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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"If Gygax was sexist and included sexist ideas in D&D and I enjoyed that version of D&D which included those sexist elements, that means people might think I'm also sexist. So if I defend Gygax and make it clear he wasn't sexist, then his work cannot be sexist and I am okay for liking it and those who are criticizing him/it/me are wrong."

Indeed. And this reaction often has the opposite effect than what is desired. It is unlikely that I think someone is sexist just based on them liking a thing with some sexist elements* (I like several of such things,) but if a person is denying that the sexist thing is sexist... well, that certainly might affect how I assess their character.

(* If the sexism is the sole or very central aspect of the thing, then that might be another matter, but I don't think anyone has argued that this would be the case here.)

 

[Some Dude]

This is not a personal attack, and I have no animus against @Bedrockgames , but I think it's fair to point out that he is a publisher of RPGPundit, who he has also called a friend, and defended. I'm not saying this makes him a bad person, or wrong, but I think it bears consideration when engaging with him on this issue.

I believe that @Bedrockgames is sincere in his desire to engage people earnestly and openly, even if they disagree with him. But I ultimately feel that this is a misguided impulse.

Studies have shown that people are remarkably resistant to changing their minds, even when confronted with irrefutable fact. And this is the danger of normalizing bigoted speech as something to be debated. All it really does is give bigots a wider audience. And bigots are aware of this, which is why (and I am definitely NOT referring to @Bedrockgames here, let me be absolutely clear about that) you see so much talk about "tolerance of dissenting viewpoints" from the worst elements of our hobby, and society in general. They WANT that wider audience, to spread their views.

Minimizing sexist or bigoted speech and behavior serves no ends, save sexism and bigotry. There is ample evidence of this, in our hobby and elsewhere.

 

[Morrus]

You may want to consider your tone. I'd hate to see you potentially be thread banned.

You are not a moderator. Report posts, and we'll do he moderating, please.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I could be. And I've previously tried to be. The issue is that patience and kindness was met with deflection and disregard, showing that the effort is largely wasted. That there is in this conversation a demand for a veneer of civility to paper over an issue of respect and accuracy. That the content of what is being said is less important than maintaining an air of politeness.

I've never been a big fan of that form of civility. Between the strawman arguments and the shifting of goal posts it's been shown that the civility exists almost exclusively as a mask.

The fact that you outright acknowledge you skim posts and "Come Back to Them" (unless something in it is uncivil and respond in seconds) as a matter of course shows that you don't read to understand or come to a consensus in a discussion, but read to respond. A classic bad faith tactic in discourse.

So I probably won't. Doing pointless emotional labor isn't my thing.

That's an interesting strawman you've bowled over, there, good job! That's not remotely what I've said and doesn't represent my feelings on the matter, but it's an impressive sidestep of the actual statement!

But since you clearly and DESPERATELY want my honest opinion on your strawman position you've set up for me:

The men and women and other people who pay for their work and then use them as an insult to others are sexists and should be shamed. This guy, in particular, who spent time writing out a series of insults based on the theme "Sex Worker" to make a random table in a D&D book as a repugnant repudiation of feminists calling him a sexist is a sexist.

Which shouldn't be a shock to anyone, since he acknowledged it, himself.

You're not wrong, but you're not right either. The goal is dialogue, not standing your ground at all costs. I just read that the person you are responding to is a friend of RPGPundit, who is a bit of a... let's say 'character' so that I don't get threadbanned. Let's also just say, a person whose positions I strongly disagree with. That doesn't mean that I immediately shut down whatever the poster you're responding to says. In fact, I do have some genuine respect for the poster. He does make insightful posts.

You're never going to convince someone by attacking them. Show them that you see that they are a human being (because, they are!).

None of this is any of my business really, but I really don't like to see opportunities for dialog going to waste. Butting out now...

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is not a personal attack, and I have no animus against @Bedrockgames , but I think it's fair to point out that he is a publisher of RPGPundit, who he has also called a friend, and defended. I'm not saying this makes him a bad person, or wrong, but I think it bears consideration when engaging with him on this issue.

I don't make any effort to hide that I published Pundit or that I consider him friend. And I can say on some cultural criticisms concerning media and gaming I often agree with him. We have very different political perspectives though. But I have a lot of people in my life with whom I have political disagreements (heck the county I live in is split in half on political issues these days).

I believe that @Bedrockgames is sincere in his desire to engage people earnestly and openly, even if they disagree with him. But I ultimately feel that this is a misguided impulse.

I always believe in engagement. For example I have been trying to engage with you a lot more even though we have had very strong disagreements. And I've enjoyed our engagements when they have been on a positive note. There are people on both sides of the hobby I have strong disagreements with. But staying engaged helps keep oneself from drifting too far from reason and is a good way to remember people are still humans at the end of the day.

 

[Some Dude]

You're not wrong, but you're not right either. The goal is dialogue, not standing your ground at all costs. I just read that the person you are responding to is a friend of RPGPundit, who is a bit of a... let's say 'character' so that I don't get threadbanned. Let's also just say, a person whose positions I strongly disagree with. That doesn't mean that I immediately shut down whatever the poster you're responding to says. In fact, I do have some genuine respect for the poster. He does make insightful posts.

You're never going to convince someone by attacking them. Show them that you see that they are a human being (because, they are!).

None of this is any of my business really, but I really don't like to see opportunities for dialog going to waste. Butting out now...

This assumes that both parties are arguing in good faith. If they are, geat. But if not, then this approach fails.

 

[Jahydin]

2) Yup! He hired -two- women to work for TSR in the early days! Both of them hired on pretty much to be eye candy and sit around. One, in fact, he flew out from South Carolina, where she lived, had her stay in his home for a couple weeks until she could find a place to stay, promised he would teach her all the rules of how to write D&D material and get her started. Then plopped her at a desk near the front window of the office with no guidance and no expectations of work other than to call out "Hot Chick Alert" when some pretty girl walked down the street so Gygax and the rest of the guys in the back could run to the front to ogle the pretty girl walking down the street.

How do we know? Because she WROTE about it and talked about it at conventions.

Wow, talk about demeaning TSR's women and their output to the game...

From this article:

Wells was a proud Southerner whose fried chicken endeared her to colleagues, and at TSR, her strong-willed personality had her doing everything: She edited, she illustrated, she wrote, she managed. She was an assertive woman whose loyalty was precious. And when things weren’t going her way, she was known to pull the “Gygax” card.

 

[Some Dude]

I don't make any effort to hide that I published Pundit or that I consider him friend. And I can say on some cultural criticisms concerning media and gaming I often agree with him. We have very different political perspectives though. But I have a lot of people in my life with whom I have political disagreements (heck the county I live in is split in half on political issues these days).



I always believe in engagement. For example I have been trying to engage with you a lot more even though we have had very strong disagreements. And I've enjoyed our engagements when they have been on a positive note. There are people on both sides of the hobby I have strong disagreements with. But staying engaged helps keep oneself from drifting too far from reason and is a good way to remember people are still humans at the end of the day.

This is also one of the reasons that I continue to engage with you. Our strong and frequent disagreements aside, I think you are a good and sincere person at heart. We are fundamentally at odds over certain issues, but none of those that are a "deal breaker" for me.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

This assumes that both parties are arguing in good faith. If they are, geat. But if not, then this approach fails.

That seems like a recipe for failure. Sounds like you want to walk into a discussion thinking the other person is arguing in bad faith. They very well might be! Or not. Who knows until you get into it? What is it you think precludes you from treating that other person with respect until you, with certainty, reach that point?

But when you walk into a discussion with absolute certainty that the other person is coming in with bad faith... guess what: so are you!

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

This is also one of the reasons that I continue to engage with you. Our strong and frequent disagreements aside, I think you are a good and sincere person at heart. We are fundamentally at odds over certain issues, but none of those that are a "deal breaker" for me.

These sorts of posts are what I love to see on these boards.