article on the role of women in the origins of D&D

[Ancalagon]

http://kotaku.com/d-d-wouldn-t-be-what-it-is-today-without-these-women-1796426183

a good read

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Definitely a good article, taking in the good and the bad. For all her illustrations in the books, I think Darlene’s Greyhawk Folio map is a thing of beauty. The lettering is amazing, all the moreso that it was done freehand.

 

[delphonso]

Nice article for sure.
It's good to see the women who aided development early on. In the recent years I've seen much more diversity around the table, which is truly wonderful. These games are about imagination, experience, and adopting a different persona - having more points of view around the table and behind the books can only aid in this.

 

[Celebrim]

It was interesting in that it focused on persons who aren't discussed much, but since it was supposed to be about the role of women in the origins of D&D I felt it focused a bit too much on some less influential early women in a way that wasn't entirely fair either to the men or the women in the article. There was no mention of Laura Hickman's partnership with her husband Tracy, and Margaret Weis barely got a mention way down at the end of the article which hardly seemed fair given her towering influence on the hobby. The result was to make it seem like the role of women in the development of D&D was entirely minor, and wholly limited by women being marginalized, which isn't quite I think a true picture.

No mention either of Lorraine Williams, though that might have set a different tone.

Ultimately, Jean Wells and Laura Rosloff had an opportunity to be very influential in the development of D&D. But because (it seems primarily) of the 'Silver Princess' fiasco, they just weren't, and instead mostly ended up earning footnotes. It seems like a combination of bad luck, insufficient management, and questionable decisions on their part. The orange version of 'Silver Princess' probably would have survived if it was printed for the AD&D market, but hit the shelves just as TSR was belatedly realizing that many of their customers were minors and that just maybe parents might be surprised and concerned by the content of their product and the module was intended for the 'Basic' line.

I've always found it ironic that in other articles, I've seen the artwork with the naked woman tied up by her own hair and being tortured by a group of men used as evidence of the rampant misogyny of early D&D, when in fact it was the product of some of the only women working at TSR at the time. It's almost as ironic as Wonder Woman becoming an icon of female empowerment.

 

[Silver Moon]

Interesting read. Many of the comments about the gamers of time are right on. My D&D group was close to 50/50 on genders, which was very unusual for the time (the game's host was female and when players that started out as couples broke up she would ask the girl to stay rather than the guy).

The only local gaming conventions at that time were "Wargamer's Weekends", which had traditionally been for miniatures wargaming, but had opened up to D&D to make renting the halls commercially viable. So our whole gaming group would go, with the females wearing dresses or skirts, with their make-up on. We would enter with the females hanging on the arm of each guy. The couples would then split up into different games, and for the first hour each female would role play the sterio-typical "dumb hanger-on girlfriend". Then the women would each drop the act and take over the game with superior play. It was great fun to watch.

 

[Lanefan]

It was interesting in that it focused on persons who aren't discussed much, but since it was supposed to be about the role of women in the origins of D&D I felt it focused a bit too much on some less influential early women in a way that wasn't entirely fair either to the men or the women in the article. There was no mention of Laura Hickman's partnership with her husband Tracy, and Margaret Weis barely got a mention way down at the end of the article which hardly seemed fair given her towering influence on the hobby. The result was to make it seem like the role of women in the development of D&D was entirely minor, and wholly limited by women being marginalized, which isn't quite I think a true picture.

No mention either of Lorraine Williams, though that might have set a different tone.

The article seemed to be focussing on earlier days than Williams was involved with; and though Laura Hickman certainly deserves a mention both she and Margaret Weis came in near the end of the era the article's looking at - which somewhat explains why Weis is mentioned last.

 

[Silver Moon]

It also appears that the author of the article mistakenly believes Kim Mohan to be female.

 

[MNblockhead]

In the mid to late 80s when I played, I would say our gaming groups were about 25% women. I think that was because many in my gaming group we into theater and art. Now wargamming on the other hand, was a sausage fest. It was rare to have ladies spending time with us moving miniature space marines around. I think the article is correct in suggesting that a lot of the stigma of D&D being a game for guys is because many of the early players came from the wargamming community. I think wargamming may appeal less to women than men, but TTRPGs and LARPing seem to attract plenty of women players.

 

[Libramarian]

Part of why this flew was because, in its very ruleset, D&D assumed a mostly-male audience. In the mid-70s, that ruleset faced accusations of chauvinism when it became clear that women characters’ strength was capped four points lower than men’s. It compensated with the “Beauty” attribute, a substitute for “Charisma.” D&D also featured a “Harlot Table,” a bounty of twelve “brazen strumpets or haughty courtesans” players could summon with the roll of a die."

Every statement here is wrong. I'm sure the author could have discussed the women who contributed to early D&D without lying about old editions.

In AD&D female human strength is capped at 17 (vs. 18 for non-Fighter human males). There is no "Beauty" attribute; reading the link provided as the source, that idea appears to be from an old Dragon article. There is a harlot table in AD&D, but players don't "summon" them; it's a random encounter table for the DM to roll on. It's a subtable for City Encounters. I don't find the idea that there would be prostitutes on the streets of a D&D city fundamentally chauvinistic.

 

[Lanefan]

Every statement here is wrong. I'm sure the author could have discussed the women who contributed to early D&D without lying about old editions.

In AD&D female human strength is capped at 17 (vs. 18 for non-Fighter human males). There is no "Beauty" attribute; reading the link provided as the source, that idea appears to be from an old Dragon article.

Well, technically this last bit isn't wrong, as there was "Comeliness": a seventh stat introduced in 1e's Unearthed Arcana (and probably in a Dragon article before that; almost all of UA was first trial-ballooned in Dragon) which split out the physical attractiveness side of Charisma from the persuasiveness side.

Of course, the stat itself was gender neutral, affecting men and women equally....

Dumb idea anyway, and no surprise it didn't survive into 2e.

Lan-"the only 7-stat character I ever rolled up in my life had Comeliness 19 after racial adjustments...then again, she was a Dryad..."-efan