D&D Historian Benn Riggs On Gary Gygax & Sexism

The recent book The Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons 1970-1977 talks about the early years of D&D. In the book, authors Jon Peterson and Jason Tondro talk about the way the game, and its writers, approached certain issues. Not surprisingly, this revelation received aggressive "pushback" on social media because, well, that sort of thing does--in fact, one designer who worked with Gygax at the time labelled it "slanderous".

D&D historian Ben Riggs--author of Slaying the Dragon--delved into the facts. Note that the below was posted on Twitter, in that format, not as an article.

D&D Co-Creator Gary Gygax was Sexist. Talking About it is Key to Preserving his Legacy.

The internet has been rending its clothes and gnashing its teeth over the introduction to an instant classic of TTRPG history, The Making of Original D&D 1970-1977. Published by Wizards of the Coast, it details the earliest days of D&D’s creation using amazing primary source materials.

Why then has the response been outrage from various corners of the internet? Well authors Jon Peterson and Jason Tondro mention that early D&D made light of slavery, disparaged women, and gave Hindu deities hit points. They also repeated Wizard’s disclaimer for legacy content which states:"These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."

In response to this, an army of grognards swarmed social media to bite their shields and bellow. Early D&D author Rob Kuntz described Peterson and Tondro’s work as “slanderous.” On his Castle Oldskull blog, Kent David Kelly called it “disparagement.” These critics are accusing Peterson and Tondro of dishonesty. Lying, not to put too fine a point on it.So, are they lying? Are they making stuff up about Gary Gygax and early D&D?

Well, let's look at a specific example of what Peterson and Tondro describe as “misogyny “ from 1975's Greyhawk. Greyhawk was the first supplement ever produced for D&D. Written by Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz, the same Rob Kuntz who claimed slander above, it was a crucial text in the history of the game. For example, it debuted the thief character class. It also gave the game new dragons, among them the King of Lawful Dragons and the Queen of Chaotic Dragons. The male dragon is good, and female dragon is evil. (See Appendix 1 below for more.)

​

It is a repetition of the old trope that male power is inherently good, and female power is inherently evil. (Consider the connotations of the words witch and wizard, with witches being evil by definition, for another example.)

Now so-called defenders of Gygax and Kuntz will say that my reading of the above text makes me a fool who wouldn’t know dragon’s breath from a virtue signal. I am ruining D&D with my woke wokeness. Gygax and Kuntz were just building a fun game, and decades later, Peterson and Tondro come along to crap on their work by screeching about misogyny.

(I would also point out that as we are all white men of a certain age talking about misogyny, the worst we can expect is to be flamed online. Women often doing the same thing get rape or death threats.)

Critics of their work would say that Peterson and Tondro are reading politics into D&D. Except that when we return to the Greyhawk text, we see that it was actually Gygax and Kuntz who put “politics” into D&D.

The text itself comments on the fact that the lawful dragon is male, and the chaotic one is female. Gygax and Kuntz wrote: “Women’s lib may make whatever they wish from the foregoing.”

​

The intent is clear. The female is a realm of chaos and evil, so of course they made their chaotic evil dragon a queen.

Yes, Gygax and Kuntz are making a game, but it is a game whose co-creator explicitly wrote into the rules that feminine power—perhaps even female equality—is by nature evil. There is little room for any other interpretation.

The so-called defenders of Gygax may now say that he was a man of his time, he didn’t know better, or some such. If only someone had told him women were people too in 1975! Well, Gygax was criticized for this fact of D&D at the time. And he left us his response.

Writing in EUROPA, a European fanzine, Gygax said:“I have been accused of being a nasty old sexist-male-Chauvinist-pig, for the wording in D&D isn’t what it should be. There should be more emphasis on the female role, more non-gendered names, and so forth."

"I thought perhaps these folks were right and considered adding women in the ‘Raping and Pillaging[’] section, in the ‘Whores and Tavern Wenches’ chapter, the special magical part dealing with ‘Hags and Crones’...and thought perhaps of adding an appendix on ‘Medieval Harems, Slave Girls, and Going Viking’. Damn right I am sexist. It doesn’t matter to me if women get paid as much as men, get jobs traditionally male, and shower in the men’s locker room."

"They can jolly well stay away from wargaming in droves for all I care. I’ve seen many a good wargame and wargamer spoiled thanks to the fair sex. I’ll detail that if anyone wishes.”

So just to summarize here, Gygax wrote misogyny into the D&D rules. When this was raised with him as an issue at the time, his response was to offer to put rules on rape and sex slavery into D&D.

The outrage online directed at Peterson and Tondro is not only entirely misplaced and disproportional, and perhaps even dishonest in certain cases...

Part 2: D&D Co-Creator Gary Gygax was Sexist. Talking About it is Key to Preserving his Legacy....it is also directly harming the legacies of Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz and the entire first generation of genius game designers our online army of outraged grognards purport to defend.

How? Let me show you.The D&D player base is getting more diverse in every measurable way, including age, gender, sexual orientation, and race. To cite a few statistics, 81% of D&D players are Millenials or Gen Z, and 39% are women. This diversity is incredible, and not because the diversity is some blessed goal unto itself. Rather, the increasing diversity of D&D proves the vigor of the TTRPG medium. Like Japanese rap music or Soviet science fiction, the transportation of a medium across cultures, nations, and genders proves that it is an important method for exploring the human condition. And while TTRPGs are a game, they are also clearly an important method for exploring the human condition. The fact the TTRPG fanbase is no longer solely middle-aged Midwestern cis men of middle European descent...

...the fact that non-binary blerds and Indigenous trans women and fat Polish-American geeks like me and people from every bed of the human vegetable garden ...

find meaning in a game created by two white guys from the Midwest is proof that Gygax and Arneson were geniuses who heaved human civilization forward, even if only by a few feet.

So, as a community, how do we deal with the ugly prejudices of our hobby’s co-creator who also baked them into the game we love? We could pretend there is no problem at all, and say that anyone who mentions the problem is a liar. There is no misogyny to see. There is no **** and there is no stink, and anyone who says there is naughty word on your sneakers is lying and is just trying to embarrass you.

I wonder how that will go? Will all these new D&D fans decide that maybe D&D isn’t for them? They know the stink of misogyny, just like they know **** when they smell it. To say it isn’t there is an insult to their intelligence. If they left the hobby over this, it would leave our community smaller, poorer, and suggest that the great work of Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz, and the other early luminaries on D&D was perhaps not so great after all…

We could take the route of Disney and Song of the South. Wizards could remove all the PDFs of early D&D from DriveThruRPG. They could refuse to ever reprint this material again. Hide it. Bury it. Erase it all with copyright law and lawyers. Yet no matter how deeply you bury the past, it always tends to come back up to the surface again. Heck, there are whole podcast series about that. And what will all these new D&D fans think when they realize that a corporation tried to hide its own mistakes from them?

Again, maybe they decide D&D isn’t the game for them. Or maybe when someone tells you there is **** on your shoe, you say thanks, clean it off, and move on.

We honor the old books, but when they tell a reader they are a lesser human being, we should acknowledge that is not the D&D of 2024. Something like...

“Hey reader, we see you in all your wondrous multiplicity of possibility, and if we were publishing this today, it wouldn’t contain messages and themes telling some of you that you are less than others. So we just want to warn you. That stuff’s in there.”

Y’know, something like that legacy content warning they put on all those old PDFs on DriveThruRPG. And when we see something bigoted in old D&D, we talk about it. It lets the new, broad, and deep tribe of D&D know that we do not want bigotry in D&D today. Talking about it welcomes the entire human family into the hobby.To do anything less is to damn D&D to darkness. It hobbles its growth, gates its community, denies the world the joy of the game, and denies its creators their due. D&D’s creators were visionary game designers. They were also people, and people are kinda ****** up. So a necessary step in making D&D the sort of cultural pillar that it deserves to be is to name its bigotries and prejudices when you see them. Failure to do so hurts the game by shrinking our community and therefore shrinking the legacy of its creators.

Appendix 1: Yeah, I know Chaos isn’t the same as Evil in OD&D.

But I would also point out as nerdily as possible that on pg. 9 of Book 1 of OD&D, under “Character Alignment, Including Various Monsters and Creatures,” Evil High Priests are included under the “Chaos” heading, along with the undead. So I would put to you that Gygax did see a relationship between Evil and Chaos at the time.

Ben Riggs​

Look, folks, we know how a conversation like this goes on the internet. Because, internet. Read the rules you agreed to before replying. The banhammer will be used on those who don't do what they agreed to.

 

[Parmandur]

Sigh. Whatever. You all seem to be taking this ridiculous discussion very seriously, so I'll leave you to it.

I mean, it is a serious topic.

 

[Nikosandros]

I mean, it is a serious topic.

Sure, it is very important to refute the advice Gygax wrote in 1979 and that, even back then, the majority of tables utterly ignored.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, it is very important to refute the advice Gygax wrote in 1979 and that, even back then, the majority of tables utterly ignored.

It was being held up as good advice.

 

[Riley]

It was being held up as good advice.

I experienced that kind of play three or four times. It was a nightmare. Never went back to those tables.

 

[Umbran]

And before anyone says "Oh, but my players don't do that!", I'll just point out right here that one of the "jobs" of a player in any game of any kind where referee judgment is an element of rules enforcement is to do exactly that: to do what they can to get an advantage over the opposition, within the rules or without; and if your players are in fact not doing that then they're shortchanging themselves.

With respect, I feel this is assuming the conclusion of your argument, rather than supporting it. For this to be true I think requires a pretty specific definition of "referee" that is specific to certain games and playstyles.

Also, I think in saying, "within the rules or without," you are overstepping in assumption.

 

[Steampunkette]

On the one hand, there's nothing wrong with playing that way.

On the other hand, it's not how I like to play. And generally avoid players with that mindset.

My goal as a DM is to tell a story, not "Win". In fact if I "Win" I'm probably telling the story wrong.

Similarly, when I play as a Player my goal is to take part in a story, not to "Win". I still play my characters as intelligent and try not to make too many mistakes in combat, or lock myself into a no-win scenario or anything. But my goal is to enjoy the communal activity with my friends.

 

[Justice and Rule]

And when (not if) the players try to get away with something, is pushing back adversarial or challenge-creating?

It can be, depending on how you go about it. It also depends on what you mean by "get away with something", which often to me is the players cleverly planning in a way the GM didn't expect. To me, the idea of "getting away with something" is very much a viewpoint of adversarial GMs who feel like their players are trying to do something unfair or trying to neutralize the GM. But I think that comes from looking at things as "us versus them": you say "getting away with" when referring to an opposing team cheating, not in a collaborative game. So I don't really let my players "get away" with things because I work to make sure they are including me in plans rather than trying to get around me.

'Cause that's what we're talking about here: Gygax's advice to (greatly paraphrased) push back against players who try to exploit the rules and-or otherwise break the game.

Exploit in what way? Again, this is a wargaming viewpoint, one I'm familiar with because I wargame all the time. His players were looking for exploits because they were looking to win against the GM, just as Gary was looking to thwart them. If you want to play like that, it's fine: it's a style and a choice, just not for everyone. And I'm not here saying you're trying to make everyone play like that, either. But I think Gary definitely pushed that idea and that's why we have so many people viewing the GM role as an adversarial role, often to the detriment of players who don't like playing that way.

And before anyone says "Oh, but my players don't do that!", I'll just point out right here that one of the "jobs" of a player in any game of any kind where referee judgment is an element of rules enforcement is to do exactly that: to do what they can to get an advantage over the opposition, within the rules or without; and if your players are in fact not doing that then they're shortchanging themselves.

I think there's a difference between clever planning and cheating. And I have known cheaters in my life, but I don't really see that as needing an adversarial GM style to deal with. Again, I don't think "challenge" equates with "adversarial". My players certainly look for advantages, but they include me and consult me so that they understand the rules of the universe better rather than trying to make stuff up outside of my sight and then blindside me with it. They don't need to tell me all their plans, but I tell them if it's based on an indirect rules interpretation, run it by me so I can give you a fair idea of what the result should be.

The "challenges" created by the DM are, here, the opposition. Assuming those challenges are created fairly (unfair challenges being an entirely different topic), it's the DM's job to then play those challenges to the best of their abilities - Gygax put this as "Always give a monster an even break" - and if that means wiping out the party because their luck or tactics or ideas are poor and no-one knows what the word "run" means then so be it.

And that's great, but that's not how I view adversarial GMing. To me, adversarial GMing is like wargaming, playing unfair and using power when you can: you always coup de grace, always fight to the death, etc. And that's not always what Gary says (again, the wargaming backbone in the rules is how we get ideas like morale, which is something I use all the time, even if it's largely me deciding it rather than rolling), but I don't think that "adversarial" is just "giving the enemies a fair shake" as much as "be as ridiculous as possible to thwart the players".

At the same time, it's in the players' best interests to - via the actions of their characters - mitigate or avoid those challenges where and when they can. And thus, the DM and the players find themselves at cross purposes; and that's the point.

I dunno, I don't see me at cross-purposes with players when they are trying to solve things. Maybe it's because I'm a teacher and I create things I intend to help people solve all the time, but I don't think it's wrong of me to assist or want the players to overcome challenges. That doesn't mean I straight up give them answers, but I create challenges so that they can be overcome, not for the purposes of frustrating my players.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

That adversarial style of play may be fine between consenting adults, but it is certainly not a universal worth prescribing.

There it is.

Grog buddies in a tobacco scented basement? Go for it!

As a general piece of advice for new players…that is not universal.

A lot of this too is about priorities. I crave challenge as a player and don’t want to just do story…I want to have to make hard decisions in combat at least sometimes or plan approaches…

But not to be slapped down as a player.

As a dm I like it when the players figure it out persevere etc.

“That is bad ass! You did it! What a fight!”

“Holy $@@! I did not know if you are going to figure it out!”

I root for the players always if it’s my turn to DM. But they can also fail…and that is ok too…

 

[Chaosmancer]

Of the topics that could be considered controversial in a thread like this, the idea that D&D might have some adversarial components should not make the list. It's a game where friends get together, they make up imaginary characters, and some of those characters murder each other. It's not like everyone is getting together each week to bake a cake.

It's almost like some people are just looking for an excuse to be ... adversarial.

Except that we aren't discussing whether or not Player's fight monster or if they are baking a cake.

The premise Lanefan starts with (And has been consistent with for years) is that players must take every single route possible to push their effectiveness at every turn to the highest possible capabilities, with no considerations beyond winning. To the extent of seeing if they can break the game entirely by being "technically correct. And therefore, in response to that DMs must constantly reign in their players, force them to be weaker, hit them where they are vulnerable, and never give an inch.

Which immediately falls apart the moment you consider homebrewing a powerful magic item that ISN'T a monkey's paw designed to ruin the character. Or the moment a player says "you know, using my invisible familiar as a portable hole/Bag of Holding bomber to win every fight is kind of boring... I'm going to stop doing that.

Yes, players want to overcome challenges. Yes, the DM crafts challenges. But the DM crafts the challenge for the player to WIN. Because (especially in earlier and deadlier DnD) the moment the group fails to overcome a challenge and dies... the game is over.

And it is very possible that everyone is in agreement in practice of where to be, but the problem is that our words convey different meanings, and some people take you at what you say, not what you mean. I remember a friend who went to a con game with me, run by another friend of mine. That guy loved being an "evil GM" and often would brag about being an adversarial DM. The new friend was deeply offended, because he pointed out that if they were fighting the DM, it was impossible to win, because the DM has infinite resources and can just decide to win. And it threw the other guy for a loop for a minute, because the idea of the DM winning made no sense to him. But, if you are adversarial and fighthing the players.. then you are talking in terms of the you winning or the players winning.

Which is why many people have stopped using that framing and that concept, because the DM doesn't win if the player's fail to defeat the boss, or fail to solve the puzzle. The DM wins when the players win and have a great time. And for some players, that includes DRAMA!! and putting their character through a lot of suffering, either in combat or in the story.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Exploit in what way? Again, this is a wargaming viewpoint, one I'm familiar with because I wargame all the time. His players were looking for exploits because they were looking to win against the GM, just as Gary was looking to thwart them. If you want to play like that, it's fine: it's a style and a choice, just not for everyone. And I'm not here saying you're trying to make everyone play like that, either. But I think Gary definitely pushed that idea and that's why we have so many people viewing the GM role as an adversarial role, often to the detriment of players who don't like playing that way.

You know, I hadn't considered it, but this wargaming viewpoint might be the entire source of this.

Gygax was used to playing the opposing forces of another army... with the goal of winning. So, someone trying to "get away" with something could make sense in the terms of something like trying to flank him without him noticing.

But a GM very much is more like a referee, and if you are ever trying to "get away" with something so the referee doesn't notice you.... then you are likely not playing fairly, because the entire idea feels like if the ref notices you, they will step and stop you, to make sure the fight remains fair.

Which is a fine position for a neutral 3rd party.... but a DM is not actually a completely neutral 3rd party. Not only are they controlling the opposition, as stated before, but if the bad guys win the game is over. Sure, re-roll characters, start a new adventure, but THAT game that you were in with THOSE characters is gone and over, because the players lost. And for most of the GMs I have ever met... that isn't the end they want. So even if they want a fair fight... they also want the player's clever tactic to work so that the players succeed.

I wonder if Gygax just didn't have the conception or the words to express the DM role differently. Because you aren't on the same team as the players, and most board games were fully competetive, with the players trying to beat each other. But part of the power of DnD and other TTRPGs is this strange, helpful yet challenging role of the GM/DM in relation to the players.