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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Alot of history books wouldn't use a disclaimer.

I assuming they knew what they're doing. They're all intelligent people.

The reaction was easily predictable. Hell I can predict it. Don't engage on Twitter they did. I don't use Twitter never have. A gopher can see this happening.

And yes they made it political by their actions. They're essentially doing the same thing the chud griifters do on the other side. Deliberately provoking a reaction.

So they're either stupid (doubtful) or playing fun and games themselves (like Musk).

Obviously they're marketing it. They made that choice. Putting Gary's writing in a book isn't a big deal. Putting your own opinion in it blurs the lines as to if it's history book or not.

No, putting a preface in a historical work does not blur the line. I have Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the fact that it has a foreword by another author talking about MAry Shelley doesn't "blur the line" about who the real author of the work is.

And... did they know? Did they really expect that something so mild, that didn't name anyone directly, was going to get people screeching about how they are defaming the perfect, immutable, god-like saint that is Gary Gygax (please ignore all evidence to the contrary)?

They aren't grifters. They are deliberately provoking people. They said "We think this material is important to the world. Too important to not reprint. But, we also recognize that a lot of the stuff in here is hurtful to people who have struggled for acceptance in our community. We agree this stuff is harmful, but erasing it would be worse."

There was no fun and games. This was bog standard mild as milk-soaked toast, but even that was too much disrespect. So then people brought the receipts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

and I disagree with it being hard. If the entire pressure is that you are being raised with it, then that is a very small hurdle to overcome.

This is him choosing to be a sexist and doubling down on it when being called out because there was no real pressure for him to change

I don’t think any of us can assume how easy or hard it is for another person to overcome pressure or upbringing or ingrained assumptions. There are lots of layers there, and it varies by person.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nice straw man. Never claimed Gary was right I don't like his product.

But you did say that the older generations are generally on the right side. So which side is the right side on that issue?

I have said he's a product of his time.

From personal experience with parent contemporaries there's a lot worse than Gary.

Yeah. Murderers exist. Good thing we can never criticize anyone except the literal worst people. "Did they torture and kill the children in front of their parents before killing them? No? Well, then what's the problem! Worse people exist!"

It's really hard to get away from your up bringing. As I've said previously there's 8 billion people in the world. The vast majority don't swing my way. Why? Culture, social mores etc.

My country has 5 million people. It's generally in the top 10 or so of the nicest places in the world. Most of the rest are comparatively small population wise.

Basically I'm self aware most people don't swing my way. Why they don't doesn't really matter.

So because it is hard it isn't worth doing? Because it is hard we should just stay silent and suffer, instead of speaking out for a better world? Is that what our values should be reduced to?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I rolled my eyes because I haven't made a single justification or played devil's advocate. Rather I've said straight up, probably at least 10 times at this point, that I think he was sexist.

But you also keep saying that "product of his time" defenses are valid. Which is what they were criticizing.

 

[mamba]

I don’t think any of us can assume how easy or hard it is for another person to overcome pressure or upbringing or ingrained assumptions. There are lots of layers there, and it varies by person.

he was in his 30s, at some point you are responsible for your words and actions and can no longer excuse it with being young, stupid, and impressionable

 

[FrogReaver]

....look, I, of all people, am not going to rake Gygax over the coals for this. Or continue disparaging the 1e DMG (my favorite RPG book of all time). I would even say that what is there is sadly reflective of the time (I mean, you can go later ... Revenge of the Nerds? John Hughes movies? it wasn't exactly uncommon... and, again, Benny Mardones and Into the Night... go watch that video.... that charted twice in the top 20... 1980, and ... 1989 ?!?).

But no, that's not just "Karen." I would like to think that we are past the point of saying that a regular woman (in this, case a goodwife) is undisguisable from other women, when the two examples used are a MU and a harlot. And that a woman that you give mere offense to is likely to falsely report you for crimes like rape. That particular one has a very long and bad history. Given that it's one of the four listed examples, and ESPECIALLY given that rape isn't exactly commonly mentioned in AD&D, I have issues with that.

I love the 1e DMG, but I know that some parts have to be viewed with a critical eye.

IMO, it would have been sexist to have rules that one can tell whether a woman you just met is a goodwife just by her appearance, because it's actually sexist to judge women just by their appearance.

When it comes to 'Karens', i find the description in the goodwife entry pretty spot on, possibly exaggerated a bit when compared to real life examples, but still, there's a remarkable resemblance in that description and to what we refer to as a Karen today. Nor do I see sexism in it. As the old addage goes, if you look for it you'll find it.

Man - that's a beautiful woman - 'stop objectifying her sexuality'
Man - let me hold the door open for a woman with her arms full - 'stop viewing her as weak and in need of your help'
Man - let me buy your dinner - 'stop treating her like she's dependent on you'

As demonstrated above, completely innocuous words and actions are able to be viewed as sexist if one so desires. That said, Sexism is a very real thing. I believe Gygax held sexist views (I think most men his age at his time did, and many women as well, just maybe not most of them), but some of the examples (not all) being used to 'prove his sexism' are total weaksauce, such that using them actually detracts from the case.

Look if your best examples of his sexism are random harlot tables and goodwife tables, then you won't convince many (I don't think they are your best examples). But if it isn't one of the stronger examples of it, then why are we spilling virtual ink over it?

 

[Maxperson]

But you also keep saying that "product of his time" defenses are valid. Which is what they were criticizing.

No. I keep saying he was a product of his time as a way to understand better what was happening then. That's all I've been saying. UNDERSTANDING. Not excusing, which I've explicitly said multiple times isn't what I'm doing.

Sheesh! People really need to read what I'm saying to understand, not to respond. Reading to respond and not to understand is how you guys aren't getting what I'm saying.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No. I keep saying he was a product of his time as a way to understand better what was happening then. That's all I've been saying. UNDERSTANDING. Not excusing, which I've explicitly said multiple times isn't what I'm doing.

Sheesh! People really need to read what I'm saying to understand, not to respond. Reading to respond and not to understand is how you guys aren't getting what I'm saying.

Or maybe you need to read the rest of the thread to see what 'product of his time' is actually being used for. There's no actual use for 'proving' he was a product of his time except to mitigate what he said or did... assuming one isn't trying to say he was being sarcastic, or frustrated or some other weird sane-washing double-speak to ALSO try to mitigate it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Found these charts interesting. Especially in relation to Gygax's biological determinism comments meaning he was a sexist. Also in relation to the question of how sexist the 1970's were. Sexism was definitely more common then than now and this chart paints a large portion of Americans today as sexists.

 

[Zardnaar]

Or maybe you need to read the rest of the thread to see what 'product of his time' is actually being used for. There's no actual use for 'proving' he was a product of his time except to mitigate what he said or did... assuming one isn't trying to say he was being sarcastic, or frustrated or some other weird sane-washing double-speak to ALSO try to mitigate it.

More with legacy media to expect it to have problems in it. Applies to a lot of stuff from 70s and 80s eg movies and TV shows.

It's not acceptable now but it was acceptable then. They were products of their time.

That's the difference. You could make it then and have a hit product.

Why was it a hit if it was unacceptable at the time? Figure that one out and let me know.

Revenge of the Nerds - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Almost X10 it's budget.

Police Academy (film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Box office X30 it's budget. I have rewatched this one recently. It's bad.