agrees that the best storyline outcome will overrule the right rules decision if it's something that the group feels is detrimental to the experience.

I expect that everyone has something similar that relates to their preferred game style. Very rarely do I see any long standing group run RAW.
 

I agree with your experience. When everything is codified, people pay more attention to the code.

It's a delicate balance to strike. I get why WotC tried to "DM Proof" things and I do support having robust systems as opposed to no systems at all, but 3.X and 4E often went way too far.

I think I said this elsewhere but I do like the idea of the skill challenge as a way to make non-combat more interesting. Unfortunately what often happened in play was that Skill Challenges turned into a "OK time to go around the table" in a fashion that felt very mechanical, which I think was one of the overall problems of lots of defined powers. I tended to find it more subtle not to tell the players that they were in a Skill Challenge and just occasionally call for rolls, keeping track of successes and failures. It kept things less mechanical and more oriented on the RP.

In terms of combat I think 5E has mostly gotten it right, but I think some of the numbers in Skills and Saves are off---DCs are often too high---and I'd definitely like a bit more definition in terms of Skills, with more use of Y successes before X failures, which mimics the hit point mechanic. The save system would also benefit from having partial successes determined by having to make multiple saves. For instance, a spell that requires two saves, one to avoid damage and one to avoid a special effect, for instance, or two different types of damage. A good example might be Prismatic Spray, which as it stands is kind of underwhelming, whereas the 4E version was pretty cool because it attacked multiple defenses. That lets DCs and bonuses stay lower.


I expect that everyone has something similar that relates to their preferred game style. Very rarely do I see any long standing group run RAW.

I tended to find that we played 4E pretty close to RAW with way fewer changes than had ever been the case in prior games. Part of that was played inclination but a lot was how intricate things were. It was hard to hack.
 

It's a delicate balance to strike. I get why WotC tried to "DM Proof" things and I do support having robust systems as opposed to no systems at all, but 3.X and 4E often went way too far.

Sure. I can see that. I always just assumed that the designers were at one point DMs of long-standing games. When I ran 1e for six months, it was pretty RAW. When I ran it for 3 years, I had enough table rules that it got crunchy. By that point 3x didn't seem that bad in comparison, but totally agree that I wouldn't want to introduce new players to the genre with a crunchy base rules set.

I think I said this elsewhere but I do like the idea of the skill challenge as a way to make non-combat more interesting. Unfortunately what often happened in play was that Skill Challenges turned into a "OK time to go around the table" in a fashion that felt very mechanical, which I think was one of the overall problems of lots of defined powers. I tended to find it more subtle not to tell the players that they were in a Skill Challenge and just occasionally call for rolls, keeping track of successes and failures. It kept things less mechanical and more oriented on the RP.

I dislike skill challenges for the reasons you've detailed. If I could find a ToTM way to fairly adjucate them, I would.

I tended to find that we played 4E pretty close to RAW with way fewer changes than had ever been the case in prior games. Part of that was played inclination but a lot was how intricate things were. It was hard to hack.

Agreed
 

Sure. I can see that. I always just assumed that the designers were at one point DMs of long-standing games. When I ran 1e for six months, it was pretty RAW. When I ran it for 3 years, I had enough table rules that it got crunchy. By that point 3x didn't seem that bad in comparison, but totally agree that I wouldn't want to introduce new players to the genre with a crunchy base rules set.
I currently stick close-ish to 5E RAW, but have definitely found spots I don't like. A lot of it depends on the group, though. Some groups are much more tolerant of alterations that others. Totally agree about introducing newbies with something as complicated as early 4E.



I dislike skill challenges for the reasons you've detailed. If I could find a ToTM way to fairly adjucate them, I would.

Don't tell people they're in the middle of one helps a ton. Another is to adopt the basic idea, but make it obvious. This works better for, say, unlocking a chest. For example, clearly describe it as having two traps (requiring two rolls to remove, making one magical so Arcana, for instance) and three security measures.

The Skill Challenge has the substantial benefit of using something like the hit point mechanic, which just fundamentally requires multiple stabs to succeed and is a way of measuring partial success.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top