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

RQ and RM are not, afterall, very realistic. It turns out that DnD models real life much better then those other games because the human body does keep operating at close to 100% until it cant. Exactly like HPs would suggest.

The pain of agreeing with this statement is that when you use it in correlation with D&D it relies on your perceived level of abstraction being similar to the person you're using it in conversation with. If the other guy doesn't see HP as including effects like fatigue and advanced combat skills training to offset minor injuries to arms and legs and such.. then it's a much harder sell.

I, for one agree with it.

KB
 

log in or register to remove this ad

And Boromir, for as long as he lasts... D&D systems can be just fine at that but it needs players and DMs willing to rather harshly enforce it and live with the results.

I forgot Boromir wore armor, too.

I think the thing about encumbrance in D&D is that it doesn't really reflect the effect, which is an incremental slowing down, not a "you're fine until THIS threshold, after which you're screwed on movement". As far as I recall, D&D has really never had a fatigue system of note, although there's probably something in al Qadim or Dark Sun. 4E drained healing surges, which was a good way, I think. 5E has the fatigue scale, though they way they set it up is decidedly problematic in a variety of ways.

I'm NOT saying most games should run this way---I don't want to run most games that way---but something that's supposed to be super gritty in the way that LotR is, where you seriously weigh the tradeoff of the protection of armor versus the grinding fatigue that comes with it? Absolutely.
 

Which doesn't work for modeling a character dropped, but who is saved from a mortal wound by his nifty elf armor. Once you're in negatives, you've been mortally wounded, and must be saved, or die with a minute (2e) or 10 (1e).
Not really, though I guess it might with certain description. But I generally think that a game that has Body and Stun would reflect that better. Frodo's Stun was exceeded but the mithril shirt protected him from the Body damage.

3e had like 40 named conditions. 4e had 18. 5e trimmed that down all the way down to 15.

Yes, there were more conditions but they weren't dished out as regularly or synergized with the way they were in 4E. There was a reason 4E benefitted greatly from condition tracking chips on minis and the last thing in most combat turns involved saving against all the "save ends" conditions. High level 3E had other slowdowns, of course. At one point we used to play in a college conference room that we weren't technically supposed to have access to and used the chalkboard on the wall to keep track of spell durations!


'Realism Kills' used to be my tagline on an old RPG BBS. ;)

Heh, that's true.
 

Yes, there were more conditions but they weren't dished out as regularly or synergized with the way they were in 4E. There was a reason 4E benefitted greatly from condition tracking chips on minis and the last thing in most combat turns involved saving against all the "save ends" conditions. High level 3E had other slowdowns, of course. At one point we used to play in a college conference room that we weren't technically supposed to have access to and used the chalkboard on the wall to keep track of spell durations!
There wasn't much synergy among conditions, that I recall, overlap, more often. Oh, you're slowed /and/ immobilized, slowed doesn't really matter now. And, yeah, the sheer number means something - I couldn't say the same about synergy in 3e, because I can't remember half the 40 conditions, I can remember /most/ of 4e or 5e's less-than-half-that conditions, and even how they work (when I'm not getting them confused, that is, which is a danger of running two eds of the same game!).
But it wasn't so much in how often they came up, it was that they didn't stay long. End of Next Turn or Save Ends, typically, so they were ultimately another tactical dimension, not a "you've nothing to do for the next hour or two, might as well get up pizza" 'Save or Suck.' (5e's similar, in some instances, because it allows repeated saves.) If you played a leader and had any way of removing or compensating for conditions, you'd want to keep track of all of them. ;) If you were under a condition, there might be actions you'd want to take only after you got rid of it, because getting rid of it was not all that unlikely - not like making a DC 29 save with a +11, or out-lasting a 1 min/level duration in 6-second combat rounds, unless there was a friendly dispel magic or somesuch in the offing, you'd just adjust your grinder to the condition as best you could and keep grinding. Which is less trouble to track, I suppose.

If you didn't want so much of it, you'd throw down monsters that didn't impose so many conditions, as a DM, and throw around fewer, yourself, as a player (even controllers could be effective without constantly tossing around fiddly conditions that required tracking - straightforward zones that sat there all combat, for instance, that you then push/slide victims* into). Same goes for between-turn actions. You could heavily emphasize or completely eschew them in a build.









* I meant enemies - monsters, even! Yeah, monstrous enemies, that are bad, and have it coming, yeah...
 
Last edited by a moderator:


The pain of agreeing with this statement is that when you use it in correlation with D&D it relies on your perceived level of abstraction being similar to the person you're using it in conversation with. If the other guy doesn't see HP as including effects like fatigue and advanced combat skills training to offset minor injuries to arms and legs and such.. then it's a much harder sell.

I, for one agree with it.

KB

I think my main problem is when the narration is dissociated from the mechanics, so when you were hit with a sword and the narration is that you were "damaged" when you dodged out of the way of the sword or if your character is down to their last hp and you are describing them as being fine and dandy.

I mean I know we are all pretending to be magic elves riding unicorns but there is no need to be absurd about it.
 

Except for the 'If,' that is correct. Its about familiarity.

Ok, it's not just spell tables, but the lack of them was really noticeable. In any other ed, a glance at spell progression gives you a rough, immediate, idea of the class.
There was a chart, near the front, that did this for all classes. (They shared the same chart.) I remember it was one of the first things I looked at!

You don't randomly draw 'power cards.' There's no 'deck.' A mid-level magic-user memorizing spells is closer to 'deck building' than anything in 4e chargen, and its still not very close
Agreed.

RQ and RM are not, afterall, very realistic. It turns out that DnD models real life much better then those other games because the human body does keep operating at close to 100% until it cant. Exactly like HPs would suggest.
As someone who has various sorts of ankle and knee injuries that have slowed me down but never created any risk of killing me, I can't agree with this.

I think my main problem is when the narration is dissociated from the mechanics, so when you were hit with a sword and the narration is that you were "damaged" when you dodged out of the way of the sword or if your character is down to their last hp and you are describing them as being fine and dandy.
I'm talking about what the rules tell us. The character who is down to his/her last hp is not penalised on athletic endeavours, can walk all day without tiring, has no reduction in the load that s/he can carry, can dodge a disintegrate ray as well as the next person, etc. Nothing in these elements of the system tells me that this person has been hurt or worn out in any way.

If the other guy doesn't see HP as including effects like fatigue and advanced combat skills training to offset minor injuries to arms and legs and such.. then it's a much harder sell.
I don't think any edition of D&D has fatigue causing hp loss. In 5e it's a whole separate subsystem. (In fact many such: barbarians running out of "rage juice" is separate from a barbarian getting tired from running is separate from a barbarian getting worn down by a skilled opposing combatant.)
 

I think my main problem is when the narration is dissociated from the mechanics, so when you were hit with a sword and the narration is that you were "damaged" when you dodged out of the way of the sword or if your character is down to their last hp and you are describing them as being fine and dandy.

I mean I know we are all pretending to be magic elves riding unicorns but there is no need to be absurd about it.

The issue with that comes when someone tries to insist that their narration, whatever it is, is supported by dnd mechanics. It never has been. We’ve just internalized our own narratives to the point where they become no longer examined.

You cannot criticize any hp loss narration in DnD based on the mechanics because the mechanics tell you absolutely nothing. All the mechanics say is you have lost hit points. There can be no dissociation when there is nothing to dissociate from in the first place.
 

There was a chart, near the front, that did this for all classes. (They shared the same chart.) I remember it was one of the first things I looked at!
Exactly, you couldn't tell from that which class was better. In 1e you could look at the spell tables and know that the class with 9th level spells was better than the ones that only went up to 7th, &c, even before looking at the lists. That's disconcerting.

As someone who has various sorts of ankle and knee injuries that have slowed me down but never created any risk of killing me, I can't agree with this.
I suspect it was a joke.

I don't think any edition of D&D has fatigue causing hp loss
I feel like there was a 'forced march' rule somewhere that caused the loss of some % of hps...
 

I feel like there was a 'forced march' rule somewhere that caused the loss of some % of hps...
In 1st ed AD&D it could cause level loss - so you can get worse at fighting because you're tired from walking/running, but not because you got hit on the head with a mace? Or (more plausibly) hit point loss doesn't correspond to being hit on the head with a mace.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top