D&D General AI Art for D&D: Experiments

I asked Gemini to suggest (in writing) four concepts for a cover for the latest Eberron book. I selected one of the concepts and asked it to render the image. Here is the first iteration it returned, with no adjustments by me:

Gemini_Generated_Image_bqu777bqu777bqu7.png


Is it Game Over?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I asked Gemini to suggest (in writing) four concepts for a cover for the latest Eberron book. I selected one of the concepts and asked it to render the image. Here is the first iteration it returned, with no adjustments by me:

View attachment 424623

Is it Game Over?
It's pretty good, but what is that warforged in the background doing? I'm also wondering exactly how the artificer is hammering the item when she isn't supporting it on the anvil. But I do think that this could be fixed with a few iterations.

That magical dragon image looks cool.
 



And it relies on the fallacy that her ability to do art was somehow removed by the existence of generative AI. I am pretty convinced that she can still pick up a pencil and draw. A nice way to see this comment is a lament that robots are improving at a slower pace than software, and we till lack AI drone able to identify used clothes, pick them up and put them in the washing machine. It would be a welcome development, too, but I am not certain it would be cost-efficient enough to become a popular household appliance.

Edit: And, to stay on topic,

View attachment 424610
D&D spell illustration challenge: contrary to popular belief, Feather Fall doesn't protect from falling damage. It negates a fall of up to 20m, with a 21m drop causing full damage. Adventurers are certainly incuring a tremendous acceleration on that last few centimers.

Edit2 : a 61 ft fall would result in 60ft of leisurely fall, then over the course of 1ft, a 20g acceleration (potentially lethal by itself) followed by the shock with the ground. Magic is tough.
Here's my problem with all of this in general:

On first glance, this is a totally fine image. But any amount of actual consideration reveals all of its inhuman flaws.

GenAI art is bad.still. This many years later. You just have to look.
 


Here's my problem with all of this in general:

On first glance, this is a totally fine image. But any amount of actual consideration reveals all of its inhuman flaws.

GenAI art is bad.still. This many years later. You just have to look.

It is, but have we reached a point, or are we close, where the majority of consumers don't or won't notice or care?

It doesn't need to be perfect to be good enough for the unwashed masses.
 




Remove ads

Top