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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think there are a broad range of opinions being expressed. Some of which seem hyper focused on purity, others more reasonable and nuanced

Well, I'll note you've (repeatedly) ignored my multiple expressions of nuanced views (e.g., that Gygax did a lot of good things, and also some bad things, and that we need to be able to talk about the bad things sometimes). So I'm not really sure what "nuance" means for you, but I'm kinda feeling like it means a no-criticism-ever zone, which doesn't square well with your "hyper focused on purity" comments. It makes it sound like you, also, are "hyper focused on purity," just a purity of the heroes that could do no wrong, rather than a purity of iconoclasm.

No. I just think we need to be more tolerant of differences of opinions on whether things are problematic, how we should each feel about them when they are. I mean I am not going to tell you how to feel about a grandparent who expresses regressive views. That is for you to decide. When it comes to a public figure like Gygax, we are going to interpret their words and behavior differently, and even when we agree on those things, we are going to ascribe different levels of significance to them

I refuse to be tolerant of crappy behavior.

I can recognize (and frequently speak about) the good things Gygax did for gaming. I am still to this day impressed by some of his game design decisions, and I'm dead certain he would have approved of things like the DCC "funnel" adventures as ways to make old-school D&D accessible to audiences new and old that don't have the time or energy for some of the things old-school D&D required.

I can do all of that...while also saying that he wrote some really painfully sexist things in the early D&D books, and said some even more painfully sexist things elsewhere too. I can do both of these things. I can do them concurrently, and I can do them separately. I don't turn absolutely every conversation about Gygax into one about sexism! Imagine that!

But it certainly seems that you are quite ready to turn any conversation about the sexism Gygax evinced into "well we have to be nuanced, so we can't talk about the bad without also talking about the good." Why is it you don't have a problem with un-nunaced discussions of his good qualities, but do have a problem with un-nuanced discussions of his bad qualities?

For the record, I think Musk's burn in hell remark is pretty stupid. I suspect he was being hyperbolic, but I also think consigning people to figurative hellfire for an opinion is not helpful for conversation with these topics. I don't particularly enjoy the division from either side of this argument. I think at the end of the day, no one is going anywhere, we all have to co-exist in the same hobby in the end and learn to live with one another

Sure.

But just as it's important to be empathetic and understanding of others...part of us learning to live with one another is being comfortable talking about the bad parts of our heroes without instantly turning defensive about it. Which is absolutely happening here, rather extensively.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Thong is, I'm not interested in just stirring the pot, juat critiquing the shallow criticism of the excellent contextual work Peterson and Tondo give in the foreword. The book is absolutely fascinating, and I recommend it.

I think you are interested in stirring the pot! You just don't want to dip your toe in. Just jump in, you'll be lovely.

I will read the book if I get the chance. I'm intrigued now.

 

[Steampunkette]

I mean, I think you need to be realistic about people. Someone born in 1926 or 1938 is simply not going to have the same attitudes towards men and women as someone born in 1996. Does that mean we say everything they do is fine? No. But there is also room for us to be understanding of generational differences.

... He was called out for being a sexist in the 1970s and 80s.

Do you know how old he was in 1974 when he created D&D? 36. 39 when he was called out and responded in Europa Magazine.

How old were the feminists who were calling him out in 1977? Anywhere from 20s to 40s.

This is not "You're judging him by modern standards and at the time it was okay!" he was called out IN HIS OWN TIME by people HIS AGE or near it. Kate Millet, a prominent feminist of the 70s, was 4 years OLDER than he was. Born in 1934. Same as Gloria Steinem.

Susan Brownmiller was -only- 3 years older than him.

The people of his era knew he was a sexist and called him a sexist and he went "Yup. I am a sexist. And screw you for bringing it up, I'm gonna be EVEN MORE SEXIST as a middle finger."

"Product of His Time" my left foot.

As far as your "Purity" comments, that's just political baiting. No one demands Gygax be "Pure". We're acknowledging he was a sexist while various people go "Nuh uh!"

Like holy crap, my guy. We're just trying to get people to acknowledge that he was sexist based on his words and what happened and you're moving goalposts and strawmanning the hell out of everything.

We can't even agree on a basic precept of reality and you're seeking "Nuance".

 

[the Jester]

As his daughter said “taken out of context”.
But yes Gary did say some stupid stuff. But as another person mentioned, sexist seems to be other people defining trait for him when most people are more complex.

I myself prefer to take people as a whole instead of as one aspect relentless picked apart on a gaming forum.

Look at his own words. See the quote in post 495 of this thread:

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, I'll note you've (repeatedly) ignored my multiple expressions of nuanced views (e.g., that Gygax did a lot of good things, and also some bad things, and that we need to be able to talk about the bad things sometimes). So I'm not really sure what "nuance" means for you, but I'm kinda feeling like it means a no-criticism-ever zone, which doesn't square well with your "hyper focused on purity" comments. It makes it sound like you, also, are "hyper focused on purity," just a purity of the heroes that could do no wrong, rather than a purity of iconoclasm.

I have tried to address each of your posts thoroughly. So feel free to point out what nuanced views you think I have ignored

I am definitely not a 'no criticism zone' person. I am someone who is skeptical of what I might call consensus criticism in the hobby (where there is a critique and you are expected to agree with it). I think there is a lot of bad criticism and a lot of hypercriticism (where language is dissected and over analyzed for problems), and I think some of the foreward has that kind of criticism in it.

I am also not into turning people into heroes. I don't see anyone as heroes here.

I refuse to be tolerant of crappy behavior.

I am not telling you to be tolerant of crappy behavior

But it certainly seems that you are quite ready to turn any conversation about the sexism Gygax evinced into "well we have to be nuanced, so we can't talk about the bad without also talking about the good." Why is it you don't have a problem with un-nunaced discussions of his good qualities, but do have a problem with un-nuanced discussions of his bad qualities?

I just think nuance, compassion, understanding of one another is important here. My concern is less about Gygax and more about how we interact with one another in these discussion. Like I am not dismissing you at all, even though we disagree. I am trying to make sure I engage with your points (sometimes I can't address everything). A lot of times these conversations turn into dismissal and dehumanization of people who don't are other peoples criticisms, and I tend to push back on that.

But if we were having a thread on how great a guy gygax was I would probably have problem with unnuanced praise of the man. I am not into Hero worship

Sure.

But just as it's important to be empathetic and understanding of others...part of us learning to live with one another is being comfortable talking about the bad parts of our heroes without instantly turning defensive about it. Which is absolutely happening here, rather extensively.

Sure but part of that is also understanding we are not all going to see eye to eye on this stuff. Some will take a more charitable lens to text than others. Some will feel we don't need as much handwringing about the old books, etc.

 

[Bedrockgames]

... He was called out for being a sexist in the 1970s and 80s.

Do you know how old he was in 1974 when he created D&D? 36. 39 when he was called out and responded in Europa Magazine.

How old were the feminists who were calling him out in 1977? Anywhere from 20s to 40s.

This is not "You're judging him by modern standards and at the time it was okay!" he was called out IN HIS OWN TIME by people HIS AGE or near it. Kate Millet, a prominent feminist of the 70s, was 4 years OLDER than he was. Born in 1934. Same as Gloria Steinem.

Susan Brownmiller was -only- 3 years older than him.

The people of his era knew he was a sexist and called him a sexist and he went "Yup. I am a sexist. And screw you for bringing it up, I'm gonna be EVEN MORE SEXIST as a middle finger."

"Product of His Time" my left foot.

As far as your "Purity" comments, that's just political baiting. No one demands Gygax be "Pure". We're acknowledging he was a sexist while various people go "Nuh uh!"

Like holy crap, my guy. We're just trying to get people to acknowledge that he was sexist based on his words and what happened and you're moving goalposts and strawmanning the hell out of everything.

We can't even agree on a basic precept of reality and you're seeking "Nuance".

No one is saying everyone thought like Gary. But I grew up in the 80s. I had a lot of relatives Gygax's age. Of them, only one is what I would call a feminist (and she was considered unusual). Now I knew a lot more feminists in my family who were born later than Gygax (people born shortly after WWII for example, people my parents age). In terms of where Gygax resides on this spectrum, I certainly remember folks his age who expressed far worse views. He sounds pretty typical of guys that age from what I remember. That doesn't mean everything he said is great or that they are ideas I agree with. But I don't think it is necessary to build him up as some great villain either

 

[Remathilis]

I mean, I think you need to be realistic about people. Someone born in 1926 or 1938 is simply not going to have the same attitudes towards men and women as someone born in 1996. Does that mean we say everything they do is fine? No. But there is also room for us to beI t understanding of generational differences.

I think it's important to remember that good people can hold bad ideas, and that doesn't make the person any worse or the idea any better. I don't think that most people would consider Gary to be a bad person, even holding these outdated beliefs. However, that doesn't mean the belief itself should be excused because he held it. Some of Gary's ideas on biodeterminism (especially in the realms of race/species and gender, both in and out of game) are absolutely out of step with the modern beliefs and deserve to be called out, but that doesn't necessarily mean Gary himself was a hateful or bigoted person. But, as he once told me on this very board, "the work stands for itself" so it should not be excused or normalized just because it holds significant history.

 

[mamba]

Just wait until our grandchildren get hold of a couple of our quotes from the enworld forums. Maybe there will be a couple of -isms* assigned to our dead corpses

hopefully there will, because as you say, that would make the future an

even-more-civilised-future generations.

That in no way means past bad behavior is acceptable, esp if it was already was being called out during that past

 

[Ruin Explorer]

... He was called out for being a sexist in the 1970s and 80s.

This is absolutely it. Gygax's views were outside the mainstream even then.

He sounds pretty typical of guys that age from what I remember.

Nah. Read his own words. He's "out there" even by 1970s standards. He knows it and likes it too, that's why he's taking a "the best defense is a good offence" approach to it. Even in the late 1970s openly, proudly and publicly saying you "didn't care" if women got paid as much as men was not a normative behaviour, let alone the 1980s. He's intentionally adopting provocative and retrograde views. He wants to be on the wrong side of this and to be acknowledged as such. That is unusual.

Further, the "nits make lice" stuff was in the 2000s. I don't think one man in ten his age would have been approving of Col. Chivington in the 2000s. Chivington was too much for the 1860s, let alone the 1970s and beyond.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it's important to remember that good people can hold bad ideas, and that doesn't make the person any worse or the idea any better.

I agree with this sentiment.

I don't think that most people would consider Gary to be a bad person, even holding these outdated beliefs. However, that doesn't mean the belief itself should be excused because he held it. Some of Gary's ideas on biodeterminism (especially in the realms of race/species and gender, both in and out of game) are absolutely out of step with the modern beliefs and deserve to be called out, but that doesn't necessarily mean Gary himself was a hateful or bigoted person. But, as he once told me on this very board, "the work stands for itself" so it should not be excused or normalized just because it holds significant history.

Again though much of what I am talking about is what his beliefs actually were. I think there is a range of views being expressed here, and some are making too strong a case. The quote about biodeterminism seemed to be more about whether men and women were shaped by culture or biology. Certainly if he felt human races were shaped by biology then I would disagree with that. I do think though that is a world different from say a system in a game where dwarfs and elves have baked in attribute bonuses and penalties as they are essentially a whole other species and not really comparable to assigning such bonuses to ethnicities and real world races.

I don't think the work is above critique at all. I just think there can be differences of opinion on the criticisms. For a long time, that was hard to have. I feel like we have slowly gotten to a slightly better place in that respect. But as an example, not everyone is going to agree with the cultural appropriation critique in the foreword. It is fair for us to have different viewpoints on that kind of criticism. Should the criticism be disallowed? Absolutely not. But people should be allowed to disagree with it