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."

 

[Dire Bare]

This has really been covered in excessive detail earlier in the thread & I don't want to just rehash old discussions.. There are lots of ways that he could very well have 30-40 "friends" who wabnt to play with him & provide him with the levels of info needed to make his claims, but nearly all of them drastically undercut the value of theresults.

If you play with people regularly implies that there is personal interaction rather than playing near (ie as part of a larger club type thing or department activity at work). The fact that he continued by making claims about their use of AI means a few more things can be inferred about "regularly" and how close (or salaried/hourly compensated) that "play" is.

"game with" could be an interchangeable substitute yes, but it could also be taken as a less personal wider net. Since it's already a dubious claim (at best), it's probably not a good idea ro start munging the quote with substitutions.

I still fail to see how you are parsing this.

Cock's claims that he games with 30-40 folks on a regular basis. I see no reason to doubt his claim. I see no reason to somehow debate Cock's use of the term "regularly". It's not a dubious claim at all. Yes it has been covered earlier in the thread with plenty of folks explaining several scenarios that allow for that number of gamers.

Personally, I find the whole idea of casting shade on the claim as another example of toxic fandom.

Now . . . Cock's claim that these folks all use AI in their games to some degree . . . I believe that too, but I also find it meaningless and non-representative of the community as a whole. But I believe him. We have no reason not to.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not believing a huge number from some guy using that huge number to sell something isn't 'toxic fandom'.

 

[tetrasodium]

I still fail to see how you are parsing this.

Please go back to earlier pages where the reasoning was covered. Alternately you are literally arguing that it's ok to deliberately change the wording of a quote& continue on as if the change is meaningless even after being told of the slip-up. If it's meaningless then there is no reason to not simply acknowledge the mistake & move on with the correct quote rather than fighting for the new wording.

Cock's claims that he games with 30-40 folks on a regular basis. I see no reason to doubt his claim. I see no reason to somehow debate Cock's use of the term "regularly". It's not a dubious claim at all. Yes it has been covered earlier in the thread with plenty of folks explaining several scenarios that allow for that number of gamers.

The claim did not end with playing with them though. It went on to express knowledge of their AI use that takes things like an employer/employee relationship or extensive levels of interaction that are significantly out of step with more average players unless he is devoting time periods closer to full time jobs. either way it is very much not representative of anyone not able to wear & make use of a label like "CEO of the company that owns d&d"

Personally, I find the whole idea of casting shade on the claim as another example of toxic fandom.

Now . . . Cock's claim that these folks all use AI in their games to some degree . . . I believe that too, but I also find it meaningless and non-representative of the community as a whole. But I believe him. We have no reason not to.

The CEO of Hasbro should not be used as a model for the average d&d player, there is even an acronym for putting too much weight on questionable data that sort of thing (GiGo). There is a lot to be suspect of in his claim and it has been covered earlier in this thread.

Edit: The "shade" is not over the idea that he could play with that many people, it is over the idea that his very much not typical situation should be used as a good example of normal d&d customers to draw the sort of conclusions being drawn.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm certain that he has at least 30-40 "friends" who want to play D&D with him for face-time and brown nosing.

This isn't usual. When you have money power and influence, there is usually an ample supply of people willing to do whatever it takes to win your favor.

Or...maybe he works at a, I dunno, gaming company where everyone he regularly interacts with loves to game, and they also want to check out different systems, not to mention exploring their own?

I'm currently gaming with at least 20 different people at different times, and this is a slow term. Because I sponsor the D&D Club, help out with the Book and Boardgame Club, and then like to game with some friends and family outside of work, too. As I mentioned previously, during a busy term it can be around 30 people for D&D alone.

I don't find Cocks' claim difficult to believe at all. He has motive and opportunity. Which of us wouldn't game all the time if we were surrounded by fellow gamers 24/7?

 

[Dire Bare]

Please go back to earlier pages where the reasoning was covered. Alternately you are literally arguing that it's ok to deliberately change the wording of a quote& continue on as if the change is meaningless even after being told of the slip-up. If it's meaningless then there is no reason to not simply acknowledge the mistake & move on with the correct quote rather than fighting for the new wording.

The claim did not end with playing with them though. It went on to express knowledge of their AI use that takes things like an employer/employee relationship or extensive levels of interaction that are significantly out of step with more average players unless he is devoting time periods closer to full time jobs. either way it is very much not representative of anyone not able to wear & make use of a label like "CEO of the company that owns d&d"

The CEO of Hasbro should not be used as a model for the average d&d player, there is even an acronym for putting too much weight on questionable data that sort of thing (GiGo). There is a lot to be suspect of in his claim and it has been covered earlier in this thread.

Edit: The "shade" is not over the idea that he could play with that many people, it is over the idea that his very much not typical situation should be used as a good example of normal d&d customers to draw the sort of conclusions being drawn.

As I stated, while I feel there is no reason to doubt his claim that he plays with 30-40 folks and that they all use AI in their D&D games to some degree . . . I do not feel that Cock's and his gaming group are representative of the larger gaming community. These are two different things.

Yes, it has been covered earlier in this thread. And we do not all agree with your position and interpretation of Cock's statements.

But I'm going to let this back-and-forth with you drop. I doubt we'll convince each other of anything.

 

[Dire Bare]

Or...maybe he works at a, I dunno, gaming company where everyone he regularly interacts with loves to game, and they also want to check out different systems, not to mention exploring their own?

I'm currently gaming with at least 20 different people at different times, and this is a slow term. Because I sponsor the D&D Club, help out with the Book and Boardgame Club, and then like to game with some friends and family outside of work, too. As I mentioned previously, during a busy term it can be around 30 people for D&D alone.

I don't find Cocks' claim difficult to believe at all. He has motive and opportunity. Which of us wouldn't game all the time if we were surrounded by fellow gamers 24/7?

Heck, if I count the middle-schoolers in my afterschool D&D Club, I've got 40 right there.

 

[cranberry]

Or...maybe he works at a, I dunno, gaming company where everyone he regularly interacts with loves to game, and they also want to check out different systems, not to mention exploring their own?

I'm currently gaming with at least 20 different people at different times, and this is a slow term. Because I sponsor the D&D Club, help out with the Book and Boardgame Club, and then like to game with some friends and family outside of work, too. As I mentioned previously, during a busy term it can be around 30 people for D&D alone.

I don't find Cocks' claim difficult to believe at all. He has motive and opportunity. Which of us wouldn't game all the time if we were surrounded by fellow gamers 24/7?

I never said that I doubted his 30-40 person claim. I simply pointed out that a person in his position is likely to have many "friends" who want to play with him.

 

[Oofta]

I never said that I doubted his 30-40 person claim. I simply pointed out that a person in his position is likely to have many "friends" who want to play with him.

Or ... the majority if not virtually all of them could just be fellow gamers at a company that makes games. Not everyone is in a mad scramble to get face time with the boss. Your statement isn't a reflection on Cock, but it's pretty denigrating to everyone that plays with him.

 

[Emerikol]

I really don't get the objection to AI in D&D. Any fears around AI to me are it's impact on the real world. As a tool to generate stuff for a fantasy world, AI seems perfect. Just generate me a tavern or inn with these characteristics. Make a picture of it. Make a map of it. It seems like it would be a great DM aid.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I really don't get the objection to AI in D&D.

Because techbro scumbags are trying to rush it down our throats in EVERY aspect of our lives and people oppose it in their leisure activities for all the reasons we oppose them everywhere else.