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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I appreciate that you share Heidi's assessment that he was sexist, but I want to stop for a moment and consider the first part of your post. Particularly, the line that "there was an effort of humor behind it".

Should that matter?

You see, a lot of the time, people defend hateful things they say by declaring "it was only a joke!" or "I was being sarcastic!" As though humor is some kind of shield against criticism. Like humor can't be weaponized.

I mentioned my father in an earlier post. One thing he loved to do was "make jokes" about my mother. To just about every stranger he would meet, in a grocery store, in a restaurant, in the bank, everywhere, he would "joke" about her. He'd mock her for her weight, he'd mock her for her nagging him, he'd mock her for the way she dressed. Constant "jokes" about her, to complete strangers, constantly putting her down, making her out to be the villain of his life, the worst person in his life. Constantly. To everyone.

When the divorce proceedings started, it was something my mother brought up to me, one of the things she was tired of. He never had a kind word for her in public. It was all "jokes" at her expense. Constantly. Do you think that made them okay? Do you think the fact he thought he was being funny made it okay to constantly put down my mother and constantly belittle her and constantly make her seem like a monster to complete strangers? Because he was making an attempt at humor?

I'm reminded of another instance that hit the news recently. Young woman at a highschool got suspended. You see, she punched a boy. And the boy, he would likely tell people he was only joshing around, you know just a bit of locker room talk, a bit of humor to lighten the mood. He only told her "your body, my choice". You know, because it is funny to tell a woman that you get to decide whether or not she will have sex and get pregnant. Real comedy hour stuff to tell women that they have no rights, no control, to expectations of anything but submission and obeying.

And, if he said it was "just a joke" then it has to be okay, right?

Of course, as you said. You agree with Heidi Gygax that her father was a bit sexist, and you think that this "humorous" jab at the idea of women having rights was also a bit sexist, and a bit unbecoming of a proper gentleman as it were... but a lesser offense than if he hadn't been trying to be funny? Because, as long as you make it a joke, then you can't be doing that much harm, right? After all, just because a joke isn't funny and no one laughed doesn't mean it can't be defended as being okay.

I don't have a lot of time right now but my short response is yes humor matters because humor often involves exaggeration for effect (so it isn't necessarily a literal expression of a persons views). Sometimes people mean it, sometimes they are exaggerating existing beliefs. On the Heidi Gygax, part I would not want to put words in her mouth but I think she was making a very qualified statement about his sexism

 

[Alzrius]

Interesting. I would actually not automatically interpret that referring to their skin colour at all, darkness here is contrasted with brightness, not paleness. I would have understood this as more thematic/spiritual darkness.

The "Black Elves" part makes the interpretation more literal, or at least I think so.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The "Black Elves" part makes the interpretation more literal, or at least I think so.

'Black' and 'Dark' especially in the realm of mythology doesn't usually directly correlate to color. It more pertains to be hidden or mysterious or enigmatic in nature. This was very true when it comes to Dark Elves in particular before D&D drow became a group of literally black elves.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm sorry you had to go through that, honestly. I grew up in an environment that would make you blanch, and if I told you the details, you'd likely apologise to me for trying to use your story, as tragic as it truly is, as a weapon in this discussion.

Practicing tolerance and understanding despite our pasts is what makes the world a better place. Having said that, your story is terrible... my sympathies. It appears though, that what you are saying is that it's okay to not listen to others or see their side of a story or consider that they are human beings because something bad happened to you? I don't feel that way. I hope that I am misreading what you're saying too.

I consider that my Father is a human being. A human being is a pretty neutral thing to be. Serial Killers are also human beings. So are the people who work at soup kitchens. The guy who shot a family for playing loud music is as much a human being as the woman who dives into a fire to save an old man's cat. Saying "they are a human being" is about as meaningful as saying "they breathe oxygen".

Does being a Human Being mean that I should open my arms to you(general) as you declare that other people are not human beings who are worthy of love and respect? Should I listen to the person whose side of the story is "I am a human, and therefore superior to that thing which only pretends to be human"? After all, if I take your "Paradox of the Paradox of Tolerance" seriously, that is exactly what I should do. I should pull up a chair, sit down with the person who says my friends are inhuman things that at best need to be fixed and worst need to be killed, and listen thoughtfully and fully to their opinion, try and see their side of the story. After all, if I was truly tolerant, then I should consider if my friends truly ARE less than human. Maybe I really should sit down and deeply consider whether or not they deserve death or subjugation by a superior human being. To not consider that point of view of a fellow human being would be rude and unbecoming.

Or maybe.... that's a crock. Maybe I don't need to stop and consider if the stance of hatred, of removing people's rights, of dismissing their lives as worthless is worth hearing out.

 

[Maxperson]

He hired her, and then left her high and dry....where her primary functions were secretarial and "girl alerts."

This isn't true. By her own words in the quote above, the girl alerts weren't a part of her job, they were an optional thing that they all did and that she had fun with until the three guys that she had the most fun alerting left the company. Then she didn't do it as much, because it wasn't fun anymore. If it were a function of her job, she wouldn't have had the ability to scale back like that.

What I also found interesting in the quote of hers, was that she suspected that being a girl had a lot to do with it. If his sexism were that blatant/pervasive, she wouldn't have suspected. She'd be sure. She also said that her gender wasn't why it was difficult for her there.

Please note, I do think he was sexist, but I also agree with @Bedrockgames that there is nuance in a lot of the proof being used. The only thing I can't see as nuanced is the quote where he doubled down on being sexist. It was too long and the words chosen didn't have the tone of sarcasm, joking, etc.

Also, what nuance is there to me, just determines the degree of sexism, not whether it was there or not.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
So, it looks like there was a thread of stuff scattered through here that ought to be addressed.

Steampunkette can you please be nicer when you respond to me.

If she is not breaking the site rules, she does not have to.

You speak as if you are unaware of how this request comes across. As others have informed you, men asking women to be "nice" when talking about certain issues has problems associated with it. You have now been informed of this - in the future, we expect you to take this into account.

As a rule I don't like reporting people (it feels more nasty than simply telling them directly I am finding their posting overly hostile).

With respect, we have modes of operation that we ask folks to use. We ask folks to report-and-disengage because, however it makes you feel, broadly speaking, IT WORKS BETTER.

If you create more conflict by refusing to use the methods we ask you to, you are making yourself part of the problem, and we may then have to deal with you as part of the problem.

You're a man telling a woman she should communicate to you more nicely during a discussion of sexism. The words "be nicer" are pretty culturally loaded when given to women.

Clint_L here is basically correct. I'm going to expound a bit - I won't get it 100% correct, but maybe I can make it more clear.

Asking women to "be nicer" in a discussion of sexism (or several other topics) is asking them to downplay the impact of these issues on them. Thus downplayed, men nearly invariably then say the issue isn't all that bad, and ignore it. And nothing changes. This has gone on for decades. Centuries, really. Much as we'd want calm, rational conversation to win the day, being nice doesn't improve things for them.

In addition, when men are the major source of the problem, us asking women to "be nicer" engages the same dynamic as you see in abusive relationships, where the abuser needs to be constantly placated.

Thus, "be nicer" is kind of a jerk move.

The rules of this place still hold, of course.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And so did I. Like I said, I had a great aunt born in the 1910s* who was a feminist. I grew up mostly in New England where there were plenty of progressive movements in the 19th century. You had older people who were more progressive on these fronts. But in my experience, most people I interacted with who were born in those years up through the 30s were tilted more towards Gygax's way of viewing the world. The issue I was raising is it wouldn't have been at all unusual to hear someone Gygax's age, even into the 2000s, saying things that were not in step with current thinking, or using outdated language. I think when you are evaluating a person, you need to take the overall context of their times into account

*I think. Possible she was born in the 20s

At what time in history did it stop being okay to be sexist? the 1980's? The 1990's? 2000's? I remember hearing some pretty sexist things from people in certain areas before 2020, so is it anyone born before 2020?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

At what time in history did it stop being okay to be sexist?

It was never OK. It's just the people in charge of the conversation didn't care.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It was never OK. It's just the people in charge of the conversation didn't care.

Shocked Pikachu face

But Dustyboots, that would mean that claiming a person was "of their time" wouldn't be an excuse for their behavior being inappropriate. And that I can't look around at the current times of hatred against specific groups and use them to excuse my behavior as just being "part of the times".

Why, that can't be true, can it?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't have a lot of time right now but my short response is yes humor matters because humor often involves exaggeration for effect (so it isn't necessarily a literal expression of a persons views). Sometimes people mean it, sometimes they are exaggerating existing beliefs.

I see, so as long as I "exaggerate for effect" the idea of sexually assaulting a woman, then it is less offensive than telling her I would sexually assault her. Because I "exaggerated for effect".

Or is it more that other part, about not being a literal expression of their views? I mean, a joke about how a woman should never leave the house doesn't mean I literally believe in domestic slavery, so it's okay to make that joke. Because I don't literally mean that specific thing. I mean someone might, maybe the people who laughed at my joke even, but you can't be sure I meant it. So it has to be okay for that joke to happen and I can't possibly be criticized for it.

Hmm, but then what about that bolded part? Sometimes people mean it. Sometimes people are exaggerating an existing belief. Huh. What existing beliefs could they be exaggerating I wonder? And, hmmm, if someone has an existing belief, that they exaggerate, into a sexist or racist or transphobic joke would it not be reasonable to assume that the underlying belief they exaggerated is ALSO sexist or racist or transphobic? Because, whenever I've played something as over-dramatic for a laugh, or exaggerated, it is the exaggeration that is funny not the underlying belief or action. So if the idea of "hah! This will upset women seeking equality!" is the impetus for the joke, what's the underlying belief there? That it is funny that women seek equality?

On the Heidi Gygax, part I would not want to put words in her mouth but I think she was making a very qualified statement about his sexism

Yes. She said he was sexist. And you involved her in this "attempted humor" as well.