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

Here are some examples of what can be done with a setting that is theme, and striking elements, but leaves the structure (in terms of detailed geography and history) unsettled.
Which is all fine for just you running your own game, but what if I and 100 or 100,000 other DMs all want to use (or, because it's the official setting for a major and intended-to-be-mass-market game system, are expected to use) the same setting?

At that point, particularly for any sort of "organized play", you need enough foundation to provide at least a vaguely common experience; and that foundation would at the very least consist of:

- a general map of a reasonably large area (a continent?) showing major features with enough blank space to allow a DM to place her own elements as desired (the 1e FR map is a fine example)
- specific maps of a few key locations on the general map (a key city which I'll call Key City; an important realm or two) where the published modules will take place as written
- a bare-bones history of how some things came to be where and how they are, particularly as they might affect the published modules
- a (brief!) write-up or gazetteer of the major elements on the maps - Key City, the noteworthy realms, etc.

With this, a DM who just wants to plug and play has enough material to do so, while a DM who wants to tweak or add to or kitbash the setting has a good foundation to start from.

For Nentir Vale in particular I'd expect a map of the Vale area showing some of the points of light, a map of one important city or town or point of light within it, and a general map of what's around/beyond the Vale itself. For a post-apocalyptic setting like that I'd also find very useful a map of what was where before the apocalypse, though others might want to make this up for themselves.

Lanefan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Which is all fine for just you running your own game, but what if I and 100 or 100,000 other DMs all want to use (or, because it's the official setting for a major and intended-to-be-mass-market game system, are expected to use) the same setting?

At that point, particularly for any sort of "organized play", you need enough foundation to provide at least a vaguely common experience
Presumably part of the organisation of organised play includes supplying material. My understanding is that the organised play for 4e included a lot of stuff.

For Nentir Vale in particular I'd expect a map of the Vale area showing some of the points of light, a map of one important city or town or point of light within it, and a general map of what's around/beyond the Vale itself.
The DMG had a map of a region (Nentir Vale) and a town (Fallcrest). I've never used them, but did get around to reading that chapter a couple of years after I bought the DMG. They're utterly unremarkable, and largely indisinguishable from any other low-level D&D setting (a forest for elves, mountains for dwarves, raiding goblins, haunted swamps etc).

The stuff that's interesting about 4e's default setting is the cosmology and history of fallen empires etc.
 

Here are some examples of what can be done with a setting that is theme, and striking elements, but leaves the structure (in terms of detailed geography and history) unsettled.

Yeah, there are some nice examples. I know people who ran with it like you did. I tried, but never really stuck as it just didn't have too much to work with. I totally get that other people can like that. I don't mind a lack of obvious geography in the sense of requiring a traditional map. I am running something like that myself because the campaign involves lots of planes-hopping, but I guess there is some geography at least in a relational sense. The Points of Light setting just had some mentions and then had a few more mentions later on. I think WotC was self-justifyingly lazy and flailed around a lot with the "points of light" campaign and a lot of other 4E introductions, too, such as Mithrendain in the Feywild. They had some better material in the Shadowfell box. Of course they did have the Gardemore Abbey adventure, too, which was supposed to be good though I never really read it.

As I said, a lot of it comes down to the fact that I think WotC in 4E and 5E especially has a team that's very much narratively oriented; they don't really pay much attention to my concerns in terms of outlining a world. I understand why as I think they felt that their older material did that and they (IMO incorrectly) think that not providing information leaves the DM free to fill it in. I just don't agree with it. I'm not interested in the level of detail that the Realms got in the 3.X days. That was clearly too much. But the Points of Light setting went way the other direction.
 

Presumably part of the organisation of organised play includes supplying material. My understanding is that the organised play for 4e included a lot of stuff.
As one who never participated in organized play (in any of the 5 editions) I canony ask: why not give this stuff to the rest of us to use?

The DMG had a map of a region (Nentir Vale) and a town (Fallcrest). I've never used them, but did get around to reading that chapter a couple of years after I bought the DMG. They're utterly unremarkable, and largely indisinguishable from any other low-level D&D setting (a forest for elves, mountains for dwarves, raiding goblins, haunted swamps etc).
Which, given that the setting itself had been set up as somewhat unique, comes as something of a disappointment.

That said, I've got the 4e DMG and don't remember any of that being in it, though it's a decade or so since I looked closely at it. Better give it another once-over, I guess. :)

The stuff that's interesting about 4e's default setting is the cosmology and history of fallen empires etc.
Do they provde a map of where those empires used to be, or notes/info on what they did or were known for?

That's the sort of thing that would make it useful.
 

As one who never participated in organized play (in any of the 5 editions) I canony ask: why not give this stuff to the rest of us to use?
A lot of the FR modules were available for download at one stage. I don't know if they still are. (OK, so now I do: Google took me to this page.)

But when I am buying a book I don't want to pay for stuff I don't need. The 4e DGM would have been (say) $2 cheaper without that Fallcrest chapter in it, which would have suited me fine!

Do they provde a map of where those empires used to be, or notes/info on what they did or were known for?

That's the sort of thing that would make it useful.
The absence of that is what makes it useful. It means you can use it as necessary without being constrained by a pre-established map or timeline. There's a recent thread on exactly this point.
 

A lot of the FR modules were available for download at one stage. I don't know if they still are. (OK, so now I do: Google took me to this page.)

But when I am buying a book I don't want to pay for stuff I don't need. The 4e DGM would have been (say) $2 cheaper without that Fallcrest chapter in it, which would have suited me fine!

The absence of that is what makes it useful. It means you can use it as necessary without being constrained by a pre-established map or timeline. There's a recent thread on exactly this point.

I think WotC was self-justifyingly lazy and flailed around a lot with the "points of light" campaign and a lot of other 4E introductions, too, such as Mithrendain in the Feywild. They had some better material in the Shadowfell box. Of course they did have the Gardemore Abbey adventure, too, which was supposed to be good though I never really read it.

As I said, a lot of it comes down to the fact that I think WotC in 4E and 5E especially has a team that's very much narratively oriented; they don't really pay much attention to my concerns in terms of outlining a world.
The fact that they didn't produce the material you wanted, or that they approached "setting" in a different way, doesn't mean they were lazy (self-justifyingly or otherwise). It just means they did something different from what you wanted! (Just as, in 5e, they are doing something different from what I want, producing mostly fiction that tends to serve up a pre-written story rather than provide material to be incorporated by the table into its own story.)
 

The fact that they didn't produce the material you wanted, or that they approached "setting" in a different way, doesn't mean they were lazy (self-justifyingly or otherwise). It just means they did something different from what you wanted! (Just as, in 5e, they are doing something different from what I want, producing mostly fiction that tends to serve up a pre-written story rather than provide material to be incorporated by the table into its own story.)
Dunno about you but I always smell a rat whenever I'm told "yeah, we didn't do something... but, really, you're better off because we didn't bother, so you should be the one thanking us!"

I'm with you on not paying for a lot of content I won't use, although my general feeling is that (a) I'm not batting 1000 on knowing what I will and won't use in the future and (b) I do recognize that there are compromises in what gets developed and included in a book. (I mean, I'm in academia... after what peer reviewers do to papers a good bit of the time, they're often unrecognizable.)
 

The absence of that is what makes it useful. It means you can use it as necessary without being constrained by a pre-established map or timeline. There's a recent thread on exactly this point.

I don't get this... the Fallcrest map and description were in the 4e DMG and it didn't seem to have constrained you in any way so why would the setting being fleshed out for those who do find it useful for their playstyle and games put constraints on you? Honestly I don't see how anything being published, can actually constrain how it's used by a DM/GM...
 

Alright, let me get some responses up.

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], another curious thing about responses to 4e is this idea of "DM-proofing". There's a very strong ethos, I think, among D&D players that the GM's job includes deciding outcomes. Which also underpins at least some of the discussion about TotM vs minis/grids.

Absolutely. Or at the very list, there is a very strong ethos among many D&D players that the GM's job (as lead storyteller) is primarily about curating play generally (and in some cases very specifically) with the abstract/broad play agenda of what (the GM thinks) makes the best story and entails (what the GM thinks is) the most fun. Its this overly broad/subjective agenda and the extreme discretion/latitude afforded by "the lead storyteller" (coupled with a certain approach to/design of resolution mechanics) that creates a stark contrast with a game like Dungeon World (where agenda/principles/resolution mechanics are hyper-focused/transparent and GM discretion/latitude is very constrained by comparison).

And yes, that coincides nicely with TotM vs minis/grids. When you have combat resolution machinery that is as intensive as D&D (action economy, ranges, durations, spatial relationships all interfacing EXTREMELY intimately and therefore player-decision-points become enormously dependent upon the parsing of such variables and their inter-connectivity), removing the concreteness moves the spectrum of agency in combat-related decision-points from player overhead to GM discretion.

I don't see how that could be argued differently. It can certainly be argued that it makes for a better game because other consideration a, b, or c, but the above remains intact.
 

I don't get this... the Fallcrest map and description were in the 4e DMG and it didn't seem to have constrained you in any way
Because I just ignored it. I've never run a game set in Fallcrest or the Nentir Vale.

so why would the setting being fleshed out for those who do find it useful for their playstyle and games put constraints on you? Honestly I don't see how anything being published, can actually constrain how it's used by a DM/GM...
(1) There's clutter that has to be disregarded. (2) There's communication issues among the group as to what's in and what's out. (3) The authors don't simply do their best work, but subordinate their ideas to the demands of the already established history and geography.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top