Your entire premise is flawed. See if you can figure out what word you left out of the quoted text above
But of course, you're "just asking questions", right?
Enlighten me. Not only of what this word is I left out. But of what my premise is. Only the other day someone was talking about how the old rulebooks used "he" and "him" throughout and how this was sexist. Which is a fair enough assessment.
What is my premise?
That you use the term out of habit or out of tradition?
That you like the term and so will persist using it?
That's right. I am just asking questions to know why it is you use the term when there are arguments to be made against it.
I played 3 / 3.5 a lot, and I remember that "she/her" were actually used a lot. Maybe even more than "he/him". I don't know in other editions, though.
To answer your question, I think I use the term out of tradition. That's how I learned the game, that's how I've been calling the DM so far, so I got used to it and I just keep using it. I wouldn't be against using a new term, though. Although as a female DM, I wouldn't want to be called a "Dungeon Mistress". It just sounds weird to me. I wouldn't mind calling a Sorcerer "Sorceress", though. It does bother me that the class name is male. But that's how things are in our society in general, so I don't think it's an issue of D&D in particular. But hey, Referee could work. I wouldn't mind if my players called me that.
Also, and I'm just pointing this out: In my experience, the very, very vast majority of GM's are actually male. Why precisely is it ok to force a gender-neutral term on them? That's never really been clear to me.
This is a very dangerous thing to say, isn't it? "Well, most GMs are male, anyway. Why should we cater to female GMs? They're a numerical minority, after all. Makes sense to use male terminology, and for the small number of women...well, sucks to be them." Jee, thanks.
Note that there arguments for replacing the term DM which have nothing to do with whether it's a gendered term. Most notably, the fact that actual 'dungeons' are pretty rare in modern D&D. Also, the term 'master' may not be the most accurate term for the actual role of the DM in a game.
The first of these is an interesting point. But also opens us up to the idea of changing the name of the game. That isn't likely to ever happen.
I played 3 / 3.5 a lot, and I remember that "she/her" were actually used a lot. Maybe even more than "he/him". I don't know in other editions, though.
To answer your question, I think I use the term out of tradition. That's how I learned the game, that's how I've been calling the DM so far, so I got used to it and I just keep using it. I wouldn't be against using a new term, though. Although as a female DM, I wouldn't want to be called a "Dungeon Mistress". It just sounds weird to me. I wouldn't mind calling a Sorcerer "Sorceress", though. It does bother me that the class name is male. But that's how things are in our society in general, so I don't think it's an issue of D&D in particular. But hey, Referee could work. I wouldn't mind if my players called me that.
Thank you for what is a very thoughtful and interesting response.
Fair point about "Sorcerer."
I also remember that in 3/3.5 the pronouns would vary instead of their strictly sticking to one.
For context, there was a controversy on the term "master" with GitHub some years back. Short and simple explanation, no technical knowledge needed, the default branch name when creating a repository was the master branch. (Where you want to keep all your good working software code.) There was a kerfuffle with some people saying "master" was reminiscent of slavery. So GitHub changed the default name from master to main. (For further context: users could still edit their personal preferences to change the default name back to master or whatever other word they wanted.)
Note: this wasn't just github and branch names (though that was the big, visible case). Various places in tech/software use that terminology, and take it further: you'll have "master nodes" and "slave nodes" and other such things. Meaning, the connotation of the word "master" was pretty explicit --- not necessarily intended to be racist, but definitely invoking slavery as a metaphor for command/authority. So many tech/software places stopped using the term in that way (but they still talk about "Master degrees" or "mastering a topic" or other connotations).
These days we are too focused on finding issues where none exist. The term is not sexist (anyone can be a master at a skill) nor racist as it came out way after "master" lost that inference in common usage. If we had to choose a new term I would suggest Dungeon Guide.
The term Dungeon Master is a Dungeons and Dragons trademarked term, intentionally created for Dungeons and Dragons as a way to coin a term that described the core function of the referee of the game, meaning (The Master of the Dungeon) because in the early days, this was the predominant place where adventures take place and the referee was the final authority on all things.
It certainly is an outdated term as many of those things are no longer true about how a modern D&D game plays out, as illustrated most adventures don't take place in a Dungeon and the referee is responsible for a lot more than creating and running dungeons, but is hardly a final authority in modern D&D. The game is a lot more cooperative and shared experience, than the days of DM authority of the past.
That said the term was never at any time created or associated with bigotry or sexism as an origin, to claim that now is very much pulling it out of context for shock value.
The fact and probably the reason that we still use the term is out of tradition and if there is one thing we know about this hobby and really pretty much about anything is that traditions evolve and change on their own, any attempt to enforce a sudden change will be met with stark resistance and likely result in it hanging on a lot longer than it would naturally.
The word race vs. species is a good example, I assure you, 50 years from now, the majority of D&D players will still be calling D&D species "race" if for no other reason than an intentional FU to the establishment that insists we are a bunch of racists if we don't use the right words. That sort of totalitarian ideas where you can instruct people on how they should speak backfire with 100% certainty where the reality is that the word species is used in a lot of games, no one made a big deal about it and you won't see discussions or debates about it in those games.
Point is, if we simply let language take its evolution, social norms will result in a natural shift and its unlikely anyone will even notice. Force the change and people will reject it outright on principle.
Consider how prefered pronouns have played out. You have half the US objectively refusing to use them on principle. Why? Because someone said they had to. The most sure fire way to get someone not to do something, is instruct them that they have to.
I use Dungeon Master since i started playing D&D in the 80's i'm so used to it that even if we started using something else i'd still use it often anyways its so part of our game.
Gosh i still often use some old terms such as Flat-footed, Fortitude, Reflex, Magic-User, Observation, Will save, Infravision, etc :)
Your entire premise is flawed. See if you can figure out what word you left out of the quoted text above
But of course, you're "just asking questions", right?
Enlighten me. Not only of what this word is I left out. But of what my premise is. Only the other day someone was talking about how the old rulebooks used "he" and "him" throughout and how this was sexist. Which is a fair enough assessment.
Since you dropped your original statement from the chain, here it is again
People here will routinely talk about how sexist it is for rulebooks to use male pronouns
I'll give you a hint: you will have a great deal of trouble finding examples of people complaining about the mere existence of male pronouns
What is my premise?
That the use of the term 'master' in 'Dungeon Master' is neither inclusive nor sensitive, and isn't it curious that the crowd normally fixated on those things hasn't gotten around to targeting it yet?
People here will routinely talk about the importance of achieving both inclusivity and sensitivity. So why has the word master not been replaced like it has in many other industries because of its implications?
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
All the more reason I should be using the term - I hope it makes him spin in his grave so hard, he suffers vertigo in whatever afterlife he's found himself. Being a woman and all.
When Kelsey Dionne met Gary Gygax in person he told her she would make a great DM and this inspired her to do just that and to ultimately become a designer in her own right and she has nothing but the nicest things to say about the man and she like you is a woman and all. She is also queer.
So I am not so sure he is going to be spinning in his grave about much of anything other than how many newer players are consumed by hatred for him but choose to play a game that would not even exist without his contributions.
Professor Dungeon Master said it best: We would not even be here were it not for him and Arneson and others who made it happen. We would be doing something else. Playing something else. But not playing a game Wizards might own but did not invent.
And as someone else has pointed out these are people are literally saved the lives of many disaffected youth in the 70s and 80s.
That is no small thing.
I just found out who he is and his perspective a few days ago upon the release of the history of D&D. I was pretty shocked considering how many great people I've met in this hobby that are not like that. At all.
I've sat at some problematic tables in the past.
And I quickly removed myself from them too.
There are bad apples in every bunch. There are so many artists that have created such great content that turned out to be...of questionable character. I wasn't looking for this information on Mr. Gary - I just stumbled on it reading about D&D things.
That is very sweet she was able to collaborate with him. We can never know what was in his head or why he wrote/thought the things he did - he very could have suffered mental illness or some kind of psychological trauma. Or just a product of the worst kind of his time. There is no telling for sure.
I appreciate you taking the time to share this with me. And I appreciate his contribution/creation for sure! It definitely changed the world. More of a knee jerk reaction on my part. Again, thank you for the clarification.
The term Dungeon Master is a Dungeons and Dragons trademarked term, intentionally created for Dungeons and Dragons as a way to coin a term that described the core function of the referee of the game, meaning (The Master of the Dungeon) because in the early days, this was the predominant place where adventures take place and the referee was the final authority on all things.
It certainly is an outdated term as many of those things are no longer true about how a modern D&D game plays out, as illustrated most adventures don't take place in a Dungeon and the referee is responsible for a lot more than creating and running dungeons, but is hardly a final authority in modern D&D. The game is a lot more cooperative and shared experience, than the days of DM authority of the past.
That said the term was never at any time created or associated with bigotry or sexism as an origin, to claim that now is very much pulling it out of context for shock value.
The fact and probably the reason that we still use the term is out of tradition and if there is one thing we know about this hobby and really pretty much about anything is that traditions evolve and change on their own, any attempt to enforce a sudden change will be met with stark resistance and likely result in it hanging on a lot longer than it would naturally.
The word race vs. species is a good example, I assure you, 50 years from now, the majority of D&D players will still be calling D&D species "race" if for no other reason than an intentional FU to the establishment that insists we are a bunch of racists if we don't use the right words. That sort of totalitarian ideas where you can instruct people on how they should speak backfire with 100% certainty where the reality is that the word species is used in a lot of games, no one made a big deal about it and you won't see discussions or debates about it in those games.
Point is, if we simply let language take its evolution, social norms will result in a natural shift and its unlikely anyone will even notice. Force the change and people will reject it outright on principle.
Consider how prefered pronouns have played. You have half the US objectively refusing to use them on principle. Why? Because someone said they had to. The most sure fire way to get someone not to do something, is instruct them that they have to.
This is not true. A lot of changes happen because they're forced. The example that you used: Half the US refuse to use the pronouns? Well, if nobody had said they had to, then the other half would also not be using them. These things don't always "change on their own".
People in general hate change. Sometimes you just have to force it. It's not just language. Slavery didn't organically and slowly change on its own. It was abolished. Of course, a lot of people resisted the change, as it always happens. But once it was officially abolished, then people started to gradually accept it.
I'm sure that in 50 years from now most D&D players will be saying "species". The ones that resent the change are usually the ones who learned the game with books that said "races", and as I said, people hate change. But in 50 years, a lot (or even most) of those people will be dead. Change usually happens easier with new generations, because they're not as attached to older traditions. Changing from races to species won't be a big deal. Why would they go against the establishment that says it's called "species"? That same establishment says we have to say "elves", "spells", "subclasses", etc. It'll be the terminology they see in the book. They'll have no reason to cherrypick the term "species" and reject it, while taking the others.
This is the most pointless argument I've ever seen in a TTRPG. You can call your DM whatever they want it's your game. Personally I've always used this term and always will no matter what new rules is passed. Seriously, what are we doing. BTW the new rule book sucks and I don't know anyone using it. We're all still playing 5e until Wizards can figure out what players actually want.
The term Dungeon Master is a Dungeons and Dragons trademarked term, intentionally created for Dungeons and Dragons as a way to coin a term that described the core function of the referee of the game, meaning (The Master of the Dungeon) because in the early days, this was the predominant place where adventures take place and the referee was the final authority on all things.
It certainly is an outdated term as many of those things are no longer true about how a modern D&D game plays out, as illustrated most adventures don't take place in a Dungeon and the referee is responsible for a lot more than creating and running dungeons, but is hardly a final authority in modern D&D. The game is a lot more cooperative and shared experience, than the days of DM authority of the past.
That said the term was never at any time created or associated with bigotry or sexism as an origin, to claim that now is very much pulling it out of context for shock value.
The fact and probably the reason that we still use the term is out of tradition and if there is one thing we know about this hobby and really pretty much about anything is that traditions evolve and change on their own, any attempt to enforce a sudden change will be met with stark resistance and likely result in it hanging on a lot longer than it would naturally.
The word race vs. species is a good example, I assure you, 50 years from now, the majority of D&D players will still be calling D&D species "race" if for no other reason than an intentional FU to the establishment that insists we are a bunch of racists if we don't use the right words. That sort of totalitarian ideas where you can instruct people on how they should speak backfire with 100% certainty where the reality is that the word species is used in a lot of games, no one made a big deal about it and you won't see discussions or debates about it in those games.
Point is, if we simply let language take its evolution, social norms will result in a natural shift and its unlikely anyone will even notice. Force the change and people will reject it outright on principle.
Consider how prefered pronouns have played. You have half the US objectively refusing to use them on principle. Why? Because someone said they had to. The most sure fire way to get someone not to do something, is instruct them that they have to.
This is not true. A lot of changes happen because they're forced. The example that you used: Half the US refuse to use the pronouns? Well, if nobody had said they had to, then the other half would also not be using them. These things don't always "change on their own".
People in general hate change. Sometimes you just have to force it. It's not just language. Slavery didn't organically and slowly change on its own. It was abolished. Of course, a lot of people resisted the change, as it always happens. But once it was officially abolished, then people started to gradually accept it.
I'm sure that in 50 years from now most D&D players will be saying "species". The ones that resent the change are usually the ones who learned the game with books that said "races", and as I said, people hate change. But in 50 years, a lot (or even most) of those people will be dead. Change usually happens easier with new generations, because they're not as attached to older traditions. Changing from races to species won't be a big deal. Why would they go against the establishment that says it's called "species"? That same establishment says we have to say "elves", "spells", "subclasses", etc. It'll be the terminology they see in the book. They'll have no reason to cherrypick the term "species" and reject it, while taking the others.
You are quite literally making my point for me. I guess I have nothing more to add... yes this is exactly how it works. Enforcement triggers delay and conflict.
For example Wizards of the Coast could have just changed Race to Species and said nothing. Just, changed it without saying a word. No protest, no morale posturing, no grand statements, gestures or public statements. Just do the right thing and then let people adjust.
Odds are most people wouldn't even had noticed. Instead we spent 2 years arguing about it and it will take 50 years, essentially waiting for the current generation of resistors to die off before we make what could have been a very simple and elegant adaption.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up slavery, there is a big difference between the enslavement of people and the gradual and very natural changes to language. These two things have nothing at all to do with each other, yet somehow you managed to lump them together to make some sort of bizarre point that the only way to implement change is at the end of a gun.
Your entire premise is flawed. See if you can figure out what word you left out of the quoted text above
But of course, you're "just asking questions", right?
Enlighten me. Not only of what this word is I left out. But of what my premise is. Only the other day someone was talking about how the old rulebooks used "he" and "him" throughout and how this was sexist. Which is a fair enough assessment.
Since you dropped your original statement from the chain, here it is again
People here will routinely talk about how sexist it is for rulebooks to use male pronouns
I'll give you a hint: you will have a great deal of trouble finding examples of people complaining about the mere existence of male pronouns
What is my premise?
That the use of the term 'master' in 'Dungeon Master' is neither inclusive nor sensitive, and isn't it curious that the crowd normally fixated on those things hasn't gotten around to targeting it yet?
People here will routinely talk about the importance of achieving both inclusivity and sensitivity. So why has the word master not been replaced like it has in many other industries because of its implications?
I didn't ask for a hint. I asked for the word. If you mean I might have mentioned female pronouns as well as male pronouns as I said it was only on these very forums the other day when someone was saying they were glad to see an end to the constant use of "he" and him" in those old rulebooks. That comes up a lot on generic RPG forums and sub-Reddits as well as here.
I think you have misread and misunderstood my original post. Because that is not "my" premise. I have no personal complaint against the use of the term. I use referee. At my table. But if you want to use DM that is your prerogative. I am simply asking questions to get at how others feel or think about its usage. But yes I do find it curious that people who are sensitive to these sorts of things don't find the term in the slightest bit problematic. And not least of all because it was invented by someone they would say minimized the horrors of slavery and was guilty of things connected to other negative connotations the word holds. How is this "flawed"?
I just found out who he is and his perspective a few days ago upon the release of the history of D&D. I was pretty shocked considering how many great people I've met in this hobby that are not like that. At all.
I've sat at some problematic tables in the past.
And I quickly removed myself from them too.
There are bad apples in every bunch. There are so many artists that have created such great content that turned out to be...of questionable character. I wasn't looking for this information on Mr. Gary - I just stumbled on it reading about D&D things.
That is very sweet she was able to collaborate with him. We can never know what was in his head or why he wrote/thought the things he did - he very could have suffered mental illness or some kind of psychological trauma. Or just a product of the worst kind of his time. There is no telling for sure.
I appreciate you taking the time to share this with me. And I appreciate his contribution/creation for sure! It definitely changed the world. More of a knee jerk reaction on my part. Again, thank you for the clarification.
I appreciate your response. Very thoughtfully put.
I just found out who he is and his perspective a few days ago upon the release of the history of D&D. I was pretty shocked considering how many great people I've met in this hobby that are not like that. At all.
I've sat at some problematic tables in the past.
And I quickly removed myself from them too.
There are bad apples in every bunch. There are so many artists that have created such great content that turned out to be...of questionable character. I wasn't looking for this information on Mr. Gary - I just stumbled on it reading about D&D things.
That is very sweet she was able to collaborate with him. We can never know what was in his head or why he wrote/thought the things he did - he very could have suffered mental illness or some kind of psychological trauma. Or just a product of the worst kind of his time. There is no telling for sure.
I appreciate you taking the time to share this with me. And I appreciate his contribution/creation for sure! It definitely changed the world. More of a knee jerk reaction on my part. Again, thank you for the clarification.
I appreciate your response. Very thoughtfully put.
This is a very dangerous thing to say, isn't it? "Well, most GMs are male, anyway. Why should we cater to female GMs? They're a numerical minority, after all. Makes sense to use male terminology, and for the small number of women...well, sucks to be them." Jee, thanks.
That's not what I said though, is it?
For one thing, I said 'in my experience' - meaning yours could be different. Further, I said why must all these (presumed) male GM's have a gender neutral title? Why can't they be Game Masters? Is there some reason why a (presumed) majority must be called something to avoid offending a (again, presumed) very small minority.
What would happen if we just agreed to call female game leaders .. whatever they like, Dungeon Mistresses for instance?
I don't understand the whole "presumed". I agree with that, most DMs are male. That's not my point. Now, why the gender neutral title? Well, it doesn't have to be. And yes, calling female DMs "Dungeon Mistress" is a way to deal with it. But that's not how it is. Dungeon Master is the default term for everyone. I was just saying that the male term as default (not only "Master", but whatever else), if considered sexist, doesn't affect male DMs. They obviously don't care. So introducing a gender neutral title for everyone is another way to deal with it. Male for men and female for women, or neutral for everyone. Whatever you want, really. Just not male for everyone.
The term Dungeon Master is a Dungeons and Dragons trademarked term, intentionally created for Dungeons and Dragons as a way to coin a term that described the core function of the referee of the game, meaning (The Master of the Dungeon) because in the early days, this was the predominant place where adventures take place and the referee was the final authority on all things.
It certainly is an outdated term as many of those things are no longer true about how a modern D&D game plays out, as illustrated most adventures don't take place in a Dungeon and the referee is responsible for a lot more than creating and running dungeons, but is hardly a final authority in modern D&D. The game is a lot more cooperative and shared experience, than the days of DM authority of the past.
That said the term was never at any time created or associated with bigotry or sexism as an origin, to claim that now is very much pulling it out of context for shock value.
The fact and probably the reason that we still use the term is out of tradition and if there is one thing we know about this hobby and really pretty much about anything is that traditions evolve and change on their own, any attempt to enforce a sudden change will be met with stark resistance and likely result in it hanging on a lot longer than it would naturally.
The word race vs. species is a good example, I assure you, 50 years from now, the majority of D&D players will still be calling D&D species "race" if for no other reason than an intentional FU to the establishment that insists we are a bunch of racists if we don't use the right words. That sort of totalitarian ideas where you can instruct people on how they should speak backfire with 100% certainty where the reality is that the word species is used in a lot of games, no one made a big deal about it and you won't see discussions or debates about it in those games.
Point is, if we simply let language take its evolution, social norms will result in a natural shift and its unlikely anyone will even notice. Force the change and people will reject it outright on principle.
Consider how prefered pronouns have played. You have half the US objectively refusing to use them on principle. Why? Because someone said they had to. The most sure fire way to get someone not to do something, is instruct them that they have to.
This is not true. A lot of changes happen because they're forced. The example that you used: Half the US refuse to use the pronouns? Well, if nobody had said they had to, then the other half would also not be using them. These things don't always "change on their own".
People in general hate change. Sometimes you just have to force it. It's not just language. Slavery didn't organically and slowly change on its own. It was abolished. Of course, a lot of people resisted the change, as it always happens. But once it was officially abolished, then people started to gradually accept it.
I'm sure that in 50 years from now most D&D players will be saying "species". The ones that resent the change are usually the ones who learned the game with books that said "races", and as I said, people hate change. But in 50 years, a lot (or even most) of those people will be dead. Change usually happens easier with new generations, because they're not as attached to older traditions. Changing from races to species won't be a big deal. Why would they go against the establishment that says it's called "species"? That same establishment says we have to say "elves", "spells", "subclasses", etc. It'll be the terminology they see in the book. They'll have no reason to cherrypick the term "species" and reject it, while taking the others.
You are quite literally making my point for me. I guess I have nothing more to add... yes this is exactly how it works. Enforcement triggers delay and conflict.
For example Wizards of the Coast could have just changed Race to Species and said nothing. Just, changed it without saying a word. No protest, no morale posturing, no grand statements, gestures or public statements. Just do the right thing and then let people adjust.
Odds are most people wouldn't even had noticed. Instead we spent 2 years arguing about it and it will take 50 years, essentially waiting for the current generation of resistors to die off before we make what could have been a very simple and elegant adaption.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up slavery, there is a big difference between the enslavement of people and the gradual and very natural changes to language. These two things have nothing at all to do with each other, yet somehow you managed to lump them together to make some sort of bizarre point that the only way to implement change is at the end of a gun.
The reason why I brought up slavery is because I wanted to give an example to illustrate my point. [Redacted]
[Redacted] In many cases, if you don't force a change, the change never happens. Period. Enforcement doesn't trigger delay. Without enforcement, it never happens, so you get a permanent delay. Enforcement speeds up changes.
[Redacted] People would have noticed and whined about it all the same. It would have been easy to figure out why they started using a different word, and as I said, people hate change so they would have opposed. And by changing the term in the official book they're still enforcing it. So no, enforcement doesn't delay change, speeds it up, and in many cases, it's the only reason why the change happened to begin with.
The reason why I brought up slavery is because I wanted to give an example to illustrate my point. You seem like the kind of person who needs to speak in terms of apples and oranges to understand things. Now, what happened is that you then believed I was actually talking about apples and oranges instead of using them as an example, so let's scratch that.
Do you not see how the language your using here is not only aggressive and insulting, essentially insinuating that "Im some kind of person", as if there is a difference between you and me and you need to establish some sort of morale line between us while simultaneously suggesting that I don't understand you when the simple reality is that you used slavery because it has shock value.
You still are obviously not very good at understanding things, since you think I'm making your point for you, so I'll to make it more simple. In many cases, if you don't force a change, the change never happens. Period. Enforcement doesn't trigger delay. Without enforcement, it never happens, so you get a permanent delay. Enforcement speeds up changes. So exactly the opposite of your point. Get it now?
I understand you just fine, its just that your dead wrong about it. In fact, its this sort of thinking that actually prevents change.
All positive changes are derived from civil recourse and mutual respect for both sides of a debate, everytime in all of human history where one side tries to force another to do something they are unwilling to it leads to endless debate and usually violence. You basically outlined in a single paragraph everything that is wrong with humanity.
I bet most people playing/running D&D just use "DM." As in "Hey, DM, can I ...?" and "So-and-so is DMing." "Dungeon Master" is a mouthful, and kinda pretentious, anyway. All other tabletops use other terms: GM, Storyteller (or ST), Director, etc.
In the larping world, "GM" used to be really prevalent; nowadays it's slowly-but-surely being replaced by "gamerunner." And "game director" is still going strong.
Change will happen, and that's ok.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I played 3 / 3.5 a lot, and I remember that "she/her" were actually used a lot. Maybe even more than "he/him". I don't know in other editions, though.
To answer your question, I think I use the term out of tradition. That's how I learned the game, that's how I've been calling the DM so far, so I got used to it and I just keep using it. I wouldn't be against using a new term, though. Although as a female DM, I wouldn't want to be called a "Dungeon Mistress". It just sounds weird to me. I wouldn't mind calling a Sorcerer "Sorceress", though. It does bother me that the class name is male. But that's how things are in our society in general, so I don't think it's an issue of D&D in particular.
But hey, Referee could work. I wouldn't mind if my players called me that.
This is a very dangerous thing to say, isn't it? "Well, most GMs are male, anyway. Why should we cater to female GMs? They're a numerical minority, after all. Makes sense to use male terminology, and for the small number of women...well, sucks to be them." Jee, thanks.
The first of these is an interesting point. But also opens us up to the idea of changing the name of the game. That isn't likely to ever happen.
Thank you for what is a very thoughtful and interesting response.
Fair point about "Sorcerer."
I also remember that in 3/3.5 the pronouns would vary instead of their strictly sticking to one.
Note: this wasn't just github and branch names (though that was the big, visible case). Various places in tech/software use that terminology, and take it further: you'll have "master nodes" and "slave nodes" and other such things. Meaning, the connotation of the word "master" was pretty explicit --- not necessarily intended to be racist, but definitely invoking slavery as a metaphor for command/authority. So many tech/software places stopped using the term in that way (but they still talk about "Master degrees" or "mastering a topic" or other connotations).
These days we are too focused on finding issues where none exist. The term is not sexist (anyone can be a master at a skill) nor racist as it came out way after "master" lost that inference in common usage. If we had to choose a new term I would suggest Dungeon Guide.
The term Dungeon Master is a Dungeons and Dragons trademarked term, intentionally created for Dungeons and Dragons as a way to coin a term that described the core function of the referee of the game, meaning (The Master of the Dungeon) because in the early days, this was the predominant place where adventures take place and the referee was the final authority on all things.
It certainly is an outdated term as many of those things are no longer true about how a modern D&D game plays out, as illustrated most adventures don't take place in a Dungeon and the referee is responsible for a lot more than creating and running dungeons, but is hardly a final authority in modern D&D. The game is a lot more cooperative and shared experience, than the days of DM authority of the past.
That said the term was never at any time created or associated with bigotry or sexism as an origin, to claim that now is very much pulling it out of context for shock value.
The fact and probably the reason that we still use the term is out of tradition and if there is one thing we know about this hobby and really pretty much about anything is that traditions evolve and change on their own, any attempt to enforce a sudden change will be met with stark resistance and likely result in it hanging on a lot longer than it would naturally.
The word race vs. species is a good example, I assure you, 50 years from now, the majority of D&D players will still be calling D&D species "race" if for no other reason than an intentional FU to the establishment that insists we are a bunch of racists if we don't use the right words. That sort of totalitarian ideas where you can instruct people on how they should speak backfire with 100% certainty where the reality is that the word species is used in a lot of games, no one made a big deal about it and you won't see discussions or debates about it in those games.
Point is, if we simply let language take its evolution, social norms will result in a natural shift and its unlikely anyone will even notice. Force the change and people will reject it outright on principle.
Consider how prefered pronouns have played out. You have half the US objectively refusing to use them on principle. Why? Because someone said they had to. The most sure fire way to get someone not to do something, is instruct them that they have to.
I use Dungeon Master since i started playing D&D in the 80's i'm so used to it that even if we started using something else i'd still use it often anyways its so part of our game.
Gosh i still often use some old terms such as Flat-footed, Fortitude, Reflex, Magic-User, Observation, Will save, Infravision, etc :)
Since you dropped your original statement from the chain, here it is again
I'll give you a hint: you will have a great deal of trouble finding examples of people complaining about the mere existence of male pronouns
That the use of the term 'master' in 'Dungeon Master' is neither inclusive nor sensitive, and isn't it curious that the crowd normally fixated on those things hasn't gotten around to targeting it yet?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I just found out who he is and his perspective a few days ago upon the release of the history of D&D. I was pretty shocked considering how many great people I've met in this hobby that are not like that. At all.
I've sat at some problematic tables in the past.
And I quickly removed myself from them too.
There are bad apples in every bunch. There are so many artists that have created such great content that turned out to be...of questionable character. I wasn't looking for this information on Mr. Gary - I just stumbled on it reading about D&D things.
That is very sweet she was able to collaborate with him. We can never know what was in his head or why he wrote/thought the things he did - he very could have suffered mental illness or some kind of psychological trauma. Or just a product of the worst kind of his time. There is no telling for sure.
I appreciate you taking the time to share this with me. And I appreciate his contribution/creation for sure! It definitely changed the world. More of a knee jerk reaction on my part. Again, thank you for the clarification.
One of the group i play with use GM instead of DM
Let this person speak. Literally it’s not a problem
This is not true. A lot of changes happen because they're forced. The example that you used: Half the US refuse to use the pronouns? Well, if nobody had said they had to, then the other half would also not be using them. These things don't always "change on their own".
People in general hate change. Sometimes you just have to force it. It's not just language. Slavery didn't organically and slowly change on its own. It was abolished. Of course, a lot of people resisted the change, as it always happens. But once it was officially abolished, then people started to gradually accept it.
I'm sure that in 50 years from now most D&D players will be saying "species". The ones that resent the change are usually the ones who learned the game with books that said "races", and as I said, people hate change. But in 50 years, a lot (or even most) of those people will be dead. Change usually happens easier with new generations, because they're not as attached to older traditions. Changing from races to species won't be a big deal. Why would they go against the establishment that says it's called "species"? That same establishment says we have to say "elves", "spells", "subclasses", etc. It'll be the terminology they see in the book. They'll have no reason to cherrypick the term "species" and reject it, while taking the others.
This is the most pointless argument I've ever seen in a TTRPG. You can call your DM whatever they want it's your game. Personally I've always used this term and always will no matter what new rules is passed. Seriously, what are we doing. BTW the new rule book sucks and I don't know anyone using it. We're all still playing 5e until Wizards can figure out what players actually want.
You are quite literally making my point for me. I guess I have nothing more to add... yes this is exactly how it works. Enforcement triggers delay and conflict.
For example Wizards of the Coast could have just changed Race to Species and said nothing. Just, changed it without saying a word. No protest, no morale posturing, no grand statements, gestures or public statements. Just do the right thing and then let people adjust.
Odds are most people wouldn't even had noticed. Instead we spent 2 years arguing about it and it will take 50 years, essentially waiting for the current generation of resistors to die off before we make what could have been a very simple and elegant adaption.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up slavery, there is a big difference between the enslavement of people and the gradual and very natural changes to language. These two things have nothing at all to do with each other, yet somehow you managed to lump them together to make some sort of bizarre point that the only way to implement change is at the end of a gun.
I didn't ask for a hint. I asked for the word. If you mean I might have mentioned female pronouns as well as male pronouns as I said it was only on these very forums the other day when someone was saying they were glad to see an end to the constant use of "he" and him" in those old rulebooks. That comes up a lot on generic RPG forums and sub-Reddits as well as here.
I think you have misread and misunderstood my original post. Because that is not "my" premise. I have no personal complaint against the use of the term. I use referee. At my table. But if you want to use DM that is your prerogative. I am simply asking questions to get at how others feel or think about its usage. But yes I do find it curious that people who are sensitive to these sorts of things don't find the term in the slightest bit problematic. And not least of all because it was invented by someone they would say minimized the horrors of slavery and was guilty of things connected to other negative connotations the word holds. How is this "flawed"?
I appreciate your response. Very thoughtfully put.
You are most welcome! ^_^
I don't understand the whole "presumed". I agree with that, most DMs are male. That's not my point. Now, why the gender neutral title? Well, it doesn't have to be. And yes, calling female DMs "Dungeon Mistress" is a way to deal with it. But that's not how it is. Dungeon Master is the default term for everyone. I was just saying that the male term as default (not only "Master", but whatever else), if considered sexist, doesn't affect male DMs. They obviously don't care. So introducing a gender neutral title for everyone is another way to deal with it. Male for men and female for women, or neutral for everyone. Whatever you want, really. Just not male for everyone.
The reason why I brought up slavery is because I wanted to give an example to illustrate my point. [Redacted]
[Redacted] In many cases, if you don't force a change, the change never happens. Period. Enforcement doesn't trigger delay. Without enforcement, it never happens, so you get a permanent delay. Enforcement speeds up changes.
[Redacted] People would have noticed and whined about it all the same. It would have been easy to figure out why they started using a different word, and as I said, people hate change so they would have opposed. And by changing the term in the official book they're still enforcing it. So no, enforcement doesn't delay change, speeds it up, and in many cases, it's the only reason why the change happened to begin with.
[Redacted]
Do you not see how the language your using here is not only aggressive and insulting, essentially insinuating that "Im some kind of person", as if there is a difference between you and me and you need to establish some sort of morale line between us while simultaneously suggesting that I don't understand you when the simple reality is that you used slavery because it has shock value.
I understand you just fine, its just that your dead wrong about it. In fact, its this sort of thinking that actually prevents change.
All positive changes are derived from civil recourse and mutual respect for both sides of a debate, everytime in all of human history where one side tries to force another to do something they are unwilling to it leads to endless debate and usually violence. You basically outlined in a single paragraph everything that is wrong with humanity.
I bet most people playing/running D&D just use "DM." As in "Hey, DM, can I ...?" and "So-and-so is DMing." "Dungeon Master" is a mouthful, and kinda pretentious, anyway. All other tabletops use other terms: GM, Storyteller (or ST), Director, etc.
In the larping world, "GM" used to be really prevalent; nowadays it's slowly-but-surely being replaced by "gamerunner." And "game director" is still going strong.
Change will happen, and that's ok.