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.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm sure there are things in places in the old books that make people wince today. The question is -- was Gary a typical man of his times or was he especially egregious? I think WOTC though did more damage than good with their disclaimers all over the place. I am glad they didn't rewrite those parts. History is history. The disclaimers is open ended and makes the game sound a lot worse than I think it really is or was. That doesn't mean it was without anything offensive.

I don't think it matters if Gary was average or worse for his time. What he chose to say is bad on its own and can be on that merit. That doesn't mean Gary was a bad person, but he held ideas that are bad and those deserve scrutiny. Which the foreward does. And unless those ideas are disavowed, it's often assumed they are part of the creators vision for their art. (How many people connect Harry Potter with transphobia due to Joanne's writings that came after the series was finished?)

WotC has to put those kinds of warnings on something like this to advise people those ideas don't reflect their current beliefs. When dealing with historical media like this, you have only two options: disavow (Warner Brothers and Loony Tunes) or vault and forget (Disney and Song of the South).

 

[Bedrockgames]

What Gary said was not done in the heat of the moment. There was no heightened emotional state. He wasn't composing a rage tweet, he was typing a game manuscript. I assume he took his time to make his initial composition and then had ample time to go back and adjust what he wrote. Presumably, an editor looked at the work before publishing, but having read old TSR works, I would not be surprised how much "first and only draft" work made it to print.

I'm going to assume that Gary meant what he wrote in his works. Things like the Tiamat/women's lib joke were not an off the cuff comment to an interviewer or caught on a hot mic, they are words in an official D&D product. So if those words don't reflect Gary or his heart, what other words in those books likewise don't? How much else of Gary's advice is posture and bluster rather than reflection of his true beliefs? I could make a good argument that most of his DMG is "so as I say, not as I do" so why even take it seriously?

There is a lot of different quotes. One of them was a response to a criticism in a Euoprean zine. He would still still have had to type it, but that one struck me as being written in anger and in a tone. So I take that into account in my reading. My sense of some of the forum posts are similar (how many of you have said something on a forum, even here, you maybe didn't believe, but out of frustration, because you felt boxed in by points in an argument, etc).

Or maybe, just maybe, Gary meant what he wrote. All of it. The good, the bad, and the offense.

Again a lot of what he wrote wasn't written in a serious tone. For example, the Harot table is clearly a joke (and frankly a joke I think is funny). Menzter seemed to indicate as much as well. Words like "Brazen strumpet" are obviously intended for humorous effect.

But as I said, I tend to agree with Heidi's assessment of things. I think he was a man of his times, that is reflected in some of his writings. But I think the writings are all in a context, peopel who knew him have weighed in on that context and it is fair for folks to determine for themselves how charitably or harshly to read his work. I mean the DMG itself for example largely seems to be writing in a bristly tone where I think he is using a lot of hyperbole for example

 

[AnotherGuy]

Echo Chambers occur when someone cuts themself off from ALL other voices and information and perspective.

That is kind of human nature though.
How many people are moving over to BlueSky from X and closing their accounts with X.
That creates the echo chambers for the ones moving and the ones staying.

 

[SlyFlourish]

I did a spot on my show about the topic. Here are my main points:

• Gygax made sexist remarks and that sexism and bigotry can be found in early (and even current) versions of D&D. This is what Peterson and Tondro said in their introductions and they were right.
• Gygax can be (and, from accounts, was) nice to women he worked with, who worked for him, or who he met through the hobby and still be sexist. One is not mutually exclusive from another. People can be complicated.
• You can love D&D and also recognize the flaws in its creators and its history.
• Our hold on the hobby becomes stronger when we recognize and shine a light on its flaws.
• You get to decide how to change your view of someone's work when you learn more about them. We each get to choose how. Don't ignore indications of racism and sexism just because you like the work.
• If you're a cis het white dude, the conversation isn't about you. It's about the experiences of many who were pushed out of the hobby for decades. Listen to those who were and are affected.
• You can love TTRPGs and not like D&D. You can love D&D and not love WOTC or Hasbro. You can love the designers at WOTC and not like the company. You can love D&D and recognize the flaws of its creators and its problematic past. Doing so makes your hold on the hobby stronger, not weaker.
• It's ok to have complicated and evolving feelings about this hobby and its creators.
• As @CleverNickName says: "It's not about 'shaming' Gary Gygax for being a bigot. It's about acknowledging the bigotry in our hobby, so that we can do better going forward."

This topic also includes wonderful examples of sealioning, DARVO, and following the Narcissists Prayer. All good examples to help us with online discourse in the future.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm sure there are things in places in the old books that make people wince today. The question is -- was Gary a typical man of his times or was he especially egregious?

Seems pretty clear he didn't think he was just "a man of his times". He's clearly arguing with other men here, particularly given he said he'd almost never had a female player in his games in that era (3 in 100 is what he quoted later on). The attitude he is taking here is one he took on many times, that of "truth-telling iconoclast".

I think it's fair to say that in 1975, the average American 37-year-old did not, in fact, say things like "damn right I am a sexist" or "it doesn't matter to me if women get paid as much as men", and even if those were common sentiments in private (which I doubt, particularly the former - people who are racist or sexist very rarely bellow "damn right I am!" about it - on the contrary they tend to strongly deny it and actually get upset by being called that), people didn't usually go out of their way to broadcast them in public forums. Nor do I think even most conventional sexists of 1975 would have ranted about adding more rape and whores into the game because apparently women wanted more representation. And particularly I don't think many of those people would have gone to the rather extreme length of writing in to a gaming magazine to maximally publicly declare that they were not only a sexist, but pro-sexism, and claim that women ruin wargames!

So I think it's extremely safe to say that Gary himself, at least in 1975, thought he was "different to the other guys". You'll notice the complete lack of "we all think this really"-type appeals or claims - on the contrary he is clearly on the offensive and thinks the many people who disagree with him are dummies.

Further, given as late as 2002 as he was saying stuff like this:

I think it's safe to say he remained more and more determinedly sexist than was normal for someone of his age (and I would say being consciously and determinedly sexist was even then unusual, and still is). The thinking women don't play RPGs because of "brain function" is particularly demented and obviously wrong when we see how more and more women had been playing RPGs, from 1990s onwards (he tries to paper over this with a comment re: LARPs in the same post, but all that illustrates is being in denial and determined to be sexist, because women weren't just playing LARPs, but all kinds of RPGs).

(Also note the use of "females" like a goddamn Ferengi!)

Gygax can be (and, from accounts, was) nice to women he worked with, who worked for him, or who he met through the hobby and still be sexist. One is not mutually exclusive from another. People can be complicated.

Yeah this is pretty common - a lot of truly dreadful sexists can be quite pleasant to most women in person, just like some racists can be quite pleasant to different ethnicities in person, whilst thinking they are "inferior" or "cause problems" or should be strictly limited in what they can do/access (indeed sometimes this even fuels the attempts to be pleasant).

 

[Remathilis]

I have bought into exactly nothing you've said here. A poor defense of a poor practice.

Echo chambers occur when you are not exposed to viewpoints that you disagree with.

This may shock you, but the pattern of behaviour of cutting people off on this site... is going to carry over into other aspects of their lives.

When you provide a feature that prevents discussion and silos folks... you have not done anyone a service.

So if I went into every thread and just responded to the topic (regardless of what is) with "D&D is lame, you should be playing Pathfinder" I'm breaking the echo chamber by constantly reminding you a superior option exists, right?

 

[Steampunkette]

Your takeaway from my statement is strange to me.

Look at this way. Are there bad, like truly bad, people in the world? Absolutely! Are there as many incredibly villainous, irredeemable scoundrels as some would believe? Not at all. What I'm talking about are the knee-jerk reactions. You have a slight disagreement with me, therefore I am pure evil and clearly have motives so dark that the pure-hearted could never pierce.

Uh, no. Most people are just, you know, people.

If someone does something objectionable, or even really objectionable, instead of going holy warrior on them, take a step back and analyse what's happening here. Most people are not bad. Most people are misguided though. There may be something in their past or upbringing which has damaged them and laid down some thought patterns which are causing issues for themselves and others later in their lives. It's worth taking the time to treat others, even when it's unpleasant and your back has gotten up and it feels super wrong to do so, with humanity.

Someone who is misguided can be reasoned with. You're not going to be able to reason with someone when you turn your cannons on them. You go on attack mode immediately, it's a guarantee that nothing has been solved and you are now responsible for perpetuating more distress on the world.

No one. Not a single person. Has said "Gary Gygax was Evil"

No one. Not a single person. Has said "Comics who make bigoted jokes are Evil."

This is not something that has happened. People have said "Gary Gygax was a Sexist" and "When a person makes 'jokes' that are bigoted they're also probably a bigot."

"Evil" doesn't come up. The idea that they are only and can ever only be a bigot or a sexist didn't come up.

You are inventing arguments to charge against, here.

As far as "Go on attack mode" and the rest of your main thrust here: Look through this thread and specifically at my posts. You will see me being polite, direct, and patient with people for a long period of time. That eventually fades and I become rude and pointed with some people and polite with others.

Because being polite and patient doesn't work with some folks. With some folks there is no tactic that works, whatsoever. And being told to "Be Kind" or "Be Patient" or "Be Understanding" just becomes tone policing and aggravating.

There's a reason saying "Calm Down" when someone is angry never actually works and often results in an elevated response.

I have bought into exactly nothing you've said here. A poor defense of a poor practice.

Echo chambers occur when you are not exposed to viewpoints that you disagree with.

This may shock you, but the pattern of behaviour of cutting people off on this site... is going to carry over into other aspects of their lives.

When you provide a feature that prevents discussion and silos folks... you have not done anyone a service.

This might shock you, Ulorian, but I don't think you're open to being convinced.

I don't want to be trolled and harassed by bad faith actors, so I ignore them. It's the best thing one CAN do with sea lions and goalpost shifters.

"Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man. The correct answer is "LoLno" not to step toward the center while he takes a step back.

Does it suck for the person being excluded? Yup. But that's not my problem. And trying to pretend like this is some kind of slippery slope towards extremist echo chambers is just nutty.

No one sees someone walk in with the opinion "Gary Gygax wasn't Sexist, you're wrong!" and immediately slams the ignore button. If we did, this thread would be 4 pages long.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Actually no. That is what you are debating, the original topic was Elon Musk's reaction to a foreword in a book that reproduces texts from early D&D and related documents.

And that led to people debating whether Gary was various types of -ist. Which has to do with what we think Gary believed. I've also weighed in on what I think about the foreword itself and Musk's response to it

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you call someone the n-word when you are drunk, you are a racist who knows better than to be this open about it when sober.

I'm not so sure people always speak what is in their heart when they are drunk. In my experience it seems to be a mixed bag. Sometimes the truth comes out, sometimes people just say a bunch of nonsense. I do think the N word is a very taboo word that most people, even drunk, would not have roll off their lips easily unless they were accustomed to saying it, so I am probably going to be a lot less charitable if someone uses it drunk. I think the N Word is repugnant. We weren't allowed to use any kind of racist language in my house growing up. So it always bothered me when I heard even mild ones out in the world. But I have been called slurs, and I have been called slurs by drunk people. I do think if someone uses a slur drunk versus sober, that is a factor I am going to consider. If someone says it sober I would have less doubt about their opinions on the matter than if they said it drunk.

 

[abirdcall]

Your takeaway from my statement is strange to me.

Look at this way. Are there bad, like truly bad, people in the world? Absolutely! Are there as many incredibly villainous, irredeemable scoundrels as some would believe? Not at all. What I'm talking about are the knee-jerk reactions. You have a slight disagreement with me, therefore I am pure evil and clearly have motives so dark that the pure-hearted could never pierce.

Uh, no. Most people are just, you know, people.

If someone does something objectionable, or even really objectionable, instead of going holy warrior on them, take a step back and analyse what's happening here. Most people are not bad. Most people are misguided though. There may be something in their past or upbringing which has damaged them and laid down some thought patterns which are causing issues for themselves and others later in their lives. It's worth taking the time to treat others, even when it's unpleasant and your back has gotten up and it feels super wrong to do so, with humanity.

Someone who is misguided can be reasoned with. You're not going to be able to reason with someone when you turn your cannons on them. You go on attack mode immediately, it's a guarantee that nothing has been solved and you are now responsible for perpetuating more distress on the world.

What do you think it would take to shift your perspective? Truly.

You're lecturing her on what to do when faced with discrimination and hate. Do you think you have the most experience here? Do you think you've thought about this more than she has?

Does this have a real material effect on your life? Or is this just a philosophical/intellectual exercise for you?

People aren't upset because someone said a mean thing. They're upset because it is a threat. Even if it is a "joke."

Harassment wears on a person. It's probably very difficult to understand what that is in practice without experiencing it throughout your life.

What should be easier are things like being denied employment, or apartment rental, or being assaulted (or worse), or literally having laws enacted to bar you from public life.

We're not upset that someone once said a mean thing. We have our own friends. What we want is to prevent them from hurting us. Actually hurting us.

These are threats.

Do you understand?

We can't make an echo chamber for ourselves because we are under threat. What we can do is unplug from that threat in some spaces and take refuge in our chosen communities. But the threats are always there. We are much too aware of them.

Since you probably can't relate to any of this, here is an example of a joke not being just a joke.

In Grosse Pointe Blank John Cusack plays Martin, an assassin (this is a comedy), who has this conversation with his therapist:

DR. OATMAN You didn’t tell me what you did for a living for 4 sessions. Then you told me. And I said “I don’t want to work with you”. And yet you come back every week at the same time. That’s a difficulty for me. On top of that, if you’ve committed a crime, or if you’re thinking of committing a crime, I have to tell the authorities.

MARTIN I know the law, ok? But I don’t want to be withholding. I’m very serious about this process… And I know where you live.

DR. OATMAN Oh, now see, that wasn’t a nice thing to say. That wasn’t designed to make me feel good. That’s a kind of a not too subtle intimidation. And I, uh, I get filled with anxiety when you talk about something like that. I mean, that’s…

MARTIN Come on, come on, I was just kidding alright? The thought never crossed my mind.

DR. OATMAN You did think of it, Martin. You thought of it and then you said it. and now I’m left with the, with the aftermath of that thinking I gotta be creative in a really interesting way now or Martin’s gonna blow my brains out. You’re holding me hostage here. That’s not right.



Instead of lecturing people who have much more experience than you, please try compassion. Try listening. Be open to learning and realizing that your perspective is just that, your perspective, and there is a whole world of people out there with vastly different experiences. And they have needed to think about this sort of thing their entire lives because they have been under threat for their entire lives.