RPG Evolution: The AI DM in Action

How might WOTC launch an AI-powered DM assistant?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

We know Wizards of the Coast is tinkering with Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered tools for its multiple properties, including Dungeons & Dragons. But what might that look like in practice?

Interactive NPCs​

Large Language Model (LLM) AIs have been used extensively to create non-player characters of all stripes on Character.AI. It's not a stretch to imagine that Wizards might have official NPCs included as part of the digital purchase of an adventure, with the rough outline of the NPC acting as parameters for how it would interact. DMs might be able to create their own or modify existing NPCs so that the character drops hints or communicates in a certain way. Log outputs could then be available for DMs to use later.

There are several places today where you can create NPC bots powered by AI that are publicly available, although the DM might need to monitor the output in real time to record the conversation. Character.AI and Poe.com both provide the ability to create publicly available characters that players can interact with .

Random Generators​

There are already dozens of these in existence. What's particularly of note is that AI can go deep -- not just randomize what book is in a library, but provide snippets of text of what's in that book. Not just detail the name of a forgotten magic item, but provide stats for the item. For WOTC products, this could easily cover details that no print product can possibly encompass in detail, or with parameters (for example, only a library with books on necromancy).

AI RPG companion is a great example of this, but there are many more.

Tabletop Assistants​

Hasbro recently partnered with Xplored, with the goal of developing a "new tabletop platform that integrates digital and physical play." Of particular note is how Xplore's technology works: its system "intelligently resolves rules and character behaviors, and provides innovative gameplay, new scenarios and ever-changing storytelling events. The technology allows players to learn by playing with no rulebook needed, save games to resume later, enables remote gameplay, and offers features like immersive contextual sound and connected dice."

If that sounds like it could be used to enhance an in-person Dungeons & Dragons game, Xplored is already on that path with Teburu, a digital board game platform that uses "smart-sensing technology, AI, and dynamic multimedia." Xplored's AI platform could keep track of miniatures on a table, dice rolls, and even the status of your character sheet, all managed invisibly and remotely by an AI behind the scenes and communicating with the (human) DM.

Dungeon Master​

And then there's the most challenging aspect of play that WOTC struggles with to this day: having enough Dungeon Masters to support a group. Wizards could exclusively license these automated DMs, who would have all the materials necessary to run a game. Some adventures would be easier for an AI DM to run than others -- straightforward dungeon crawls necessarily limit player agency and ensure the AI can run it within parameters, while a social setting could easily confuse it.

Developers are already pushing this model with various levels of success. For an example, see AI Realm.

What's Next?​

If Hasbro's current CEO and former WOTC CEO Chris Cocks is serious about AI, this is just a hint at what's possible. If the past battles over virtual tabletops are any indication, WOTC will likely take a twofold approach: ensure it's AI is well-versed in how it engages with adventures, and defend its branded properties against rival AI platforms that do the same thing. As Cocks pointed out in a recent interview, WOTC's advantage isn't in the technology itself but in its licenses, and it will likely all have a home on D&D Beyond. Get ready!

 

[Raiztt]

Yep, I am a consumer. If I'm getting something I would otherwise not purchase I don't see an issue.

You'd make a great lobbyist for companies utlizing child/slave labor in the 3rd world. "You got the fun product you wanted, didn't you? "

Since the end result is all that matters to you.

 

[Oofta]

You'd make a great lobbyist for companies utlizing child/slave labor in the 3rd world. "You got the fun product you wanted, didn't you? "

Since the end result is all that matters to you.

Nobody is directly using child labor to generate AI art. Meanwhile the device you're posting on likely uses rare earth metals that was mined using exploitive labor practices and destroying the local environment. You have no claim to moral superiority because I may use a tool to generate something I will never pay for.

 

[Raiztt]

1.) Claim you'd never buy something
2.) Justify taking it by appealing to how you would never have bought it in the first place, and thus no one is losing anything.
3.) Profit.

The base materialism and greed among AI advocates are just staggering.

Meanwhile the device you're posting on likely uses rare earth metals that was mined using exploitive labor practices and destroying the local environment.

If I had the ability to revert the world to a pre-industrial state, even against the collective will of the entire planet, I would.

 

[Oofta]

1.) Claim you'd never buy something
2.) Justify taking it by appealing to how you would never have bought it in the first place, and thus no one is losing anything.
3.) Profit.

The base materialism and greed among AI advocates are just staggering.

If I had the ability to revert the world to a pre-industrial state, even against the collective will of the entire planet, I would.

So you're dodging the point that the device you're responding on is likely literally using child labor? You would, what, doom a few billion people to starvation? Want a society where half the children born die before they reach the age of 10? All based on this concept that society was somehow more "pure" back then? Untold millions of slaves might beg to differ. If you think we were somehow more "pure" back then you've never studied history. Humans have always been awful. And wonderful. And everything in between.

 

[Raiztt]

So you're dodging the point that the device you're responding on is likely literally using child labor?

I'm not dodging the point - I am in agreement with it. Hence the statement that followed it.

You would, what, doom a few billion people to starvation? Want a society where half the children born die before they reach the age of 10? All based on this concept that society was somehow more "pure" back then? Untold millions of slaves might beg to differ. If you think we were somehow more "pure" back then you've never studied history. Humans have always been awful. And wonderful. And everything in between.

I have, in fact, studied history.

 

[Umbran]

When I expect it would make no visible difference in the arguments seen, afraid I at least expect more.

So, you seem to be focused on how folks don't make the arguments you want, rather than why they make the arguments they do.

And as I've made clear, I don't consider that meaningfully different than what an AI is doing ...

And that's fine. You get to have your opinion. But unless that position has superior information behind it (say, deep understanding on the nature of human cognition) all this tells us is where we run up upon a rock of your personal beliefs.

I am not in the business of changing people's beliefs, so... you do you.

 

[Umbran]

So you're dodging the point that the device you're responding on is likely literally using child labor? You would, what, doom a few billion people to starvation? Want a society where half the children born die before they reach the age of 10? All based on this concept that society was somehow more "pure" back then? Untold millions of slaves might beg to differ. If you think we were somehow more "pure" back then you've never studied history. Humans have always been awful. And wonderful. And everything in between.

Um, this is a classic tu quoque argument. Basically, if you are engaged in anything ethically dicey, you cannot comment on the ethics of this situation.

That's not a valid generalization.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

There's plenty of room for debate, but this isn't a forum for debating.

and

I am willing to elaborate, but it is against the rules of this website to take a thread in a completely different direction that the original post. And a lengthy philosophical discussion of AI, value, and meaning is definitely off topic.

First of all none of this is true. ENWorld welcomes debate and we see a lot of it; we just insist you be polite when so doing.

This is also not the first thread on the social, economic and philosophical implications of AI.

Nor is it against board policy to take threads in different directions. Drift is a thing. Relevant tangents can reinvigorate discussions. The only times we ask for a course correction of some kind are when the thread is a [+] thread or when a thread has gotten wildly off topic and is veering into restricted contentious subjects like RW politics or religion.

That in mind:

You'd make a great lobbyist for companies utlizing child/slave labor in the 3rd world. "You got the fun product you wanted, didn't you? "

Less than 24 hours ago, you were asked (by me) to “disagree without being disagreeable” when posting. The insult lobbed in the post just quoted is an example of doing the opposite of that. So to reinforce the concept that ENW has a civility policy, you’re getting a warning point.

Continuing to lob insults at fellow forumites can get you more warnings, ejections from threads, and temporary or permanent sitewide bans. It’s a stupid reason to get dinged for, since all it requires is a modicum of self-control.

Please reevaluate your behavior.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, you seem to be focused on how folks don't make the arguments you want, rather than why they make the arguments they do.

More that I think they think their argument is some sort of trump card that I don't think it is.

And that's fine. You get to have your opinion. But unless that position has superior information behind it (say, deep understanding on the nature of human cognition) all this tells us is where we run up upon a rock of your personal beliefs.

Since I don't think the differences in human cognition and machine learning are particularly relevant here, its more of a case of my denying that the point is significant.

I am not in the business of changing people's beliefs, so... you do you.

That wasn't per se, directed at you; it was more aimed at a certain subset of people to whom my reaction is "Not the first time I've heard this argument."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Luckily, system collapse and source starvation will probably solve this problem within a year or two and we'll have a new calamity of an irresponsibly applied technology to deal with.