Elon Musk Calls for Wizards of the Coast to "Burn in Hell" Over Making of Original D&D Passages

Elon Musk, the owner of the app formerly known as Twitter, is calling on Wizards of the Coast and its parent company Hasbro to "burn in hell" for the publication of Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons. On November 21st, former gaming executive turned culture warrior Mark Hern posted several passages from Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons on Twitter, criticizing the book for providing context about some of the misogyny and cultural insensitivity found in early rulebooks. These passages were pulled from the foreword written by Jason Tondro, a senior designer for the D&D team who also worked extensively on the book. Hern stated that these passages, along with the release of the new 2024 Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide for D&D's "40th anniversary" (it is actually D&D's 50th anniversary) both "erased and slandered" Gary Gygax and other creators of Dungeons & Dragons.

In response, Musk wrote "Nobody, and I mean nobody, gets to trash E. Gary Gygax and the geniuses who created Dungeons & Dragons. What the [naughty word] is wrong with Hasbro and WoTC?? May they burn in hell." Musk had played Dungeons & Dragons at some point in his youth, but it's unclear when the last time he ever played the game.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, gets to trash E. Gary Gygax and the geniuses who created Dungeons & Dragons. What the [xxxx] is wrong with Hasbro and WoTC?? May they burn in hell.

- Elon Musk​

Notably, Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons contains countless correspondences and letters written by both Gygax and Dave Arneson, including annotated copies of early D&D rulesets. Most early D&D rules supplements as well as early Dragon magazines are also found in the book. It seems odd to contain one of the most extensive compliations of Gygax's work an "erasure," but it's unclear whether Hern or Musk actually read the book given the incorrect information about the anniversary.

Additionally, Gygax and Arneson are both credited in the 2024 Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide. The exact credit reads: "Building on the original game created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and then developed by many others over the past 50 years." Wizards of the Coast also regularly collaborates with Gygax's youngest son Luke and is a participant at Gary Con, a convention held in Gygax's honor. The opening paragraph of the 2024 Player's Handbook is written by Jeremy Crawford and specifically lauds both Gygax and Arneson for making Dungeons & Dragons and contains an anecdote about Crawford meeting Gygax.

Musk has increasingly leaned into culture war controversies in recent years, usually amplifying misinformation to suit his own political agenda.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

I look forward to the "H.P. Lovecraft said nothing wrong." Rehabilitation next.

 

[overgeeked]

View attachment 386978

I absolutely adore Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos. I also absolutely abhor Lovecraft as a person. These positions are not mutually exclusive. I wish more people were capable of that kind of nuance*.

* It's not nuance. It's basic critical thinking. Liking stuff by a problematic figure does not make you problematic. Defending the problematic aspects of that problematic figure make you problematic**.

** Yes, this applies to Gary Gygax as well. Dude was a racist and misogynist. Stop defending him.

 

[Remathilis]

I absolutely adore Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos. I also absolutely abhor Lovecraft as a person. These positions are not mutually exclusive. I wish more people were capable of that kind of nuance.

Separating the art from the artist is the only way I can remotely stand to look at anything Harry Potter related these days ...

 

[DarkCrisis]

Separating the art from the artist is the only way I can remotely stand to look at anything Harry Potter related these days ...

It’s amazing how downhill she went and how quickly. Like full masks off.

 

[CleverNickName]

Ugh, not this again.

As a reminder, it's not just one quote. It's not just the random harlot table (or the good wife table, where you will get gossip, or accused falsely of ... sexual assault). And it's not just in the past.

Just as an FYI-

I was just about to write this same response.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Also Letters he wrote. And Posts on forums.

This forum, even, where he outright states that women, like me, just don't have the right "Brain" for enjoying D&D.

And plenty of people who were there working for TSR who all have similar stories. I've had one female employee tell me, and another confirm it later, that he'd tell her:

"Women are only good for two jobs: secretaries and housewives. Anything else and they're a whore."
(Upon returning from first trip to California) "Don't go to California if you hate Jews." (She is Jewish).

Take that what you will. I tend to believe it, since the first person was credible and it matched other stories, and the other person knew Gary about as closely as anyone who worked in TSR and was there in the earliest days.

I feel bad for the kids, because they are in a difficult place. To defend their family legacy they need to defend him. And part of me gets it. My dad was waaaaay worse than Gary ever was, but part of me feels like I have to defend him because I'm 1/2 him, so if he's a horrible human being, am I? The primal part of the brain tells me that, while the logical part says, "It's OK to admit your dad was a bad person because we are our own people and our legacy is what we do with it." Having spoken with Luke and Heidi several times, they are both way better human beings

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

There's something deeply asymmetrical in this statement. The author has to deal with the consequences for publishing the truth (which some folks don't want to hear), but there's no consequences for doing sexist things. That if you're loudly and proudly sexist, you get called a sexist when people look at what you have said and done. That's consequences. That's calling a duck a duck. This is also one of the consequences of that - that your legacy is not one of unvarnished good, that people can hold you accountable posthumously, that ideologues pushing an agenda defend you so that they can earn points in a culture war.

Why is it necessary for the author to face consequences, but if Gygax's legacy faces consequences, it's too much, its' picking fights, it's not necessary? That's looking like a double-standard.



It's not that "they COULD be seen TODAY as misogynistic."

That's snowflake treatment, couched in soft language and plausible deniability to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of enablers invested in not seeing reality. It's false.

There's a simple truth that language like this dodges. Gygax was sexist because he did sexist things. We don't need to coddle the precious little feelings of flat earthers who'd deny that.


This gets at something, too.

Smug. As if discussing relevant facts in a history book is somehow arrogant. As if being honest and factual is elitist. But hiding the legacy? Covering up sexism? Avoiding talking about it? That's somehow humble. And not simply a dodge of accountability.

ATTACK! As if facts are aggressive, as if reality is hostile. As if the world and the people in it don't live up to who we'd often wish they would be, and admitting that...that's painful.

Heroes. As if actual human beings aren't complicated, with heroic elements and admirable traits and also painful and awful ones. As if we can't respect good people and their accomplishments without containing their complexity. As if a human being is only ever a Bad Person or a Good Person in some sort of Calvanistic predestined way that either excuses or condemns all their actions (while the reality is that people are both bad and good).

None of it is true. It's not a smug attack on heroes. It's a historical statement of fact. But when one is invested in having the world be a certain way that it just isn't, facts can trigger some big feelings. I bet the flat earth people go through this every day.

I agree with a lot of what you've said here. Honestly.

However...

This post would have been much better if you had left the smugness and certainty of your position you're decrying from the 'other side' out of it. Calling the other side flat earthers? That's not a good look for you. There is a lot of hypocrisy and holier-than-thou here that is beneath the sentiment you're trying to put across, and subverts your intentions. Your goal here seems to be inform everyone that 'you of the other side are fools, and I am pure wisdom and the holder of the moral high ground'. Your disdain and dehumanisation of those who disagree with you is showing. And this coming from someone who is actually on your side. Come on man... not cool.

I hope you feel better because I need a shower after reading this. Sorry for the strong language, but reading your post really grossed me out. I can see you put a lot of effort into it though.

 

[DarkCrisis]

And plenty of people who were there working for TSR who all have similar stories. I've had one female employee tell me, and another confirm it later, that he'd tell her:

"Women are only good for two jobs: secretaries and housewives. Anything else and they're a whore."
(Upon returning from first trip to California) "Don't go to California if you hate Jews." (She is Jewish).

Take that what you will. I tend to believe it, since the first person was credible and it matched other stories, and the other person knew Gary about as closely as anyone who worked in TSR and was there in the earliest days.

I feel bad for the kids, because they are in a difficult place. To defend their family legacy they need to defend him. And part of me gets it. My dad was waaaaay worse than Gary ever was, but part of me feels like I have to defend him because I'm 1/2 him, so if he's a horrible human being, am I? The primal part of the brain tells me that, while the logical part says, "It's OK to admit your dad was a bad person because we are our own people and our legacy is what we do with it." Having spoken with Luke and Heidi several times, they are both way better human beings

Yeah my dad was old school sexist and a bit racist. I love the man but yeah it’s hard to deal with. He’s gone now and I miss him but he got worse the older he got.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I absolutely adore Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos. I also absolutely abhor Lovecraft as a person. These positions are not mutually exclusive. I wish more people were capable of that kind of nuance*.

Most people agree Lovecraft had racist views. I think where most of the disagreement on Lovecraft comes in on how virulent it was, how much it was a product of his time, and what aspects of his work genuinely reflect his racism. I have no interest in tackling Lovecraft again as that discussion has been had here many times over.

* It's not nuance. It's basic critical thinking. Liking stuff by a problematic figure does not make you problematic. Defending the problematic aspects of that problematic figure make you problematic**.

I think there is a lot of shades of gray here. People are going to not see eye to eye on whether a given thing is problematic. I mean if a writer says he hates all people of X race, and you defend that sentiment, sure that is a problem. But a lot of what we identify as problematic content is a lot more subtle and subjective than that. People are going to draw different lines around what they find problematic. That doesn't make people on one side of the line problematic and the people on the other side of the line not-problematic (in fact I often observe people who call out problematic content, using that as an excuse to dehumanize people they have disagreements with media over). Also a lot of times, people may agree on the facts of something (i.e. so and so did this awful thing), but they disagree on how much that defines them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Always funny when a bunch of randos think they know someone (like Gygax) better then his actual friends and family because they read a book or saw some old articles.

Do you deny that he wrote the things he wrote in the book?

Do you deny that he said the things he said at the interview?

If not, I'm not sure what the problem here is. It is possible to evaluate the works a person made and the statements they made in an interview even if you aren't one of their family members....especially when, even in attempting to defend the person in question, one of those family members explicitly says, "In my adult opinion, yes, this is sexist and doesn’t hold up to our more enlightened standards today." Those were Heidi Gygax's own words to describe the words written in the books. I'm sure she would say the same thing about the interview, though it would be utterly unacceptable to seek her out for comment outside of genuine journalistic work (and she would be under zero obligation to accept any such inquiry regardless.)