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 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

So, just to be clear: Expressing sexism, but always doing so "as a joke," makes it okay?

 

[Steampunkette]

What's weird, is I can see where he's coming from. I grew up in an era when toys were pretty strictly segregated by sex and it seemed perfectly natural that boys liked GI Joe, Atari, and football while girls like My Little Pony, Barbie, and not playing video games. But then I saw evidence to suggest otherwise and adjusted my worldview accordingly.

Here's the thing, by the time Gygax made that post in 2002, he must have been aware of how many teenage girls and young women had gotten into role playing games with the introduction of Vampire the Masquerade back in 1991. I know my experience is just one anecdote, but Vampire was the first time I saw anything approaching parity between boys and girls in a role playing game. Gygax had the evidence right there that girls and women were interested in RPGs and still clung to his beliefs.

I grew up in the same era. My parents refused to buy me Barbie dolls but at least I also enjoyed TMNT toys, too.

And it "Seemed totally natural" that I should be harassed and treated poorly for playing with my twin sister's dolls. So I stopped doing that pretty early on.

But the fact is that I wasn't allowed to just be a little girl in the ways that were external. So I played D&D.

And I almost always played female characters unless I was explicitly forbidden from doing so. And then I played MMORPGs... And I always played female characters because there was no one to tell me not to.

Also, while you see V:tM as the big onboarding point for women: In the first surveys of players back in the 1970s and early 80s about 10% of the D&D playerbase was women. Sure 10% doesn't SEEM like much, but that's a lot for a game which is designed by, for, and advertised to men and boys almost exclusively.

By AD&D 2e it was almost 1/3rd of the playerbase.

Didn't stop Gygax and others from claiming they were "Wives and Kids of actual D&D Players". Hell, up 'til 2005 after 3e had been out for 5 years and 39% of the playerbase was women (with 1% identifying otherwise), he he made a point about how only men enjoy D&D but that Lake Geneva has other amenities for "Women and Children" who don't like D&D or Gencon.

Drives me nuts. Makes it even worse when that kind of patronizing sexism still hangs out in the community.

 

[Gradine]

What this thread has taught me is that there are long standing members of this community who know how to toe the line of this community's rules while very clearly not sharing this community's values in the least.

And I'm simply not sure what the point is of continuing to engage with them as if they are arguing from good faith. It feels like a mistake too continue to humor them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, just to be clear: Expressing sexism, but always doing so "as a joke," makes it okay?

No that isn't what I said. I am saying when someone expresses any sentiment with humor, it impacts how I interpret the statements because it can mean the intent isn't always what it seems on face value. Similar when people express things in anger or frustration. Sometimes they say things they might not mean but are venting anger or exasperation

 

[Not a Decepticon]

No that isn't what I said. I am saying when someone expresses any sentiment with humor, it impacts how I interpret the statements because it can mean the intent isn't always what it seems on face value. Similar when people express things in anger or frustration. Sometimes they say things they might not mean but are venting anger or exasperation

If ypu have to repedatelly explain to people what ypu've said is a joke, it is not a joke.

 

[Steampunkette]

If you say it in a humorous manner you're not actually a sexist.
If you say it in an angry manner you're not actually a sexist.
If you say it in a frustrated manner you're not actually a sexist.
If you say it in an exasperated manner you're not actually a sexist.

How about hungry? Horny? Depressed?

Which other emotional states automatically excuse sexism, I wonder.

 

[Remathilis]

So, just to be clear: Expressing sexism, but always doing so "as a joke," makes it okay?

A good rule of thumb is that anything expressed as a joke tends to hide a kernel of truth. And unfortunately, a lot of "humor" is just saying outrageous and offensive things and then when people react saying "it's just a joke man, can't you take a joke?" Actual professional comics have opted to use this as a way of expressing things they believe, but are using exaggeration as a way to deflect criticism.

 

[Remathilis]

If you say it in a humorous manner you're not actually a sexist.
If you say it in an angry manner you're not actually a sexist.
If you say it in a frustrated manner you're not actually a sexist.
If you say it in an exasperated manner you're not actually a sexist.

How about hungry? Horny? Depressed?

Which other emotional states automatically excuse sexism, I wonder.

Man, if horny could have excused some of my dumb sexist jokes when I was young...

 

[Steampunkette]

I will say this:

In my experience, if someone is "Angry Enough" to say something bigoted it is because that is how they actually feel or think and they're just filtering it. When they're that pissed they're letting it out because their "What is socially acceptable" filter is weakened.

Same thing with frustrated. Or exasperated. Or drunk.

If someone drops an N-word or an F-bomb or a T-slur while they're pissed at you, that's always on the tip of their tongue, they just bite it most of the time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No that isn't what I said. I am saying when someone expresses any sentiment with humor, it impacts how I interpret the statements because it can mean the intent isn't always what it seems on face value. Similar when people express things in anger or frustration. Sometimes they say things they might not mean but are venting anger or exasperation

So...

Why is that relevant?

I mean this with absolute sincerity. Like, let's reframe this into a hypothetical about a fictional person who made homophobic comments instead of sexist ones. If someone cracks jokes about gay men being incapable of being real men, of being weaklings or pansies, or using as a punchline that every gay man is automatically a depraved predator....how is that better? How does that in any way reduce the harm that these comments make to gay men, who are even to this day vilified, driven to suicide, or murdered for these very reasons?

Why should we forgive someone for expressing homophobia when they're angry? I don't forgive someone for causing physical harm while angry. In fact, that actually adds a second problem on top of the harm done: the fact that the person has so little self-control that merely getting them worked up means they could injure or even kill somebody! That is in no way a reason to think more kindly of their actions. Why should we forgive someone for expressing homophobia coded as a joke, rather than as just straight invective? Jokes are still hurtful--in fact, they can be more hurtful, because they make the target an object of both hatred and ridicule, intensifying the harm intended, not ameliorating it.

Yes, it's good to be kind to others. It's good to reach out when they're hurting and try to help that hurt. But causing harm--whether through words or through acts--is causing harm, regardless of whether it is done in anger or in malice. Second-degree murder is still murder, after all. Even if it is a crime of passion, it is still the crime of intentionally, knowingly taking someone else's life. I don't see why intentionally, knowingly doing or saying or writing sexist things in the heat of passion is anything less than sexism.