Are D&D Players More Empathetic?

“I’m sorry you failed your concentration check, hon.”

One of the more recent defenses of tabletop role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons I hear is that they teach social skills like empathizing with other people. The idea being that if playing the game requires you to think like your character would think and react to things in the game world like you think your character should react, that’s got to require flexing some kind of psychological muscle. Because otherwise you’re just going to play your character like yourself. Which some people certainly do, but most of us do not, at least not all the time.

This speaks largely to what psychologists call “perspective taking.” This is a deliberate act –meaning it’s voluntary and active, not subconscious– where we try to imagine another person’s mental state, their desires, their biases, their assumptions about the world, their motivations, and how they think (Davis, Conklin, Smith, & Luce, 1996). This, some researchers argue, is a component of the larger concept of empathy, which is generally defined as being able to share a person’s perspective and, to an extent, experience the same feelings they are feeling (Wondra & Ellsworth, 2015).

Is this true, though? Are D&D players as a group more empathetic and more able to take on another person’s perspective, even if it’s a fictional character? One researcher looked to empirically test this idea by surveying 127 TTRPG players and comparing their results on measures of empathy from people in the world at large (Rivers & Wickamasekera, 2016). 

The measure that these researchers used contained four sub-scales:

  • Fantasy empathy (how well do the respondent identify with fictional characters?)
  • Empathic concern (do they respond with concern when seeing others suffer?)
  • Perspective taking (can they imagine the other person’s perspective?)
  • Personal distress (do they feel uncomfortable as a result of seeing others in distress or trouble?)

And, indeed, they found that relative to normative data (that is, data from people in general), TTRPG players were significantly higher on all four dimensions. They are, in other words, more empathetic (including more able to engage in perspective taking) than the world at large. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that playing TTRPGs makes people more empathetic. It could be that people who enjoy playing these games self-select into the TTRPG fan population because empathy is expected and reinforced. Other research would need to be done to understand if a person can enter the hobby and become more empathetic as a result.

Still, it’s an interesting idea, and at least one other scientist has thought of tapping the enhanced empathy of TTRPG players to solve real-world problems. Seeking to leverage other research showing that such players are generally more empathetic and findings that empathetic people tend to support more prosocial and pro-environmental activities, researcher Sam Illingsworth and his colleagues created Rooted in Crisis, a role-playing game where players encounter dangers and situations inspired by real-life climate change emergencies (Illingsworth, 2024). Illingsworth hopes that such engagement and thinking spurs better thinking and action in response to real-life climate change.

REFERENCES

Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 713–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.713

Illingsworth, S. (2024). Why role-playing games can spur climate action. Nature 629, 729. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01466-x

Rivers, A., Wickramasekera, I. E., Pekala, R. J., & Rivers, J. A. (2016). Empathic Features and Absorption in Fantasy Role-Playing. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 58(3), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2015.1103696

Wondra, J., & Ellsworth, P. (2015). An appraisal theory of empathy and other emotional Experiences. Psychological Review, 122(3), 411–428. doi:10.1037/a0039252