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.

 

[Voadam]

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

They explicitly did that with the OD&D gods demigods and heroes book entirely though didn’t they?

Because it has sacred Hindu figures depicted.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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

As someone who studies history, this sort of stuff is immensely irresponsible and helps people create a rosy, nostalgic gloss over history. You call out when things are bad, and a foreword is absolutely where you recognize it, since it's meant to be a lead-in to the work and give people an early idea of what they are to hit on as well as how you frame things. Like, what do you think a foreword is if not a lead-in to the work, and where would you put and frame such a warning that it might not be missed?

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

But we still put content warnings on those things all the time, because people unfamiliar with that stuff should know about it. Similarly, in a historical text where these things are meant to be presented, framing matters: presenting that this was a time where there were regressive views and that some people held them (and continued to hold them) is important to framing what is going on and how it should be viewed.

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

It's a historical text. The hobby doesn't come into it: you're publishing a record. That some people don't like history is their problem, and trying to defend them by advocating for removal of such things (which you are, clearly, in your first statement), is rather telling. You should recognize the people who are on your side in this and perhaps reflect on it, like @mamba pointed out.

 

[Justice and Rule]

They explicitly did that with the OD&D gods demigods and heroes book entirely though didn’t they?

Because it has sacred Hindu figures depicted.

I understand the point, but it's not quite the same. A gaming supplement, even if it is an old one, isn't necessarily above editing things in and out for different reasons, such as cultural sensitivity. Now if we edited a historical text account to not mention those things were there when it would be important, that'd be worse because the whole point of a historical account is to recognize these facts.

So I get bringing this up, but it's a bit of apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As someone who studies history, this sort of stuff is immensely irresponsible and helps people create a rosy, nostalgic gloss over history. You call out when things are bad, and a foreword is absolutely where you recognize it, since it's meant to be a lead-in to the work and give people an early idea of what they are to hit on as well as how you frame things. Like, what do you think a foreword is if not a lead-in to the work, and where would you put and frame such a warning that it might not be missed?

I don't think it does that at all. If the content of the text they are reprinting is that bad, it should be evident to people reading it. The idea that the book needs to warn us in advance, is something I think a lot of readers have been objecting to in the hobby. I can read a book from another time and assess it for what it is on my own

Also this is put out by the publisher of the game and this is a still hotly debated topic among gamers. I don't think it is the same as Penguin books reprinting something or a university press putting out a cultural history of D&D. It is naturally going to lead to further divisions in the hobby and naturally going to cause them to lose customers

 

[Parmandur]

They explicitly did that with the OD&D gods demigods and heroes book entirely though didn’t they?

Because it has sacred Hindu figures depicted.

And others: WotC hasn't published a book with real religous figures in it since Spelljammer. Planescape and the new Core remove all references to deities actually worshipped by real people, seems to be a strict policy now.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But we still put content warnings on those things all the time, because people unfamiliar with that stuff should know about it. Similarly, in a historical text where these things are meant to be presented, framing matters: presenting that this was a time where there were regressive views and that some people held them (and continued to hold them) is important to framing what is going on and how it should be viewed.

Not everyone agrees with how content warnings are handled. The ones that have the most consensus are things like warnings for nudity and excessive violence. A book using outdated language is something people are still fiercely debating whether content warnings are warranted (and there is a lot of evidence content warnings don't work very well)

It's a historical text. The hobby doesn't come into it: you're publishing a record. That some people don't like history is their problem, and trying to defend them by advocating for removal of such things (which you are, clearly, in your first statement), is rather telling. You should recognize the people who are on your side in this and perhaps reflect on it, like @mamba pointed out.

But they are the publisher of the game, releasing this as part of an anniversary celebration. Like I said. It is pretty milk toast academic media analysis. I don't agree with a lot of it, but I think it is fine that it exists. The appropriate reaction is to have a conversation like we are now. But I do think it wasn't a wise step by WOTC to do this. You can see that by how the fanbase has been turning on itself in recent years. Dividing your customers is never a good idea

 

[FrogReaver]

presenting that this was a time where there were regressive views and that some people held them (and continued to hold them) is important

Apparently to quite a few that would be defending sexism and/or sexists.

to framing what is going on and how it should be viewed.

This is where the main disagreement lies. I don’t particularly think anyone should tell me how something should be viewed.

You should recognize the people who are on your side in this and perhaps reflect on it, like @mamba pointed out.

Having bad people agree doesn’t mean one is wrong.

 

[mamba]

They aren’t retweeting a post.

yes, republishing something that is way longer than a tweet, the same principle still applies

Even then I don’t automatically assume a retweet is an endorsement.

it is though, that seems to be your general issue, you go out of your way to find excuses for the inexcusable

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

First PDM video I've ever downvoted. I was really disappointed.

I saw the video. It's pretty bad faith and if posted here would run afoul of EN World's rules regarding anti-inclusive content. He more or less presents Grummz and Musk's statements read out loud, and when showing his detractors he shows them briefly in text but doesn't read it in full. For instance, focusing on Gygax saying "damn right I am sexist" and not reading out his creepy views on inserting rape in gaming sessions.

The video is nearly 12 minutes long, and he doesn't come around to y'know, directly addressing Gygax's own words beyond this. But has a lot to criticize about the D&D movie not listing Gygax and Arneson's names in the opening, or WotC's legacy content disclaimer on their Drive-ThruRPG/DM's Guild products.

Content Warning Pedophilia

Spoiler

He then brings up famous figures who were abusive to women and children (Pablo Picasso and Roman Polanski for the latter in particular) and how their movies and artwork don't have similar content warnings. Which is ironic, as I don't know if he realizes this but he's actually comparing Gygax to a pedophile in this analogy, and for all his faults, I don't think Gary did anything near remotely bad as that.

Just 10 minutes in does he actually get to "what did Gary Gygax do again?" but again doesn't directly address it, complaining about people being branded with scarlet letters and judged forever for things they might have said once a long time ago and how "picking on Gygax" is "picking at a scab." He then shouts out his Facebook page where there's "no crapping on Arneson and Gygax." Aka a dogwhistle for "you won't be allowed to criticize him in my community!"

Yep. For himself being a teacher, I was shocked at the poor logic and evident bad faith in his arguments. No one at WotC's branding Gary with a scarlet letter. As PDM himself pointed out, WotC DOES credit him in the rule books, with no disclaimers at all. And again, the history book doesn't call him any names. It gives a content warning and takes a moral stance against sexism and bigotry. The reactionaries complained about that and personally insulted the historians. Including Jon Peterson, whose bonafides in terms of D&D history are practically inarguable. I was shocked to watch PDM praise him out of one side of his mouth while implicitly taking the side of his attackers for most of the video.

The comparisons to Picasso and Polansky were similarly off-base. The closer comparison would be if we were putting that disclaimer at the front of all CURRENT D&D books. Or in reverse, if books analyzing the work and careers of Picasso and Polansky omitted all details of how they mistreated women.

Fun fact: the Frank Mentzer (how curious that he misspelled his name in a way that may make it inconvenient to google him!) mentioned by Now-Banned-Guy is an infamous serial sexual harasser who would wield the fact he was buds with Gygax as a weapon to try and force people to do things and threaten to blacklist them from the industry.

So... you know, if that's the kind of person defending Gygax...

Serial? That's awful to hear. I only knew about the one case, where it seemed like there was enough plausible deniability to support the premise that he didn't intend to harass or threaten. :/ (in that case the more damning part seemed to be him not apologizing or taking responsibility). Can you link to other instances?

I knew he was banned from Garycon for harassing a person, but I didn’t know it was serial. Do you by chance have links to his other instances and his threatening to blacklist people out of the industry?

Same request.

Oh man, the Frank Mentzer stuff was from forever ago, I'm surprised so many people either forgot or never heard about it in the first place. There was the GenCon harassment stuff and the career threats that's been referenced already in the thread; before that there was all SA-victim-blaming that he consistently doubled and tripled down on.

It's rough out there for an old straight white man with Big Thoughts About Women

I completely missed the victim blaming SA stuff. May I request a link? (Never meet your heroes, folks).

85% were not sexist in the 70?!

No, that's not the claim. By a rough calculation 85% supported equal pay for women. A thing Gary explicitly stated he did not support. Gary in his own words, angry and doubling down in response to being called out as sexist BY HIS FELLOW GAMERS, displayed that he was more sexist than was average for his time.

Your standard for "bad faith" seems to be more that he holds different values from you. It's not "bad faith" for him to like people you don't like. He probably doesn't think Shapiro & Prager are bigoted & sexist.

Nah, his arguments are bad ones (see above) and made dishonestly. I've been a fan for years and I KNOW he's smarter and has better critical reasoning skills than the arguments he presents in that video.

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.

1. It is an absolutely mandatory venue for a content warning since they're publishing sexist material unaltered.

2. Citation needed for "many of the old writers". I've been in the OSR since Mentzer introduced me to it 15 years ago, and knee-deep in the discussion about the disclaimers the whole time. Justin LaNasa is more representative of most of the people complaining about the original, very soft, disclaimer than the actual writers are.

3. Including the text allows them to make their own minds up. But given that there is offensive material there, and given that many potential new readers have never seen it before, the writers are beholden to make clear their position on the offensive material. Otherwise they're implicitly endorsing it and implying it's perfectly acceptable and unremarkable.

 

[FrogReaver]

I understand the point, but it's not quite the same. A gaming supplement, even if it is an old one, isn't necessarily above editing things in and out for different reasons, such as cultural sensitivity. Now if we edited a historical text account to not mention those things were there when it would be important, that'd be worse because the whole point of a historical account is to recognize these facts.

So I get bringing this up, but it's a bit of apples and oranges comparison.

I agree with you here. One thing I dislike though is that someone in the future can come across the reprint and easily believe it’s the same as the primary source, which then gives them a false view of just how bad things were in the previous era.

Probably not a good solution to that.