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

4e fans often get upset when its referred to as a skirmish miniatures game you can tack role playing on when that is how I've had it described to me by fans of the game in the past and reading the books didn't make me go "those guys were clueless!"
Just to be clear, then: you do think that 4e is a tactical skrimish game with RP tacked on?

I guess you are right that the game has changed with the new Video Gamer mentality so that you no longer have any serious injuries. In ADnD however that was not the case and if you were knocked into negative hps you required weeks to recover.
In Gygax's DMG, recovery from negative hit points takes 1 week of rest (DMG p 82):

Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and then revived will
remain in a corna far 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a full
week, minimum. He or she will be incapable of any activity other than that
necessary to move slowly to a place of rest and eat and sleep when there.
The character cannot attack, defend, cast spells, use magic devices, carry
burdens, run, study, research, or do anything else. This is true even if cure
spells and/or healing potions are given to him or her, although if a heal
spell is bestowed the prohibition no longer applies.

If any creature reaches a state of -6 or greater negative paints before
being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member, if
you so choose.​

So you're saying that, in the world of AD&D, no one takes injuries from swords except thost which kill them, and those which render them unconcsious but able to recover (perhaps with a scar or maiming) with 1 week of rest? No one ever has a shield arm broken by a mace? Or a finger cut off by a sword? (Neither of which is apt to knock someone unconscious.)

Hence the slogan, "Get real, get Rolemaster!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

A caster who for whatever reason knows no spells at the moment (e.g. has run out for the day) still has the 'spellcasting' ability.
Seriously? In that case encounter powers aren't class abilities either, because a character who has used all his/her encounter powers and has not had a chance to rest has only the ability to regain them, but not to use any.
 

This is a little weird. I brought this up in significant detail. My post regarding 4e and MtG was actually the genesis to this conversation angle. You either responded to that post directly or responded/XPed posts that were in response to it.
There are a lot of conversations going on right now. I may have lost track of who said what, exactly.

I'll just say that there's evidence for both sides, so while I'm still a firm believer in the MMO theory, I can see why someone might follow the MtG theory. It's far from a baseless accusation.
 

Dunno if removing miniatures saved D&D. It definitely saved/resurrected my interest in the game, though.

The whole point of D&D is creative imagination and abstract thought. Dice, maps, miniatures, are all aids to the process, in many
instances, but not really neccessary. In our campaigns, we use glass beads for monsters, objects, and other important features,
when needed.

IMO, 4E's big fail was removing all character uniqueness, by assigning cookie-cutter specs to a specific miniature. I'm no fan of
5E, either, but it's a resurgence of the character building which has been at the core of the game, since the beginning.
 

IMO, 4E's big fail was removing all character uniqueness, by assigning cookie-cutter specs to a specific miniature.
That's abject nonsense.

And, I don't mean in the "regurgitating edition war bile, because you mentioned 4e" sense. Though, obviously, there's suddenly a lot of that in this thread.

No, I mean in the "colorless green illusions sleep furiously" sense. It's as if you've taken semi-random words and phrases from similar discussions and assembled them into a grammatically passable informal English sentence, without regard for context or individual meaning.


I'm no fan of 5E, either, but it's a resurgence of the character building which has been at the core of the game, since the beginning.
Not much better, but at least it rises to the level of simply flat-out wrong. 5e, thanks to its sane pace of release, has less character-building customization depth of options than 4e (& less balanced, FWIW), 3e (far less!), or 2e (though arguably better options than 2e).
And character-building was rudimentary until 2e, anyway. Random stats, race, pick a class you qualified for... not much beyond that, and little of it under the player's control.

The huge thing that 5e has returned to that was a hallmark of the classic (0D&D, AD&D, BECMI) TSR game, that the prior WotC eds (3.x, 4e, Essentials) had taken a 180 from, is now called DM Empowerment (It wasn't called anything, then, because player entitlement hadn't become a thing).

That's nothing much to do with using minis, which D&D always has (since before it was D&D!), nor with running 'TotM,' which has always been possible in D&D, as well, (even if made challenging by the need to establish relative positioning and intersections among 20' radius & 60-degree cone &c area effects and the like).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

4e fans often get upset when its referred to as a skirmish miniatures game you can tack role playing on when that is how I've had it described to me by fans of the game in the past and reading the books didn't make me go "those guys were clueless!"

I would love to know who those fans are. Back when I first started posting here 6 years ago, there were dozens and dozens and dozens of legitimately active (in terms of posting habits) 4e players on these boards. Now, the bulk of those participants have (very unfortunately as most of them had very interesting things to say) gone elsewhere or just stopped posting altogether.

RPG.Net has a hugely active 4e community.

Something Awful is the same.

Never have I seen an actual 4e advocate, here or in any of those places, describe the game in ignorant and vanilla edition-warrior language (the language of someone who doesn't understand and hates the game) such as "a skirmish miniatures game you can tack role playing on." Never. Not once.

Never.

Perhaps you're confusing what you have read? Perhaps what you have read is a nuanced discussion where someone (who actually likes 4e) said something to the effect of:

a) 4e's character niches are tightly focused and transparently engineered (and then communicated in the text) toward playing a classic role in D&D; protect my allies, support my allies, kill the bad guys, control the battlefield/dictate the terms of engagement. In that way, the coherent design is more like you'll find in a well-built MMO than in any other edition in history.

or

b) The exciting tactical overhead and interesting decision-points for players (both on-turn and off-turn) in 4e combats remind me less of classic D&D and more of an action-adventure CRPG.

or

c) The conflict-charged, tightly-focused "world on fire" premise and thematic setting components/cosmology of 4e reminds me more of Diablo or God of War than Forgotten Realms.

Those are things a 4e advocate (who actually likes the game) may say to describe the game (with reference to video games).

Here is another way that a 4e advocate who has played a lot of indie games and card games like MtG (therefore they understand how all 3 work) might also say something like:

"Wow, Magic's Control decks are about (1) action denial, (2) creature-sweeping, and (3) rearranging/dictating the terms of engagement/field of play (via things like scrying or moving cards in and out of hands, around in the deck, in/out of the graveyard)...ha, its almost like the 4e designers cribbed that directly from WotC's main property...or those Magic guys were consulted!"

or

"Wow, 4e is all about the conflict-charged scene (the encounter) rather than serial exploration...that is just like so many indie games!"

Here is how a 4e advocate who has played athletics at a high level and been involved in martial arts much of their life might describe the 4e Fighter:

"Wow, the active and passive melee control features of the 4e Fighter are so immersive. They harken deeply to the kind of profound and intense catch 22 play that you live every moment when rolling on the mat with a jujitsu player that is either as dangerous or more dangerous than you. They also remind me of checking someone in hockey or basketball where you're always trying to dictate the terms by taking something away but giving something up that is a baited trap/less than ideal option for the guy you are either manning up against or who has come into the zone you're defending. Brilliantly conceived!

Not something to the effect of "4e is basically not a roleplaying game." That is precisely the kind of nonsense that such a person would have been pushing back against for years by people who utterly hated the game and endlessly disrupted interesting conversations by pushing that line either explicitly or implicitly (hence making actual functional and enjoyable conversation all but impossible).
 


Folks, I know some of you have strong feelings. But if you treat each other like edition-warring is still a thing, you will find yourself on vacation. Patience will be very thin for shenanigans on this.
 



Lanefan said:
A caster who for whatever reason knows no spells at the moment (e.g. has run out for the day) still has the 'spellcasting' ability.
Seriously? In that case encounter powers aren't class abilities either, because a character who has used all his/her encounter powers and has not had a chance to rest has only the ability to regain them, but not to use any.
Sigh.

A wizard or magic-user always has 'spellcasting' as a class ability, as opposed to a fighter who does not. A ranger always (or should always!) has 'tracking' as a class ability even if she's currently blind, deaf, and tied up in a cave somewhere; as opposed to wizards who never get tracking as a class ability.

Having an ability as a class feature and whether you can actually use that ability right this minute are two completely different things; which is also true for encounter abilities.

pemerton said:
In Gygax's DMG, recovery from negative hit points takes 1 week of rest (DMG p 82):

Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and then revived will
remain in a corna far 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a full
week, minimum. He or she will be incapable of any activity other than that
necessary to move slowly to a place of rest and eat and sleep when there.
The character cannot attack, defend, cast spells, use magic devices, carry
burdens, run, study, research, or do anything else. This is true even if cure
spells and/or healing potions are given to him or her, although if a heal
spell is bestowed the prohibition no longer applies.

If any creature reaches a state of -6 or greater negative paints before
being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member, if
you so choose.

So you're saying that, in the world of AD&D, no one takes injuries from swords except thost which kill them, and those which render them unconcsious but able to recover (perhaps with a scar or maiming) with 1 week of rest? No one ever has a shield arm broken by a mace? Or a finger cut off by a sword? (Neither of which is apt to knock someone unconscious.)
Though not perfect as written, as you note, you still have to admit it's quantum leaps more realistic than the 4e-5e model in which you can get the livin' tar beat out of you (i.e. go to 0-and-unconscious and get stood up each time before dying) several times during a given day and wake up in perfect condition the following mornng after an overnight rest.

Lanefan
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top