The use of miniatures in combat is one aspect of 4E Dungeons & Dragons that appeals to me. It wasn’t always this way. I never even considered them when playing earlier editions, resisted using them in 3E, but slowly came around. My first purchase was from Wizards of the Coast’s attempt to resurrect the Chainmail game. My Local Gaming Store (LGS) was blowing out their inventory (WotC’s attempt failed), and I loaded up on orcs and lizardfolk and kobolds. I enjoyed painting them, mainly because it gave me a reason to use some of the painting supplies I hadn’t touched since my graphic design courses in college.
Painting minis is a hobby unto itself, and one I didn’t really have time for, so I was very pleased when WotC began releasing their pre-painted minis. The skirmish game held little interest for me, however. I wanted to use them for D&D. The random packs presented a barrier, so I resorted to purchasing singles on the secondary market.
The release schedule of the D&D Minis line also created a barrier for me. The factors that affected the decisions of what went into each release were guided by the need to support the skirmish game, not a DM running D&D sessions. I often spent long hours scouring sets for a comparable match, and often coming up with nothing because either WotC hadn’t produced a mini, or I couldn’t find it as a single.
WotC dropped the skirmish game with the release of 4E and shifted their D&D Minis line to support the latest edition of D&D. I cheered, until I saw what their business model was. Heroes would now be in their own separate line, and the monsters would still come in random packs.
It came as no surprise to me when WotC announced this past week that they were canceling the Heroes series and had a “new vision” for D&D Minis, in general.
I’ve made the same comment more than once over the last couple months in answer to the question about what WotC should do with their minis, so I thought this turn of events provided me with the perfect opportunity to spell out what I would do with the D&D Mini line if I was project manager.
First, I would continue to release Hero sets. Players have different needs from DMs, but still need to be serviced. Sets would coincide with the release of PHBs, and include a mini for each combination of race, class, build, and gender. WotC made a big mistake by drawing out the release of minis representing each race and class in a PHB long after the rulebook’s debut.
The minis in the set would come packaged in a different formats. The primary packaging would be singles. Players typically look for individual minis to represent the PC they are playing, and most players are involved in one game at a time. I would also have secondary packaging that included a male and female version of the same mini race/class/build, or all the builds of a particular gender/class combination, in one pack. Finally, I would produce a limited amount of sets by race or class (e.g., an elf set or a fighter set).
Monster minis would be handled differently. No more random packages. Instead, I would release sets of similar monster types, and I would release sets of all the monsters from a published adventure module. Based on how much time I spent putting together a spreadsheet of minis needed for Keep on the Shadowfell, the fact that the keyword search “keep on the shadowfell miniatures” is the all-time top search term for my site, and I’ve personally come across multiple forum posts asking for lists of minis for use with this adventure or that, I think the latter sets would be great sellers.
What type of miniature products would you like to see from WotC? I’d also be interested to read your speculation on what WotC’s new vision for their D&D Minis line will be.
I agree. The minis are good but they seem to package them and market them in an annoying way. Why not allow DMs to buy the creatures they want?
Instead, Wizards force customer to buy unwanted minis in-order to get the ones we need. WotC seem to be hanging on to the idea of a “collectible” game where part of the fun is buying random stuff you don’t want.
On the heroes side. Producing all the different varieties you want is expensive. From design to manufacture to stock levels to shipping, adding items to your product lines is an expensive business when not many people want “Female / Gnome / Clerics” or other uncommon varieties.
Character figures is difficult for mini makers because you can never have the right figure. Every potential customer has a different idea what their character looks like. This is why our heroes range (please excuse the plug – http://6d6fireball.com/rpg-miniatures/heroes-or-villains/ ) is based on characters for our games. This way, at least we get the perfect figure even if no one else does.
Chris Tregenza´s last blog ..D&D 3.5 versus 4e
I agree with Chris that every combination of race/class/gender would be difficult to do from a corporate standpoint (and harder to do well). But I understand how hard it is when you have a race that doesn’t have a lot of representation. There’s plenty of humans and elves. A goodly number of dwarves, as long as you like heavy armor. But a variety of tieflings? Dragonborn? Goliaths? Medium-sized minotaurs? And don’t get me started on genasi. There are five different types of them. Ten if you count the corrupted elements from dragon magazine. Combine that with two genders and several classes and it gets to be an unmanageable problem.
I’d limit it by armor. After all, a figure in scale mail might be a fighter or it might be a paladin, or a cleric with armor proficency. A figure in leather could be a thief or a warlock. Obviously they use different weapons, but that’s easier for me to get over.
I would settle for one member of each unusual race of each gender in light armor and one in heavy armor. With some armor designs, gender is irrelevant.
Yeah, my biggest concern is lack of representation. Your idea of using armor to cover multiple options is a nice solution (from an economic/production standpoint) that I hadn’t considered, Philo.
[...] of miniatures, and had a new “vision” for their D&D minis, prompted me to share my strategy were I product manager. In the spirit of full disclosure, however, I have to admit that I’m planning to move from [...]