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."

 

[Bunch]

Ideally, once it gets to a certain threshold (100 employees? 200? A set monetary-valuation floor?) the only "shareholders" a company has should be those who actually work for that company.

It actually almost works the other way. Once you have too many shareholders as a private company you are forced to file accounting reports like 10ks and S1s etc even though you are private. At that point there's much less value in remaining a private company so most go public.

 

[Hussar]

Ultimately he's showing that either he doesn't have a common experience and/or he says false things about what experience he does have. A millionaire CEO is unlikely to ever really have an average person's experience given their position.

How do you figure that it's not common? Multiple people have said they regularly play with similar numbers - if your definition of "regular" isn't limited to "once a week". I mean, I've been gaming on VTT since 2002. I understand that I'm not exactly the most common of experiences. But, that doesn't mean that I'm lying when I say that in the first couple of years that I ran on VTT, I played with over 100 players.

Those first years getting a stable group together was PAINFUL. But, I'd be kinda annoyed if someone flat out said I was lying about it. I mean, I couldn't prove it anymore, those records and character sheets are long, long gone. But that was my experience of gaming.

And, again, Cock's is saying that of the people he regularly games with, they all use AI in some form or other. That's hardly a rare experience either. It's pretty much my experience. AI generated maps, character portraits, minis, and, heck, even a couple of towns or three when I was really pressed for time.

How is his experience so far beyond belief?

 

[Argyle King]

How do you figure that it's not common? Multiple people have said they regularly play with similar numbers - if your definition of "regular" isn't limited to "once a week". I mean, I've been gaming on VTT since 2002. I understand that I'm not exactly the most common of experiences. But, that doesn't mean that I'm lying when I say that in the first couple of years that I ran on VTT, I played with over 100 players.

Those first years getting a stable group together was PAINFUL. But, I'd be kinda annoyed if someone flat out said I was lying about it. I mean, I couldn't prove it anymore, those records and character sheets are long, long gone. But that was my experience of gaming.

And, again, Cock's is saying that of the people he regularly games with, they all use AI in some form or other. That's hardly a rare experience either. It's pretty much my experience. AI generated maps, character portraits, minis, and, heck, even a couple of towns or three when I was really pressed for time.

How is his experience so far beyond belief?

What is your personal definition of "regularly"?

 

[Dire Bare]

Regarding AI use by players and DMs, I ran a poll. Yes, I know, survey bias, but it's better than Chris Cocks's 30 imaginary friends.

Here were the results:

View attachment 380289

Also, Wolfgang Baur at Kobold Press had this to say:

Cock's 30 "imaginary friends"?

Come on Sly, you can be better than that.

It's very possible to game regularly with 30 folks or more, depending on how you structure your games and what is "regularly" for you. It doesn't have to be weekly, or even monthly.

Now, is Cock's anecdotal experience, regardless of sample size, meaningful? Not really.

But I am so tired of folks trying to call him out as a liar, just because his experience does not match theirs.

 

[Dire Bare]

No.

The difference is, I don't know. So, I don't know if I believe him or not, because I lack any evidence or any real reason to believe or disbelieve what he says. Which means I'll stay on the fence and not make a clear declaration either way because it's plausible that his definition of regular isn't your definition of regular.

I simply refuse to come to a strong opinion (I would have to be paid to believe him) without anything even remotely resembling evidence. So, yes, there is harm and foul. The world is a bad enough place without people deciding that other people are lying without having any actual reason to do so.

I believe Cock's when he says he games with 30-40 folks regularly. It's outside of my own experience, but . . . so what? I have zero reason to doubt that statement, so I take him at his word.

Now, the meaningfulness of his 30-40 friends mostly using some form of AI in their games . . . it's still a relatively small group and not representative of the larger community. And certainly not something that should be driving his decisions on how and when to implement the use of AI technologies in D&D.

 

[tetrasodium]

Cock's 30 "imaginary friends"?

Come on Sly, you can be better than that.

It's very possible to game regularly with 30 folks or more, depending on how you structure your games and what is "regularly" for you. It doesn't have to be weekly, or even monthly.

Now, is Cock's anecdotal experience, regardless of sample size, meaningful? Not really.

But I am so tired of folks trying to call him out as a liar, just because his experience does not match theirs.

I believe Cock's when he says he games with 30-40 folks regularly. It's outside of my own experience, but . . . so what? I have zero reason to doubt that statement, so I take him at his word.

Now, the meaningfulness of his 30-40 friends mostly using some form of AI in their games . . . it's still a relatively small group and not representative of the larger community. And certainly not something that should be driving his decisions on how and when to implement the use of AI technologies in D&D.

he did not use those words "game regularly with" or "games with" carry a very different & less personal level of interaction than the original quote.

It was in the OP, but here it is again

Spoiler

"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."

 

[Dire Bare]

he did not use those words "game regularly with" or "games with" carry a very different & less personal level of interaction than the original quote.

It was in the OP, but here it is again

Spoiler

"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."

Maybe I'm being dense, but . . . I fail to see how this is different from what I posted.

 

[cranberry]

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

Maybe I'm being dense, but . . . I fail to see how this is different from what I posted.

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.

 

[Hussar]

What is your personal definition of "regularly"?

Who cares? Why should my personal definition matter? I understand what he's saying. It's quite plausible. Who cares?

Nit picking someone's offhand comment made to a third party is not a game I particularly need to win at. He communicated his point and whether or not his personal definition of "regular" lines up with mine is such a pointless debate that it's not worth any time. The important takeaway here is that in his experience, players are using AI during the game. Now whether that experience is driving his decision making process is probably more important that spending endless time debating "what does regular mean".