Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks Is Talking About AI in D&D Again

Chris Cocks, the CEO of Hasbro, is talking about the usage of AI in Dungeons & Dragons again. In a recent interview with Semafor, Cocks once again brought up potential usage of AI in D&D and other Hasbro brands. Cocks described himself as an "AI bull" and offered up a potential subscription service that uses AI to enrich D&D campaigns as a way to integrate AI. The full section of Semafor's interview is below:

Smartphone screens are not the toy industry’s only technology challenge. Cocks uses artificial intelligence tools to generate storylines, art, and voices for his D&D characters and hails AI as “a great leveler for user-generated content.”

Current AI platforms are failing to reward creators for their work, “but I think that’s solvable,” he says, describing himself as “an AI bull” who believes the technology will extend the reach of Hasbro’s brands. That could include subscription services letting other Dungeon Masters enrich their D&D campaigns, or offerings to let parents customize Peppa Pig animations. “It’s supercharging fandom,” he says, “and I think that’s just net good for the brand.”

The D&D design team and others involved with D&D at Wizards of the Coast have repeatedly stood by a statement posted back in 2023 that said that D&D was made by humans for humans. The full, official stance on AI in D&D by the D&D team can be found below.

For 50 years, D&D has been built on the innovation, ingenuity, and hard work of talented people who sculpt a beautiful, creative game. That isn't changing. Our internal guidelines remain the same with regards to artificial intelligence tools: We require artists, writers, and creatives contributing to the D&D TTRPG to refrain from using AI generative tools to create final D&D products. We work with some of the most talented artists and creatives in the world, and we believe those people are what makes D&D great.

 

[CellarHeroes]

Since another "AI is evil" thread is soon to begin, guess it's time to get my thoughts in before the thread is shut down.

AI is a tool. Just like fire, the water wheel, the internal combustion engine, spreadsheets. Technology changes the way we live and work. It will continue to do so. As with every technological change there will be winners and losers, people who underestimate the impact and those that overestimate it. I remember reading articles about how LLMs were going to replace software development* until people actually started using it and realized it could not. At least not yet.

For me? I would like an AI assistant at times to either do stuff I don't want to do or cannot. I've used AI art a few times for miscellaneous things I would never pay an artist for. I occasionally want help with inspiration or filling out my campaign ideas. For those things I don't really see AI being any different from any other tool or resource I've used throughout the decades. But I also have to admit that as much as I like to think I'm creative, there really is nothing new under the sun. If I'm being generous there are maybe a dozen story arcs we can use for D&D and the best we can do is add a bit of different flavor to each of them.

Maybe someday we'll have an AI good enough to be actually create engaging and worthwhile gameplay. More likely we'll be able to tell an AI to create a city map or similar for us that is a good starting point. But even if we had an AI DM, I would still want to be a DM because I enjoy it. On the other hand maybe AI generated players wouldn't spend five minutes every time their turn comes up debating every single possible option they could take this turn while asking for clarification on what color the rug their standing on is.

We don't know what the future will bring. I remain cautiously optimistic but my hope is that instead of replacing mod writers, artists and DMs everywhere it will simply make us better at what we do and more productive.

*The imminent end of the need for people to do software development has been predicted since at least the 80s.

I agree that it's important to remember that AI is a tool.

I have tinkered with AI tools a few times and wasn't impressed when I went down the rabbit hole for a complete project. But I was impressed when I used it to bounce my own ideas off of it. Its feedback helped me maintain a consistent tone throughout my work. I wouldn't use it as a replacement for a human, but I didn't want to wake anyone up at 3:00am.

As far as illustrations go, I don't care. I have absolutely no appreciation for that sort of art. I'm happy with books with just text and no wasted space with a picture of a smiling dwarf.

 

[TiQuinn]

My thought is the point of the article is a finger in the wind measurement of which way the AI winds are blowing within Hasbro, and how does it align to their statement that they will refrain from using Gen AI to create final D&D products.

As it stands, it's just another sign that as companies get more comfortable with AI and whatever it outputs, that statement will be whittled down slowly but surely. That is why Cocks is an "AI Bull." When the company has enough power to flip the switch, and say "here is a product that we think you won't notice or won't care is generated by AI or is profitable enough to withstand any customer blowback", then their AI statement will vanish, to be replaced with probably nothing, other than a shrug and an "Oh, well."

I think we know that day is coming eventually.

 

[dave2008]

But if someone were asking me? Yeah, I don’t want this.

My question would be: what is the "this?" It doesn't seem to me that Cocks really said anything or described any type of plan to use AI did he? Th article mentioned "subscription services letting other Dungeon Masters enrich their D&D campaigns..." What does that mean really, is that even AI? What is the "this" we are arguing about? He does mention using for things in his games. Is the plan to have a D&D AI that can create adventure ideas and character voices?* IDK?! Do we even need AI for that?

*I know he mentioned he uses it for art too, but I am not going there.

 

[Osgood]

This was always inevitable. Big Business sees AI as a means to make Big Bucks. I suspect it will not work out as well as they think though--largely because in my experience most companies are pretty inept at (a) understanding technology and (b) understanding consumers. Not that I think Hasbro will be alone here, I suspect a bunch of companies are rushing to embrace AI without a realistic idea of what it will do for them, and at some point there will be a change in direction.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Glue pizzas.

This is also the guy who claims that he games with 30+ people who all use AI "somehow" in their gaming.

 

[Charlaquin]

My question would be: what is the "this?" It doesn't seem to me that Cocks really said anything or described any type of plan to use AI did he? Th article mentioned "subscription services letting other Dungeon Masters enrich their D&D campaigns..." What does that mean really, is that even AI? What is the "this" we are arguing about? He does mention using for things in his games. Is the plan to have a D&D AI that can create adventure ideas and character voices?* IDK?! Do we even need AI for that?

*I know he mentioned he uses it for art too, but I am not going there.

Frankly I think the “this” is literally whatever WotC thinks they can get people to pay a monthly subscription for. If that means generating adventure concepts, or building encounters, or populating dungeon rooms/hexes, or distributing treasure, or drawing maps, or some combination of the above, then that’s what it will be. Coming from the CEO of Hazbro, this sentiment isn’t about seeing a consumer need he thinks AI can fill, it’s about seeing an untapped avenue for monetization and wanting to come up with any excuse to tap it. That’s why the focus is on the subscription model rather than on what the service people would be subscribing to actually does. Because the subscription is the part he actually cares about; what service it provides is incidental to him.

 

[SlyFlourish]

My question would be: what is the "this?" It doesn't seem to me that Cocks really said anything or described any type of plan to use AI did he? Th article mentioned "subscription services letting other Dungeon Masters enrich their D&D campaigns..." What does that mean really, is that even AI? What is the "this" we are arguing about? He does mention using for things in his games. Is the plan to have a D&D AI that can create adventure ideas and character voices?* IDK?! Do we even need AI for that?

*I know he mentioned he uses it for art too, but I am not going there.

Whatever it is, I don’t want it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

AI is a great tool to help creativity, though. I used to have tables of random generators I'd turn to, but generative AI has to some extent replaced those.

The fruitful part comes in the collision of the random generation with my own creativity, and that's still true. A wholly AI generated module or setting would be a bore.

The issue here is that a well-designed d100 table can often be more creatively useful than generative AI.

The problem generative AI has is that it is profoundly unoriginal, and really, really prefers to go for the dumbest and most obvious tropes and concepts possible. All the best tables and random generators I have have a bunch of stuff on them that, frankly, isn't obvious, isn't basic, is a bit weird and a bit interesting and so on. AI doesn't do weird and interesting generally - it does extremely predictable and obvious - even when asked not to! Usually the only times it does provide anything not incredibly predictable is when it screws up by virtue of basically being predictive text - i.e. "mermaid steak" when asked for random fantasy foods for a tavern in a human fantasy city - that is interestingly messed-up, but only because generative AI is totally mindless and thus doesn't understand "mermaid" as anything other than "a fantasy creature name".

I find that if anything, AI has kind of refreshed the appeal of d100 tables and so on, because it so obviously cannot really do as well as them.

(The one thing it can sometimes do surprisingly okay with it generating detailed backgrounds for less vital NPCs if you need those for some reason, but my experience is that it loves melodramatic or even histrionic backgrounds so much (presumably being trained on so many scripts has caused this) that it's still not much better than a jumping-off point.)

 

[The Firebird]

The issue here is that a well-designed d100 table can often be more creatively useful than generative AI.

The problem generative AI has is that it is profoundly unoriginal, and really, really prefers to go for the dumbest and most obvious tropes and concepts possible. All the best tables and random generators I have have a bunch of stuff on them that, frankly, isn't obvious, it's basic, is a bit weird and a bit interesting and so on. AI doesn't do weird and interesting generally - it does extremely predictable and obvious - even when asked not to! Usually the only times it does provide anything not incredibly predictable is when it screws up by virtue of basically being predictive text - i.e. "mermaid steak" when asked for random fantasy foods for a tavern in a human fantasy city - that is interestingly messed-up, but only because generative AI is totally mindless and thus doesn't understand "mermaid" as anything other than "a fantasy creature name".

I find that if anything, AI has kind of refreshed the appeal of d100 tables and so on, because it so obviously cannot really do as well as them.

(The one thing it can sometimes do surprisingly okay with it generating detailed backgrounds for less vital NPCs if you need those for some reason, but my experience is that it loves melodramatic or even histrionic backgrounds so much (presumably being trained on so many scripts has caused this) that it's still not much better than a jumping-off point.)

Yeah, I agree with this regarding the deficiencies of generative AI. The random tables definitely still have a place. The detailed NPC background is an important use case for me, especially because you can feed it some of your setting information and have it reflect that.

 

[Scribe]

With how the tech works right now, you can't offer it up as anything other than a subscription. Combine that with the staff cut backs they think it enables and it's every c suite executive's dream.

This is why the 'its just a tool' people are missing the point.

If it CAN be leveraged to ruin the experience, as long as it makes money, it will be.

Enshittification - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org