|
|
Post by scalydemon on Jul 9, 2016 20:28:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jul 9, 2016 22:36:12 GMT -6
Interesting! I'd never read of Ehlissa/Ahlissa being a cleric in any other source before. I'd also read elsewhere that their first encounter was with giant centipedes, not scorpions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 9, 2016 23:22:36 GMT -6
Holmes Basic took the first steps towards rectifying this, explicitly stating that "Characters can be either male or female" (pg 7). Plus it uses "he or she" in a few instances, including when referring to the DM (pg 5, left column). A female character is referred to on page 5 (right column), and one of the adventurers in the example of combat is "Priestess Clarissa", who smashes a spider with her heavy mace (pg 21). While the term "fighting men" is still used, "fighters" appears almost as often as an alternative. Lemunda in the Sample Dungeon is "lovely" but also a "good fighter" who is "Level 2" and crafty enough to keep a concealed dagger.
|
|
Elphilm
Level 3 Conjurer
ELpH vs. Coil
Posts: 68 
|
Post by Elphilm on Jul 10, 2016 10:08:14 GMT -6
While the term "fighting men" is still used, "fighters" appears almost as often as an alternative. Funnily enough, even in the LBBs, the term fighter is used more often (38 times) than fighting-man (31 times) in reference to the class. Of course, perception matters, and on page 6 where the concept of classes is introduced, fighting-man is bolded while fighter is not, even though the latter is used more frequently. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 6:41:59 GMT -6
Great example of why I rarely play D&D with anyone other than my own daughters and trusted friends. Who needs the aggravation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 6:55:00 GMT -6
Back in 1975 we were a 50/50 male/female group from the beginning and it never occurred to us to leap to the completely unwarranted and ludicrous assumption that anything in D&D(now called OD&D) was limited to men only. The language of OD&D back in 1975 was standard inclusive language for its day and for most of the history of modern English. It is only in the past 20-25 years that standard English has been deemed (in defiance of common sense) not to be inclusive.
What Dapkus really means here is that there were no sexist roles for women to play instead of men and women having the same list to just from. He is actually complaining about the equality that was in OD&D. Did people really like it better when some of that nonsense was introduced into AD&D and Dragon Magazine?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 11, 2016 8:11:49 GMT -6
The language of OD&D back in 1975 was standard inclusive language for its day and for most of the history of modern English. It is only in the past 20-25 years that standard English has been deemed (in defiance of common sense) not to be inclusive. Riiiiiight. All those references to "men" are inclusive of "women." Back in 1975, and for most of the history of Modern English, the language was not deemed "inclusive"; women were simply not considered for men's activities. Hence "mailman," "fireman," "policeman," and so forth. Where men and women shared jobs, women were often given a feminized title rather than share a title with men: "steward/stewardess," "waiter/waitress," "actor/actress." Even today there is a strong tendency to separate male and female occupation titles when women are doing what was once considered a male-only job. When describing two boxers, for example, two men will simply be described as "boxers," but two women will almost always be described as "female boxers." The idea that the language was once equitable and harmonious, and has recently been corrupted by political correctness, is conservative claptrap and the exact opposite of what has happened. Most people just don't like the pressures of language change, but change they will. |
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Jul 11, 2016 8:44:22 GMT -6
I am unclear on the intended point of the article, but would take exception to it's conclusion that any D&D "milestones" were established by EGG's daughter owing to her play testing her father's game. Some would disagree.
There are perhaps traces of chauvinistic language to be found in early rules and depictions of females in the genre but nothing patently sexist or offensive to reasonable people.
Enlightenment presupposes darkness. Not really fair when you are holding a lamp to point at people who didn't have it and criticize how they did in lesser light, you take nothing into account of the circumstances that shaped them in the past.
Women as a whole,with notable historic exceptions were not always able to participate in some labor or war the way that men did and the fact that they now can owes as much to technological advances as it does to changing attitudes. Automation, lighter equipment, industrialism, and a greater reliance on tech have opened up warfare in a manner that biological sex is less of a factor than it was historically.
I don't like patriarchy but not every historic difference in sex roles comes down to a design to subjugate or demean women. Female warriors were less common than men for a host of reasons, many of them being completely understandable.
This was reflected in later notions of warfare, "fighting men", etc, and hence informed the hobby of wargaming and, later, D&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Jul 11, 2016 8:53:57 GMT -6
I would also say D&D was intended by EGG to be for anybody who wanted to play it and his 1st Edition writings make this pretty clear, so D&D was indeed for its 1st playtester, the language might have left something to be desired, but no doubt he felt comfortable writing in that matter to what he assumed, correctly, to be a mostly male audience.That's all.
|
|
bea
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by bea on Jul 11, 2016 10:35:35 GMT -6
I don't think Gygax (or anyone else from the earliest era) intended to exclude anyone. They just believed that this was a game that would interest adult male wargamers and - despite Gygax having tested it with his kids - didn't think it would find another audience than that. That's how I interpreted the article, anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 10:50:11 GMT -6
The language of OD&D back in 1975 was standard inclusive language for its day and for most of the history of modern English. It is only in the past 20-25 years that standard English has been deemed (in defiance of common sense) not to be inclusive. Riiiiiight. All those references to "men" are inclusive of "women." Back in 1975, and for most of the history of Modern English, the language was not deemed "inclusive"; women were simply not considered for men's activities. Hence "mailman," "fireman," "policeman," and so forth. Where men and women shared jobs, women were often given a feminized title rather than share a title with men: "steward/stewardess," "waiter/waitress," "actor/actress." Even today there is a strong tendency to separate male and female occupation titles when women are doing what was once considered a male-only job. When describing two boxers, for example, two men will simply be described as "boxers," but two women will almost always be described as "female boxers." The idea that the language was once equitable and harmonious, and has recently been corrupted by political correctness, is conservative claptrap and the exact opposite of what has happened. Most people just don't like the pressures of language change, but change they will. Your comment is both insulting and untrue. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 11, 2016 10:58:05 GMT -6
Riiiiiight. All those references to "men" are inclusive of "women." Back in 1975, and for most of the history of Modern English, the language was not deemed "inclusive"; women were simply not considered for men's activities. Hence "mailman," "fireman," "policeman," and so forth. Where men and women shared jobs, women were often given a feminized title rather than share a title with men: "steward/stewardess," "waiter/waitress," "actor/actress." Even today there is a strong tendency to separate male and female occupation titles when women are doing what was once considered a male-only job. When describing two boxers, for example, two men will simply be described as "boxers," but two women will almost always be described as "female boxers."The idea that the language was once equitable and harmonious, and has recently been corrupted by political correctness, is conservative claptrap and the exact opposite of what has happened. Most people just don't like the pressures of language change, but change they will. Your comment is both insulting and untrue. While perhaps flippant in tone, I don't think it's at all clear that Stormcrow's statement in the highlighted paragraph is "untrue". In fact, as far as I can tell, it's pretty historically accurate in regard to the development of American English. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 12:12:22 GMT -6
I don't think Gygax (or anyone else from the earliest era) intended to exclude anyone. My main issue with the article is the assumption that the game rules are the ones that allow or disallow female characters. That is the prerogative of the DM only. So, the entire premise of the article is false. It's a problem with the entire RPG community at the moment, and something I don't think will ever be fixed. In introducing RPGs to my three daughters, they have all chosen to play girls despite the fact that I never actually gave them permission to do so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 12:36:31 GMT -6
I don't think Gygax (or anyone else from the earliest era) intended to exclude anyone. My main issue with the article is the assumption that the game rules are the ones that allow or disallow female characters. That is the prerogative of the DM only. So, the entire premise of the article is false. It's a problem with the entire RPG community at the moment, and something I don't think will ever be fixed. In introducing RPGs to my three daughters, they have all chosen to play girls despite the fact that I never actually gave them permission to do so. I agree that it is the prerogative of the DM only and has nothing to do with the rules. And Good for them! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 12:40:46 GMT -6
Your comment is both insulting and untrue. While perhaps flippant in tone, I don't think it's at all clear that Stormcrow's statement in the highlighted paragraph is "untrue". In fact, as far as I can tell, it's pretty historically accurate in regard to the development of American English. I was referring to the "conservative claptrap" comment which is untrue. It is not "conservative claptrap" that "corrupted by political correctness" is a bad thing, "corrupted by political correctness" is an objectively observable bad problem in today's world. As far as the historical accuracy I think that is an eye of the beholder issue more than anything else. I see what I believe and he sees what he believes. Since I am not intentionally trying to ferret out every possible indication of bias no matter how big or little by viewing the past solely through the lens of current left-wing ideology, which is never a good idea because it leads to erroneous conclusions about peoples beliefs and motivations, I don't view all historical information from a negative perspective. If I take that point of view, then all historical figures are evil and they all had bad intentions. I choose not to assume that everything in the past was done in bad faith. |
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Jul 11, 2016 13:03:40 GMT -6
I felt strongly about the article and its premise partly because I have found few communities as inclusive and welcoming as the RPG community and everywhere I've gamed it included men and women with no problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 13:53:22 GMT -6
I felt strongly about the article and its premise partly because I have found few communities as inclusive and welcoming as the RPG community and everywhere I've gamed it included men and women with no problems.
I agree as highlighted in the quoted text, with the addition of race and ethnicity also being no problem. I have always found that the more variety you have among players the better the game is. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 11, 2016 16:44:42 GMT -6
Your comment is both insulting and untrue. While perhaps flippant in tone, I don't think it's at all clear that Stormcrow's statement in the highlighted paragraph is "untrue". In fact, as far as I can tell, it's pretty historically accurate in regard to the development of American English. Eh, partially accurate. As far as cultural norms, yeah, women were excluded or segregated by job. As for language specifically, it's only really true for 1975 on, as Stormcrow initially suggested. It's partially true earlier, with a steady slide towards more sexist language as the centuries wore on, but even pre-1975, students were still taught that "man" meant "human being", although there were certainly individuals like Hemingway who tried to make "man" mean not just "male" but even "hypermale". There's even a clue in Stormcrow's choice of "waiter/waitress" and similar pairs of gendered profession names: that "-ess" ending came into English via Norman French and started getting used more as society began to segregate gender roles more strictly. But the far more interesting issue is whether there's anything in the LBBs that either encourages or discourages female players or even female characters. The pronouns used are exclusively male, which might be explained away by English style of the time... but the Cleric name-level title is "Patriarch", which is exclusively male. There isn't even a note that Matriarchs are allowed. On the other hand, the pics of the "beautiful witch" and "amazon", while they could be seen as sexist, at least suggest that these are possible character types. This gets backed up later by Holmes, with explicit mention of Witch and Amazon classes. None of the ability score modifications by gender exist yet, and even after AD&D went that route, I think the B/X and BECMI line stayed with the gender neutral rules. I wouldn't go so far as to say the language is inclusive for its time. After all, there's been several decades of feminism in America by the time OD&D is published. But it's not explicitly anti-female, and clearly there were girls and women who wanted to play it. We're going to have to chalk up the gender gap in RPGs to the behavior of existing players and the shift in marketing that forced every game, especially video games but also RPGs, to be marketed for a specific gender. |
|
lige
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 42
|
Post by lige on Jul 11, 2016 19:45:53 GMT -6
There are early articles by Lakofka and Jaquays which do seem to take the male names and pronouns to mean that the official rules were meant only for male characters and then proceed to propose rules for classes meant for females. I believe Lakofkas efforts caused him to be hanged in cartoon effigy by the female gamers of the time (they did exist!)
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 11, 2016 20:55:30 GMT -6
There is the question of whether it is a reasonable expectation of the written rules to be inclusive. Is that the purpose?
Some may say yes, others no.
I tend to feel that it's more a function of the group you play with. And so, it really becomes a matter of choice within that group. The fact is that there is no way to enforce a norm of inclusiveness on a group, if they choose to be exclusive.
As a result, it is easier to force the norm through the use of the written medium, instead.
I personally find little appeal in reading politically correct text. I actually find it distracting in it's intentionalism. My opinion is that it does not actually promote inclusiveness. It is a commercial and political facade.
Inclusion can only be achieved through human interaction, not by reading a sentence that says, "he/she".
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 11, 2016 22:11:25 GMT -6
I would point out that the Moldvay/Cook D&D rules give both male and female versions of the level titles. Clearly a leftist plot to corrupt the very soul of America.
|
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Jul 11, 2016 23:08:34 GMT -6
Women at my gaming table have tended to bring a very refining and civilizing influence to both the game and the players. Certainly with regards to the humour used...I prefer a mixed group. I've DMed for experienced female players and first timers-one girl who joined our group and had never played before is now a DM at college and the hobby is her favorite past time. We played 1st edition Ad&D and Holmes basic. I game with a family containing three sisters and their mom who started on OD&D; they used to play OD&D with the author Laura K. Hamilton, whom my wife's father DMed for! They are all very liberal, pro-woman, and voting Democrats. And after I related this debate to my wife, she thought it was silly to suggest that D&D was ever sexist. Take it for what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 12, 2016 5:03:21 GMT -6
I would point out that the Moldvay/Cook D&D rules give both male and female versions of the level titles. Clearly a leftist plot to corrupt the very soul of America. No conspiracy. A facade- as in phoney token display for personal interests. And here we are having this discussion 30+ years after Moldvay/Cook because an author of an article has chosen to capitalize on this polarized subject. Don't mistake people's resistance to manipulation as an indication of intolerance. The author is attempting to paint TSR as buffoons because of their common use of masculine pronouns and titles. We know there were female gamers during this time period. Am I to understand that there would have been more if the LBB's used politically correct language? BTW- Arneson had a daughter too. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 12, 2016 5:47:56 GMT -6
No conspiracy. A facade- as in phoney token display for personal interests. "Hey, some characters may be female, but there are only male level names. Maybe we should list the female names as well, so people know what they are?" That's a facade? I haven't read the article in question. D&D was never sexist in excluding female players. It does, however, cater to the sexist assumptions of its source material--for instance, that only "men" fight in armies, which was perfectly true in the medieval armies which Chainmail was written to model. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 12, 2016 9:37:12 GMT -6
No conspiracy. A facade- as in phoney token display for personal interests. "Hey, some characters may be female, but there are only male level names. Maybe we should list the female names as well, so people know what they are?" That's a facade? I haven't read the article in question. D&D was never sexist in excluding female players. It does, however, cater to the sexist assumptions of its source material--for instance, that only "men" fight in armies, which was perfectly true in the medieval armies which Chainmail was written to model. That's actually not what the article is about, at all. The discussion of inclusive language is here. The article doesn't mention the way the rules are written at all. It's only about how Gygax clung to the idea of older wargamers being his only target audience, despite the evidence from playtesting with his daughter that girls or even children in general would be a good audience, and despite the resistance of traditional wargamers to the idea of fantasy in their battles. I'm sure he must have eventually figured out that girls and women were playing the game, too. I mean, he approved the female characters in the D&D cartoon. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 12, 2016 14:53:58 GMT -6
This got heated in a hurry. Please play nice.  |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 12, 2016 15:57:11 GMT -6
That's actually not what the article is about, at all. The discussion of inclusive language is here. I guess I read the section titled "Women's Libbers" and the conclusion to the article differently. What do you imagine the author meant by concluding, "it took a few decades, but D&D eventually found its way back to children and women."? How was this supposedly achieved? It's worthwhile (maybe not) reading the comments that followed the article as well. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 12, 2016 16:21:09 GMT -6
That's actually not what the article is about, at all. The discussion of inclusive language is here. I guess I read the section titled "Women's Libbers" and the conclusion to the article differently. What do you imagine the author meant by concluding, "it took a few decades, but D&D eventually found its way back to children and women."? How was this supposedly achieved? It's worthwhile (maybe not) reading the comments that followed the article as well. I don't think it was "achieved", in the sense of someone did something to make women and children take interest. The various Basic products, starting with Holmes, helped bring in the kids, not only by writing in clearer language but also by getting traditional boxed games into mainstream toy stores. What happened, I think, is that attempts to limit D&D to the wargame crowd failed and only slowed the spread to women and children. The fact that one of the first playtesters was a nine-year-old girl only proved that the appeal was there to begin with and the spread was inevitable. If anything, it was later measures, like the change in how games and toys were marketed, that turned back the tide and made the hobby increasingly male again. Combine that with later rewrites designed to appeal to a narrower and narrower crowd and eventually the broader market, including women and children, were eventually forced out. (Not completely. Of my actual friends who are interested in 5e, most seem to be women. But 5e may represent the first few baby steps towarded designing the game for a broader appeal again.) |
|
|
|
Post by increment on Jul 12, 2016 22:29:10 GMT -6
I don't think Gygax (or anyone else from the earliest era) intended to exclude anyone. They just believed that this was a game that would interest adult male wargamers and - despite Gygax having tested it with his kids - didn't think it would find another audience than that. That's how I interpreted the article, anyway. Although my "First Female Gamers" piece was cited as a source for this article, I'd have to say that there are actually pretty good reasons to think that Gygax intended to exclude female participants. Since I wrote that piece, I've found quotes from Gygax from the era (1975) that state this quite explicitly, in regrettable language. That will factor into a revised version of the essay which I'll release someday. There is no contemporary source I'm aware of that suggests Elise was one of his playtesters, though it has been widely reported based on very late statements from Gygax (probably triggered by his piece in Dragon #302 and his reiteration of that anecdote on various web forums). Gygax did name his playtesters on a few occasions in the 1970s, and as my "First Female Gamers" piece indicates, Bob Dale's sister Mary is the only female name on his list. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 12, 2016 22:34:27 GMT -6
Now THAT is a fascinating statement, Jon. What are the sources of these quotes?
|
|
