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]

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.

Friend, I am on your side! I am just trying to tell you that it is becoming almost impossible to recognize AI generated art. Just take the “art” I shared earlier in this thread. I am pretty sure that could fool me, and I will never spend money on something that replaces an artist.

But the technology IS here, and a lot of people don’t see the difference enough to care. Pretending the art is obviously bad will just give them more time to improve the technology.

It is not a scam, but it IS destroying the livelihoods of artists around the world.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

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

I don't even know who you are.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

You know, go pick a fight with someone else.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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?

Not particularly. I might not be willing to pay for it, so as to not encourage the behavior, but it still doesn't impact my perception of the art itself.

 

[Raiztt]

You really can't see how it is possible to separate the art from the artist?

This presupposes a premise that is controversial in regards to AI.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Yeah. I can quite understand why some people can't do that. That's their right. I don't think they have a right to demand I feel the same, and I don't see any moral element to being able to appreciate it (to paying for it, and therefor encouraging further questionable behavior, sure, but where the lines are there I don't think are as simple as some people would like to paint them. That said, I very much regret having purchased Adventurer, Conquerer, King after finding out about the creator, so I'm obviously not completely oblivious to some of the principal).

 

[Thomas Shey]

This presupposes a premise that is controversial in regards to AI.

Practically everything is controversial regarding AI.

 

[Raiztt]

Practically everything is controversial regarding AI.

We're not talking about the same kind of 'controversial'. To say that an argument assumes as its foundation a controversial premise is really just a nice way to say they're begging the question.

No one who is anti-AI would consider AI art to actually be art regardless of its appearance.

 

[Reynard]

This presupposes a premise that is controversial in regards to AI.

In a hypothetical situation in which it is impossible to tell the difference between AI generated content and human generated content, and companies are under no legal obligation to disclose how it was generated, does the "artist" in this case matter to the consumer?

 

[Raiztt]

In a hypothetical situation in which it is impossible to tell the difference between AI generated content and human generated content, and companies are under no legal obligation to disclose how it was generated, does the "artist" in this case matter to the consumer?

Is it impossible to tell in principle? or impossible to tell in practice? Because if it's the former I reject this premise.

Regardless, I would argue it does matter.