A.I. DMs aren't a terrible idea, however I'm pretty damn sure that what ever A.I. WotC try's to give us wouldn't even be half as good as AI dungeon which itself couldn't replace a real quality DM. The reason why I don't think its not a terrible idea is because there is a DM shortage in 5e. though I have heard there's a player shortage in other rule sets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
the whole AI thing is a nothingburger. If it sucks, no one will use it. If it's good, then maybe that helps for people that cant find dm's or only want a one player experience, and that's at best. A better guess is that this may be a tool to help DM's, perhaps automate scripts or generate maps and fill in details.
my only concern would be if they are building a system that is reliant on an AI to run...then they kind of trap us into that.
Hells to the no, if I wanted to play a videogame I’d play a videogame. I play D&D because I want to play a real game. Playing a videogame is just playing with yourself.
I could see myself using an AI DM for my SO and I to play by ourselves between sessions of regular campaigns. I’ve tried games like Gloomhaven, but, between the scant actual roleplaying and over focus on mediocre and repetitive combat, I just could not get into that style of game. A competent AI DM that can truly engage in all aspects of D&D is certainly something I might give a shot.
Now, I also do not necessarily have confidence that an AI DM will ever truly be “competent”—there’s a lot that goes into good DMing that comes from reading facial expressions, tone of voice, conflict mitigation, external conversations with parties, being willing to abandon entire plans if they are not working, etc. that AI is not presently equipped to handle. I am not sure some of those problems can ever truly be handled by a computer - but I would be curious enough to at least give them a shot.
I'm highly skeptical that an AI DM could be anywhere near as creative as a good human DM. If it enforces you into a set of constrained paths you're basically playing a video game with lower production values at that point. If you allow the AI to try and be creative you're bound to end up with some nonsense, which might be entertaining in its own way like looking at the horrors AI art bots can unleash when you look at the art too closely, but not what I"m looking for in a story.
It might work for on the rails adventures with little room for creative problem solving, but that's about it.
There are dozens of monsters in this game I haven't even read, much less run. An AI could throw stuff at my group that we would never have even thought to try ourselves. Or test encounters under endless permutations - "what if Jim can't make it tomorrow, how should I adjust this fight to still be challenging but fair" / "what if the party arrives at night instead of during the day" / "what if that hobgoblin raises the alarm and reinforcements arrive" etc. Functionality like that would frankly be amazing for session prep.
There are dozens of monsters in this game I haven't even read, much less run. An AI could throw stuff at my group that we would never have even thought to try ourselves. Or test encounters under endless permutations - "what if Jim can't make it tomorrow, how should I adjust this fight to still be challenging but fair" / "what if the party arrives at night instead of during the day" / "what if that hobgoblin raises the alarm and reinforcements arrive" etc. Functionality like that would frankly be amazing for session prep.
Oh, an AI assistant could be great. Crunch numbers, pull up lore, even generate new descriptions that match the style of my old descriptions? I could see some utility in it, sure. But an actual AI DM? There's just no way that's ever gonna be good.
I mean, let's look at the example of play from the PHB, right? How is the AI going to know whether the Investigation skill applies, exactly? If it's running from a module, then the module hopefully has text saying "if they use Investigation on the gargoyles, ___." Okay, and what if it doesn't? I've encountered plenty of janky writing in my time. But let's go a little further.
The AI tells Philip, they look like decorations. But Philip isn't convinced. He wants to try provoking them by throwing rocks. The AI miraculously understands this improvised action and responds saying that the gargoyles don't move or react. But something about the way the AI said it, made Philip confused. He asks for clarification. Can the AI restate its info in a new way? Can it do so without actually changing the info? In my experience, AI can't do that consistently. It would say, the gargoyles curl up and refuse to move. Well that's quite different actually!
Let's say that Philip bugs the AI for a long time about this. At what point does the AI stop enabling him to dominate the play experience? When does it ask another player for input or something? For that matter, how does it know if anyone's bothered? How does it know if you're having fun, and to what degree is it enabled to change what it's doing, to try to ensure you are?
And at what point do the players stop playing as if they have a DM, and start trying to play the AI? Give it weird inputs, mess with it, try to produce particular outcomes? This seems an inevitability to me, and fundamentally transforms the game.
Finally, you know, what does this do to other, non-AI games? We've seen the effects of Skyrim on players' understanding of NPCs, skills, and stealth; we've seen the effects Critical Role can have on how players approach character backstory and shopping; you know, everything has an impact somewhere. Are we cool with whatever comes out of this? Players sticking to whatever questions and actions yield the best results from the computer?
Seems like a bust to me. And that's not even touching on the human element, like, you know, I actually like my DMs and appreciate them? And I don't actually need their material to be top tier, because it's their creative output, and it's also somewhat tailored to my personal tastes as well, and there's dynamics of irony and sarcasm, joy and sadness, annoyance, fascination, humor..?
Also, how am I supposed to bribe the AI with pizza?
Given the possible scope of a D&D game you're talking about development of something approaching a general purpose AI. If anyone at Hasbro was that good at AI development they'd already have left and made hundreds of billions manipulating stocks and having the AI research new inventions. At best you'll get a turn based video game and a chat bot that will have a set list of responses it spits out that are curated by WotC based on keywords in your text inputs.
Why play A.I. D&D? I have the Baldur's Gate games. As well as Neverwinter NIghts, I also have the Shadowrun RPG games. These games will do a much better game "DMing" a session for at least many years!
There are dozens of monsters in this game I haven't even read, much less run. An AI could throw stuff at my group that we would never have even thought to try ourselves. Or test encounters under endless permutations - "what if Jim can't make it tomorrow, how should I adjust this fight to still be challenging but fair" / "what if the party arrives at night instead of during the day" / "what if that hobgoblin raises the alarm and reinforcements arrive" etc. Functionality like that would frankly be amazing for session prep.
Oh, an AI assistant could be great. Crunch numbers, pull up lore, even generate new descriptions that match the style of my old descriptions? I could see some utility in it, sure. But an actual AI DM? There's just no way that's ever gonna be good.
I mean, let's look at the example of play from the PHB, right? How is the AI going to know whether the Investigation skill applies, exactly? If it's running from a module, then the module hopefully has text saying "if they use Investigation on the gargoyles, ___." Okay, and what if it doesn't? I've encountered plenty of janky writing in my time. But let's go a little further.
The AI tells Philip, they look like decorations. But Philip isn't convinced. He wants to try provoking them by throwing rocks. The AI miraculously understands this improvised action and responds saying that the gargoyles don't move or react. But something about the way the AI said it, made Philip confused. He asks for clarification. Can the AI restate its info in a new way? Can it do so without actually changing the info? In my experience, AI can't do that consistently. It would say, the gargoyles curl up and refuse to move. Well that's quite different actually!
Let's say that Philip bugs the AI for a long time about this. At what point does the AI stop enabling him to dominate the play experience? When does it ask another player for input or something? For that matter, how does it know if anyone's bothered? How does it know if you're having fun, and to what degree is it enabled to change what it's doing, to try to ensure you are?
And at what point do the players stop playing as if they have a DM, and start trying to play the AI? Give it weird inputs, mess with it, try to produce particular outcomes? This seems an inevitability to me, and fundamentally transforms the game.
Finally, you know, what does this do to other, non-AI games? We've seen the effects of Skyrim on players' understanding of NPCs, skills, and stealth; we've seen the effects Critical Role can have on how players approach character backstory and shopping; you know, everything has an impact somewhere. Are we cool with whatever comes out of this? Players sticking to whatever questions and actions yield the best results from the computer?
Seems like a bust to me. And that's not even touching on the human element, like, you know, I actually like my DMs and appreciate them? And I don't actually need their material to be top tier, because it's their creative output, and it's also somewhat tailored to my personal tastes as well, and there's dynamics of irony and sarcasm, joy and sadness, annoyance, fascination, humor..?
Also, how am I supposed to bribe the AI with pizza?
I agree it wouldn't work well for games with an involved social or exploration pillar - but not all playgroups are necessarily looking for that from an AI yet. And hell, even a construct that only runs the combat pillar would still be a huge cognitive burden off the DM for many tables.
Given that the strategic AI of the game running the opposition is almost always the weakest link of a CRPG (or even tactical games), I have my doubts about an AI being able to replace a GM even for the combat aspect of the game.
The closest D&D video game adaptation that followed correct and nearly exact adherence gameplay from the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide was 'Temple of Elemental Evil'.
'Baldur's Gate I & II' in all of its classic cRPG magnificence couldn't even do this considering the gameplay was closer to a real-time strategy game in comparison.
...but what if there was a technical way to emulate a scaled down HTML multiplayer version in the spirit of 'Temple of Elemental Evil' using the D&D Beyond toolset and 5th edition ruleset?
The fun of D&D is playing with my friends. Watching how the DM friend plans encounters, plays characters, and navigates rules and such is half the fun. If they release an AI, I could see me and a group of friends trying it out for sh*ts and giggles, especially if our usual campaign is paused for any reason, but I cant imagine it ever being our "go to" way of playing, regardless of how sophisticated the AI actually is
Weirdly enough, I think for my group I would prefer a janky AI to a sophisticated one, because watching its fumbles will add some entertainment to the night. Kinda like the fun of playing with a text-to-speech generating bot
Given that the strategic AI of the game running the opposition is almost always the weakest link of a CRPG (or even tactical games), I have my doubts about an AI being able to replace a GM even for the combat aspect of the game.
I have doubts too - but if everyone refuses to even try, how will the tech get any better? This to me would be like if in the early 2000s we all said "Printing out Mapquest directions is as good as things will ever get; real-time turn by turn navigation for every driver on the road is far too complex a problem to solve, we should give up on that pipe dream."
Given that the strategic AI of the game running the opposition is almost always the weakest link of a CRPG (or even tactical games), I have my doubts about an AI being able to replace a GM even for the combat aspect of the game.
I have doubts too - but if everyone refuses to even try, how will the tech get any better? This to me would be like if in the early 2000s we all said "Printing out Mapquest directions is as good as things will ever get; real-time turn by turn navigation for every driver on the road is far too complex a problem to solve, we should give up on that pipe dream."
I, for one, welcome the neural net learning from my encounters. Walk into an AI generated room, and watch as the table, rug, candelabras, chair, sofa, footrest, piano, bookshelves, books, etc. all try to eat the party.
After all, if the AI can’t be trained to make folks afraid that everything might be a Mimic, is it really DMing?
Given that the strategic AI of the game running the opposition is almost always the weakest link of a CRPG (or even tactical games), I have my doubts about an AI being able to replace a GM even for the combat aspect of the game.
I have doubts too - but if everyone refuses to even try, how will the tech get any better? This to me would be like if in the early 2000s we all said "Printing out Mapquest directions is as good as things will ever get; real-time turn by turn navigation for every driver on the road is far too complex a problem to solve, we should give up on that pipe dream."
It's debatable whether everyone wants the tech to get better.
You're going to find it's a hot debate about whether the social elements of DnD should be limited or reduced, or whether this sort of enterprise is best left to explicit video games.
I dont hate the idea of AI powered GM aids, but even that gets into murky, ethically dubious territory when you start looking at what you'd have to train them on.
A.I. DMs aren't a terrible idea, however I'm pretty damn sure that what ever A.I. WotC try's to give us wouldn't even be half as good as AI dungeon which itself couldn't replace a real quality DM. The reason why I don't think its not a terrible idea is because there is a DM shortage in 5e. though I have heard there's a player shortage in other rule sets.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
You know what they call an A.I. trrying to run a game?
A video game.
If I want to play video games I'll play video games. I have zero interest in an A.I. clumsily failing to run even the simplest of D&D games.
Please do not contact or message me.
the whole AI thing is a nothingburger. If it sucks, no one will use it. If it's good, then maybe that helps for people that cant find dm's or only want a one player experience, and that's at best. A better guess is that this may be a tool to help DM's, perhaps automate scripts or generate maps and fill in details.
my only concern would be if they are building a system that is reliant on an AI to run...then they kind of trap us into that.
Hells to the no, if I wanted to play a videogame I’d play a videogame. I play D&D because I want to play a real game. Playing a videogame is just playing with yourself.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I could see myself using an AI DM for my SO and I to play by ourselves between sessions of regular campaigns. I’ve tried games like Gloomhaven, but, between the scant actual roleplaying and over focus on mediocre and repetitive combat, I just could not get into that style of game. A competent AI DM that can truly engage in all aspects of D&D is certainly something I might give a shot.
Now, I also do not necessarily have confidence that an AI DM will ever truly be “competent”—there’s a lot that goes into good DMing that comes from reading facial expressions, tone of voice, conflict mitigation, external conversations with parties, being willing to abandon entire plans if they are not working, etc. that AI is not presently equipped to handle. I am not sure some of those problems can ever truly be handled by a computer - but I would be curious enough to at least give them a shot.
I'm highly skeptical that an AI DM could be anywhere near as creative as a good human DM. If it enforces you into a set of constrained paths you're basically playing a video game with lower production values at that point. If you allow the AI to try and be creative you're bound to end up with some nonsense, which might be entertaining in its own way like looking at the horrors AI art bots can unleash when you look at the art too closely, but not what I"m looking for in a story.
It might work for on the rails adventures with little room for creative problem solving, but that's about it.
There are dozens of monsters in this game I haven't even read, much less run. An AI could throw stuff at my group that we would never have even thought to try ourselves. Or test encounters under endless permutations - "what if Jim can't make it tomorrow, how should I adjust this fight to still be challenging but fair" / "what if the party arrives at night instead of during the day" / "what if that hobgoblin raises the alarm and reinforcements arrive" etc. Functionality like that would frankly be amazing for session prep.
Oh, an AI assistant could be great. Crunch numbers, pull up lore, even generate new descriptions that match the style of my old descriptions? I could see some utility in it, sure. But an actual AI DM? There's just no way that's ever gonna be good.
I mean, let's look at the example of play from the PHB, right? How is the AI going to know whether the Investigation skill applies, exactly? If it's running from a module, then the module hopefully has text saying "if they use Investigation on the gargoyles, ___." Okay, and what if it doesn't? I've encountered plenty of janky writing in my time. But let's go a little further.
The AI tells Philip, they look like decorations. But Philip isn't convinced. He wants to try provoking them by throwing rocks. The AI miraculously understands this improvised action and responds saying that the gargoyles don't move or react. But something about the way the AI said it, made Philip confused. He asks for clarification. Can the AI restate its info in a new way? Can it do so without actually changing the info? In my experience, AI can't do that consistently. It would say, the gargoyles curl up and refuse to move. Well that's quite different actually!
Let's say that Philip bugs the AI for a long time about this. At what point does the AI stop enabling him to dominate the play experience? When does it ask another player for input or something? For that matter, how does it know if anyone's bothered? How does it know if you're having fun, and to what degree is it enabled to change what it's doing, to try to ensure you are?
And at what point do the players stop playing as if they have a DM, and start trying to play the AI? Give it weird inputs, mess with it, try to produce particular outcomes? This seems an inevitability to me, and fundamentally transforms the game.
Finally, you know, what does this do to other, non-AI games? We've seen the effects of Skyrim on players' understanding of NPCs, skills, and stealth; we've seen the effects Critical Role can have on how players approach character backstory and shopping; you know, everything has an impact somewhere. Are we cool with whatever comes out of this? Players sticking to whatever questions and actions yield the best results from the computer?
Seems like a bust to me. And that's not even touching on the human element, like, you know, I actually like my DMs and appreciate them? And I don't actually need their material to be top tier, because it's their creative output, and it's also somewhat tailored to my personal tastes as well, and there's dynamics of irony and sarcasm, joy and sadness, annoyance, fascination, humor..?
Also, how am I supposed to bribe the AI with pizza?
Given the possible scope of a D&D game you're talking about development of something approaching a general purpose AI. If anyone at Hasbro was that good at AI development they'd already have left and made hundreds of billions manipulating stocks and having the AI research new inventions. At best you'll get a turn based video game and a chat bot that will have a set list of responses it spits out that are curated by WotC based on keywords in your text inputs.
Why play A.I. D&D? I have the Baldur's Gate games. As well as Neverwinter NIghts, I also have the Shadowrun RPG games. These games will do a much better game "DMing" a session for at least many years!
I agree it wouldn't work well for games with an involved social or exploration pillar - but not all playgroups are necessarily looking for that from an AI yet. And hell, even a construct that only runs the combat pillar would still be a huge cognitive burden off the DM for many tables.
Given that the strategic AI of the game running the opposition is almost always the weakest link of a CRPG (or even tactical games), I have my doubts about an AI being able to replace a GM even for the combat aspect of the game.
re: A.I. DM on D&D Beyond
Anything is possible, if done the correct way.
The closest D&D video game adaptation that followed correct and nearly exact adherence gameplay from the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide was 'Temple of Elemental Evil'.
'Baldur's Gate I & II' in all of its classic cRPG magnificence couldn't even do this considering the gameplay was closer to a real-time strategy game in comparison.
...but what if there was a technical way to emulate a scaled down HTML multiplayer version in the spirit of 'Temple of Elemental Evil' using the D&D Beyond toolset and 5th edition ruleset?
The fun of D&D is playing with my friends. Watching how the DM friend plans encounters, plays characters, and navigates rules and such is half the fun. If they release an AI, I could see me and a group of friends trying it out for sh*ts and giggles, especially if our usual campaign is paused for any reason, but I cant imagine it ever being our "go to" way of playing, regardless of how sophisticated the AI actually is
Weirdly enough, I think for my group I would prefer a janky AI to a sophisticated one, because watching its fumbles will add some entertainment to the night. Kinda like the fun of playing with a text-to-speech generating bot
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I have doubts too - but if everyone refuses to even try, how will the tech get any better? This to me would be like if in the early 2000s we all said "Printing out Mapquest directions is as good as things will ever get; real-time turn by turn navigation for every driver on the road is far too complex a problem to solve, we should give up on that pipe dream."
i think i'd quite enjoy DMing for a few quality AI. i'd at the very least enjoy a mock session zero to test the waters.
...but, is there a slider to dial in the right amount of recent anime they've watched? maybe choose their favorite LotR characters?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I, for one, welcome the neural net learning from my encounters. Walk into an AI generated room, and watch as the table, rug, candelabras, chair, sofa, footrest, piano, bookshelves, books, etc. all try to eat the party.
After all, if the AI can’t be trained to make folks afraid that everything might be a Mimic, is it really DMing?
It's debatable whether everyone wants the tech to get better.
You're going to find it's a hot debate about whether the social elements of DnD should be limited or reduced, or whether this sort of enterprise is best left to explicit video games.
I dont hate the idea of AI powered GM aids, but even that gets into murky, ethically dubious territory when you start looking at what you'd have to train them on.
How about we subvert expectations and get some AI players. I can think of a few sessions I wouldn't have minded that option.
Hah, that would probably actually be a lot easier to do.