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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Yeah, if Slavery was always unacceptable and harmful, why were slave owners able to get rich? The victims are the ones with the power, right?

 

[mamba]

Not everyone uses social media in this way. I see people retweet things they disagree with all the time.

without commenting on it? Are you sure they are disagreeing?

 

[Bedrockgames]

without commenting on it? Are you sure they are disagreeing?

It is often very obvious if you follow a person what they agree with and disagree with. But like I said, I lok for context and further information before making assumptions

 

[Mannahnin]

All I can say is I would urge you to consider the possibly that you are wrong about me

Actions speak louder than words.

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.

Nah. Books reprinting old material commonly discuss and comment on that material in the foreword, intro, or preface.

This is common and standard practice, most particularly in historical texts, since before you or I were born.

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.

I've seen Frank Mentzer and Margaret Weis, so far.

And Ernie, laughing about it, completely unaware of how bad a look that is. Especially given how he reneged on his promise to Rob Kuntz two years ago to apologize for his own hurtful comments about trans people, and how he's still working to put money in bigot grifter Justin LaNasa's pockets. Ernie still hasn't disassociated from a guy and company which employed a literal out-and-proud Nazi.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And if it's just a retweet without commentary, why would you assume they think the tweet is stupid? If this were your first interaction with the person, which is going to be the case for a lot of people with lots of tweets or other social media posts - would you know that? What evidence would you have to you assume that?
It's just bizarre to think that people use social media so ironically without commentary that they're simply reposting and amplifying things they disagree with.

We are getting lost in the tweet analogy. Suffice it to say, I reserve judgement on a retweet until I either have more info or can pick up from context the reason. But this is not a retweet that we are talking about

 

[Justice and Rule]

Again though, they are not retweeting. They are putting out material that they own the rights to which people want to see. I don't think people are assuming they endorse every line of text (the reason they are putting it out there isn't because they think it has regressive language that they want to promote: surely people aren't going to reach this conclusion)

Look, if you are arguing that people need to go out and find context for things, you can't be complaining that Wizards chose to instead simply put the context right there for people to see. That just makes it seem like you're angry that they are providing context, and perhaps that you're angry that their context doesn't comport with your views.

Again the problem is they are putting this out there with a lot of sweeping statements about the content, without getting into specifics, and doing so on topics fans are still hotly debating (and they are the company who presently publish D&D so it is relevant). Again, it is what I expect from academic language now. I think it would have been better handled in another venue, and I think there is a more nuanced and thorough way to explore that topic (i.e. I think they invoke some lazy narratives and make some straw man cases, rather than look at some of the alternative viewpoints and take those seriously as well). If they want to address this stuff without further dividing the fanbase or creating hostility among the fanbase, an easy solution is expose the concern in a more even handed way

Who cares that it's hotly-debated; that doesn't meant that one side isn't in the right. You might as well say that the Lost Cause is still being hotly-debated, or that whether the Earth is round or flat is being hotly-debated. You talk about "sweeping statements", but I am loathe to find something that is really objectionable there?

And again, you talk about "nuance", but you are specifically about removing context and then having to find it again! It would be more honest to simply say that you disagree with the statement instead of twisting yourself into rhetorical loops and putting forth contradictory arguments ("Context is good... except now! No context at all is actually better!"). It all comes off as very... sophistic?

 

[Justice and Rule]

We are getting lost in the tweet analogy. Suffice it to say, I reserve judgement on a retweet until I either have more info or can pick up from context the reason. But this is not a retweet that we are talking about

No, the tweet analogy basically exposed the contradiction here: when you see an empty retweet, you simply look for context. Fair, I suppose. But in this case, you are arguing against Wizards putting in context to create clarity. Those two views are contradictory.

 

[Staffan]

I had no idea what an Iron Maiden was until I looked it up as a young lad. Good times!

What, a fake torture device made up by Victorians to make the middle ages look less civilized?

 

[Mannahnin]

It is often very obvious if you follow a person what they agree with and disagree with. But like I said, I lok for context and further information before making assumptions

This is a bad argument.

We're not talking about republishing to a limited audience of friends who KNOW that you're a fanatical marshmallow fluff fan and have the context to know that if you share an article attacking marshmallow fluff it can't be because you agree with it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Look, if you are arguing that people need to go out and find context for things, you can't be complaining that Wizards chose to instead simply put the context right there for people to see. That just makes it seem like you're angry that they are providing context, and perhaps that you're angry that their context doesn't comport with your views.

Again I think the tweet analogy is kind of muddying the waters on this front

Who cares that it's hotly-debated; that doesn't meant that one side isn't in the right. You might as well say that the Lost Cause is still being hotly-debated, or that whether the Earth is round or flat is being hotly-debated. You talk about "sweeping statements", but I am loathe to find something that is really objectionable there?

And again, you talk about "nuance", but you are specifically about removing context and then having to find it again! It would be more honest to simply say that you disagree with the statement instead of twisting yourself into rhetorical loops and putting forth contradictory arguments ("Context is good... except now! No context at all is actually better!"). It all comes off as very... sophistic?

I am saying a couple of different things here. First off, this isn't the lost cause. The issue of disclaimers is hotly debated for a lot of reasons. How problematic the old content is, is also hotly debated.

Yes if they are going to tack it, I am saying nuance would be a good approach. If you are just republishing somethingi without getting into it, obviously nuance is not a consideration. But they have chosen to, so I think a more reasonable approach would be to do it in a way that at least makes it feel like it is not a one sided account