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.

 

[S'mon]

Wow, your argument must be struggling to immediately reach for whattaboutism!

I don't think you followed what I said? Unless you're siding with Elon, which is what an accusation of Whattaboutism would indicate - that I'm trying to deflect from the grave sin Elon identified, by bringing up other offences.

 

[S'mon]

So, to you - to be a misogynist, one can't do anything nice to or for women ever, or they're just a common-variety sexist, which isn't nearly as bad?

I'm seriously just trying to follow your logic. I truly don't mean to be confrontational, and I apologize in advance if I'm coming off that way.

I actually think you're being fairly polite.

 

[Remathilis]

Calling someone a misogynist - a hater of women - is certainly an attack in my book. Likewise calling their writing misogynistic.

FWIW I'd say the text, and Gygax himself, is sometimes sexist, but nowhere near misogynistic. If Gygax was actually a misogynist he'd never have hired eg Jean Wells in a creative role. I thought his daughter Heidi's appraisal was fair.

The issue of course is that Grummz and Musk aren't arguing that Gary wasn't misogynistic but only sexist, they are arguing it doesn't matter because he was right regardless of what you call it.

 

[S'mon]

The issue of course is that Grummz and Musk aren't arguing that Gary wasn't misogynistic but only sexist, they are arguing it doesn't matter because he was right regardless of what you call it.

1. My impression is that they are saying WoTC shouldn't be insulting him in the intro to a celebration book. I agree with that.

2. They may well have no issues with anything Gygax ever said, or they may feel he shouldn't ever be criticised. I feel free to disagree with them if so.

Personally I think it's fine to criticise him, if done sensibly, not stupid claims like him being pro slavery or wanting D&D players to kill Vishnu. And while I will call Gygax sexist (at times) I wouldn't say so in the introduction to a celebration book. I wouldn't put up those disclaimers WoTC has over every old D&D product on drivethru, either - it's insulting, especially to authors who never did anything wrong even by WotC's current standards.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If you hate women I would not expect you to voluntarily hire one in a non-menial role.

Yes "misogynist" is a much stronger word than "sexist", and I would not use them interchangeably. Gygax did not dislike or hate women, but he wrote some stuff I would call sexist. In particular there's a sort of patronising, even smarmy, tone in some of his work. I remember not liking it much (eg the character Deirdre of Hardby in Artifact of Evil). The post-divorce period seems worse to me than his 1970s work, but there is some stuff in the 1970s. The Gord/Leda romance is quite sweet IMO & definitely not the work of a misogynist. But he could be sexist, including sexist by typical 1980s-1990s standards.

I think you're holding the word "misogynist" to a very high standard of qualification.

Also: The foreword describes the text as being written with "conscious misogyny" which isn't quite the same thing as saying "Gygax was a misogynist".

1) There is a reason that people have pointed out that he is not named in the foreword. Sure, we all know who wrote the old script, but the foreword is being careful NOT to make that assertion, as they are two different things.

2) His actions are what the foreword is speaking about, not his inner self, which is what Heidi is trying to appeal to. They are two different things.

3) Saying "Gygax was a misogynist" might be insulting him (in particular if it were not true) but saying that he "sometimes wrote words that are misogynistic, and some of those words are coming up in this book", which is how many of us understand the foreword to mean, is not insulting him. It's just talking about the words in the book.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah. And this is a bit of an aside, but I find it interesting...

What we know of the Socratic method mostly comes from Plato, writing at least semi-fictionalized scenes of Socrates using the method. In these, Plato has Socrates describing his method, "as a form of "midwifery" because it is employed to help his interlocutors develop their understanding in a way analogous to a child developing in the womb. "

So, Socrates isn't learning anything in the method, he is teaching. When you read Plato, it certainly looks like Socrates knows entirely what is to be learned - he asks a set of leading questions, with the implication that Socrates already knows what answer the students will give, that will get his student to the desired result, and understanding the result because it is the student's answers that get them there.

Mind you, the whole thing we see is scripted. It is an authored scene, not a historical record. Of course the student gets to where Socrates was leading, because Plato wrote it that way! There is nothing in Plato's presentation that suggests the Socratic Method is an honest exploration to find the truth, or that it will generally work in the real world.

Actually, what Socrates-the-charachter is doing in Plato is, neither coincidentally nor surprisingly, is exactly what Aristotle lays out in his Logic (but more fun to read, because Plato-Socrates is hilarious, and Aristole is...not). And based on Aristotle's more up-front presentation the methods used by Plato and (most probably) Spcrates...the point isn't the conclusions, but using valid logical methods of inquiry. Socrates interlocutor are invariably using logical fallacies...but sometimes Socrates is, too, and the dialog hashes that out. The reason the dialog uses remain interesting is precisely thst Socrates-the-charachter neither knows the answers, nor do any if the dialogs conclude with a successful resolution...they raise questions.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I feel like I have been very clear in providing my assessment

Sure. I've read the thread, and it seems that your assessment is that he was a little bit sexist, but didn't really mean most of the sexist things that he wrote.

 

[Parmandur]

My favorite professor in college (a former Benedictine monk) tried to use it, mostly successfully. Lots of leading questions and teasing answers out of us.

With true premises and valid conclusions, it works.

 

[S'mon]

I think you're holding the word "misogynist" to a very high standard of qualification.

Well there are genuine misogynists out there, and they are often very dangerous to women. I guess it's something I feel quite strongly about.

Edit: I don't see a lot of misogyny in daily life thank goodness, mostly second hand accounts, but I've certainly seen it on the Internet. It's pretty scary and I will speak & act against it to the best of my ability. It results in women being abused, even murdered. Conflating it with patronising 'benevolent' sexism I think is wrong.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I keep seeing Jean Wells being brought up as proof there was no sexism there. I think you folks doing that should really go and look at what actually happened.

Yeah, she was hired. Was a great editor. And wrote exactly one project: The original Palace of the Silver Princess. Many folks know how it was recalled due to art, but that wasn't the only reason. Gary had Tom Moldvay rewrite much of the module. Why? Because as Frank Mentzer put it, her talent was "mediocre" and "meager". He called her, "...large, insecure, brashly outgoing and outspoken."

Jean never designed another project. She was made a...wait for it...secretary.


On a side note, I went back and looked at the letters sections of the early Dragon magazines. Several women complained about inclusion and how women were portrayed (and things like strength caps). Every single person at Dragon handwaved away the complaints, and Kim Mohan defended the strength cap as "realistic and can't be argued against". He later responded to another complaint about discussing these issues as "at the risk of devoting more words to this oft-debated subject than it warrants."

Except one person. Roger E Moore. He was the only one who responded to these complaints with sincere thought and promised to do better.