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.

 

[Maxperson]

Gary Gygax was a sexist. For everything else he did, he was also a sexist. And a racist. And an antisemite. These things do not counter his creation being a net positive for the world.

But denying them or couching them in pleasantries does nothing positive for anyone.

I have not heard that. What is the evidence for him being antisemitic?

 

[Kannik]

1. Don't take things out of context or even lie about things in some cases.

2. Let sleeping dogs lie, folks wanted a celebration not a smug attack on their heroes.

Great news! They didn't, and it wasn't an attack (smug or otherwise) on anyone. We can put those concerns to rest now.

Fortunate too, because then I'd have to question WotC's attack strategy around this destroying Gygaxian legacy thing. Because putting out a 576 page book (Tome? At what page count does something become a Tome?) that faithfully reproduces the work of Gygax (and others) as they were published while excitingly lauding its foundational-ness and what it's created in the world for our favourite hobby, and then to only spend a few paragraphs in the foreword to mildly note that certain elements within are sexist or otherwise discriminatory, would be a terrible and grossly inefficient way to go about it.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I don't think you're appreciating the irony of your response here.

Let me be a bit less opaque. Who draws the line in the sand? Who decides when it's okay to be intolerant?

I have a different idea. How about (the general) you, as a person, treat those you meet as people? With their own foibles, needs, wants, insecurities? How about not looking for a pattern of thought that paints everyone as Team A and Team B?

 

[abirdcall]

Nah. There's no "Paradox of the Paradox". The Paradox of Tolerance isn't a manifesto or a moral ideology it's a social contract.

Intolerant people break that social contract. So you make it uncomfortable for them to be intolerant in society.

That's all there is to it.

Yeah.

The sorts who argue this sort of thing largely are either actively harmful or are just viewing it as some sort of abstract philosophical 'difference of opinion' rather than the reality of literally harming and killing people.

They are so far removed from the impact that they fail to see what the big deal is and are too stubborn to learn.

 

[billd91]

Everyone's family is different so I would never pass judgment on people who have different family experiences. I think this is a separate issue from is Gygax sexist, but I grew up in a household where family is the most important thing in the world. We loved one another even when folks fought or disagreed. My dad and his father had serious disagreements over big issues, like Vietnam for example. But they never would have disallowed him to see his grandchildren or miss being among family on the holidays. I think kindness and understanding are important even when people disagree over things

See, there are disagreements over relatively minor things and external policies like American involvement in the Vietnam War. And then there are disagreements over much more serious issues like homophobia with queer kids in the family.

I belong to a support group of dads of trans kids - and for most of us, particularly given what's going on politically and how our family members are targeted, protection of our kids is PARAMOUNT. Putting up with a family member who is a transphobe is NOT. And I wouldn't feel guilty about making that choice at all.

 

[Morrus]

View attachment 386999

View attachment 387000

So, we're looking at two paragraphs. And I'll concede to folks that they are emotively written. But looking at the actual text we've been debating for 60+ pages, I'd challenge people to find the author calling Gary Gygax anything; and, indeed, to point to an untrue fact.

Of that foreword (FORWARD!) the only thing I can see that might be considered as a descriptive term applied to the creators is "But when [...] includes a dig at "Women's Lib," the misogyny is revealed as a conscious choice." It's the one and only reference to misogyny in the foreword, and I'd strongly argue that digs at Women's Lib are hard to defend as not misogynistic. I mean, they're not capital crimes, and it's only mentioned in one sentence.

But that's it? That's what half the TTRPG community is so triggered about? Just... that? Really? I mean, talk about triggered snowflakes.

Other than that, it accurately describes the documents:

• They did have Tolkien's IP in them;
• They do include terminology that is hurtful;
• Wargamers were mainly white middle-class Americans;
• Slavery is presented transactionally;
• There were game stats for religious figures (not Jesus, notably).

That's it. Gygax is not named or called anything.

Point to the lie in the list above. Not the fictional words you've invented in your mind, the actual words. What's untrue?

(not you Mike, obvs)

 

[Steampunkette]

I have not heard that. What is the evidence for him being antisemitic?

There were some comments upthread about Jews and Hollywood.

Let me be a bit less opaque. Who draws the line in the sand? Who decides when it's okay to be intolerant?

I have a different idea. How about (the general) you, as a person, treat those you meet as people? With their own foibles, needs, wants, insecurities? How about not looking for a pattern of thought that paints everyone as Team A and Team B?

It's never okay to be intolerant. So when someone says something bigoted, you correct them. That's it. That's literally all there is to it.

If someone KEEPS being bigoted, I disassociate from their company and let other people know what happened.

It happens enough, and that person runs out of people to hang out with except... you guessed it: Other bigots that people don't want to hang out with because they're bigots.

There's no overarching government program. There's no devious secret police searching through your financial records for evidence you ate at a Chik-fil-A one time and thus deserve the guillotine.

Dunno what you're imagining, Ulorian, but it ain't here.

 

[Morrus]

Fortunate too, because then I'd have to question WotC's attack strategy around this destroying Gygaxian legacy thing.

Indeed. I mean, I've just outlined this fictional attack strategy. It doesn't exist, except fictionally in the minds of people who want it to exist for... reasons. The words are right there.

At this point I don't even know what the debate is. The only response anybody needs to make is this:

"Here's the text. Point to the lie."

 

[Morrus]

I would have thought the opposite from a citizen of a civilisation that evolved under a long-standing monarchy. Is this a UK Gen X thing or something more deeply inherent?

Do I look like a cultural historian? I have no idea!

All I know is that Americans like to venerate 'fathers' and 'founders' and that's not language I ever hear from anybody but Americans. Who do you imagine we might venerate? Maybe we learned the hard way that those people were never anything special. That Henry VIII, right? What a cool dude! William the Conqueror?

I guess we just don't do that. I can't picture anybody who might hold a venerational place in British culture. The idea of it just seems weird.

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, there are disagreements over relatively minor things and external policies like American involvement in the Vietnam War. And then there are disagreements over much more serious issues like homophobia with queer kids in the family.

I belong to a support group of dads of trans kids - and for most of us, particularly given what's going on politically and how our family members are targeted, protection of our kids is PARAMOUNT. Putting up with a family member who is a transphobe is NOT. And I wouldn't feel guilty about making that choice at all.

I wouldn't call this a relatively minor disagreement over US policy. My father was a conscientious objector. He was old enough to serve, had an early draft number but was given conscientious objector status (which was not an easy thing to be granted at that time). My grandfather fought in WWII, supported the Vietnam war and felt it was a patriotic duty to serve. It was a matter of life and death for the soldiers involved and for the people in Vietnam. Obviously you are discussing a serious issue as well (and like I said how other families handle these sorts of matters is up to them, not my business). And this was just one example of course. Nor am I saying there wasn't a line. If you are talking about one member of the family engaging in behavior that harms another member of the family, that would be a different matter. But the Vietnam war issue was no small issue in my household or the country. People would despise each other over differences of opinion on it.