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.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

So what would have been the proper way to handle this?

WotC could have published it with no mention of the derogatory language in the work. That would have been WotC tacitly endorsing that they do not find that language problematic.

WotC could have edited the text to remove the offending passages, creating an incomplete text and stoking talk of censorship.

WotC could have not produced the book, banishing all mention of OD&D to the memory hole except in generalized references but limiting access to the works which no longer reflects their values .

WotC could have stated what is in the text could be offensive, but it was not Gary's intention and that people have vouched for his character, essentially apologizing for and excusing its inclusion.

Which of these options gets them the least bad optics? Trick question, all of them do. So pick your poison and decide what PR battle you would rather fight.

 

[Maxperson]

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 don't know man. If you don't think understanding an issue is meaningful, I don't know what to tell you.

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.|

I say it. I mean it. Therefore it is a fact. What I am saying is not a defense, regardless of how others may be using it. What you are essentially arguing there is that because some people use guns to murder, everyone who uses a gun is a murderer, even when they tell you they are just using it to hunt.

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

False Dichotomies are false. There is a reason, whether you think understanding the issue is meaningful or not. You don't get to lump me into YOUR two categories when I'm not in them.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Easy as it is to write this sort of thread off with the usual, tired observations about "the internet, amirite?" or even that we're all somehow falling for Elon's devious schemes (the guy is a world-class moron—he's not 4D-chessing anything or benefiting from exposure in an RPG forum), I think these threads are perversely valuable. Why? Because you get to see who shows up, again and again, to defend awful behavior with all the usual mealy-mouthed excuses (man of his times, things were different, sexism isn't real, sexism is real but only when there's a crime, jokes are impossible to critize, etc).

Naturally, there are different flavors of brave defenders of terrible behavior. The guys so worried about echo chambers and cancel culture that they don't know what either concept actually means. The guys just setting the record straight—not defending sexism, you see, but terribly invested in nitpicking and scolding the language and tone used to decry sexism. My favorite, the "you just don't get the joke" guys, who also somehow think transgressive comedy is a thing of the past, even though it's literally everywhere and more lucrative than ever. And I say guys in all these cases cause it's the fellas, the lads, the dudes of a certain age, so worried about pumping the brakes whenever some element of their cherished past is even mildly criticized.

Anyway it's good to know where people stand, so the next time they wander into a thread about just about anything, you can say to yourself, "Ah yes, this extremely reasonable chap! Can't wait to take his perspective very seriously and engage in a discussion that's surely in good faith."

 

[mamba]

I don't know man. If you don't think understanding an issue is meaningful

if as you say the context has no bearing on how we should view his sexism, then it is pointless to bring up in the context of this discussion

You do not see lawyers providing context about their clients that is not pertinent to the case.

If you wrote a biography of Gygax, knock yourself out. Here you are either defending him with this, muddying the waters, or missing the point

 

[FrogReaver]

So what would have been the proper way to handle this?

WotC could have published it with no mention of the derogatory language in the work. That would have been WotC tacitly endorsing that they do not find that language problematic.

WotC could have edited the text to remove the offending passages, creating an incomplete text and stoking talk of censorship.

WotC could have not produced the book, banishing all mention of OD&D to the memory hole except in generalized references but limiting access to the works which no longer reflects their values .

WotC could have stated what is in the text could be offensive, but it was not Gary's intention and that people have vouched for his character, essentially apologizing for and excusing its inclusion.

Which of these options gets them the least bad optics? Trick question, all of them do. So pick your poison and decide what PR battle you would rather fight.

I get your point. I don't like those other options better and I'm not fond of disclaimers either. My answer would be that they should have taken more care in the wording of their disclaimer.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So what would have been the proper way to handle this?

WotC could have published it with no mention of the derogatory language in the work. That would have been WotC tacitly endorsing that they do not find that language problematic.

Personally I think this is the better option. A foreword isn’t a good place to try to explore this topic and I do think it being put out by WOTC and being a celebration makes it not the greatest venue. I also don’t see that as a tacit endorsement at all. I see it more as them from refraining from weighing in on ongoing debates in the hobby. Now they have effectively picked a side and that is going to lead to greater splintering in the hobby

Like I said earlier, it is fairly milk toast academic reasoning. I don’t find it shocking and I think the appropriate response now is to allow for a conversation. But it is a topic that could have been better handled by a non-WOTC publisher, hopefully taking a broader range of viewpoints on perspectives

WotC could have edited the text to remove the offending passages, creating an incomplete text and stoking talk of censorship.

They definitely should not have done this

WotC could have not produced the book, banishing all mention of OD&D to the memory hole except in generalized references but limiting access to the works which no longer reflects their values .

This would not be a good idea either

WotC could have stated what is in the text could be offensive, but it was not Gary's intention and that people have vouched for his character, essentially apologizing for and excusing its inclusion.

Again I think just not weighing in is the better option. People know it is text from the 70s. When I see a movie made in the 70s, I don’t need it explained to me that the times were different and some content would not be acceptable by current social norms

Which of these options gets them the least bad optics? Trick question, all of them do. So pick your poison and decide what PR battle you would rather fight.

I say pick the option that loses you the least customers and doesn’t further divide the hobby: don’t get into it. Leave that to more objective third parties

 

[mamba]

I also don’t see that as a tacit endorsement at all.

if I retweet a post of yours without commenting on it, did I endorse it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

if I retweet a post of yours without commenting on it, did I endorse it?

They aren’t retweeting a post. Even then I don’t automatically assume a retweet is an endorsement.

 

[Maxperson]

if as you say the context has no bearing on how we should view his sexism, then is is pointless to bring up in the context of this discussion

I didn't say that. I said it's not a defense of sexism.

This is what you are doing.

"Three blind men come across an elephant. The first man happens upon its leg, and concludes it’s a tree. The second man bumps into its trunk, and concludes it’s a snake. The last blind man feels its tail, and concludes it’s a broom."

I'm saying open your eyes and fully understand what is going on so you can actually make an informed decision. Environmental factors are relevant and without understanding them, you're like the blind man trying to figure out the elephant.

 

[Cadence]

Tangentially ...

The "of the times" always makes me want to go Newspapers . com up some examples of the times. Luckily for my productivity today I did that before (many under the spouler in the post linked below) in a thread that feels very similar to this one for big stretches...

D&D Historian Benn Riggs On Gary Gygax & Sexism

The recent book The Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons 1970-1977 talks about the early years of D&D. In the book, authors Jon Peterson and Jason Tondro talk about the way the game, and its writers, approached certain issues. Not surprisingly, this revelation received aggressive "pushback" on...

www.enworld.org