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!

 

[Oofta]

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.

I was just pointing out what I feel was a hypocritical stance. The amount of hyperbole on the evils of using AI to generate something I would never pay for was, I felt, extreme. The Good Place addressed this topic. In today's society no one is blameless and we cannot have the modern society we have without someone in some way being taken advantage of.

 

[Raiztt]

I was just pointing out what I feel was a hypocritical stance. The amount of hyperbole on the evils of using AI to generate something I would never pay for was, I felt, extreme. The Good Place addressed this topic. In today's society no one is blameless and we cannot have the modern society we have without someone in some way being taken advantage of.

Then let's just not have a modern society. How is this not an argument that evil is acceptable when it makes life more convenient?

 

[Oofta]

Then let's just not have a modern society. How is this not an argument that evil is acceptable when it makes life more convenient?

Evil has always been part of human nature and society. It always will be. I can try to limit my impact but I can't eliminate it. In the case of AI art I'm not foregoing payment to someone because I never would have paid them in the first place.

 

[Raiztt]

Evil has always been part of human nature and society. It always will be. I can try to limit my impact but I can't eliminate it. In the case of AI art I'm not foregoing payment to someone because I never would have paid them in the first place.

My contention is that participating with or using generative AI is, in principle, evil unless every artist whose work is scrapped either gives their consent or is compensated.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you would personally pay an artist because, I assert, the damage is prior to that.

 

[Xethreau]

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.

I feel like this is a good moment to say that there are a lot of high quality pro DMs on startplaying.games, including myself. If you want to fight the AI takeover of our hobby AND play more, it might be worth looking into.

 

[Oofta]

I feel like this is a good moment to say that there are a lot of high quality pro DMs on startplaying.games, including myself. If you want to fight the AI takeover of our hobby AND play more, it might be worth looking into.

I don't know that many people think AI could replace a DM entirely. It's more of a question do you believe it could enhance your DMing ability by using AI tools.

 

[Dire Bare]

My contention is that participating with or using generative AI is, in principle, evil unless every artist whose work is scrapped either gives their consent or is compensated.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you would personally pay an artist because, I assert, the damage is prior to that.

Evil? There is distance between unethical and evil. Not seeing that does not support your position.

And good people can disagree on where the line is between ethical, unethical, and evil. Without being self-righteous, judgmental, and insulting.

When we first started talking about AI generative visual art in the RPG space here on these forums . . . AI generated art made me uncomfortable, but I hadn't put a lot of thought into it. Now after having folks explain to me how the current tools scrape existing art without the consent or compensation of artists, I'm even less of a fan. I won't support a professional project using AI art, and I don't use it in my personal life either.

For folks who see AI generated art as a more existential threat, even beyond issues of artist consent and compensation . . . I disagree with that extreme stance, but I respect it.

For folks who are willing to use AI generated art in their own, personal, amateur projects . . . like their private, weekly D&D game . . . I don't like it, but there are a lot worse things out there to get all worked up about. And I don't view those folks as unethical, certainly not evil . . . they are just drawing the line in a different place than I am.

For folks who see no problem with how AI art is generated at all and are just fine with folks using it professional projects intended to make a profit . . . that bothers me quite a bit. But again, I don't view those folks as necessarily unethical (and again, certainly not evil) . . . just perhaps less understanding and compassionate about the impacts on art, artists, and society.

I disagree with @Oofta about a lot of things that we've discussed here on ENWorld over the years . . . but we've been able to disagree civilly (as far as I can remember anyways).

Going at this so hard, self-righteously, and insulting . . . all that approach does is get people to put up walls and not listen to your point of view. And if you aren't here for a conversation, if you don't care what the other folks have to say . . . than why are you here at all?

 

[Umbran]

I was just pointing out what I feel was a hypocritical stance.

It is an ad hominem and fallacious point of discussion. It implicitly relies on base assumptions that all ethical quandaries should be handled similarly, and that if one is not entirely consistent all the time, their points should be disregarded.

The amount of hyperbole on the evils of using AI to generate something I would never pay for was, I felt, extreme. The Good Place addressed this topic.

Yes, and the one thing they did NOT establish in the show is the idea that, since you can't address every ethical question, you can just give in and address none of them. We still owe to each other a solid attempt to be good people, even if we cannot be perfect.

Which kind of blows your point about being hypocritical out of the water - perfection will be denied all of us, so cherry picking individual issues where they fail doesn't really indicate that they are wrong on this issue. The ethical choices for generative AI should be made without extraneous references to other issues.

In other words, the issue of rare earths is an off-topic distraction, deflection, or misdirection. Stick to the actual issue under discussion.

 

[Raiztt]

Evil? There is distance between unethical and evil.

Within the academic study of ethics, these two words you're using are synonyms. Unethical just means evil and vice versa. "Not very bad" is still a subsection of bad. I am not arguing about HOW bad it is, just that it IS bad.

 

[Reynard]

I feel like this is a good moment to say that there are a lot of high quality pro DMs on startplaying.games, including myself. If you want to fight the AI takeover of our hobby AND play more, it might be worth looking into.

I don't know that many people think AI could replace a DM entirely. It's more of a question do you believe it could enhance your DMing ability by using AI tools.

I think there is an argument to be made for AI GMs over paid human GMs on price alone: if having the AI GM in your Beyond account costs an extra $10/month, it is a lot cheaper than it would cost to pay a human GM.

But the real solution to the lack of GMs is a) for more players to spend time behind the screen, and b) for existing GMs to not make it sound like its hard and no fun. GMing isn't that hard and it is a blast.