Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks Talks AI Usage in D&D [UPDATED!]

Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks is convinced that the Dungeons & Dragons franchise will support some kind of AI usage in the future. Speaking today at a Goldman Sachs event, Cocks spoke about how AI products could soon support Dungeons & Dragons and other Hasbro brands. Asked about whether AI has the potential to "bend the cost curve" in terms of entertainment development or digital gaming, and how it's being used in the toy and content industries, Cocks said the following:

"Inside of development, we've already been using AI. It's mostly machine-learning-based AI or proprietary AI as opposed to a ChatGPT approach. We will deploy it significantly and liberally internally as both a knowledge worker aid and as a development aid. I'm probably more excited though about the playful elements of AI. If you look at a typical D&D player....I play with probably 30 or 40 people regularly. There's not a single person who doesn't use AI somehow for either campaign development or character development or story ideas. That's a clear signal that we need to be embracing it. We need to do it carefully, we need to do it responsibly, we need to make sure we pay creators for their work, and we need to make sure we're clear when something is AI-generated. But the themes around using AI to enable user-generated content, using AI to streamline new player introduction, using AI for emergent storytelling, I think you're going to see that not just our hardcore brands like D&D but also multiple of our brands."

Wizards of the Coast representatives has repeatedly said that Dungeons & Dragons is a game made by people for people, as multiple AI controversies has surrounded the brand and its parent company. Wizards updated its freelance contracts to explicitly prohibit use of AI and has pulled down AI-generated artwork that was submitted for Bigby's Presents: Glory of the Giants in 2023 after they learned it was made using AI tools.

A FAQ related to AI specifically notes that "Hasbro has a vast portfolio of 1900+ brands of which Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons are two – two very important, cherished brands. Each brand is going to approach its products differently. What is in the best interest of Trivial Pursuit is likely quite different than that of Magic: The Gathering or Dungeons & Dragons." This statement acknowledges that Hasbro may use AI for other brands, while also stating that Wizards is trying to keep AI-generated artwork away from the game. However, while Wizards seems to want to keep AI away from D&D and Magic, their parent company's CEO seems to think that AI and D&D aren't naturally opposed.

---

UPDATE -- Greg Tito, who was WotC's communications director until recently, commented on BlueSky: "I'm deeply mistrustful of AI and don't want people using it anywhere near my D&D campaigns."

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I wonder why you want to do that instead of paying human beings for art, writeups, and statblocks. Time? Money? Convenience? Not concerned about the energy usage or copyright issues that are inherent to AI? Fun to try out a new tech toy? A little from all the above?

As badly as we want to believe, human art isn't always an option. Prices for human art are far from universally affordable. And the time frames to commission a piece are long when you count searching for an artist and the many other preliminary steps. And that's not including the actual process of creating the artwork, which can take days or weeks.

Now, maybe I'm an outlier. But I have never had my character concept in my head long enough before a campaign to commission a piece. Nor have I ever been attached enough to that concept to be worth the hundreds of dollars a nice piece can cost. And that is waving any socioeconomic concerns one might have with such a purchase even under ideal circumstances.

I think morals have a place, but much like choosing where to shop, there is much more to this question than just those morals. Sometimes, quite often in fact, the choice is AI art or no art. And in those cases, I wonder if the conversation shouldn't change.

EDIT: This post only applies to casual, private uses in the context of players in a DnD campaign. It is not about broad commercial use.

 

[Hussar]

I wonder why you want to do that instead of paying human beings for art, writeups, and statblocks. Time? Money? Convenience? Not concerned about the energy usage or copyright issues that are inherent to AI? Fun to try out a new tech toy? A little from all the above?

Honestly? Probably a bit of all the columns. I mean using random generators for gaming is hardly new.

Is there a huge moral failure to use an ai art generator to make a tavern, such as Dungeon Alchemist and using Donjon to do the same?

Now, I agree that for for profit products? Sure that’s a whole ‘nother issue. Fair enough.

But I was responding to the idea that it’s “anathema” to use something like Dungeon Alchemist in DnD.

 

[Staffan]

But I was responding to the idea that it’s “anathema” to use something like Dungeon Alchemist in DnD.

I might be wrong, but I believe Dungeon Alchemist is based on art specifically commissioned for that project, and the AI is used to put those bits of art together to make reasonably sensical dungeons and such. Presumably, the artists were paid for the art used with the understanding that this was what it was going to be used for. That's a very different use case to the "AI art" generally referred to, which has been trained on data sets consisting of all sorts of pictures from all over the internets, usually without the permission of the artists in question.

 

[Azzy]

It matters if one is going to take Cocks’ statement at face value.

Does anybody really care about Chris Cocks or think that any CEO or such should be taken at face value?

 

[TiQuinn]

Does anybody really care about Chris Cocks or think that any CEO or such should be taken at face value?

Ima gonna go with yes?

 

[Hussar]

I might be wrong, but I believe Dungeon Alchemist is based on art specifically commissioned for that project, and the AI is used to put those bits of art together to make reasonably sensical dungeons and such. Presumably, the artists were paid for the art used with the understanding that this was what it was going to be used for. That's a very different use case to the "AI art" generally referred to, which has been trained on data sets consisting of all sorts of pictures from all over the internets, usually without the permission of the artists in question.

Again that’s fair.

But is it fair to then paint any use of ai as “anathema” to the spirit of gaming?

There seems to be an awful lot of very broad brush painting going on on all sides. If there is a specific issue, let’s talk about that. The problem I see is that no one is actually talking about the same thing and there’s very little actual conversation going on.

For example, if WotC were to develop an AI trained on open content to create a DMs assistant that can help write adventures, is that wrong or not? Is that what WotC is looking into doing? I have no idea.

 

[Azzy]

Ima gonna go with yes?

But why? The people in those positions are typically trash and speak out of their backsides, so I see no need to litigate his (Cocks) statement or argue.

 

[TiQuinn]

But why? The people in those positions are typically trash and speak out of their backsides, so I see no need to litigate his (Cocks) statement or argue.

Because even if you have to parse their words or read between the lines, CEOs are representatives who can speak to which direction the company or product line is going.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Does anybody really care about Chris Cocks or think that any CEO or such should be taken at face value?

Enough people to keep this going for 23 pages.

There is a strong case to be made that nothing he is reported to have said warrants this kind of attention but then a substantial chunk of the thread is a rehash of the ethics of AI.

 

[Oofta]

Because even if you have to parse their words or read between the lines, CEOs are representatives who can speak to which direction the company or product line is going.

It's been my experience that what CEOs of companies I've worked at, especially at investor events, is more spin than anything. There are a lot of people making the actual sausage, and parsing words and reading between the lines often really just means "fill in the blanks with random guesses".

Even if there is some intent to look into AI for example, it doesn't mean anything of substance will be implemented in a noticeable way any time in the future. As far as we know it could be anything from a tool that helps people build maps in Sigil to a fully functional DM assistant. I wouldn't count on either myself.