Search results

Oh I love this topic! I leave a lot of my worlds as blank spaces on the map, and the lore tends to build organically based on what characters explore and what they're interested in. But small details definitely make the world seem more lived-in and can lead to higher player engagement. When...

In this case you would have to call them Draconic Red Draconic Blue Etc. The problem is that the term "draconic" is modifying the noun Red. A "Red" is not a creature as defined in D&D. You could create a monster book based around colors being kinds of monsters, which would be interesting...

Which are you using?

This is now completely off topic, but it's something I think about a lot! I love to write stories... If no one ever reads them have I actually created art? If Van Gogh's paintings never reached public appreciation, would he have still been a genius artist? It's an interesting thought experiment...

But in terms of the data we can actually use in this discussion, it's really the only valid numbers we have. We can ask all sorts of rhetorical questions or go questing into possible futures, but the whole point of this thread is to see if this specific population would purchase AI art from WotC.

Oh I completely agree that the witnessing of art is as important as the production of it and has its own, separate, value. However in the discussion of AI, it's those who create art who are being devalued, not the consumers.

It's a small sample size about a very specific hobby, but the poll in the OP currently shows about 75% or participants would not support products by WotC that are generated with AI.

Here are some weird things AI could never make: Sure you could type a million prompts into AI, you could ask it to recreate something in the style of X or in the voice of Y, but the reason AI could never create it is because all these are creations based on the lived experiences...

Luckily none of us here are mandated by our companies to purchase products from a hypothetical future WotC that are made with AI!

I honestly don't think we know enough about the science of human creativity to support a statement like that.

I am 100% positive all those images can be, and in fact have been, imagined and created by humans before. You've got a variation of Mona Lisa (done a million times before), Wheelers from Return to Oz and a baked good in the form of an animal, which people have been making since baking began. I...

Also the word wizard has both A and I in it, so technically the PHB already has AI in it! We've all been fooled!

Vote with our dollars? Support businesses that pay creators? Create stuff ourselves? I choose not to use social media (other than EN World), and despite its proliferation into every aspect of life I still survive. I choose to not buy things from Amazon and instead spend as locally as possible...

I would have no interest in purchasing that. If it was AI using the work of others, I consider that plagiarism. If it was AI using their own materials, then it feels to me like they are selling reheated leftovers instead of something new.

Take a break.

That's a great answer from Ed Greenwood. I love the idea of the transformation of self-shape being something that's ingrained in Drow culture. Ed's take just feels very "Drow."

Maybe you need to put things more in the way of the characters' progress, rather than having options available? Would they have been more interested in the fey if they needed the help of a skilled smithy who was now charmed and tortured by a fey? Or if they could cross a bridge over a gorge...