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.

 

[mamba]

I think Gygax could often be sexist, and it's ok to criticise him for it. Heck I remember teasing him about his stupid Harlot Table here on ENW, back in the day (he took it in good spirit). I don't think it's ok to have the kind of attacks on Gygax and co that appeared in the foreword of a book purportedly celebrating D&D.

so it is ok for you to think he was sexist, but to say that he wrote some sexist stuff in the D&D texts reproduced in the book, that goes too far?

On cultural norms, I do think the 1970s was an amazingly sexist decade. A lot of the stuff produced then looked weird even in the mid 1980s.

sounds like you agree that he did…

 

[Bedrockgames]

More with legacy media to expect it to have problems in it. Applies to a lot of stuff from 70s and 80s eg movies and TV shows.

It's not acceptable now but it was acceptable then. They were products of their time.

That's the difference. You could make it then and have a hit product.

Why was it a hit if it was unacceptable at the time? Figure that one out and let me know.

Revenge of the Nerds - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Almost X10 it's budget.

Police Academy (film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Box office X30 it's budget. I have rewatched this one recently. It's bad.

These were screwball comedies and I think people mistake the jokes for endorsement of the content of the jokes. Stuff that happened in those movies wouldn't have been okay in real life at the time. What made them funny was these are all people doing insane things normal people aren't supposed to do. Even the raunchy humor, was funny because it is raunchy and inappropriate. And you see these movies get filed down as the 80s go on (some of those early 80s films are extremely raunchy but by the end f the decade I feel like the sexual humor is less pronounced in them)

 

[Maxperson]

no it isn’t, if showing that he was a product of his time is not being used to argue for his innocence / lessen his responsibility, then what is the point of even showing it? If it changes nothing, why go through the effort?

Asked and answered at least three times. Go back and look.

or maybe they just like that you defend Gary, there are enough people here who do that

I've never defended him. Not once.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I've never defended him. Not once.

Just argued the central point used to defend him just constantly.

 

[Maxperson]

Just argued the central point used to defend him just constantly.

No. I argued something different. Go back and read.

 

[mamba]

Asked and answered at least three times. Go back and look.

context and understanding supposedly, but if the context you insist on adding has no consequences to the judgement, then it is meaningless, why insist on bringing it up all the time.

So no, not answered, not in a meaningful way at least.

I've never defended him. Not once.

or so you say, but then you always repeat the main argument made in his defense, insisting that you do not mean it as one.

Here is a hint: there is no other reason to bring it up, none. So decide which of the two it is, because you are sending very mixed signals and that is being picked up

 

[Bedrockgames]

so it is ok for you to think he was sexist, but to say that he wrote some sexist stuff in the D&D texts reproduced in the book, that goes too far?


sounds like you agree that he did…

I think the criticism is this is 1) a book meant to celebrate D&D, so it might not be the best venue for that discussion, 2) it is put out by WOTC, so it naturally brings up issues like disclaimers they slapped into all old products (which many of the old writers have seen as a broad brush attack on their character, 3) Not everyone feels the need to have the book hold their hand in this matter and make the moral judgment for them: they want to read the text and make their own mind up.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No. I argued something different. Go back and read.

You argued that he was a product of his time, the same argument that's being used as a defense. Your justification, much like that one is irrelevant. It's a thing you did.

Maybe you aren't intending to defend him. Maybe you're genuinely curious as to whether Gary was a product of his time and ignoring the fact that that has NO BEARING on the actual issue whether what he said and did was wrong. But you're making the same argument and the effect is the same.

'Product of his time' is a stupid and worthless argument and point to try to make in the realm of 'history book talks about sexist elements in game' no matter why one tries to insert it into the narrative.

 

[mamba]

No. I argued something different. Go back and read.

it still is the central point of his defense, no matter what you think you are arguing with it

 

[Bedrockgames]

it still is the central point of his defense, no matter what you think you are arguing with it

I think @Maxperson has made his position pretty clear(and he isn’t on trial for anything here). His position has definitely been different than mine, which is more of a defense. He seems to agree on some points about historical context but he is saying he thinks Gary was sexist