I'm not denying that using AI as a crutch can have deleterious effects. But I think it's a very long leap from there to "throw it in the bin, no possible benefits." And I think that extreme is just as dangerous if not moreso.
I'm not denying that using AI as a crutch can have deleterious effects. But I think it's a very long leap from there to "throw it in the bin, no possible benefits." And I think that extreme is just as dangerous if not moreso.
The difference between medicine and poison is often dosage, caution is best used on new things.
But as one of them pointed out, how the OP intends to use it, how most use it, and how the industry itself encourages us to use it, none of these are examples of good and responsible use.
I think the OP was way too vague to make such sweeping judgments. The OP listed two asks: "make things better" and "come up with encounters." The former could be anything. The latter could be as specific as challenge rating/difficulty calculations, or it could be as broad as "what mid-level monsters could be found in {biome}" or "what are some minions that might hang around a blue dragon" or "suggest some hazards that can spice up an encounter with {monster}."
In terms of its effects on us cognitively and behaviorally, on the environment, on labour, and I could go on, if you're not making use of it to save people's lives in your line of work, you're in no position to act as if your having pointed out it can be used well and responsibly is anything but a home goal.
So the first and only time you should try your hand at prompting is to save someone's life? That seems more on the irresponsible side to me.
Articulate for us how it could possibly be 'more dangerous' to put the brakes on than to just keep driving towards that cliff.
Tech oligarchy, fascism. Is that the future you want if it just means an overhyped toy isn't going to be taken away from you?
The future you or I want are beyond the scope of a D&D forum I'd say, especially in the context of political leanings etc. And if you view the tech as only being "an overhyped toy" I don't see a reason to convince you otherwise, that's your right.
I think the OP was way too vague to make such sweeping judgments. The OP listed two asks: "make things better" and "come up with encounters." The former could be anything. The latter could be as specific as challenge rating/difficulty calculations, or it could be as broad as "what mid-level monsters could be found in {biome}" or "what are some minions that might hang around a blue dragon" or "suggest some hazards that can spice up an encounter with {monster}."
I disagree with this. Going through line by line, we see a great deal of evidence that the OP has been using AI similarly to general use (i.e. in irresponsible, self-harming ways that have been outlined already).
A while ago I was kind of stuck with writing the plot so I decided to ask ChatGPT for some help since I've seen my friends use it for schoolwork and other stuff.
Use of AI for plot creation. Purging their minds of the creative process (the work for the brain).
After that I kind of got used to using it in my campaign.
Noted dependency, or, at the very least, regular frequency of use.
Not completely making a campaign, just small things like how I can make something better or coming up with encounters that would fit my campaign.
This statement is the only vague statement really, as it does not paint a clear picture of where the line is being drawn. It is possible that the OP has reduced the use of AI for their DMing needs, but that would be an assumption to say and contextually, this is not the case given their question put to us for discussion. The more likely read is that it should be assumed that everything that has been listed (the plot, encounters, making any aspect of the game derived from DM or AI 'better'), is placed in the hands of ChatGPT, while anything not listed and ultimate decision-making on what to choose from the output provided by the AI potentially remains with the OP but that likely more than what is listed is given over to AI to do for them.
Whether the OP has elected to curtail the use of AI in their DMing is really not that important. What they were using it for is exactly the kind of use that I had been advocating against and which literature shows is an irresponsible use of AI, with deleterious effects from said use of AI; shifting the creative process from their own mind to AI. Our brains are notoriously lazy and seek out the means for them to be lazy. Once found, as habit-forming creatures, we quickly become reliant on those means and will absolutely struggle to do our own thinking in any cognitive process that we have purged from our brains once we have allowed something else to do our thinking for us.
I want to close this post out by saying I respect you and this is not intended to be an attack on you, but I do disagree with your position here, respectfully.
The difference between medicine and poison is often dosage, caution is best used on new things.
I didn't see anything in the OP that indicated throwing caution to the wind - maybe you did?
I was simply pointing out that caution should be used, not that they were or were not using it. Though to carry on with the them of your post I don't see anything in the OP that indicates any degree of using or not using caution when using "ai", that they wanted some advise.
Could you clarify for us what your actual thoughts are on this?
My thoughts are that any reaction to AI that isn't total and unwavering repudiation is equated with fanatical devotion around here, so I'll be bowing out.
A common refrain about D&D for literal decades has been how it can benefit practical skills
Those arguments were made to justify a hobby that was looked down upon and maligned for literal decades, more than they were actually a serious attempt to present DnD as an education tool
It's 2025. We can just say we like playing DnD now
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I can only relate my experience so far. Our DM has purchased an AI world building package, which lets him make choices and generates the world and it's history. The map is very pretty and the history is well, a bit disjointed at best. It seems written in an over-the-top pulp fiction style so kind of fun.
Personally I would either make my own setting or use published works by actual writers, but he has made the investment and I'm going to give it a shot.
I hate to fan this inferno of AI-related arguments, but I guess I'm gonna.
Yeah it crushes the environment and talking about it too long leads to inevitable arguments about the fate of the world.
But the initial question got kind of lost in the shuffle here, and I'm gonna say that you'd probably be better off asking real people for help. They know more about D&D. And D&D conversations are an excellent way to connect with people it's how I met one of my best friends. I think if you really need ChatGPT's suggestions, just try using them a little less, and keep using it less until eventually you don't need it. It's better not to use it but I know habits don't break easily.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi! I'm Potato. I am a player and DM using 2014 5th edition D&D. I am always happy to help with whatever you need! I prefer no pronouns, but they/them if necessary. Unfortunately, I will no longer be on the forums. Sorry, friends! Stay sparkly!
I'm not denying that using AI as a crutch can have deleterious effects. But I think it's a very long leap from there to "throw it in the bin, no possible benefits." And I think that extreme is just as dangerous if not moreso.
Strawman argument.
The best "argument" for playing a table top RPG is that it encourages people to make friends and to engage in problem-solving in a setting where they won't get fired or demoted for trying new things. I'm not saying that TTRPGs have to be about practical skills (generally promoting them as such is a buzzkill) but there are cognitive benefits to TTRPGs. A DM who is using large language model programs like Deepwhatever or Sh*tGPT regularly is basically throwing their hands in the air and not trying to engage that part of their mind involved in a creative storytelling project...then has some expectation that their players will want to engage with said lack of creative storytelling over multiple sessions and like it. If the only thing the DM is running is a meat grinder campaign where it's nothing but killing monsters in a set of boring rooms/hallways, this will probably be okay. But if the DM has any expectations that their players might "color outside the lines" or consider a session to be "memorable" through the use of LLMs would be counter-productive since the DM themselves limited their creative powers by relying on half-garbled regurgitations of other people's stories put together by a set of computers that have no emotions, no desires, no understanding of WTH its verbal output even means. Before long, the "lore" generated by the CrapGPT will stop making sense and then the players will be asking questions to the DM about an NPC, to which the DM will have a difficult time answering b/c the DM was only minimally involved in writing or interpreting or editing the lore to begin with.
There are studies done showing that schoolchildren learning to read mostly stuff on a computer activates different parts of the brain than those schoolchildren who learn mostly by reading physical books, newspapers, and magazines. (See Maryanne Wolf's book "Reader Come Home".) Retention through digital absorption is more shallow. Understanding of material and the ability to extrapolate conclusions based on the available implicit cues also reduced. There is a also a widely reported "flattening" effect when people use social media apps to access the news. Context is insufficient and information overload is common. People get confused more easily. Confused people are more easily subject to conspiracy theories and mis-information campaigns. This is why widespread use of A.I. by people who have Zero coursework in programming or the ethics of technology is so dangerous. It destabilizes out collective ability to understand the real world and to solve problems together in the real world. Not to mention the disaster of match-making apps and their related feelings of dejection from young people today. This is even more true for young men, due to the differential economic pressures they feel they need to shoulder. If we want to understand why so many young men are angry and depressed and giving up on dating and turning to the "Manosphere" of YT or TikTok, the overconcentration of jobs that require STEM college degrees, the decreased social skills that is a byproduct of smartphone addiction, and the allure of "blame it on the feminists" instead of any truly contextual understanding of how the heck we got here is a Huge reason Why.
I'm not denying that using AI as a crutch can have deleterious effects. But I think it's a very long leap from there to "throw it in the bin, no possible benefits." And I think that extreme is just as dangerous if not moreso.
The difference between medicine and poison is often dosage, caution is best used on new things.
I didn't see anything in the OP that indicated throwing caution to the wind - maybe you did?
I think the OP was way too vague to make such sweeping judgments. The OP listed two asks: "make things better" and "come up with encounters." The former could be anything. The latter could be as specific as challenge rating/difficulty calculations, or it could be as broad as "what mid-level monsters could be found in {biome}" or "what are some minions that might hang around a blue dragon" or "suggest some hazards that can spice up an encounter with {monster}."
So the first and only time you should try your hand at prompting is to save someone's life? That seems more on the irresponsible side to me.
The future you or I want are beyond the scope of a D&D forum I'd say, especially in the context of political leanings etc. And if you view the tech as only being "an overhyped toy" I don't see a reason to convince you otherwise, that's your right.
I disagree with this. Going through line by line, we see a great deal of evidence that the OP has been using AI similarly to general use (i.e. in irresponsible, self-harming ways that have been outlined already).
Use of AI for plot creation. Purging their minds of the creative process (the work for the brain).
Noted dependency, or, at the very least, regular frequency of use.
This statement is the only vague statement really, as it does not paint a clear picture of where the line is being drawn. It is possible that the OP has reduced the use of AI for their DMing needs, but that would be an assumption to say and contextually, this is not the case given their question put to us for discussion. The more likely read is that it should be assumed that everything that has been listed (the plot, encounters, making any aspect of the game derived from DM or AI 'better'), is placed in the hands of ChatGPT, while anything not listed and ultimate decision-making on what to choose from the output provided by the AI potentially remains with the OP but that likely more than what is listed is given over to AI to do for them.
Whether the OP has elected to curtail the use of AI in their DMing is really not that important. What they were using it for is exactly the kind of use that I had been advocating against and which literature shows is an irresponsible use of AI, with deleterious effects from said use of AI; shifting the creative process from their own mind to AI. Our brains are notoriously lazy and seek out the means for them to be lazy. Once found, as habit-forming creatures, we quickly become reliant on those means and will absolutely struggle to do our own thinking in any cognitive process that we have purged from our brains once we have allowed something else to do our thinking for us.
I want to close this post out by saying I respect you and this is not intended to be an attack on you, but I do disagree with your position here, respectfully.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I was simply pointing out that caution should be used, not that they were or were not using it. Though to carry on with the them of your post I don't see anything in the OP that indicates any degree of using or not using caution when using "ai", that they wanted some advise.
My thoughts are that any reaction to AI that isn't total and unwavering repudiation is equated with fanatical devotion around here, so I'll be bowing out.
Those arguments were made to justify a hobby that was looked down upon and maligned for literal decades, more than they were actually a serious attempt to present DnD as an education tool
It's 2025. We can just say we like playing DnD now
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I can only relate my experience so far. Our DM has purchased an AI world building package, which lets him make choices and generates the world and it's history. The map is very pretty and the history is well, a bit disjointed at best. It seems written in an over-the-top pulp fiction style so kind of fun.
Personally I would either make my own setting or use published works by actual writers, but he has made the investment and I'm going to give it a shot.
I hate to fan this inferno of AI-related arguments, but I guess I'm gonna.
Yeah it crushes the environment and talking about it too long leads to inevitable arguments about the fate of the world.
But the initial question got kind of lost in the shuffle here, and I'm gonna say that you'd probably be better off asking real people for help. They know more about D&D. And D&D conversations are an excellent way to connect with people it's how I met one of my best friends. I think if you really need ChatGPT's suggestions, just try using them a little less, and keep using it less until eventually you don't need it. It's better not to use it but I know habits don't break easily.
Hi! I'm Potato. I am a player and DM using 2014 5th edition D&D. I am always happy to help with whatever you need!
I prefer no pronouns, but they/them if necessary.
Unfortunately, I will no longer be on the forums. Sorry, friends! Stay sparkly!
Strawman argument.
The best "argument" for playing a table top RPG is that it encourages people to make friends and to engage in problem-solving in a setting where they won't get fired or demoted for trying new things. I'm not saying that TTRPGs have to be about practical skills (generally promoting them as such is a buzzkill) but there are cognitive benefits to TTRPGs. A DM who is using large language model programs like Deepwhatever or Sh*tGPT regularly is basically throwing their hands in the air and not trying to engage that part of their mind involved in a creative storytelling project...then has some expectation that their players will want to engage with said lack of creative storytelling over multiple sessions and like it. If the only thing the DM is running is a meat grinder campaign where it's nothing but killing monsters in a set of boring rooms/hallways, this will probably be okay. But if the DM has any expectations that their players might "color outside the lines" or consider a session to be "memorable" through the use of LLMs would be counter-productive since the DM themselves limited their creative powers by relying on half-garbled regurgitations of other people's stories put together by a set of computers that have no emotions, no desires, no understanding of WTH its verbal output even means. Before long, the "lore" generated by the CrapGPT will stop making sense and then the players will be asking questions to the DM about an NPC, to which the DM will have a difficult time answering b/c the DM was only minimally involved in writing or interpreting or editing the lore to begin with.
There are studies done showing that schoolchildren learning to read mostly stuff on a computer activates different parts of the brain than those schoolchildren who learn mostly by reading physical books, newspapers, and magazines. (See Maryanne Wolf's book "Reader Come Home".) Retention through digital absorption is more shallow. Understanding of material and the ability to extrapolate conclusions based on the available implicit cues also reduced. There is a also a widely reported "flattening" effect when people use social media apps to access the news. Context is insufficient and information overload is common. People get confused more easily. Confused people are more easily subject to conspiracy theories and mis-information campaigns. This is why widespread use of A.I. by people who have Zero coursework in programming or the ethics of technology is so dangerous. It destabilizes out collective ability to understand the real world and to solve problems together in the real world. Not to mention the disaster of match-making apps and their related feelings of dejection from young people today. This is even more true for young men, due to the differential economic pressures they feel they need to shoulder. If we want to understand why so many young men are angry and depressed and giving up on dating and turning to the "Manosphere" of YT or TikTok, the overconcentration of jobs that require STEM college degrees, the decreased social skills that is a byproduct of smartphone addiction, and the allure of "blame it on the feminists" instead of any truly contextual understanding of how the heck we got here is a Huge reason Why.