D&D General Just sweeping dirty dishes under the rug: D&D, Sexism, and the '70s

[Snarf Zagyg]

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...
So as I continue to roam if I want to, roam around the world, I stopped in to briefly check in and see that ... oh, this is still going on. Apparently, the recurrent debate about D&D and some of its earlier times has spawned a new thread by @Steampunkette featuring an excellent paper by Chris Danielson, and we are all off to arguing D&D and sexism. I have to admit, I am surprised that the debate is happening again, in much the same way that a NASCAR driver is surprised when he sees a left turn coming up. Since that thread seems to be going back to the usual back-and-forth between "have you ever heard of the male gaze" v. "what's wrong with a little (female) flesh?" viewpoints, I thought I'd post some thoughts about D&D in the 1970s and sexism, along with some resources.

Because I am sure that this will effectively end the debate! Also, I have a bridge in Brooklyn, low price, barely used. Interested?

Ahem. Anyway.... before diving into this, I wanted to make a point that I've made before- there are a lot of ways to view TTRPGs. Here, in the hobbyist community, we get stuck in this rut of thinking that "TTRPG Theory" is (insert player typologies, player agency, etc.), and other stuff is, you know, other stuff. But I think that is a narrow way to look at TTRGPs- we can view them through a number of critical lens, including ways that TTRPGs reify or challenge norms (such as gender norms). I've mentioned this before when looking at the difference between, inter alia, TTRPGs that inhibit or allow queer play, as opposed to TTRPGs that have rules that are explicitly queering.

Whew. With that out of the way, let's get into the subject of the 1970s, sexism, and D&D!

1. Was D&D sexist in the 1970s?
Yes. Next question.


2. Wait, what? That's it?
Sigh. No, that's not it. But I think it's important to say that at the beginning. Because I am going to write more about how this can be a very nuanced subject, and a simple, "Yah, it was sexist. How you like dem apples?" doesn't accurately reflect what was really happening. However, while the full answer is more nuanced and more complicated, and I will provide resources, the top-line answer is that ... there was a lot of sexism in the 1970s. There was sexism in the rules of D&D. And there was sexism in the D&D community.


3. I don't believe there was any sexism. Jean Wells was hired by TSR!
sigh

Okay. Let's do this quickly. This is from Dragon #39-

But it is also apparent, from letters sent by women players around the country as contributions to this article, that many instances of unfair and degrading treatment of women players—and their characters-remain to be corrected. ... Women who play female characters must be concerned about their characters becoming pregnant, or about their characters being 'used' as sex objects to further the ends of a male-dominated party of adventurers. ... Many women are understandably appalled by the appearance of female miniatures. They range from half-naked (possibly more than half) slave girls in chains or placed across horses or dragons, to women fighters dressed in no more than a bit of chainmail to protect their modesty and perhaps a backpack and a sword. Or, there are female Magic-Users wearing nothing but a smile and a bit of cloth draped over one arm.
And who wrote that? Jean Wells. And yes, she was hired as a game designer- then was undercut, had her work destroyed (with male designers commenting on her appearance and personality), had her one module then changed to a co-writing credit with Tom Moldvay, and then was moved to secretarial duties. If Jean Wells is the shining example of D&D and TSR being not sexist, then someone must have misunderstood what "counter" in "counterpoint" means.

I've also heard people say that it couldn't have been that bad, because the groups they played in didn't have that much sexism ... I mean, there groups weren't even, um, rape-y! But while that is great for that group, back when there were three alignments (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic) there were actual debates about whether sexual violence was allowed for Lawful characters. Gregory Alan Fine (in his seminal work) documented that sexual violence against female NPCs by all-male tables was common. And I just quoted Jean Wells alluding to the problem above.

Even putting aside that issue (other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?) the rules of OD&D (and to a lesser, but still present, AD&D) hard-baked both sexist assumptions, gendered disadvantages, and art that was, at best, unwelcoming to many female gamers.

And don't get me started on some of the articles published in Dragon and some fanzines. It is shocking that D&D managed to get up to 10% female players by 1979 (from, I believe, .05% ... yes, less than 1% ... in the community ... in 1974).


4. Okay, so if D&D was sexist, why are you saying that the issue has ANY nuance?
Very little is as simple as saying something is entirely black or white. Except, you know, bards. As a society, we have agreed that they suck. But other than that exception that proves the rule? Here's where I get a little more complicated.

Let's start with an analogy. Every year, I try to post my Pride Thread. One of the points that I make is that D&D (in the '70s and especially the '80s) was certainly not officially a welcoming space for queer people. And the community wasn't exactly a welcoming space. But despite that, it still provided a space that was invaluable for many queer youth.

And it is the same with D&D. Yes, women were only 10% of the player base in 1979. ...but that was a 20-fold increase from 1974. If you've read .... WAIT FOR IT .... The Elusive Shift, you know that early D&D combined the wargaming community with the "Science Fiction" community (which was an umbrella term for the fantasy community as well) that had a lot of women in it. And that while there was structural misogyny (in terms of the society and the rules), there was also some pushback. So the history of early D&D should not be viewed as a monolithic "Das sexist, it sucks." Instead, if you want to actually delve into it, you need to approach it more critically- first, acknowledge that, yes, there was sexism. Then you can see that despite that, it laid the groundwork for increased representation- early D&D began the process of inclusivity!

Slowly. Painfully. With some setbacks (I mean, the 80s weren't all great). But you already see not just the sexism, but also the pushback against it.

I think that people here would benefit from reading the following two essays that are available on the web:

I would start with this negative view by Aaron Trammell from 2014 (DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS YET):

Misogyny and the Female Body in Dungeons & Dragons | Analog Game Studies

Then this slightly different view from Jon Peterson also from 2014:

After that, go and read the comments in Trammell's essay that has a dialogue between Peterson and Trammell. Now, remember that this is from a decade ago- there has been more scholarship. But I think it sets down some ideas to think about. Namely that the sexism was undeniable. But when I think of early D&D, I don't stop at that fact. I think of how early D&D was what started bringing women (and others) into gaming, a process that continued and allows the inclusive game we have today. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and, looking at the arguments we are having about chainmail bikinis, it would appear that we are also arguing the same things those giants were arguing back then, too.

 

[dave2008]

Thank you as always for a thoughtful post Snarf - you are one of the Eight Wonders of Enworld!

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you wanted the debate to end sooner, why not just post this as a response in one of the active threads rather than create a brand new thread?

 

[dave2008]

If you wanted the debate to end sooner, why not just post this as a response in one of the active threads rather than create a brand new thread?

Personally I prefer this because I like to get Snarf's essays and I am not following the other threads!

 

[Mannahnin]

Good essay!

I was just reading that Peterson/Trammell dialogue the other day.

Gregory Alan Fine (in his seminal work) documented that sexual violence against female NPCs by all-male tables was common. And I just quoted Jean Wells alluding to the problem above.

Gary.
(Continuing my tradition of my first comment including a nitpick).

I do need to get around to reading Shared Fantasy sometime soon. Right now I'm slowly working my way through Nachtway's Strictly Fantasy: The Cultural Roots of Tabletop Role-playing Games, which cites it pretty regularly.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Gary.
(Continuing my tradition of my first comment including a nitpick).

The reason I make sure to do such meticulous research is so I can screw it up for the entertainment of others!

@Sacrosanct
I apologize if my sarcasm was unclear, but I always lead with the point that this debate (and many other cyclical debates) doesn’t end. Doesn’t matter what I (or others) write, either as thread starters or as replies.

Anyway, the other thread (which I linked to) is more concentrated on issues of the art of D&D, and this short essay, while touching on the same general issue, is about a different topic.

It’s important to not just recognize the problem, but also to recognize the seeds of inclusivity that were planted and that we continue to water today.

 

[Mannahnin]

The reason I make sure to do such meticulous research is so I can screw it up for the entertainment of others!

Thank you, sir! If I didn't have such opportunities I would probably shrivel up and die, being that corrections are the lifeblood of a Certified Internet Pedant.

@Sacrosanct
I apologize if my sarcasm was unclear, but I always lead with the point that this debate (and many other cyclical debates) doesn’t end. Doesn’t matter what I (or others) write, either as thread starters or as replies.

I particularly enjoyed the simile involving NASCAR drivers and left turns.

It’s important to not just recognize the problem, but also to recognize the seeds of inclusivity that were planted and that we continue to water today.

Heck yeah.

 

[tetrasodium]

Great post on a lot of things worthy of attention that keep getting ignored & glossed over through all the food fights on the topic. Going to snip down the OP and add an extra bit of peer reviewed(?) complicated nuance to the quoted bit of history that wasn't touched on in the OP.

Many women are understandably appalled by the appearance of female miniatures. They range from half-naked (possibly more than half) slave girls in chains or placed across horses or dragons, to women fighters dressed in no more than a bit of chainmail to protect their modesty and perhaps a backpack and a sword. Or, there are female Magic-Users wearing nothing but a smile and a bit of cloth draped over one arm.

New research on female video game characters uncovers a surprising twist

While strength cues in female video game characters signal capability, they don’t counteract the negative impact of sexualization. Surprisingly, female players often chose highly sexualized characters to play, despite generally disliking them.

www.psypost.org

Spoiler: New research on female video game characters uncovers a surprising twist

​

Can a strong female character who is also highly sexualized inspire positive perceptions from players? Not necessarily, according to a new study in Communication Research. Researchers found that while strength in female video game characters might signal capability, it doesn’t counterbalance the negative impact of sexualization. But in a surprising twist, female participants—despite generally disliking highly sexualized characters—were more likely to choose these characters when given the option to play as one.

The study sheds light on why, even in today’s gaming landscape, character design matters—and how different types of interactions, from watching to playing, shape player perceptions. A character’s sex appeal and strength both play a role in how players perceive them, but these perceptions shift depending on whether players are simply watching or actively engaging with the character.

Background: Why Care About Sexualization in Video Games?​

The portrayal of female characters in video games has long been a topic of debate. Critics argue that many games excessively emphasize sexual appeal in female characters, potentially reinforcing objectifying views that prioritize appearance over other qualities.

Some researchers, however, suggest that the frequent portrayal of female characters as strong and capable might counterbalance the negative impacts of sexual objectification. The study’s authors aimed to understand if such strength cues might actually mitigate negative impressions of sexualized female characters. They also wanted to explore how the nature of interaction—whether players actively control a character or just observe them onscreen—affects these perceptions.



“I think it’s important to understand how gender socialization and prejudice like sexism inform video game development and player experiences,” said study author Teresa Lynch, an assistant professor of communication technology at The Ohio State University and director of the Chronos Laboratory.

“Sexism pervades gaming. For example, game content overwhelmingly features male characters to the exclusion of central female or gender minoritized characters. Games that do feature female or gender minoritized characters often unfavorably stereotype and objectify these groups. In online gaming experiences, men and boys target women, girls, and gender minoritized individuals with sexist and harassing communication.”

“I want to know more about why, when, and how these kinds of outcomes happen. At the same time, many women and girls and people who identify outside of the binary enjoy gaming a great deal. I count myself among them. Understanding why these people enjoy games in spite of (or even because of!) the challenges sexism presents in gaming is fascinating to me. This study is one part of answering those big questions.”


The researchers conducted two controlled experiments to investigate how different design elements influence perceptions of female video game characters. Each experiment used unique character designs created in the fighting game SOULCALIBUR VI, providing participants with a range of female characters that varied systematically in their sexualization and strength cues.

Experiment 1: The Impact of Viewing Female Characters​

The first experiment included 239 undergraduate students from a communication program, with the majority of participants identifying as female. Ages varied from 18 to 51, though the group was generally younger. The researchers created four distinct types of female characters using SOULCALIBUR VI: each character was customized to represent one of four combinations of sexualization and strength—high sexualization with high strength, high sexualization with low strength, low sexualization with high strength, and low sexualization with low strength.

To achieve these variations, the team manipulated the characters’ visual traits. Characters designed with high sexualization had features associated with previous research on sexualized portrayals: larger breasts, lower waist-to-hip ratios, and revealing clothing. Characters with low sexualization cues, on the other hand, displayed more modest proportions and less revealing attire. Strength cues were also manipulated, where high-strength characters were larger, more muscular, and carried bigger weapons. In contrast, low-strength characters had smaller physiques and less imposing weaponry.


Participants watched four pre-recorded video clips, each featuring a different character type engaging in a short combat sequence. After viewing each clip, participants rated the characters across several dimensions, such as perceived sexualization (e.g., if the character’s attire seemed revealing), strength (their perceived physical power), femininity (alignment with traditional feminine traits), and likability (how much participants would enjoy playing as the character). At the end of the viewing session, participants also completed a selection survey, choosing which of the characters they would prefer to play.

Sex Appeal vs. Strength in Viewing Contexts​

The results showed distinct patterns in how sexualization and strength cues shaped viewers’ impressions of these characters. Characters with high sexualization cues were consistently rated as more sexualized compared to those with low sex appeal. Additionally, characters designed with high strength cues were rated as more formidable, aligning with the study’s expectations.

However, when a character combined high sexualization with high strength, participants perceived her as even more sexualized than characters with high sexualization alone. This outcome indicates that strength cues do not counteract the effects of sexualization; rather, they may amplify it. This pattern aligns with the “fighting naughty word-toy” theory, which suggests that strength paired with sex appeal can reinforce objectifying impressions, heightening perceptions of the character as a sexualized object.


The researchers also found that high sexualization was a key factor in perceptions of femininity and character likability. Characters with high sexualization were viewed as more traditionally feminine, yet they were also less liked, particularly by female participants. Strength cues, by contrast, did not independently influence likability, suggesting that the perception of likability may be more influenced by sexualization cues than by physical strength.

Gender Differences and a Surprising Twist​

Interesting gender-based differences emerged in character preferences. Female participants generally disliked highly sexualized characters but were more likely to choose characters with high femininity traits (typically associated with higher sexualization cues) when given a choice. Male participants, on the other hand, gravitated toward characters that were strong yet less sexualized, indicating different gender-based preferences in the interpretation of character traits.

“I wasn’t surprised by the fact that participants in our studies disliked the sexualized female characters,” Lynch told PsyPost. “I think, especially among younger generations who have grown up with social media and intuitively understand how media perpetuate impossible beauty standards, there’s increasing scrutiny and critique around sexual objectification.”


“That said, I was surprised to see that in our first study women still selected the most sexualized character when asked which character they would choose to play. It’s important to remember that this character was also rated as the most feminine, so it’s possible that women were just selecting the character they most identified with.”

“However, this finding highlight why this research is so important,” Lynch continued. “If women are conflating sexual appeal with femininity, then can they disassociate those two concepts? And, if entertainment media like video games continue to portray female characters by emphasizing sex appeal, how does that shape expectations of women and women’s value in society?”

Experiment 2: The Impact of Active Control on Impressions of Female Characters​

Building on these findings, the researchers conducted a second experiment to assess whether controlling a character (rather than passively viewing) would affect participants’ perceptions. This experiment involved 438 undergraduate students, following a similar design with the same four character types as in the first experiment. However, instead of watching pre-recorded clips, participants played as one of the four character types in a live, simulated combat session.


Each participant was assigned to one of the character types and played for 10 minutes, aiming to defeat an opponent character. The researchers provided basic instructions on gameplay mechanics and controls before the session began. Following this interaction, participants completed surveys similar to those in the first experiment, with the addition of new measures for warmth and competence. These measures were introduced to assess perceptions of personhood, or how much players might view the character as approachable and capable.

Impact of Strength and Interactivity in Gameplay​

The second experiment revealed additional insights, particularly around the impact of strength cues when participants actively control the character. Participants rated high-strength characters as less traditionally feminine, a perception that became more pronounced when participants directly controlled the character. This finding suggests that interacting with a formidable character can make players view them as less aligned with stereotypical femininity.

Strength cues also influenced participants’ perceptions of warmth and competence. Characters with high strength were rated as more competent, suggesting an association between physical capability and perceived efficacy. However, these same characters were rated as less warm, indicating that formidable characters may be seen as less friendly or approachable. This finding implies that while physical strength can enhance a character’s perceived capability, it may also create an impression of them as more distant or unapproachable.

Gender differences were again observed in this experiment, specifically around the competence ratings. Female participants viewed high-strength characters as more competent compared to low-strength characters, while this difference was not significant among male participants. This difference suggests that female participants may have a stronger positive response to strength in female characters, perceiving them as more effective or capable.

Key Takeaway: The Importance of Interactive Media​

The findings highlight “that playing video games positions people with a different orientation to the content on-screen,” Lynch told PsyPost. “It can involve you in a way that simultaneously makes you feel like you’re part of the content and game, that you are the character. So, if you are a character that has attributes that you appreciate and enjoy embodying, then you probably will experience some positive outcomes and interpret the experience similarly.”

“And, because games require you to engage in action, you may find distinct things enjoyable in games compared to less interactive experiences like watching movies. Instead of just seeing a hero defeat a horrible villain on-screen, you feel part of the experience of vanquishing that villain. That can be really awesome.”

“But, if the character has attributes that aren’t so great — maybe they are sexually objectified or portrayed as cute, but helpless — then that stands to diminish you in the same way that the heroic portrayal elevated you,” Lynch said. “Our findings suggest that people are paying more attention to the powerfulness of female characters who they can play as, whereas this factor wasn’t so important when they were just watching the game video. Being able to translate those characteristics of the visual portrayal into actions the player was actually taking shaped the experience.”

Limitations and Future Directions​

The researchers controlled the participants’ self-reported average weekly time spent playing video games, as prior gaming experience might influence character impressions. The study did, however, have some limitations. The researchers used a single video game genre — fighting games, which typically emphasize physicality and competition. This narrow focus limits the extent to which findings can be applied to other types of games, such as adventure or role-playing games, where character interaction and storylines might influence impressions differently.

“One big point is that we know that other content elements such as backstory and narrative can influence the way that people understand a character’s portrayal,” Lynch noted. “This study didn’t get at that, so it’s possible that if these characters were more fleshed out that would affect the results of the work.”

Going forward, the researchers aim to investigate how prolonged interactions with these types of characters influence players’ longer-term attitudes and beliefs.

“In the long term, my lab group and I are trying to understand longer-term effects of interactions with female characters in games,” Lynch said. “We’re interested in understanding beyond initial impressions and looking at how distinct interactions with characters through story or varying modes of play might disrupt or strengthen effects.”

“We’re also very interested in understanding the positive impact of female characters on players, not just the drawbacks or negative side. People play video games because they like them and find the experiences entertaining, but also because they have meaningful experiences. We’re exploring that side of things because it’s all part of the same question.”

The study, “Examining How Sex Appeal Cues and Strength Cues Influence Impressions of Female Video Game Characters,” was authored by Teresa Lynch, Annie Dooley, and Matthew R. Erxleben.

Since I snipped the "rape-y" bit & have seen it in play before I'll add some nuance by describing the one & only time I've seen something like it happen in all the years I've played & run d&d. In this particular instance the answer was yes & said male harpy was a notable NPC (a FaBuLoUsLy gay theater director inspired by Ruby Rod & Ru Paul), the GM expected that personality & species choice to help rush the party out the door. Tabaxi barbarian with an openly gay player made a joking suggestion followed by harpy charm & a nat1. GM & player went off to the side where the GM said something like "I'm not doing this. say you had a nice dinner or whatever. Whatever you decide happened is what happened but don't make it a trauma thing". Barbarian player came back to the table with a huge grin & said nothing while brushing off questions from the other (shocked) players but later had a blast teasing them about his exploits.

 

[The Soloist]

Great post and articles. It was pretty obvious to me back then that the gaming industry in the early 80s was sexist.

As a group of only male players, there was no sexual aggression on female NPCs. As a DM, I would have never allowed that. We played heroes doing heroic deeds.

We had a saying: 'In D&D, there is no sex and there are no latrines.'

 

[Mistwell]

I approve of this Snarfism as I did not have to dedicate an entire afternoon to read it for once.