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.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Apart from Internet discussion boards... A biography of Gygax. A book about TSR like The Game Wizards, and similar scholarly works. I would prefer a nuanced discussion rather than poo-slinging though. Gygax to me seems a rather complex character, and I would like to see discussion of his attitudes acknowledge that.

Yeah I was, back in the day, friends with various people who had dealings with and/or associated with Gary. Never met the guy, and certainly wouldn't have much opinion. All I can report is that he evoked a lot of mixed feelings. Often being referred to in negative terms, but then at the same time lauded as being what I gathered as good hearted and pretty friendly.

As a refugee of the '60s, I do think there's a lot people were taught that today seems pretty backwards. We were not exposed to ANY diversity or openness about people, etc. I don't fault Gary for being a product of his times, but these persons who now pretend to take up his cause in order to wrap their bigotry in legitimacy? They can all go to Hell.

A better stance, IMHO, would be to mourn the fact that perfectly decent people were denied a chance to live in a more enlightened state. Don't vilify Gary, just understand, he and all the people who were taught like that were deprived.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Am I right to think that what you did there was to insinuate that I am being morally bankrupt and cowardly?

I think they are pointing out that most of the people trying to defend Gary don't even have an accurate idea of what was said in the book (much like the last thread that dealt with this topic). It is very hard to discuss a topic with someone when they are making up things that aren't there to argue against.

Even if you were a WotC shareholder, I wouldn't think that's warranted.

I dunno, feels like you shouldn't be tossing those words about so casually if you get offended when they get pushed back on you.

The foreword is a big part of the topic though, and I'd rather stay on topic. People's opinions of Gygax are their business.

Framing the topic is important, especially for stuff dealing with history. People's opinions of Gygax are their business, I suppose, but it's also worth noting Gary's own opinions (along with the others) and how that relates to the early days of D&D.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sounds like the current trend in primary school history textbooks.

I wasn't gonna say it, but I thought it.

 

[polyhedral man]

Is it distasteful, unbecoming, and a betrayal of the Founding Fathers to say most of them had slaves? Should we just not ever mention any of that? Is that what you want?

Again, I don't think the Founding Fathers is the topic. Gygax didn't own slaves as far as I'm aware, so I don't know where you're going with that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The foreword is a big part of the topic though, and I'd rather stay on topic. People's opinions of Gygax are their business.

Great news! The forward isn't judging him. You're in the clear.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Again, I don't think the Founding Fathers is the topic. Gygax didn't own slaves as far as I'm aware, so I don't know where you're going with that.

 

[Mannahnin]

It says Gygax wants us to kill Vishnu and take his +3 sword of demon slaying, doesn't it? That seems pretty insulting. (Now I kinda want to ask my Hindu girlfriend what she thinks about Hindu gods having hit points in D&DG. I suspect she wouldn't care, any more than my Heathen friend cares about the Norse gods having hp too.)

No, it doesn't. Given the number of times folks have pointed out that the foreword doesn't call anyone any names or even call out any single creator, do you think it might behoove you to read it?

Or do you just really not see any difference between characterizing an ACTION and branding a PERSON with a pejorative?

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.

Does the distinction matter to you or not?

Steampunkette gave an example in this very thread of something she wrote which inadvertently evoked anti-semitic tropes. Someone brought this to her attention and she changed it. People are perfectly capable of taking harmful or derisive actions without harmful or insulting INTENT. In other cases, it's evident that they were aware and chose to do it anyway.

Gary chose, of his own considered volition and with evident mirth, to put a potshot at "women's libbers" in the description of the Queen of Chaotic Dragons (who, two years later, would be retroactively renamed Tiamat). He also, in response to criticism in the wargaming community and accusations of sexism, decided to write into the periodical Europa and assert firmly that he was a sexist. And to give examples of how his behavior could be worse. And to assert that he did not care if women are paid equally. And to say that they ruin wargames and wargamers.

Many, many misogynists hire women. Gary hired 19 year old Jean Wells with a promise of a job as a designer, put her up in his house while she was interviewing (which, if I'm estimating the timeframes right, might have been while he was on the outs with or actually in the middle of divorce proceedings with his wife) and then completely failed to train or support her, so she actually worked as a secretary. And the one writing project she got was demolished.

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

But you might hire one with the promise of a non-menial role, give them a token work assignment which got torpedoed, and then relegate them to menial work.

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.

His words in Europa seem quite a bit stronger than mere "dislike". His 2005 comments when he self-described as a "biological determinist" communicate a belief that women are fundamentally and inherently unlike men, lacking the capacity to enjoy games in the same manner. He cited his own daughters' choice not to stick with the hobby to this fundamental difference. (Not, of course, any kind of unwelcoming attitude or condescension from their DM). Given that close to 40% of D&D's audience even by that point was comprised of women, this seems like more than ignorance, but willful blindness.

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.

Yup.

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.

Gary had plenty of opportunity to speak up, but it was clearly a culture. As we also get clear information about in the stories told in When We Were Wizards.

I mean if I said you did something reprehensible deliberately, then it does sound like I'm accusing you of it. I don't see a difference. The same meaning is implied, the fact that they're using passive voice doesn't change the meaning.

You don't think a good person can ever commit a bad act?

Or do you think that if I ever, say, stole a candy bar from a convenience store when I'm a kid, that describing that as theft is the same thing as condemning me permanently and forever as a CRIMINAL THIEF?

 

[polyhedral man]

I once asked Gary what the hell he was thinking when he created the Cavalier. He told me "the record speaks for itself". I am taking his statement to heart. I don't know if it was a joke, because ALL THERE IS WAS THE WRITTEN RECORD that he chose to publish. If it was a joke taken out of context, he had 30 years to correct the record and didn't.

I don't know if he meant what he wrote. I also don't know if Thomas Jefferson or Hitler meant what they wrote. I can only judge what they committed to the written record. If what they wrote is insufficient to determining what they mean, the whole realm of literature and historical study is pointless.

I will judge Gary by what he chose to publish because he had ample opportunity to change or at least reflect on it but didn't.

The record speaks for itself.

I respect that take, but it's a very personal one. There is an entire field, semiotics, studying this topic among other things.
You're being honest when you say it's your personal opinion. What distinguishes you from WotC is that they are positioning their interpretation as some absolute truth. And not only that, but on the 50th anniversary of the man's legacy...

 

[Umbran]

I mean if I said you did something reprehensible deliberately, then it does sound like I'm accusing you of it. I don't see a difference. The same meaning is implied, the fact that they're using passive voice doesn't change the meaning.

That.. is kind of ironic. You realize that taking that position validates their position?

They do not say that Gygax, personally, was sexist. You take what they wrote, and infer from that evidence that they are actually making the claim.

But then, looking at the evidence and inferring things becomes valid! They are then justified in looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion that he was sexist! They don't say it, but if they did, that should be okay - if you can do it, so can they!

...but their conclusion would also be supported by the fact that, as quoted upthread, Gygax admitted to being sexist, using exactly that word to describe himself.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In case anyone is thinking Musk's outrage is based on the idea that being called a misogynist (indirectly) is a grave insult suggesting the person doing is a monster and thus terrible... or that he believes in free speech in any way: Musk 'offered' to impregnate an pop star unsolicited for exercising her political free speech.

This is the man we're meant to believe thinks revealing that Gary Gygax wrote something misogynistic is worthy of hell.