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.

 

[Mannahnin]

Why in the nine hells is Grummz of all people being brought up? You could not make a more unserious outrage grifter if you tried

Because he, unshockingly, is the person Elon finally heard about The Making of Original D&D: 1970-1977 from.

 

[Gradine]

Oh, well, I guess that makes sense

 

[Umbran]

Yeah...it always confuses me how folks fail to realize that the Socratic method is an argument, not an analysis.

Yeah. And this is a bit of an aside, but I find it interesting...

What we know of the Socratic method mostly comes from Plato, writing at least semi-fictionalized scenes of Socrates using the method. In these, Plato has Socrates describing his method, "as a form of "midwifery" because it is employed to help his interlocutors develop their understanding in a way analogous to a child developing in the womb. "

So, Socrates isn't learning anything in the method, he is teaching. When you read Plato, it certainly looks like Socrates knows entirely what is to be learned - he asks a set of leading questions, with the implication that Socrates already knows what answer the students will give, that will get his student to the desired result, and understanding the result because it is the student's answers that get them there.

Mind you, the whole thing we see is scripted. It is an authored scene, not a historical record. Of course the student gets to where Socrates was leading, because Plato wrote it that way! There is nothing in Plato's presentation that suggests the Socratic Method is an honest exploration to find the truth, or that it will generally work in the real world.

 

[Azzy]

People really need to stop deifying people of the past. It's idolatry at its worst.

 

[Gradine]

If I'm understanding this correctly, we can and should acknowledge that people are a product of their time, but if we say that a book they wrote was a product of its time, that's bad.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Again, I said I could be wrong. But it is what leapt to mind. Personally I don’t think it is too big a leap. You are talking about the puritans, and that is naturally going to connect to false accusations of the Salem Witch Trial period. I mean they want her forehead branded and they seem to enjoy the idea. And the passage even mentions gossips

I think that you probably nailed the inspiration - but I fail to see how cribbing a characterization of horrible women from a book, even a respected book, can excuse the "20% likely to accuse you of rape" extension, which is the most egregious part, I think, among other questionable stuff.

Again, no one is saying that that one bit (The Good Wives) on its own makes Gygax a sexist. It's just one example of many. Many over decades.

I'm still curious as to what specifically about the foreword "trashes" Gygax et al, and what makes the author deserve to "burn in Hell" because of it?

The biggest problem I have with those agreeing with Musk and the clickbait video-makers is this: Why is it not okay to point out what can be found in upcoming historical text in a new publication, but it's okay to condemn to hell the person who wrote that foreword, and the company that published it?

 

[Mannahnin]

What we know of the Socratic method mostly comes from Plato, writing at least semi-fictionalized scenes of Socrates using the method. In these, Plato has Socrates describing his method, "as a form of "midwifery" because it is employed to help his interlocutors develop their understanding in a way analogous to a child developing in the womb. "

So, Socrates isn't learning anything in the method, he is teaching. When you read Plato, it certainly looks like Socrates knows entirely what is to be learned - he asks a set of leading questions, with the implication that Socrates already knows what answer the students will give, that will get his student to the desired result, and understanding the result because it is the student's answers that get them there.

Mind you, the whole thing we see is scripted. It is an authored scene, not a historical record. Of course the student gets to where Socrates was leading, because Plato wrote it that way! There is nothing in Plato's presentation that suggests the Socratic Method is an honest exploration to find the truth, or that it will generally work in the real world.

My favorite professor in college (a former Benedictine monk) tried to use it, mostly successfully. Lots of leading questions and teasing answers out of us.

 

[S'mon]

I'm still curious as to what specifically about the foreword "trashes" Gygax et al, and what makes the author deserve to "burn in Hell" because of it?

It says Gygax wants us to kill Vishnu and take his +3 sword of demon slaying, doesn't it? That seems pretty insulting. (Now I kinda want to ask my Hindu girlfriend what she thinks about Hindu gods having hit points in D&DG. I suspect she wouldn't care, any more than my Heathen friend cares about the Norse gods having hp too.)

On the second point: I think it's a bad foreword, but of course the author doesn't deserve to burn in Hell. Maybe Hasbro's share price deserves to burn, for all the bad things they've done over the past few years. No individual does ofc. Elon says lots of stupid and hyperbolic stuff, this is one.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The biggest problem I have with those agreeing with Musk and the clickbait video-makers is this: Why is it not okay to point out what can be found in upcoming historical text in a new publication, but it's okay to condemn to hell the person who wrote that foreword, and the company that published it?

For the record I wasn't agreeing with everything musk said at all

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I guess I wouldn't have any problem reprinting any of those that I'm familiar with without comment. A nuanced comment might add helpful context, but a crude comment attacking eg Shakespeare for anti-Semitism would have negative value.

So what is it that, to you, makes the foreword an "attack"?

I think that the strongest-worded part of the foreword is where it describes the "misogyny" as "conscious". Is that it? Do you think that it was "unconscious" or "unintended"? Or "not misogyny at all"? Is it another part?

I'm honestly curious.