But when Hasbro's CEO says they are "all in on digital" moving forward you can't blame people for wondering whether we might be seeing the last print edition of D&D.
They'll stop making print D&D when we stop buying it. Instead of useless handwringing about the sky falling any day now, keep buying books.
After the first Baldur's Gate videogame when I saw the rules of the 3rd Ed I suspected a serious and hard influence by the videogames, as if the intention was the rules were easier to be adapted to videogames.
Other point is the youngest generations of new players now are too used to the concepts and terminologies from videogames. If this helps new players to understar faster the rules..
This is a chicken-egg problem; there were a slew of D&D video games before Baldurs Gate ever existed. (Gold Box anyone? Ultima?) Hell, the first Final Fantasy was essentially D&D, right down to having spell slots. The point is that the two media have been influencing one another since the idea of CRPGs began. This is not some new thing or deleterious trend. (Not saying that you're one of the people saying it is, just using your post to illustrate.)
They'll stop making print D&D when we stop buying it. Instead of useless handwringing about the sky falling any day now, keep buying books.
... because disregarding people's concerns or accusing them of spreading rumors has had such a great history in the past eighteen months. How many more times do you wish to be proven wrong? Infinite are those times I suppose when it's hard to admit to ever having been wrong. And let's not pretend you aren't partial to be a bit of doomsaying yourself.
People who complain about weapon swapping never seem to be very clear on the rules for weapon swapping. Lots of reddit doomsaying and very little reading of the actual released material.
But when Hasbro's CEO says they are "all in on digital" moving forward you can't blame people for wondering whether we might be seeing the last print edition of D&D.
They'll stop making print D&D when we stop buying it. Instead of useless handwringing about the sky falling any day now, keep buying books.
After the first Baldur's Gate videogame when I saw the rules of the 3rd Ed I suspected a serious and hard influence by the videogames, as if the intention was the rules were easier to be adapted to videogames.
Other point is the youngest generations of new players now are too used to the concepts and terminologies from videogames. If this helps new players to understar faster the rules..
This is a chicken-egg problem; there were a slew of D&D video games before Baldurs Gate ever existed. (Gold Box anyone? Ultima?) Hell, the first Final Fantasy was essentially D&D, right down to having spell slots. The point is that the two media have been influencing one another since the idea of CRPGs began. This is not some new thing or deleterious trend. (Not saying that you're one of the people saying it is, just using your post to illustrate.)
Per the last couple of years here on DDB wizbro will do WTF they want, and to heck with the player base that doesn't want it! As for your references, plenty of other companies doing the work including Larian on the latest though not the only example, it is easy to license an IP, way harder to keep people interested when the work falls on the holders shoulders! Not everyone( and a small % in my estimation plays AL games) but you do you and we will do us!
One of the main reason that D&D starts to look like video games and appears to have video game logic is because D&D, the pencil and paper version has been the template for making RPG's for decades, it quite literally defined what video game RPG's should look like. Its not that TTRPG D&D looks like its designed to emulate a video game, its that video games are being designed to emulate TTRPG D&D.
Now over the last couple of editions of the game, we have certainly seen TTRPG D&D being influenced by PC game RPG design, so there has been some reversal you could say, but to a certain extent this is just a natural part of industry mixing because you will very rarely find anyone in the PC game development and design community making RPG's that don't also play TTRPG's or have some history with it. Like, these are the same people from the same gaming backgrounds and they are crossing over in both directions, PC game designers become TTRPG designers and vice versus, it happens all the time. I mean hell look at Draw Steel by MCDM, these are all PC game designers now making an TTRPG.
Point is that, in a way, PC RPG's and TTRPG's are part of the same design DNA, they are both trying to effectively achieve the same thing.. fun gameplay, great stories, the feeling of control and they are being designed by the same people on both sides. So the fact that they are sort of cross-pollinating is simply a very natural evolution, I don't think you could stop even if you consciously tried.
One thing I can say is that 2024 edition of D&D will be much easier to convert into a PC game than previous versions. We are definitely seeing a return to more gamified role-playing with this edition which is a shame, 5e was definitely heading in the right direction, coming very close to becoming a true storyteller system as it once was back in the day.
That said, its also becoming a much more modular system and I think we are going to see a lot of really great house rules and re-designs of the game, especially with the way the licensing of 3rd party products works now. I actually think the 2024 edition of the game, inadvertently will open the door to a lot of other, more focused RPG designs and may just spark an entirely new golden age of RPG's by the nature of it being gamified and legally wide open.
Games like DC20, Tales of Valor, Daggerheart, Draw Steel and Shadowdark are just the beginning of what is coming to modern TTRPG's. These are like the initial "tests" to see how flexible modern gamers are to trying out other things. If it turns out that these games are good and actually give D&D a run for its money, than there is hope for D&D.
I truly believe one of the only issues with modern D&D is that the people playing the game today, don't actually like D&D, its just the only game they know right now. Modern gamers I believe are a fickle bunch and will abandon D&D in mass the way people abandon MMORPG's and the people that will remain are going to be long time D&D fans. Those people are going to turn back the clock and D&D will go back to looking more like original 5e than what we have right now with 2024.
Almost every video game let's people swap weapons and carry unlimited items. Players are finding a pain point when they come to D&D and discover that it doesn't work here.
OSP has an interesting video about cell phones. And how in fantasy and sci-fi settings we have a need to include things like phones into stories because we can't image a world without them.
D&D is the same including spells and abilities that meet player expectations of what they expect they can do in a game. Phones represented with sending and message and several other items that let you call or text. I see similar with meeting the tropes established in decades of Zelda, and Witcher, and Skyrim, etc.
I don't spend much time handwringing about this. D&D (and other TTRPGs) have to balance how much they try to tie you to the digital tools. Too much, and people remember they don't need any of it and can just roll up characters on a piece of paper or someone's home built spreadsheet. There are also many good VTTs out there and you cant copywrite rules, only the text itself.
For me, I might sometimes use the VTT and sometimes not. It depends on how tactical the group wants to be. The digital tools are great for making characters but not the only place to do so. Most of the time I prefer no maps and just descriptive play. No shame in Hasbro trying to make a buck. If I don't like it, I just grab a different fantasy system off the shelf.
The ceo's discussion with Goldman Sachs this week confirmed that wotc is implementing AI throughout the game. Yes, D&D is going to be a video game. There is Monopoly Go, and there will be D&D Go, and as separate game as an AI built into the VTT = video game. It will take some time.
The CEO of Hasbro did not, of course, say they were making an AI video game. They were saying they might use AI for some of their content generation - likely playtesting at a scale humans never could, since they’ve been clear they want a human hand on the main design. They also indicated they want to make optional tools for assisting DMs (likely map and encounter design and such - things experienced DMs can do easily, but new DMs or DMs who don’t enjoy that aspect of game design do not feel like doing) and artistic tools.
And that is it. This is a preliminary exploration of tools that are increasingly becoming our new norm. Tools you either explore or risk being left in the dust.
And, who knows, this very well could make the game better - even for pen and paper players. Increased Playtesting with AI could help them better balance things like CR. Generative AI for other aspects of D&D both already exist and can help reduce the longstanding DM shortage.
That said, he really should have come out with more information than simple musing - he should have come out with an actual statement on what they are or are not considering. He should very well know that AI is scary and he has a community prone to seeing little information as ironclad proof of whatever imagined disaster they are making up. He should know that trolls on their inexplicably long-lived alternate accounts (including ones obviously made to circumvent bans) are going to take to the D&D Beyond forums to try and spin this lack of information into a conspiracy.
Once again, a small issue like “we’re looking into things, nothing really decided” is likely will be bigger than it is thanks to Wizards’ bad PR and the dedicated trolls who always manage to beat Wizards to the punch.
But when Hasbro's CEO says they are "all in on digital" moving forward you can't blame people for wondering whether we might be seeing the last print edition of D&D.
They'll stop making print D&D when we stop buying it. Instead of useless handwringing about the sky falling any day now, keep buying books.
After the first Baldur's Gate videogame when I saw the rules of the 3rd Ed I suspected a serious and hard influence by the videogames, as if the intention was the rules were easier to be adapted to videogames.
Other point is the youngest generations of new players now are too used to the concepts and terminologies from videogames. If this helps new players to understar faster the rules..
This is a chicken-egg problem; there were a slew of D&D video games before Baldurs Gate ever existed. (Gold Box anyone? Ultima?) Hell, the first Final Fantasy was essentially D&D, right down to having spell slots. The point is that the two media have been influencing one another since the idea of CRPGs began. This is not some new thing or deleterious trend. (Not saying that you're one of the people saying it is, just using your post to illustrate.)
Pretty much. I remember when those gold box games first came out. I loved that I could bring my D&D characters to life in a video game. And when the first Neverwinter Nights (AOL version) came out? OMG! I almost had a heartattack because it was something I always wanted. To be able to play with 100s of other players in a online D&D game. It was a dream come true. And then when Bioware came out with their version of Neverwinter Nights. I was in heaven. One thing I was hoping with BG3 was that they would have made it that you could create persistent worlds like Bioware's NWN and play with 100s of people with the 5e rules. I was disappointed that it won't happen with them. But I hope somebody does make a 5e online persistent world or an MMO.
But to the OP, I believe that D&D is being influenced by video games to a certain extent. It's the natural progression of things. Those CRPGs were directly influenced by D&D. As somebody said above, it's only natural that D&D borrows some elements from CRPGs. And I don't think it's a bad thing. BG3 made some rules that made 5e better that I think should be implemented into D&D. Again, I don't see it as a bad thing.
There is no possible way generative AI is going to be in a position to effectively create and run a campaign anytime within the foreseeable future WotC is making plans for. This whole "DMs are going to be replaced by computers" bit just comes from people who hear the term "AI" thrown around and assume it must be like what they see in sci-fi media and the reactionary "AI bad" bloc coming up with boogeyman scenarios for why AI will ruin all kinds of things. At best, you could maybe create a more advanced equivalent of a visual novel/roguelike that attempts to respond more organically to dialogue inputs while the plot itself remains firmly on rails, but afaik there is no current AI system that is capable of thinking critically or synthesizing original concepts. Ergo, there is no AI that can create or manage a coherent narrative on an ongoing basis or truly adjudicate "can I try this" requests from players. And that sets aside getting AI to learn to run the hard mechanics effectively; I've yet to see a card game video game where the AI doesn't have some notable blind spots in how it plays or manages to screw up its own strategies. That doesn't give me any faith that creating a program that can effectively run a system that's at least an order of magnitude more complex is anywhere near the horizon.
But when Hasbro's CEO says they are "all in on digital" moving forward you can't blame people for wondering whether we might be seeing the last print edition of D&D.
They'll stop making print D&D when we stop buying it. Instead of useless handwringing about the sky falling any day now, keep buying books.
After the first Baldur's Gate videogame when I saw the rules of the 3rd Ed I suspected a serious and hard influence by the videogames, as if the intention was the rules were easier to be adapted to videogames.
Other point is the youngest generations of new players now are too used to the concepts and terminologies from videogames. If this helps new players to understar faster the rules..
This is a chicken-egg problem; there were a slew of D&D video games before Baldurs Gate ever existed. (Gold Box anyone? Ultima?) Hell, the first Final Fantasy was essentially D&D, right down to having spell slots. The point is that the two media have been influencing one another since the idea of CRPGs began. This is not some new thing or deleterious trend. (Not saying that you're one of the people saying it is, just using your post to illustrate.)
Pretty much. I remember when those gold box games first came out. I loved that I could bring my D&D characters to life in a video game. And when the first Neverwinter Nights (AOL version) came out? OMG! I almost had a heartattack because it was something I always wanted. To be able to play with 100s of other players in a online D&D game. It was a dream come true. And then when Bioware came out with their version of Neverwinter Nights. I was in heaven. One thing I was hoping with BG3 was that they would have made it that you could create persistent worlds like Bioware's NWN and play with 100s of people with the 5e rules. I was disappointed that it won't happen with them. But I hope somebody does make a 5e online persistent world or an MMO.
But to the OP, I believe that D&D is being influenced by video games to a certain extent. It's the natural progression of things. Those CRPGs were directly influenced by D&D. As somebody said above, it's only natural that D&D borrows some elements from CRPGs. And I don't think it's a bad thing. BG3 made some rules that made 5e better that I think should be implemented into D&D. Again, I don't see it as a bad thing.
And you are the consumer that wotc decision-makers are targeting: Those that want to play a video game.
If your reply is implying that all I want to do is play a video game? Then you are dead worng about that. I've been playing D&D since '86. I love table-top just as much as I do CRPGs. I also play Battletech, which I've been playing since '89. I love Mechwarrior just as much as I do the tabletop becasue it allows me to get into my favorite mechs and actually live out that fantasy. What is wrong with liking both?
There is no possible way generative AI is going to be in a position to effectively create and run a campaign anytime within the foreseeable future WotC is making plans for. This whole "DMs are going to be replaced by computers" bit just comes from people who hear the term "AI" thrown around and assume it must be like what they see in sci-fi media and the reactionary "AI bad" bloc coming up with boogeyman scenarios for why AI will ruin all kinds of things. At best, you could maybe create a more advanced equivalent of a visual novel/roguelike that attempts to respond more organically to dialogue inputs while the plot itself remains firmly on rails, but afaik there is no current AI system that is capable of thinking critically or synthesizing original concepts. Ergo, there is no AI that can create or manage a coherent narrative on an ongoing basis or truly adjudicate "can I try this" requests from players. And that sets aside getting AI to learn to run the hard mechanics effectively; I've yet to see a card game video game where the AI doesn't have some notable blind spots in how it plays or manages to screw up its own strategies. That doesn't give me any faith that creating a program that can effectively run a system that's at least an order of magnitude more complex is anywhere near the horizon.
Someone else said it best when they said—and I paraphrase—generative AI grants the wealthy access to skills while simultaneously limiting the skilled's access to wealth. It is a capitalist dream come true. You can call this "reactionary" if it pleases you. Or you could actually go and read cogent critiques of the technology and its use and what that will spell for many creatives whose lives and livelihoods depend on their being paid for their craft and not having their work harvested and taken apart and appropriated by people who only care about their profit margins.
The ceo's discussion with Goldman Sachs this week confirmed that wotc is implementing AI throughout the game. Yes, D&D is going to be a video game. There is Monopoly Go, and there will be D&D Go, and as separate game as an AI built into the VTT = video game. It will take some time.
The CEO of Hasbro did not, of course, say they were making an AI video game. They were saying they might use AI for some of their content generation - likely playtesting at a scale humans never could, since they’ve been clear they want a human hand on the main design. They also indicated they want to make optional tools for assisting DMs (likely map and encounter design and such - things experienced DMs can do easily, but new DMs or DMs who don’t enjoy that aspect of game design do not feel like doing) and artistic tools.
And that is it. This is a preliminary exploration of tools that are increasingly becoming our new norm. Tools you either explore or risk being left in the dust.
And, who knows, this very well could make the game better - even for pen and paper players. Increased Playtesting with AI could help them better balance things like CR. Generative AI for other aspects of D&D both already exist and can help reduce the longstanding DM shortage.
Both of these are very, very, unlikely to work. Generative AI cannot, and likely never will be able to, do the things that are being claimed for it. It also has other ethical (mass copyright violation, destroying the market for creative work) and practical (hideously expensive to train and run) problems that are unlikely to get better.
That said, he really should have come out with more information than simple musing - he should have come out with an actual statement on what they are or are not considering. He should very well know that AI is scary and he has a community prone to seeing little information as ironclad proof of whatever imagined disaster they are making up. He should know that trolls on their inexplicably long-lived alternate accounts (including ones obviously made to circumvent bans) are going to take to the D&D Beyond forums to try and spin this lack of information into a conspiracy.
He can't do that, because there's no way anything they're poking at works. If he knows what's up, "we're looking into AI" is mostly to juice the stock, while they see if there's anything it's good for in their process. If he doesn't, he's just told subordinates to add AI to things, and the fact that it doesn't work is their problem. But "we're looking into it" is a safe thing to say, especially since the ever-popular "we're going to use it to cut headcount" probably will get a bad reaction from their customers.
There is no possible way generative AI is going to be in a position to effectively create and run a campaign anytime within the foreseeable future WotC is making plans for. This whole "DMs are going to be replaced by computers" bit just comes from people who hear the term "AI" thrown around and assume it must be like what they see in sci-fi media and the reactionary "AI bad" bloc coming up with boogeyman scenarios for why AI will ruin all kinds of things. At best, you could maybe create a more advanced equivalent of a visual novel/roguelike that attempts to respond more organically to dialogue inputs while the plot itself remains firmly on rails, but afaik there is no current AI system that is capable of thinking critically or synthesizing original concepts. Ergo, there is no AI that can create or manage a coherent narrative on an ongoing basis or truly adjudicate "can I try this" requests from players. And that sets aside getting AI to learn to run the hard mechanics effectively; I've yet to see a card game video game where the AI doesn't have some notable blind spots in how it plays or manages to screw up its own strategies. That doesn't give me any faith that creating a program that can effectively run a system that's at least an order of magnitude more complex is anywhere near the horizon.
Someone else said it best when they said—and I paraphrase—generative AI grants the wealthy access to skills while simultaneously limiting the skilled's access to wealth. It is a capitalist dream come true. You can call this "reactionary" if it pleases you. Or you could actually go and read cogent critiques of the technology and its use and what that will spell for many creatives whose lives and livelihoods depend on their being paid for their craft and not having their work harvested and taken apart and appropriated by people who only care about their profit margins.
That's a fascinating- if a bit hyperbolic- point of discussion that notably does nothing to actually address my criticism of the concept of an AI DM. Frankly, I'm not interested in engaging on the larger implications of AI here, I'm just pointing out that by every piece of evidence I've seen AI is objectively incapable of providing a fraction of the performance capabilities needed to be a worthwhile DM stand in, and nothing in your very passionate response on the evils of AI has rebutted my points on that matter.
There is no possible way generative AI is going to be in a position to effectively create and run a campaign anytime within the foreseeable future WotC is making plans for. This whole "DMs are going to be replaced by computers" bit just comes from people who hear the term "AI" thrown around and assume it must be like what they see in sci-fi media and the reactionary "AI bad" bloc coming up with boogeyman scenarios for why AI will ruin all kinds of things. At best, you could maybe create a more advanced equivalent of a visual novel/roguelike that attempts to respond more organically to dialogue inputs while the plot itself remains firmly on rails, but afaik there is no current AI system that is capable of thinking critically or synthesizing original concepts. Ergo, there is no AI that can create or manage a coherent narrative on an ongoing basis or truly adjudicate "can I try this" requests from players. And that sets aside getting AI to learn to run the hard mechanics effectively; I've yet to see a card game video game where the AI doesn't have some notable blind spots in how it plays or manages to screw up its own strategies. That doesn't give me any faith that creating a program that can effectively run a system that's at least an order of magnitude more complex is anywhere near the horizon.
Someone else said it best when they said—and I paraphrase—generative AI grants the wealthy access to skills while simultaneously limiting the skilled's access to wealth. It is a capitalist dream come true. You can call this "reactionary" if it pleases you. Or you could actually go and read cogent critiques of the technology and its use and what that will spell for many creatives whose lives and livelihoods depend on their being paid for their craft and not having their work harvested and taken apart and appropriated by people who only care about their profit margins.
That's a fascinating- if a bit hyperbolic- point of discussion that notably does nothing to actually address my criticism of the concept of an AI DM. Frankly, I'm not interested in engaging on the larger implications of AI here, I'm just pointing out that by every piece of evidence I've seen AI is objectively incapable of providing a fraction of the performance capabilities needed to be a worthwhile DM stand in, and nothing in your very passionate response on the evils of AI has rebutted my points on that matter.
On that point we are agreed. I do not believe either that AI will ever be capable of the dynamism required by a good DM to respond to what his or her players do or produce anything more than a half decent adventure. There was no need for you however to plant in your post such a dismissive attitude towards its critics. Is it hyperbolic? These are criticisms leveled at the technology by serious thinkers as far as labour is concerned. I'd like to see you go toe-to-toe with these people in a discussion about the subject. And Instagram is home to many an artist exposing those who use generative AI but claim otherwise and who have stolen work of theirs in the process. Keep your head in the sand.
There was no need for you however to plant in your post such a dismissive attitude towards its critics.
I'm curious as to what exactly you're looking for here? Nobody on a D&D forum is going to be able to solve all the ethical issues with the technology; our ability to even discuss them here is limited to where they intersect one game.
There was no need for you however to plant in your post such a dismissive attitude towards its critics.
I'm curious as to what exactly you're looking for here? Nobody on a D&D forum is going to be able to solve all the ethical issues with the technology; our ability to even discuss them here is limited to where they intersect one game.
Your ability or inability to solve the problem is beside the point. I did not suggest you had any sort of obligation to do so. You have a tendency to do this: make up for yourself what I am saying so you can argue against something I have not and have never said. I did not bring up what I brought up for the reasons you have made up for yourself: someone was acting as if there is nothing to be worried about and just dismissing AI's critics as being "hyperbolic." That is is being divisive. And is uncalled for.
Is it just not possible for you to engage in a conversation about whether or not AI could be or should be used for D&D without seeking to undermine others with a different perspective on the technology external to D&D?
Why was that brought up? People's attitudes towards AI external to D&D? If it's now so wrong for me to talk about it in a context external to D&D? It's okay for someone else to do this just to subtly insult others. But when called out for this and reminded of how many criticisms leveled against the technology are valid you want to then get defensive and change the rules. That is not how it works.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They'll stop making print D&D when we stop buying it. Instead of useless handwringing about the sky falling any day now, keep buying books.
This is a chicken-egg problem; there were a slew of D&D video games before Baldurs Gate ever existed. (Gold Box anyone? Ultima?) Hell, the first Final Fantasy was essentially D&D, right down to having spell slots. The point is that the two media have been influencing one another since the idea of CRPGs began. This is not some new thing or deleterious trend. (Not saying that you're one of the people saying it is, just using your post to illustrate.)
... because disregarding people's concerns or accusing them of spreading rumors has had such a great history in the past eighteen months. How many more times do you wish to be proven wrong? Infinite are those times I suppose when it's hard to admit to ever having been wrong. And let's not pretend you aren't partial to be a bit of doomsaying yourself.
People who complain about weapon swapping never seem to be very clear on the rules for weapon swapping. Lots of reddit doomsaying and very little reading of the actual released material.
Per the last couple of years here on DDB wizbro will do WTF they want, and to heck with the player base that doesn't want it! As for your references, plenty of other companies doing the work including Larian on the latest though not the only example, it is easy to license an IP, way harder to keep people interested when the work falls on the holders shoulders! Not everyone( and a small % in my estimation plays AL games) but you do you and we will do us!
One of the main reason that D&D starts to look like video games and appears to have video game logic is because D&D, the pencil and paper version has been the template for making RPG's for decades, it quite literally defined what video game RPG's should look like. Its not that TTRPG D&D looks like its designed to emulate a video game, its that video games are being designed to emulate TTRPG D&D.
Now over the last couple of editions of the game, we have certainly seen TTRPG D&D being influenced by PC game RPG design, so there has been some reversal you could say, but to a certain extent this is just a natural part of industry mixing because you will very rarely find anyone in the PC game development and design community making RPG's that don't also play TTRPG's or have some history with it. Like, these are the same people from the same gaming backgrounds and they are crossing over in both directions, PC game designers become TTRPG designers and vice versus, it happens all the time. I mean hell look at Draw Steel by MCDM, these are all PC game designers now making an TTRPG.
Point is that, in a way, PC RPG's and TTRPG's are part of the same design DNA, they are both trying to effectively achieve the same thing.. fun gameplay, great stories, the feeling of control and they are being designed by the same people on both sides. So the fact that they are sort of cross-pollinating is simply a very natural evolution, I don't think you could stop even if you consciously tried.
One thing I can say is that 2024 edition of D&D will be much easier to convert into a PC game than previous versions. We are definitely seeing a return to more gamified role-playing with this edition which is a shame, 5e was definitely heading in the right direction, coming very close to becoming a true storyteller system as it once was back in the day.
That said, its also becoming a much more modular system and I think we are going to see a lot of really great house rules and re-designs of the game, especially with the way the licensing of 3rd party products works now. I actually think the 2024 edition of the game, inadvertently will open the door to a lot of other, more focused RPG designs and may just spark an entirely new golden age of RPG's by the nature of it being gamified and legally wide open.
Games like DC20, Tales of Valor, Daggerheart, Draw Steel and Shadowdark are just the beginning of what is coming to modern TTRPG's. These are like the initial "tests" to see how flexible modern gamers are to trying out other things. If it turns out that these games are good and actually give D&D a run for its money, than there is hope for D&D.
I truly believe one of the only issues with modern D&D is that the people playing the game today, don't actually like D&D, its just the only game they know right now. Modern gamers I believe are a fickle bunch and will abandon D&D in mass the way people abandon MMORPG's and the people that will remain are going to be long time D&D fans. Those people are going to turn back the clock and D&D will go back to looking more like original 5e than what we have right now with 2024.
In a non-cynical way, I am going to say yes.
Almost every video game let's people swap weapons and carry unlimited items. Players are finding a pain point when they come to D&D and discover that it doesn't work here.
OSP has an interesting video about cell phones. And how in fantasy and sci-fi settings we have a need to include things like phones into stories because we can't image a world without them.
D&D is the same including spells and abilities that meet player expectations of what they expect they can do in a game. Phones represented with sending and message and several other items that let you call or text. I see similar with meeting the tropes established in decades of Zelda, and Witcher, and Skyrim, etc.
If D&D were "realistic", we'd all be dead from plague or from heresy/treason for the choices we make in-game.
TTRPGs are unrealistic and have unrealism by default. Yes, even the alternative ones.
Video games have been influenced by DND since at LEAST Adventure on the Atari 2600, if not text adventures on early PCs.
So no, DND has not been turned into a video game.
Video games have always been turned into DND.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I don't spend much time handwringing about this. D&D (and other TTRPGs) have to balance how much they try to tie you to the digital tools. Too much, and people remember they don't need any of it and can just roll up characters on a piece of paper or someone's home built spreadsheet. There are also many good VTTs out there and you cant copywrite rules, only the text itself.
For me, I might sometimes use the VTT and sometimes not. It depends on how tactical the group wants to be. The digital tools are great for making characters but not the only place to do so. Most of the time I prefer no maps and just descriptive play. No shame in Hasbro trying to make a buck. If I don't like it, I just grab a different fantasy system off the shelf.
The CEO of Hasbro did not, of course, say they were making an AI video game. They were saying they might use AI for some of their content generation - likely playtesting at a scale humans never could, since they’ve been clear they want a human hand on the main design. They also indicated they want to make optional tools for assisting DMs (likely map and encounter design and such - things experienced DMs can do easily, but new DMs or DMs who don’t enjoy that aspect of game design do not feel like doing) and artistic tools.
And that is it. This is a preliminary exploration of tools that are increasingly becoming our new norm. Tools you either explore or risk being left in the dust.
And, who knows, this very well could make the game better - even for pen and paper players. Increased Playtesting with AI could help them better balance things like CR. Generative AI for other aspects of D&D both already exist and can help reduce the longstanding DM shortage.
That said, he really should have come out with more information than simple musing - he should have come out with an actual statement on what they are or are not considering. He should very well know that AI is scary and he has a community prone to seeing little information as ironclad proof of whatever imagined disaster they are making up. He should know that trolls on their inexplicably long-lived alternate accounts (including ones obviously made to circumvent bans) are going to take to the D&D Beyond forums to try and spin this lack of information into a conspiracy.
Once again, a small issue like “we’re looking into things, nothing really decided” is likely will be bigger than it is thanks to Wizards’ bad PR and the dedicated trolls who always manage to beat Wizards to the punch.
Pretty much. I remember when those gold box games first came out. I loved that I could bring my D&D characters to life in a video game. And when the first Neverwinter Nights (AOL version) came out? OMG! I almost had a heartattack because it was something I always wanted. To be able to play with 100s of other players in a online D&D game. It was a dream come true. And then when Bioware came out with their version of Neverwinter Nights. I was in heaven. One thing I was hoping with BG3 was that they would have made it that you could create persistent worlds like Bioware's NWN and play with 100s of people with the 5e rules. I was disappointed that it won't happen with them. But I hope somebody does make a 5e online persistent world or an MMO.
But to the OP, I believe that D&D is being influenced by video games to a certain extent. It's the natural progression of things. Those CRPGs were directly influenced by D&D. As somebody said above, it's only natural that D&D borrows some elements from CRPGs. And I don't think it's a bad thing. BG3 made some rules that made 5e better that I think should be implemented into D&D. Again, I don't see it as a bad thing.
There is no possible way generative AI is going to be in a position to effectively create and run a campaign anytime within the foreseeable future WotC is making plans for. This whole "DMs are going to be replaced by computers" bit just comes from people who hear the term "AI" thrown around and assume it must be like what they see in sci-fi media and the reactionary "AI bad" bloc coming up with boogeyman scenarios for why AI will ruin all kinds of things. At best, you could maybe create a more advanced equivalent of a visual novel/roguelike that attempts to respond more organically to dialogue inputs while the plot itself remains firmly on rails, but afaik there is no current AI system that is capable of thinking critically or synthesizing original concepts. Ergo, there is no AI that can create or manage a coherent narrative on an ongoing basis or truly adjudicate "can I try this" requests from players. And that sets aside getting AI to learn to run the hard mechanics effectively; I've yet to see a card game video game where the AI doesn't have some notable blind spots in how it plays or manages to screw up its own strategies. That doesn't give me any faith that creating a program that can effectively run a system that's at least an order of magnitude more complex is anywhere near the horizon.
If your reply is implying that all I want to do is play a video game? Then you are dead worng about that. I've been playing D&D since '86. I love table-top just as much as I do CRPGs. I also play Battletech, which I've been playing since '89. I love Mechwarrior just as much as I do the tabletop becasue it allows me to get into my favorite mechs and actually live out that fantasy. What is wrong with liking both?
Someone else said it best when they said—and I paraphrase—generative AI grants the wealthy access to skills while simultaneously limiting the skilled's access to wealth. It is a capitalist dream come true. You can call this "reactionary" if it pleases you. Or you could actually go and read cogent critiques of the technology and its use and what that will spell for many creatives whose lives and livelihoods depend on their being paid for their craft and not having their work harvested and taken apart and appropriated by people who only care about their profit margins.
Both of these are very, very, unlikely to work. Generative AI cannot, and likely never will be able to, do the things that are being claimed for it. It also has other ethical (mass copyright violation, destroying the market for creative work) and practical (hideously expensive to train and run) problems that are unlikely to get better.
He can't do that, because there's no way anything they're poking at works. If he knows what's up, "we're looking into AI" is mostly to juice the stock, while they see if there's anything it's good for in their process. If he doesn't, he's just told subordinates to add AI to things, and the fact that it doesn't work is their problem. But "we're looking into it" is a safe thing to say, especially since the ever-popular "we're going to use it to cut headcount" probably will get a bad reaction from their customers.
That's a fascinating- if a bit hyperbolic- point of discussion that notably does nothing to actually address my criticism of the concept of an AI DM. Frankly, I'm not interested in engaging on the larger implications of AI here, I'm just pointing out that by every piece of evidence I've seen AI is objectively incapable of providing a fraction of the performance capabilities needed to be a worthwhile DM stand in, and nothing in your very passionate response on the evils of AI has rebutted my points on that matter.
On that point we are agreed. I do not believe either that AI will ever be capable of the dynamism required by a good DM to respond to what his or her players do or produce anything more than a half decent adventure. There was no need for you however to plant in your post such a dismissive attitude towards its critics. Is it hyperbolic? These are criticisms leveled at the technology by serious thinkers as far as labour is concerned. I'd like to see you go toe-to-toe with these people in a discussion about the subject. And Instagram is home to many an artist exposing those who use generative AI but claim otherwise and who have stolen work of theirs in the process. Keep your head in the sand.
Oh Good Lord! Game Mechanics IN A GAME?
How could this be!
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
I'm curious as to what exactly you're looking for here? Nobody on a D&D forum is going to be able to solve all the ethical issues with the technology; our ability to even discuss them here is limited to where they intersect one game.
IMO, yes.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Your ability or inability to solve the problem is beside the point. I did not suggest you had any sort of obligation to do so. You have a tendency to do this: make up for yourself what I am saying so you can argue against something I have not and have never said. I did not bring up what I brought up for the reasons you have made up for yourself: someone was acting as if there is nothing to be worried about and just dismissing AI's critics as being "hyperbolic." That is is being divisive. And is uncalled for.
Is it just not possible for you to engage in a conversation about whether or not AI could be or should be used for D&D without seeking to undermine others with a different perspective on the technology external to D&D?
Why was that brought up? People's attitudes towards AI external to D&D? If it's now so wrong for me to talk about it in a context external to D&D? It's okay for someone else to do this just to subtly insult others. But when called out for this and reminded of how many criticisms leveled against the technology are valid you want to then get defensive and change the rules. That is not how it works.