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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

then what are you even arguing about?

One argument I am making is not everyone is going to reach the same conclusion about him and reasonable people can be more charitable or less charitable in their assessment (like I said I tend the Heidi Gygax position, which is more acknowledging he was a man of his time, but thinking the quotes probably aren't really a reflection of who he was as a human being). I also think it is important at least genuinely listen to what people who knew him have to say, who disagree with the foreword. When you have someone like Frank Mentzer giving their thoughts and making a passionate defense of someone they regarded as a friend and colleague, you don't have to agree with what they say but a lot of people are going to find what he says persuasive. In the end I think it is still a very contested issue. A lot of it revolves around individual understanding of human nature and communication. My initial argument was really we should be able to have this conversation without each side calling the other toxic, making bad faith arguments, etc. I'm also critical of the foreword in that I think it uses arguments about problematic content I consider a bit lazy and misguided.

 

[CleverNickName]

Has Elon Musk said anything else on this subject? Or has there been any other traffic on Twitter from his entourage? I'd check for myself but I don't use that platform.

It's painfully obvious that he's never even read the book that he's so offended by. I wonder if he's tried to defend his statements further.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Pointing this out again, because in the current conversation, seems relevant.

I mentioned Terry Brooks earlier. He’s 80 years old. Cis white man. A couple months ago when I spoke with him, he said even back when he was in college, he supported equal rights and it wasn’t some shocking new thing. People knew right from wrong in that context.

Moral relativism is a thing, sure. But people still knew it was wrong. Not sign of the times or times were different then. You knew it was wrong then, you just got away with it and were accepted for it then.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't know what he has retracted but if he has, fair enough.

Role-Playing Mastery (1987), the book he wrote. It's a hilarious disaster which promotes the most psycho adversarial DMing you can imagine and in general a bunch of incoherent and unhealthy ways to run a game (and views of players). He was asked about it a few time from the late '90s onwards and always said stuff like "Oh yeah that was a mistake and even at the time didn't reflect how I actually ran my games! I don't follow any of that advice!".

I have known plenty of older people who had views like that. Most of them, when asked, would deny being a sexist because they would still have seen that as a bad thing. Again, I am not saying sexism wasn't there. I am saying I tend to view that particular statement as being more a product of him being exasperated with people saying they think he is a sexist

This is impossible to rationally support given he then explained the exact ways in which he was sexist, you know that right? Did you read the actual text image or did it not load or something? Genuine apologies if you're using text-to-speech or something because of visual impairment, I didn't alt-tag the image, maybe I should have, only just thought of that!

Most of them, when asked, would deny being a sexist because they would still have seen that as a bad thing.

I think at this point you have not only fallen into this exact pit trap you are describing, but are just hanging out down there, eating trail rations by a Continuous Light spell or w/e man. Climb out! To be clear - to me it looks like you're defending him and attacking WotC (and you are) because you think it's wrong to ever call someone sexist even when you have admitted that:

A) They proudly and publicly called themselves sexist and "biological essentialist" (and yes, the latter is because people think sexism is bad - that's why it's a euphemism - it's like saying "neutralized" instead of "killed").

B) They have said and done a bunch of sexist stuff.

C) They have never apologised for or taken back any of that, despite having taken back other stuff.

 

[mamba]

One argument I am making is not everyone is going to reach the same conclusion about him and reasonable people can be more charitable or less charitable in their assessment

ok, granted, apparently they arrive at him being sexist either way though, see his daughter

When you have someone like Frank Mentzer giving their thoughts and making a passionate defense of someone they regarded as a friend and colleague

then that might also be a reason to not give them much credence, friends generally have a better view of a person than is objectively justified.

Also, just because you are sexist / racist does not mean you have to treat every women / black person badly all the time

 

[I'm A Banana]

One argument I am making is not everyone is going to reach the same conclusion about him and reasonable people can be more charitable or less charitable in their assessment (like I said I tend the Heidi Gygax position, which is more acknowledging he was a man of his time, but thinking the quotes probably aren't really a reflection of who he was as a human being).

The counter-argument is that no one said this is a reflection of who he is as "as human being." No one is Literally Anubis. So, you're building a strawman.

In truth, people are describing the man based on the things he's said and done. Why not publish history in a history book?

In the end I think it is still a very contested issue. A lot of it revolves around individual understanding of human nature and communication.

If I'm reading a book of history and it says that Napoleon never actually wanted a French Empire, despite what he said and what he did, because his friends and family knew him really well and he never treated them like part of the French Empire, I must admit to myself I am not actually reading a history book. I'm reading hagiography, masquerading as history.

 

[Bedrockgames]

ok, granted, apparently they arrive at him being sexist either way though

Not everyone is. Mentzer doesn't think he is for example. And plenty of people out there don't think he was either. I've seen a lot of people defending him, many who knew him, many who didn't, who feel the quotes are not a reflection of his full views on women. I don't think these people are toxic, or saying things that are all that far fetched. I don't think it is as easy as people would like it to be to make this kind of assessment about a person

 

[Bedrockgames]

If I'm reading a book of history and it says that Napoleon never actually wanted a French Empire, despite what he said and what he did, because his friends and family knew him really well and he never treated them like part of the French Empire, I must admit to myself I am not actually reading a history book. I'm reading hagiography, masquerading as history.

For the record I am not a big fan of either histories that are hagiographies or polemical

 

[mamba]

Mentzer doesn't think he is for example. And plenty of people out there don't think he was either. I've seen a lot of people defending him, many who knew him, many who didn't

that tells me more about Mentzer than Gygax though, it’s not like we have to rely on hearsay here

 

[TiQuinn]

One argument I am making is not everyone is going to reach the same conclusion about him and reasonable people can be more charitable or less charitable in their assessment (like I said I tend the Heidi Gygax position, which is more acknowledging he was a man of his time, but thinking the quotes probably aren't really a reflection of who he was as a human being).

My issue with this is it can quickly be reduced to almost everyone was simply a product of their time, and unless one personally knew or was harmed by them, they cannot judge them despite whatever they may have said or done.

I’m content to accept what people have stated publicly and don’t feel I owe anyone that benefit of a doubt.