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]

How can a retweet not be a strongly implied endorsement? People retweeting are spreading it further. They're amplifying the signal. That's what you do when you repeat content, barring refuting or commenting on its ideas. And, of course, that's what the foreword is doing - commenting on the content that is NOT endorsed by WotC.

Not everyone uses social media in this way. I see people retweet things they disagree with all the time. Some of it is context. If I follow someone who loves marshmallow fluff and that person retweets a post by someone denigrating marshmallow fluff, my assumption will probably be they want to draw attention to an opinion they thing is stupid. Also if it is more gray, like they post a review by a person of a movie they are interested in, I don't assume the retweet is an endorsement of everything that person says or everything that is in the film.

 

[mamba]

I get that you don't want to fully understand the situation with Gygax, but stop telling me that it's pointless to have full understanding before making a decision about the issue.

clearly you are not getting what I wrote, at all. Everyone in this discussion but you gets it, have fun continuing not understanding what you are doing, I am not going to try to help you understand it beyond this point

 

[Justice and Rule]

I’m all for them telling me how they think it should be viewed and laying out their case so that I will hopefully agree with them. But that’s not them telling me how something should be viewed.

This absolutely telling you how something should be viewed, in particular the problematic views of Gygax and others. It's framing it both historically and so that you know that publishing it isn't meant to endorse it. If you already know that's bad, then this part of the foreword is not for you in the same way someone telling me Douglas Southall Freeman is a biased narrator isn't necessary for me. But also it's foolish of us to complain about such things unless we actually disagree with what they are saying.

I am generally not a big fan of this. If only because it creates a very false impression of the original content. Obviously venue can matter (I don't expect an R rated film to be unedited on television). But when I buy an old supplement, I am buying it because I want the original text, warts and all. Now if they want to make a revised edition and change things there, that is a different story. But if the idea is you are putting out a book that is supposed to be from 1983, I'd want the whole text so I can see what is there

Old editions can be found and preserved. If you want an original edition of a book, you are welcome to find it. But as it stands, as @Mannahnin seems to put it, they simply aren't offering the supplement rather than editing it. Either way, as long as they are forthright with what they are doing (in something like, I dunno, a foreword), that's fine. They aren't selling it as a historical text, but as a gaming supplement. That's how these things work.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.


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

Why? If something is sexist in an old book, I can see that for myself without a historian explaining it to me

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.

If you go on Facebook and follow this stuff you will see plenty of well known TSR writers, including women, voicing complaint about this. You will also see plenty who agree with the disclaimers.

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.

Why? Why would I assume they agree with sexist content in an old book they are reprinting for posterity? I think part of the divide over this issue is many of us simply don't make this assumption when people publish old books or put out classic movies. We understand everything was made in the context of its time. It isn't something we need explained to us, and it isn't something we make assumptions about in terms of what the publishers themselves believe

 

[Bill Zebub]

This well could be a generational thing, but I think many people my age simply don't make this assumption when something is reprinted like this. We just assume older things might have more regressive content, but that the people putting it out there again aren't endorsing every line of text or every frame of a film.

I don't think it's an age thing at all. I think most people realize that a) old things might have regressive content, and b) people reprinting it aren't necessarily endorsing it.

But even though I assume B, in my opinion it's nice when the publishers clarify, so that if it's especially regressive I don't have to wonder who I'm giving my money to.

And if I don't care I can skip the forward.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes. A large portion of Americans today are sexist. In other news, water is wet.

Prevalence in the past may explain how he became sexist, but it is not a valid excuse.

Gary was a human being. He had flaws. In other news, the sky is high up there.

Embracing your fellow human being means embracing them flaws and all.

And the guys putting together a premium 576 page time full of carefully collected original documents were pretty clearly embracing the ositive value Gygax and Arneson brought to the world.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But is the hobby splintered? Is the hobby divided?

I think the hobby is extremely divided right now.

I don’t see how a few people shouting amounts to a splintered community, no matter how much those few people want to be seen as a larger segment of the whole.

It isn't a few people

 

[Bill Zebub]

But also it's foolish of us to complain about such things unless we actually disagree with what they are saying.

No, I would say it's pretty much always foolish to complain about such things.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Not everyone uses social media in this way. I see people retweet things they disagree with all the time. Some of it is context. If I follow someone who loves marshmallow fluff and that person retweets a post by someone denigrating marshmallow fluff, my assumption will probably be they want to draw attention to an opinion they thing is stupid. Also if it is more gray, like they post a review by a person of a movie they are interested in, I don't assume the retweet is an endorsement of everything that person says or everything that is in the film.

A lot of that is context, reliant on people knowing that you don't agree with such views in the first place and the nuance of why you would want to repost such a thing, which might require knowledge of what is going on at any given time. But you're an individual, not a massive corporation with incredible reach. Clarity is paramount, which is why you avoid being put into such muddied situations.

Again, we have people complaining about this being noted: if you don't have a problem with the fact that they say it is bad, then that part of the text is not for you. The people who are "outraged" are people who disagree with the statement, not that it is there. Not all of a foreword will be useful to everyone; that doesn't mean we should complain, since there are other people who might not be familiar with the relevant context. So unless you actually disagree with the statement rather than its presence, I suggest you just ignore it and not clutch pearls for people who legitimately disagree with it.

And if I don't care I can skip the forward.

 

[Bedrockgames]

A retweet is inherently an endorsement and agreement, unless accompanied by a comment disagreeing.

I don't make this assumption at all.

Just like a "share" on other social media. Or copying and pasting someone else's opinion or argument and republishing it yourself. You are propagating and implicitly endorsing the sentiment.

Again when there isn't a comment, I look for context, or further information, to form a judgement about why the post was retweeted or reposted