Dragon Reflections #3: Controversy Strikes!

The Dragon Issue #3 was published in October 1976, with a cover price of $1.50. The issue contained the usual mix of fiction (a bit too heavy on the fiction for some readers) and gaming material. One of the more controversial articles of the early years of The Dragon appeared in this issue.

The Dragon Issue #3 was published in October 1976, with a cover price of $1.50. The issue contained the usual mix of fiction (a bit too heavy on the fiction for some readers) and gaming material. One of the more controversial articles of the early years of The Dragon appeared in this issue.

d3.jpg

In the editorial, Tim Kask gives an impassioned defense of his decision to include so much fiction in the first two issues: "I include fiction in TD so that the reader’s [games] will be better: fuller, more complete and better founded. Some of the fantasy campaigns now extant rely entirely upon the work of one author, or are centered around only one cycle or mythos. If that suits you, fine. As for myself, I’d rather play in a campaign that blends many cycles, mythos’ and authors’ work. It seems to have a richer flavor."

Kask conceded that this policy had been unpopular with fans and stated that there would be far less fiction in future issues. Issue #3 includes just one story, part 3 of "Search for the Gnome Cache," a serialized novel by Gary Gygax (writing as "Garrison Keller"). Given the first two issues contained stories by Fritz Lieber and Gardner Fox, it's a shame that this pedestrian piece is what survived the chopping block. "Gnome Cache" would finally peter out in issue #7.

The reduction in fiction meant that Kask needed more material to fill the magazine, and it seems that quality gaming articles were still scarce. To fill the column inches, he opted to publish a "plethora of obscure sub-classes," prefaced with this statement: "The authors of D & D have asked me to stress that none of the following are to be considered 'official.' I feel that the purpose of THE DRAGON is to provide new ideas and variants and have printed in the past and will probably print in the future things that I wouldn’t let in my own campaign; a great deal of them are superfluous and better handled by the DM. Be that as it may, I would like to urge caution and discretion in allowing the proliferation of weird sub-classes. All too often, they only make it harder for the DM, and are often too powerful to use as player characters. In the last TD, the alchemist was intended to be recommended as a non-player character, as are many of these."]

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the material! The subsequent pages detail the healer, scribe, samurai, berserker, idiot, and jester. The design quality varies enormously, and of the contributing authors, only Jon Pickens did any other substantial work in the industry.

This issue publishes reader letters for the first time, in a section called "Out on a Limb." Two writers, Garry Spiegle and Lewis Pulsipher, give detailed critiques of the early issues. Garry later worked for TSR before helping to form Pacesetter games. Lewis Pulsipher went on to design and publish several games, as well as writing many articles on the industry. In fact, he still writes a regular column for EN World—an excellent reminder of how young this hobby is!

There is one other noteworthy article. Indeed, it may be the most infamous article in Dragon magazine history. It is called "NOTES ON WOMEN & MAGIC” and is by Len Lakofka. Lakofka was a former president of the International Federation of Wargamers and a close friend of Gary Gygax. He was one of Gygax's original play testers and highly regarded as both a player and DM. Modern readers are probably familiar with his character Leomund, the creator of various spells.

Lakofka's article aimed to modify the D&D character classes to be more "female-friendly," but his suggestions most likely had the opposite effect. He started by limiting both the strength of female characters and their ability to progress in the fighter class. He also replaced the Charisma attribute with a Beauty attribute for women and included a bunch of new female-only spells, such as seduction and charm men. He also gave the female thief class some questionable level titles, such as Hag, Wench, and Succubus. All very offensive stuff.

Editor Tim Kask was about to get a short break from the arduous search for D&D articles. The next issue would be devoted to an entirely new game!

M.T. Black is a game designer and DMs Guild Adept. Please follow him on twitter @mtblack2567 and sign up for his mailing list.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

M.T. Black

M.T. Black

Ath-kethin

Elder Thing
That essay is recorded right here on EN World and has been for nearly 20 years:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?404-Ryan-Dancey-Acquiring-TSR

You can find more historical documents, posts, and essays here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?333655-From-TSR-to-WotC-A-History-of-D-amp-D

I bet I read it for the first time here, back in the day, long before I registered as a member. I just remembered the general gist and did a Google search earlier.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
So I guess the difficult decision that Tim Kask faced with issue 3 was to cut the amount of fiction he was including. o_0
 

So I guess the difficult decision that Tim Kask faced with issue 3 was to cut the amount of fiction he was including. o_0
Its true! It may not sound like much, but he really wrestled with it, and he still speaks about it nearly 40 years later. The fiction component was really important to him. And as this issue shows, without fiction, it was difficult to fill the column inches with quality content.
 


To be fair, Jim Ward (who was VP of creative services near the end of TSR) strongly disputes Ryan Dancey's assessment. I'll have to find the link later.
The Dragonsfoot interview with Jim Ward is in the "History of D&D" section Morrus mentioned above. The relevant part :-

Jim Ward said:
again not wanting to bad mouth mr. Dancey, but his statement is ridiculous. The RPGA was created to pay attention to what the fans wanted. TSR had millions of consumer research cards telling us what they wanted and I bet I personally read over a million of them. I had my staff read them as well. The company sent out its designers and editors to fifty plus conventions a year to hear what the fans wanted. TSR paid over a million is scientific marketing studies on our consumers and I read every one of those reports. To say the company didn’t care about listening to the fans is preposterous. I always made sure I knew exactly who the fans were and what they wanted. . .
 

Koloth

First Post
Before folks pillory Len Lakofka's article, it was very reflective of the times when it was published. It was only a few years after Star Trek explored the shocking concept of a female serving as a bridge officer. Early versions of the D&D game had split stats for males vs females. Consider it a look back at the way things were rather then bad writing.

My gaming groups from that time, I started playing D&D in 79, usually had one or more women players.
 

Umm . . .Gary Gygax openly mocked Women's Lib in early D&D products. I don't think it's an exaggeration to bring up the game's sexism.

Even the 2e-era "we're going to use the masculine pronoun for everything but really we're not trying to discriminate or anything ha ha everybody likes mostly-naked girls in the art, right?" approach didn't really help whole lot, not matter how much better the intentions might have been.

My intention is not to derail the thread here. But let's not pretend there was anything even imitating egalitarianism on the minds of the designers back in the day. It doesn't make them bad people - they were products of their environments the same as any of us. But it's a relief that the environment has changed.

There’s certainly a mix of “product of their time” and “even sexist for back then.” For example, during that time period, I was still being taught in school that using only masculine pronouns was grammatically correct. So I wouldn’t fault them for that, it was unfortunately publishing standard still. But other stuff is certainly a painful blend of openly sexist and horribly executed attempts to reach out like this one that just faceplant instead.
 

Zarithar

Adventurer
I started playing D&D in 1979 and I believe the only remaining vestige of that Len Lafoka piece was that female characters had some stat limitations in the 1e PHB. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think they were unable (without magical means) to attain an 18/00 strength score... which at the time was the highest score you could roll starting out at level 1. I don't thin AD&D had any limitations beyond that. In my regular group of 6-8 players through junior high and highschool, girls were a minority, but we always did have 2-3 female players in the group. Those limitations were house-ruled out almost immediately with opposition from no one.
 

Zarithar

Adventurer
Just have to add it's pretty hilarious and terrible that one of the female thief level names is an actual, real-life, racial slur. Wonderful....
 

Just have to add it's pretty hilarious and terrible that one of the female thief level names is an actual, real-life, racial slur. Wonderful....

40 years ago, it wasn't considered a racial slur. If you said "Romani", no one would have known who you were talking about. The fact that the term is used as a level title for a Thief is telling about the ethnic / cultural prejudices of the day though.

I only knew one female gamer between when we started D&D in 1974 and... about 1980. Met several more about then although the hobby was still overwhelmingly male. We never made any adjustments to characteristics, classes etc. It just didn't seem necessary or fair.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top