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!

 

[Sulicius]

When I was running Curse of Strahd I just googled her and got a better picture (I do not have qualms about using pictures of artists in a private game where only 3-4 people will see it). 5 minutes, thast's all it took. Once again, as Murphy said,

As I was looking up the image for this post, I found all of those versions... It would have saved me 10 min! It's ok, I like what I got here a lot.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And I've got to say that if you think AIa art is actually good, you know nothing about art or art creation process or have pre-existing bias to see AI as good or for some reason want to cheer at the idea of artists losing jobs to over-rendered, uncanny-valley inducing, same-looking crap, that you flat out lie to convince people it's a good thing, or all three of them to different degrees. I cannot take seriously anyone who claims AI vomit of pixels looks good.

I frankly, don't consider any of those relevant to whether it looks good to me. My assessment of art's visual appeal has nothing to do with whether there are social problems with its production. So feel free to not take me seriously, but I stand by my opinion that some of it looks fine.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's definitely not absolutely terrible (IMO)! I have to sift through tons of AI art, even with search filters, and the problem is that at first glance it looks good. It's only after you look at it for a bit longer that you start to see the issues.

To make it clear, I'm not saying everything an AI spits out looks good. But then, everything a human artist does doesn't, either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But my point is what are you seeing - are you seeing every image it generates based on a prompt, or are you seeing a human-created highlights reel of the very best it creates?

Very possibly the latter.

But then--you likely never see the worst art humans turn out either. AIs don't have anything we'd consider judgment; they only learn what to do in the first place by a human at some point going "good" or "bad" and developing criteria based on that. So saying "AI art is only good when human curated" isn't really saying anything special to me.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I frankly, don't consider any of those relevant to whether it looks good to me. My assessment of art's visual appeal has nothing to do with whether there are social problems with its production. So feel free to not take me seriously, but I stand by my opinion that some of it looks fine.

Oh believe me, after that statement I don't think I will ever be albe to take you seirously.

 

[Distracted DM]

I frankly, don't consider any of those relevant to whether it looks good to me. My assessment of art's visual appeal has nothing to do with whether there are social problems with its production. So feel free to not take me seriously, but I stand by my opinion that some of it looks fine.

I think a lot of what you've said in other posts is reasonable, but you're sure that this statement makes sense?
If someone created art via a terrible crime, that wouldn't affect the way that you perceived said art?

 

[Sulicius]

Oh believe me, after that statement I don't think I will ever be albe to take you seirously.

You really can't see how it is possible to separate the art from the artist? Even appreciating something made by AI because you are unaware of how it's made?

AI generated art IS getting better, which to me is one of the biggest problems. We already see people calling out man-made work as being artificially generated in the hobby. It's getting closer, or at least closer to those who don't have a sharp eye.

Would you be less opposed to AI generated content if all source material was legally obtained? What do you think about people purchasing AI generated works made this way?

 

[Dire Bare]

I think a lot of what you've said in other posts is reasonable, but you're sure that this statement makes sense?
If someone created art via a terrible crime, that wouldn't affect the way that you perceived said art?

His post is perfectly reasonable.

Some folks can separate art from artist. Or, art from how the art was generated.

Others can't, or have a harder time doing so.

A lot of AI generated art DOES look pretty good. That is a separate thing from the ethics of how that art was generated. And AI art is getting better and better, in quality, if not in how it is ethically sourced.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

You really can't see how it is possible to separate the art from the artist? Even appreciating something made by AI because you are unaware of how it's made?

AI generated art IS getting better, which to me is one of the biggest problems. We already see people calling out man-made work as being artificially generated in the hobby. It's getting closer, or at least closer to those who don't have a sharp eye.

Would you be less opposed to AI generated content if all source material was legally obtained? What do you think about people purchasing AI generated works made this way?

To separate art from the artist we need to have an artist. There is no artist here and honestly, not much art. I think people paying for AI art are either scumbags who want to make real artists lose job either for their own investments or out of some sort of petty revenge, or idiots who got scammed. If people have problem with recognizing AI art we need to keep educating ourselves and keep learning this scam's new tricks, not just lie down and let stupid techbros sacrifice humanity of our own creativity on the altar of almighty dollar.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

To separate art from the artist we need to have an artist. There is no artist here and honestly, not much art. I think people paying for AI art are either scumbags who want to make real artists lose job either for their own investments or out of some sort of petty revenge, or idiots who got scammed. If people have problem with recognizing AI art we need to keep educating ourselves and keep learning this scam's new tricks, not just lie down and let stupid techbros sacrifice humanity of our own creativity on the altar of almighty dollar.

After reading your posts in this thread, I'm starting to think the techbros aren't so bad after all.