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.

 

[Steampunkette]

To me, someone being obviously aggressive and abusive is a different animal than 'that person annoys me'. At that point, I would contact the site's moderation to see about banning that person. There is normal human friction, then there is that.

Although I would still honestly have it out with that person. But I understand a line being crossed.

Okaaaay! We're -getting- somewhere!

So! Abuse. Does it need to be overt and clear to -everyone- present, or can we understand that someone is being abusive in subtle manners that might not be easily picked up on by people who aren't being targeted?

Follow up! Can we agree that the imminent threat of abuse, say by a person openly acknowledging their very dangerous position which is often used as a precursor to abuse of both covert and overt varieties?

And, finally, is the ignore function a reasonable response to those threats if you do not have a position of social capital required to press for the individual to be banned entirely due to the rules and structures of the forum giving people second chances and such?

 

[the Jester]

Again I think you are attributing things that aren't present in what I am saying. I am taking the approach I am in order to understand people more. In this case what Gygax meant. I think it is pretty self evident that when someone says something in anger, they may say things that don't reflect the totality of their beliefs. That isn't justifying abuse. I don't know much more clear I can be about that.

Again- Gygax didn't say he was a sexist just once. He maintained his position until at least shortly before he died. He talked about it publicly, even on this very website. I'm not sure what your standard of proof is, but if you have looked at the man's own words and still can't see this, I think it's fair to say that the standard you are applying is unreasonable.

 

[Zardnaar]

Just a friendly reminder that @Zardnaar is just wrong about this.

When my mom arrived in the US, she couldn’t open a bank account in her own name. She had essentially no recourse if she was harassed on the job. She couldn’t get an abortion in a lot of states.

Things may have gotten worse lately. But there have been victories. Remember that.

I'm not saying that's right but to get to that point you need consensus/power.

What I'm was calling out was way some posters are posting. I find what people really want in life is a good stern lecture.

Peopke respond really well to them. Apparently if you're an American online.

Sone countries have options on some issues eg USA and NZ. Others do not they're on a lot of trouble. No guarantee the right choice will get made.

 

[dbolack]

Thanks to this thread, I added a lesson to my Theory of Knowledge class. We looked at Frankfurt's essay "On [BS]," and now students are making a poster exploring the way that online stories often fly ahead of the truth, finding their own real life situation to illustrate the issue. Maybe some of them will choose this example - if so, I will report back!

I remember that class. Always tried to convince some poor kid to turn in a blank paper for the Truth exercise.

 

[dbolack]

It's not about owing anyone discourse. It's about not putting up walls in society.

And about not branding people you disagree with as F*Wits. That's a good place to start!

I would posit that not being able to discern that the label is not reserved merely for disagreeing suggests fully which category you might land in.

 

[S'mon]

Well I see you guys are having a good time.

The Prof DM video that came out today was very good & fits my views pretty well.

 

[Gradine]

I think to deny that both exist, and can be hard to disentangle, is to be willfully blind. I can't name specific examples without summoning the Red Text, but wherever you sit politically, if you think some members of your tribe don't impose purity tests, you're not seeing it.

I think there are definitely plenty of examples of purity tests, on all political sides. I've had plenty of frustrations with them myself, from both angles (both in others drawing lines where none ought to be drawn, as well as in others refusing to draw lines where they really ought to be).

That's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is the very low bar of "not being a raging misogynist" that still seems, to many, to be too difficult or onerous to clear.

And this is the point that I think too many people refuse to grok. Bigotry is not a "difference of opinion"; it's not a different perspective, or point of view, or whatever. It is an existential threat, often to the most marginalized and vulnerable members of our society, and is has not ever been, and will never be, morally acceptable, no matter how much of the majority agreed.

Not all "opinions" or "perspectives" are valid. And no matter how much bigotry may have ever been or still is "accepted", it will never be acceptable

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And, finally, is the ignore function ...

Ignore is something that people can use for any reason they feel is appropriate. It's up to the individual. It allows people here to disengage from others that they don't want to interact with, and doesn't require moderators to intervene.

I use ignore somewhat sparingly, and for various reasons, and sometimes I use it temporarily to give myself a timeout when I think I am getting too heated with someone else. It could be them, or it could be me. But it's a way to disengage. But if a person chooses to not ignore anyone, that's a valid choice. If a person uses ignore to protect themselves from people that say things that they find abusive, that's also a valid choice.

This isn't the town square. It's more like a cocktail party at Morrus's house. Morrus sets the rules and he (and the mods) make sure we are all following them and not peeing in his sink. But if you don't want to talk to someone, "ignore" lets you walk away.

That's how I view it. I do think that in a perfect world, we'd all be able to talk through issues and by that exposure, you'd be able to convince others that viewpoints that in any way make you feel lesser are not acceptable. But we don't live in that perfect world. So yes, if you feel that someone is saying things that make you feel unsafe or that make you uncomfortable, you can choose to ignore them. There is no requirement that you engage with others at your own expense.

 

[Kannik]

WotC has to put those kinds of warnings on something like this to advise people those ideas don't reflect their current beliefs. When dealing with historical media like this, you have only two options: disavow (Warner Brothers and Loony Tunes) or vault and forget (Disney and Song of the South).

This is something that has fascinated/amused me about this tempest in a teapot from the mild disclaimer noted at the front of this huge celebratory book of reprints. When WB released their Loony Tunes with their disclaimer prefix, I saw a lot of lauding and applauding. "Yes, let's not burry these works and yes, let's not not mention that they have bits in them that are -ist in some way." And likewise I saw no droves of people claiming that this was shanking Avery/Freleng/Jones/Blanc/etc.

People seemed to take it for what it was and what it revealed and understood what it meant.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think there are definitely plenty of examples of purity tests, on all political sides. I've had plenty of frustrations with them myself, from both angles (both in others drawing lines where none ought to be drawn, as well as in others refusing to draw lines where they really ought to be).

That's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is the very low bar of "not being a raging misogynist" that still seems, to many, to be too difficult or onerous to clear.

And this is the point that I think too many people refuse to grok. Bigotry is not a "difference of opinion"; it's not a different perspective, or point of view, or whatever. It is an existential threat, often to the most marginalized and vulnerable members of our society, and is has not ever been, and will never be, morally acceptable, no matter how much of the majority agreed.

Not all "opinions" or "perspectives" are valid. And no matter how much bigotry may have ever been or still is "accepted", it will never be acceptable

You don't need to agree with it but I think you need to figure out why people support it. Bit of a failure there.

People basically want bread and a circus. Elon Musk and that book fall into the circus side of things. Try baking more bread instead.

Elon Musk bought his own circus and put the clowns in charge at Twitter.