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

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.

The body is pretty good but it is not perfect. I am sure that if you were in risk of being killed that you would find out how much those supposed knee injuries really slowed you down.

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.

The rules do tell you that your character has been hurt. And that stat is not measured by your strength or encumbrance.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

If there is nothing to dissociate from then why is your character losing hp?

In any game that I have played in there is always some kind of link between narrative and mechanic so I would be interested to hear your experience.
 

If there is nothing to dissociate from then why is your character losing hp?

In any game that I have played in there is always some kind of link between narrative and mechanic so I would be interested to hear your experience.

The link is entirely free form though. I can say that strawberries explode from you every time you are hit and there is nothing in the mechanics that would contradict that. You lost HP because of a successful attack. That's it.
 

The link is entirely free form though. I can say that strawberries explode from you every time you are hit and there is nothing in the mechanics that would contradict that. You lost HP because of a successful attack. That's it.

In my mind, if you lose hp because of a successful attack then that hp loss is associated with that successful attack. And, just as an example, if that successful attack was a Troll bite then I would expect the description to be essentially Troll attacks with claws and bite, hits with bite, bite does X hp damage.

So what I am wondering is where the part of that sequence does the hp damage become disassociated?
 

In my mind, if you lose hp because of a successful attack then that hp loss is associated with that successful attack. And, just as an example, if that successful attack was a Troll bite then I would expect the description to be essentially Troll attacks with claws and bite, hits with bite, bite does X hp damage.

So what I am wondering is where the part of that sequence does the hp damage become disassociated?

You could certainly narrate it that way. Of course you can. That's the point. You can narrate anything you want to because the mechanics are not actually tied to anything in the game world. Did the troll bite you? Where? How hard? Now, referencing the mechanics, back up your narration? All that actually hapened is your character lost X HP. Since HP don't actually mean anything and combat is completely abstract, any narration you choose is always 100% fine as far as the mechanics go.

Or, put it another way, I insist that your troll bite causes strawberries to explode from my nose. Prove me wrong using the mechanics.
 

In my mind, if you lose hp because of a successful attack then that hp loss is associated with that successful attack. And, just as an example, if that successful attack was a Troll bite then I would expect the description to be essentially Troll attacks with claws and bite, hits with bite, bite does X hp damage.

So what I am wondering is where the part of that sequence does the hp damage become disassociated?

Despite the fact that a particular weapon might do slashing or piercing damage I have often narrated that the hit point loss came from the wind being knocked out of the PC as the flat of the blade or the pommel of the sword struck him/her across the chest. So there was no blood loss, no skin was torn, no injury/wound was sustained - but the foe's attack was successful in some way and hit points were lost and that makes sense in my mind.

I'm not saying your way is wrong, where every successful attack draws blood, but for me to describe every attack against a PC like that would break immersion for our table.
 

You could certainly narrate it that way. Of course you can. That's the point. You can narrate anything you want to because the mechanics are not actually tied to anything in the game world. Did the troll bite you? Where? How hard? Now, referencing the mechanics, back up your narration? All that actually hapened is your character lost X HP. Since HP don't actually mean anything and combat is completely abstract, any narration you choose is always 100% fine as far as the mechanics go.

Did the Troll bite? Well yes it must have because it was a successful bite attack that did X bite damage to you. So therefore the combat is not completely abstract because any logical narrative should include those mechanical details.

Or, put it another way, I insist that your troll bite causes strawberries to explode from my nose. Prove me wrong using the mechanics.

I am not sure that anyone was arguing that point. Is there supposed to be a particular place on your character where HPs come from? Do HPs have a flavour or do they all taste like chicken? I am sure that games that Rule Quest have a set definition that a leg has X HP but I dont remember that rule in DnD except for maybe the Critical Hit location tables back in ADnD.

So I can not prove that a Troll bite would or would not cause strawberries to explode from your nose just like I can not prove that your character actually has to go to the toilet. I do have an opinion on both of those scenarios but it is entirely of my own devise with no official rules guidance.
 

You could certainly narrate it that way. Of course you can. That's the point. You can narrate anything you want to because the mechanics are not actually tied to anything in the game world. Did the troll bite you? Where? How hard? Now, referencing the mechanics, back up your narration? All that actually hapened is your character lost X HP. Since HP don't actually mean anything and combat is completely abstract, any narration you choose is always 100% fine as far as the mechanics go.
I agree with this, and have XPed it.

I insist that your troll bite causes strawberries to explode from my nose. Prove me wrong using the mechanics.
Getting hit doesn't replenish rations?
 

Despite the fact that a particular weapon might do slashing or piercing damage I have often narrated that the hit point loss came from the wind being knocked out of the PC as the flat of the blade or the pommel of the sword struck him/her across the chest. So there was no blood loss, no skin was torn, no injury/wound was sustained - but the foe's attack was successful in some way and hit points were lost and that makes sense in my mind.

I'm not saying your way is wrong, where every successful attack draws blood, but for me to describe every attack against a PC like that would break immersion for our table.

I find that if you are using a system where everyone heals up over night then this type of description is logical.

For me I find that if my character is at say half HP and the Cleric comes around offering to cast Cure Light Wounds or use a Healing Kit that actually having a wound that I can get healed makes more sense in my mind. If I am just winded then it makes it seem less dangerous and therefore less heroic.
 

I find that if you are using a system where everyone heals up over night then this type of description is logical.

For me I find that if my character is at say half HP and the Cleric comes around offering to cast Cure Light Wounds or use a Healing Kit that actually having a wound that I can get healed makes more sense in my mind. If I am just winded then it makes it seem less dangerous and therefore less heroic.

Fair point. I generally use a mix of descriptors in combat because either of those things can happen (overnight resting, magical healing) and then in 5e there is also spending HD to heal or using a medical kit. And this again because HP is a combination of factors.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top