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.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

The number of people who seem to care what Musk says continues to astound me.

Pre November I'd have agreed, but now, we'll now we are drifting too close politics, but I think you get my point though, Musk right now is NOT someone safe to upset (not thrilled with that either), he's too powerful.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

You guys are only going to encourage Musk to buy ENWorld.

More like he decides to buy Hasbro, it'd be like pocket change to him, Telsa is now worth more then the rest of the Auto Industry combined.

He's getting payed 46 billion this year from Tesla alone and next year will likely be alot higher.

Hasbro's market cap is 8 billion, he could buy it like that and make Ernie Gygax CEO just to make a point and he is the type of person to do it. Why buy Enworld when you can buy Hasbro itself and pick whoever you want to run it? He'd control D&D and MtG and pile more besides.

WotC would do well to tread carefully in the future.

 

[Parmandur]

In the Table Top RPG world WotC has no rivals only mice who feed on the crumbs from its plate.

Honestly the Forward was a huge mistake, it doesn't matter if Gygax had some backwards things, it picked a huge completely unneeded fight with a large part of the fan base that already believes rightly the current day WotC doesn't have enough respect enough for D&D creators of yore or the lore. There was no need to do it and it was a divisive mistake.

It'd be like Paramount putting out a statement that would he certain to be perceived by a large amount of the Trekkies as disrespecting Gene Roddberry, you just don't do it, period. Or Disney putting out an insulting screed about Walt Disney, George Lucas, or Stan Lee. You don't do those things, not if you don't enjoy the bad lash.

I wouldn't care that much if Tondo wasn't WotC employee, he's free to have his own opinions, but in an official capcity working for WotC it was just a bad idea that was needless. Why create all the drama?

it worries me that this is the same man who appears to be in charge of FR Setting Books, can we look forward to a Foreward attacking Ed Greenwood?

WotC needs to pick it's battles better.

There really isn't anything truly controversial in thw foreword at all, the whole book is a love letter to Gygax and his work.

 

[Cadence]

More like he decides to buy Hasbro, it'd be like pocket change to him,

And then do the legal fight to kill the OGL and then go after CC... :-/

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In the Table Top RPG world WotC has no rivals only mice who feed on the crumbs from its plate.

Honestly the Forward was a huge mistake, it doesn't matter if Gygax had some backwards things, it picked a huge completely unneeded fight with a large part of the fan base that already believes rightly the current day WotC doesn't have enough respect enough for D&D creators of yore or the lore. There was no need to do it and it was a divisive mistake.

1. The book is awesome. I know it because I have it. Have you read it? Because it is a love letter to early D&D.

2. The forward isn't calling out people, it's noting things in the text. The fact that there are people who will find any small thing to be outraged by doesn't mean whatever is provoking them is either (a) actually outrageous, or (b) actually what they are claiming. It doesn't call out the creators.

3. If we have gotten to the point when normal, correct, and good things (like a brief note saying that some of the stuff is off its time) can't be said for fear of giant angry babies throwing fits, then that's not a good thing. No one likes a bully. Certainly not me.

For your benefit, here is the OUTRAGEOUS forward that so many people are complaining about, yet so few people have read. h/t @Jahydin for posting it first.



“Note that the ‘Rules for Fantastic Medieval War-Games Campaigns’ that make up original D&D were created by and sold to a wargaming community that was almost exclusively white, middle-class men.”

“The rules compiled here offer little by way of roles for other players, nor indeed for anyone who wouldn’t easily identify with a pulp sword-and-sorcery hero,” said the designer. “Especially before 1974, the rules made light of slavery, in addition to including other harmful content.”

Later on in the preface, Tondro likewise warns readers, “Some language in the first iteration of D&D presents a moral quandary. The documents reproduced in this book include many pages of charts and tables alongside lists of monsters, spells, and magic items. But that game content also includes a virtual catalog of insensitive and derogatory language, words that are casually hurtful to anyone with a physical or mental disability, or who happen to be old, fat, not conventionally attractive, indigenous, Black, or a woman.”

“Some people have charitably ascribed this language to authors working from bad assumptions,” he continues. “In the 1970s, historical wargamers in America were predominantly white, middle-class men; it isn’t surprising that they would dub a class of soldiers the ‘fighting-man’. But when, in the pages of [the expansion module] Greyhawk, the description of the Queen of Chatoci Dragons includes a dig at ‘Women’s Lib’, the misogyny is revealed as a conscious choice.”

Further, Tondro asserts, “It’s an unfortunate fact that women seldom appear in original D&D, and when they do, they’re usually portrayed disrespectfully. Slavery appears in original D&D not as a human tragedy that devastated generations over centuries, but as a simple commercial transaction.”

“The cultural appropriation of original D&D ranges from the bewildering (like naming every 6th-level cleric a ‘lama’) to the staggering; [the reference book] Gods, Demigods, and Heroes (not reprinted in this book) includes game statistics for sacred figures revered by more than a billion people around the world,” he then recalls. “Were players expected to fight Vishnu, one of the principal deities of Hinduism, kill him, and loot his ‘Plus 3 sword of demon slaying’?”

Closing out the preface, Tondro ultimately opines, “Despite these shortcomings, D&D has always been a game about people choosing to be someone unlike themselves and collaborating with strangers who become friends. It has slowly become more inclusive, and as the player base has become more diverse, the pool of creators who make the game expanded to include people with a broader range of identities and backgrounds. As these new creators make the game more welcoming, the game has attracted new fans who, in turn, continue to make the game more inclusive. The future of Dungeons & Dragons, here at its fiftieth anniversary, is bright.”

Notice it doesn't name names. It doesn't accuse anyone of anything. It's making the basic and obvious point that the reprinted books within it have some things that might look off to the modern young reader who wasn't an adult in the 1970s.

I know, shocking! Next thing you know, people might have to point out that some things from the past can be kinda weird. I mean, Into the Night was a hit song by Benny Mardones!

Go on. Watch the video. Then come back and tell me that the gestalt wasn't a little bit different back then.

 

[mamba]

Not sure if it's been posted, but I think Kuntz's response to the forward is worth sharing too.

well, he is basically wrong about everything he says in that one, oh well

 

[Bedrockgames]

1. The book is awesome. I know it because I have it. Have you read it? Because it is a love letter to early D&D.

2. The forward isn't calling out people, it's noting things in the text. The fact that there are people who will find any small thing to be outraged by doesn't mean whatever is provoking them is either (a) actually outrageous, or (b) actually what they are claiming. It doesn't call out the creators.

3. If we have gotten to the point when normal, correct, and good things (like a brief note saying that some of the stuff is off its time) can't be said for fear of giant angry babies throwing fits, then that's not a good thing. No one likes a bully. Certainly not me.

For your benefit, here is the OUTRAGEOUS forward that so many people are complaining about, yet so few people have read. h/t @Jahydin for posting it first.



“Note that the ‘Rules for Fantastic Medieval War-Games Campaigns’ that make up original D&D were created by and sold to a wargaming community that was almost exclusively white, middle-class men.”

“The rules compiled here offer little by way of roles for other players, nor indeed for anyone who wouldn’t easily identify with a pulp sword-and-sorcery hero,” said the designer. “Especially before 1974, the rules made light of slavery, in addition to including other harmful content.”

Later on in the preface, Tondro likewise warns readers, “Some language in the first iteration of D&D presents a moral quandary. The documents reproduced in this book include many pages of charts and tables alongside lists of monsters, spells, and magic items. But that game content also includes a virtual catalog of insensitive and derogatory language, words that are casually hurtful to anyone with a physical or mental disability, or who happen to be old, fat, not conventionally attractive, indigenous, Black, or a woman.”

“Some people have charitably ascribed this language to authors working from bad assumptions,” he continues. “In the 1970s, historical wargamers in America were predominantly white, middle-class men; it isn’t surprising that they would dub a class of soldiers the ‘fighting-man’. But when, in the pages of [the expansion module] Greyhawk, the description of the Queen of Chatoci Dragons includes a dig at ‘Women’s Lib’, the misogyny is revealed as a conscious choice.”

Further, Tondro asserts, “It’s an unfortunate fact that women seldom appear in original D&D, and when they do, they’re usually portrayed disrespectfully. Slavery appears in original D&D not as a human tragedy that devastated generations over centuries, but as a simple commercial transaction.”

“The cultural appropriation of original D&D ranges from the bewildering (like naming every 6th-level cleric a ‘lama’) to the staggering; [the reference book] Gods, Demigods, and Heroes (not reprinted in this book) includes game statistics for sacred figures revered by more than a billion people around the world,” he then recalls. “Were players expected to fight Vishnu, one of the principal deities of Hinduism, kill him, and loot his ‘Plus 3 sword of demon slaying’?”

Closing out the preface, Tondro ultimately opines, “Despite these shortcomings, D&D has always been a game about people choosing to be someone unlike themselves and collaborating with strangers who become friends. It has slowly become more inclusive, and as the player base has become more diverse, the pool of creators who make the game expanded to include people with a broader range of identities and backgrounds. As these new creators make the game more welcoming, the game has attracted new fans who, in turn, continue to make the game more inclusive. The future of Dungeons & Dragons, here at its fiftieth anniversary, is bright.”

Notice it doesn't name names. It doesn't accuse anyone of anything. It's making the basic and obvious point that the reprinted books within it have some things that might look off to the modern young reader who wasn't an adult in the 1970s.

I know, shocking! Next thing you know, people might have to point out that some things from the past can be kinda weird. I mean, Into the Night was a hit song by Benny Mardones!

Go on. Watch the video. Then come back and tell me that the gestalt wasn't a little bit different back then.

I'm not getting into this debate again as we have already had it. But I do think it is unfair to characterize people who disagree with the forward's conclusions about Gygax's character, issues of cultural appropriation etc, as 'angry babies'. Not everyone agrees with this kind of analysis (and it doesn't mean they don't see the flaws in D&D or in art or literature, but it does mean they think some of this stuff is either overly simplistic or reductive). Not everyone has to agree with this stuff. Disagreeing about what Gygax's statements meant doesn't mean people are toxic or not seeing reality, they are simply forming different conclusions about what a man's statements meant (i.e. how much they were sincere expressions of sexism, versus hyperbole or frustration, etc).

 

[mamba]

You guys are only going to encourage Musk to buy ENWorld.

I thought you’d say Hasbro

 

[Bedrockgames]

well, he is basically wrong about everything he says in that one, oh well

Mentzer has also weighed in, as has Heidi Gygax. I think they all do make some valid points. I don't think people have to agree with them. We can all have different opinions on this and not dislike one another

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not getting into this debate again as we have already had it. But I do think it is unfair to characterize people who disagree with the forward's conclusions about Gygax's character, issues of cultural appropriation etc, as 'angry babies'. Not everyone agrees with this kind of analysis (and it doesn't mean they don't see the flaws in D&D or in art or literature, but it does mean they think some of this stuff is either overly simplistic or reductive).

I will say this again...

Gygax isn't named. Further, given I wrote a really long piece on how I square my love for his work with his very real character flaws as a person, I'm not sure that saying that a small preface in a love letter to his work that doesn't mention his name is out of the pale.

I think a lot of us who grew up with the older material aren't actually aware of how some of it can look today. And I'd rather have a preface and the material, than no material at all.