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.

 

[MGibster]

Let me tell you what I wish I'd known/
When I was young and dreamed of glory/
You have no control/
Who lives, who dies, who tells your story?

From the musical Hamilton by Lin-Manual Miranda

When a memorial of Franklin Deleno Roosevelt was dedicated in 1997, there was some controversy because it didn't include any depiction of his disability. More than a dozen of FDR's grandchildren wrote in support of depicting his disability, the general public was in favor of it, and so in 2001 they finally completed a statue of FDR in his wheelchair sans his trademark cigarette holder of course. I don't believe FDR was ever depicted in a wheelchair during his lifetime and likely wouldn't have wanted it, but the point is that you don't have any control over your legacy once you're gone.

Whenever people tell me history is boring or the past doesn't matter I think of conversations like this. I remember getting into a heated "discussion" with an Englishman over rather the American Revolution was justified or not. Voices were raised. Later someone said to me, "I thought you two were going to start punch each other." Just another day in the History Department. The past matters and our interpretation of it shapes how we view the world often in ways we don't even realize.

I wish we (as a whole) were more comfortable with honestly evaluating the lives of those who did great things we benefit from today. I feel as though we should be able to celebrate the good whaile acknowledging the bad.

 

[mamba]

Do they not want to do better going forward?

no, they want to be worse, they demonstrate it every day

 

[Jahydin]

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

View attachment 386991

Have you heard of sarcasm?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

... 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".

Okay. We're trying to achieve a basic concept of civility and reasonability and you're seeking warfare and nuclear destruction seemingly.

Now that you've gotten that off your chest, are you able to have a discussion?

Your points are understood, appreciated and sympathised with. But when you come to the table, please be able to see your opponent as something else than an opponent.

 

[Clint_L]

I think it is laudable to stand up for people when they are bullied, and to defend people who need to be defended. But I also think justified anger can easily turn into wrath and is reason to be cautious when we respond to these things. I have seen a lot of internet debates, a lot of arguments in gaming circles turn very dark, very quickly because people feel justified in labeling someone as a bad person or toxic because of something they said. I tend to take an approach of keeping communication open with people, being charitable in my interpretation of their behavior and trying to see the good. Obviously if someone is doing something atrocious that is fair. But I think this quest for purity can lead us down a very dark path when we are not careful (which is one of the reasons I initially commented on how we aren't in a good place as a hobby and overly divided IMO).

Where is the wrath? Where is the quest for purity?

I don't see anyone in this thread being full of wrath. I mean, Musk seems super POed, but that's his schtick.

Was WotC on a quest for purity when they published the material, warts and all, and merely added a mild acknowledgement up front?

What is the dark path in this specific instance? That we acknowledge that Gygax wasn't in fact a saint? He never claimed to be. He's still getting this lavishly produced tribute to his work.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree with this sentiment.

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

Completely fair, but I can understand why WotC would want to place a preface on the work pointing out such beliefs do not represent modern beliefs by the company currently owning the IP associated with the work. No more than say Warner Brothers wants to say old Looney Tunes or Superman comics from 70+ years ago reflect the modern interpretations of those IP. You can disagree, of course, but I can't say I hold any complaints for WotC wanting to make sure people don't read their republishing of Gary's works as a tacit endorsement of said beliefs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Have you forgotten that men and women got different ability scores in early D&D? That's pretty clearly biodeterminism.

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

When one of his daughters--nuanced or not--does in fact call out some of his beliefs as sexist, and Gygax wrote something where--serious or not--he claimed to be sexist, and other people give us reports of sexist things he said or did, and we have sexist and biodeterministic/bioessentialist content demonstrably present in his works, and we have other textual citations collected by historians on the subject...

When does the weight of evidence simply not allow for other interpretations? Is it even possible? Because if it isn't, I have an honest question for you. Do we need to give equal time to (say) those who believe the Earth is flat? Or who ascribe to astrology?

Because the consequence of your response here, if you genuinely believe that it is never possible for the weight of evidence to exclude some opinions as simply not valid or warranted, is that every conversation gets flooded with garbage opinions. No real discussion can be had. "Nuance" becomes a useless grey void of absolute incommensurability.

Some opinions are not actually on equal footing. Some opinions simply reach too far--or refuse to reach far enough when all evidence points that way. Unless and until we can agree on that, fruitful discussion is impossible.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Okay. We're trying to achieve a basic concept of civility and reasonability and you're seeking warfare and nuclear destruction seemingly.

Now that you've gotten that off your chest, are you able to have a discussion?

Your points are understood, appreciated and sympathised with. But when you come to the table, please be able to see your opponent as something else than an opponent.

Are you able to have a discussion?

Because a discussion where truly every single possible opinion is equally valid is an instantaneous dead end. The discussion is eliminated before it can even begin.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Where is the wrath? Where is the quest for purity?

I don't see anyone in this thread being full of wrath. I mean, Musk seems super POed, but that's his schtick.

Was WotC on a quest for purity when they published the material, warts and all, and merely added a mild acknowledgement up front?

What is the dark path in this specific instance? That we acknowledge that Gygax wasn't in fact a saint? He never claimed to be. He's still getting this lavishly produced tribute to his work.

About to do a podcast so can't really get too into this one but wanted to respond. I think some peopel have veered into wrath, not all for sure. And I think those who have are not necessarily aware they are doing so (I wouldn't want to call people out for it though).

The dark path is more about how we treat each other over these disagreements (i.e. calling people toxic for example). On Musk, I commented that I didn't agree with his burn in hell statement

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Uh, yikes. They really don't. Wow...

I don't think this is a realistic or helpful viewpoint of the world. Hurts should be acknowledged, but more importantly, folks should lift each other up. This poem is a paean to narcissism though, and frankly diminishes what those who have lived through actual abuse have experienced. Yuck.

I just finished Season 1 of Arcane. It's like Jinx is talking to me here.

I know you didn't mean that, and apologies for the strength of my reply, but the stridency of your post warranted that for me.

@darjr I see you added a sad face emoji to this post. Why is that?