Do you use AI to (help) build your Character and/or Campaign?

Quote from Scruvy >>

This has eventually lead into a situation where it just feels like any other tool.

Well, it is a tool. A very limited one, though

The problem is, that usage can't be effectively monetized, and the techbros hellbent on destroying the planet and humanity to feed their own hubris won't make back the near-trillions they've already invested in the technology if they don't sell people on the idea that it's an omnitool that can do everything

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from Pantagruel666>>

• Can AI be used to create descriptive blurbs? Answer: AI can do a competent job at describing individuals, though it will have an extremely generic feel and won't do a good job making them fit together in a broader setting unless you provide it with a lot of hints. However, unless your goal is to hide clues in a mountain of chaff, this tends to not be very useful text -- yes, if you've got a village of eighty people an AI can churn out descriptions for every one of them, which would be a giant PITA for a human, but that mostly turns into a giant pile of slop for you and your PCs to dig through searching for information of actual value.

Yeah. Using an LLM to do this makes it too easy. If you have to do it yourself, you'll only do it for the important characters, and the shopkeeper will just be "some guy". This provides important signaling to the players about who's worth their time. If you just have the word engine do it for everyone, that signaling is lost.

(Yes, they will still insist on the shopkeeper having a name and a description, and he will become their favorite NPC. You can't help that, but you don't have to encourage them.)

• Can AI be used to create character portraits? Answer: yes, if you aren't picky -- it's hard to avoid them looking very generic, and the more specific the image you have in mind, the worse a job it will do. I've seen a lot of AI portraits in games, and while they look good the first few times you see them, they all start blurring together at a certain point.

They're also not going to look right. Controlled iteration is something the image generators are still not good at AFAIK. You'll get a face that sort of looks like what you want, but attempts to get it closer are going to be very hit or miss, and it likely won't be able to hold most things constant while just adjusting the eyes, like you can with something like the BG3 character creator or Hero Forge.

Or maybe you can. I haven't touched them in years. (I toyed briefly with the image generators early on, before I really understood the ethical issues with generative "AI", and rapidly discovered how badly they fail when you have ideas that aren't in the training set. I then gave up.)

 Generative AI still regularly gives people creepy expressions, overly-shiny skin, and an excessive number of fingers.

Yes, I can safe you based my own experience with the right questions it can give original answers. In the past I asked Kimi AI ideas for PC species and I was surprised. They were published in Enworld.

Quote from LuisCarlos17f >>

Yes, I can safe you based my own experience with the right questions it can give original answers.

It really can't.

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quote from LuisCarlos17f >>

Yes, I can safe you based my own experience with the right questions it can give original answers.

It really can't.

Somebody can probably get ideas that are unknown to them, but LLMs work by producing probable words to continue the text, which is the opposite of producing anything truly new.

You'd probably have better luck with Burroughs's cut-up technique or other randomizers.

Quote from LuisCarlos17f >>

Yes, I can safe you based my own experience with the right questions it can give original answers. In the past I asked Kimi AI ideas for PC species and I was surprised. They were published in Enworld.

 No, it can't. What can give you is the equivalent of that friend who, when you ask for an idea, only ever responds with "Well I saw this in a movie...." or "I read this in a book..." or "I know of this character from a TV show...". LLMs have zero ability to create novel ideas, they can only regurgitate what probabilistically fits from their training data.

The poll asks the wrong question, and makes the mistake a lot of people make it comes to AI tools. The encounter builder sucks, and AI tools didn’t help because you couldn’t even explain the problem.  

What is wrong with the encounter builder, and what did you expect it to solve?

Quote from starlinvf >>

The poll asks the wrong question, and makes the mistake a lot of people make it comes to AI tools. The encounter builder sucks, and AI tools didn’t help because you couldn’t even explain the problem.  

What is wrong with the encounter builder, and what did you expect it to solve?

From context it seems more likely they're talking about the character builder. There have been other posts lately from people trying to use AI tools to navigate it and having trouble because the AI-generated instructions usually contain a mix of 5e and 5.5e concepts as well as stuff that just doesn't exist.

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

From context it seems more likely they're talking about the character builder. There have been other posts lately from people trying to use AI tools to navigate it and having trouble because the AI-generated instructions usually contain a mix of 5e and 5.5e concepts as well as stuff that just doesn't exist.

 

 Correct.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

 Generative AI still regularly gives people creepy expressions, overly-shiny skin, and an excessive number of fingers.

 You're talking about images.  Most of us are talking about text.

Also, you haven't updated your impression in a number of years, only the bad ones are like that any more.

Quote from Perringaiden >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

 Generative AI still regularly gives people creepy expressions, overly-shiny skin, and an excessive number of fingers.

 You're talking about images.  Most of us are talking about text.

Also, you haven't updated your impression in a number of years, only the bad ones are like that any more.

 Saying that only the "bad ones" have those sorts of errors is interesting in the way it implies there are "good ones" when it comes to generative AI. There are more complex ones, yes. More resource-intensive, sure. But I don't know that "good" is a word I'd allow for describing any genAI. Feels a lot like talking about having a "good" flu. So sure, the generated images might not apply non-euclidean geometries to human anatomy as often or as badly as they used to, the end products still lack the quality of either a real photograph or actual art made through human creative effort.

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

Quote from Perringaiden >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

 Generative AI still regularly gives people creepy expressions, overly-shiny skin, and an excessive number of fingers.

 You're talking about images.  Most of us are talking about text.

Also, you haven't updated your impression in a number of years, only the bad ones are like that any more.

 Saying that only the "bad ones" have those sorts of errors is interesting in the way it implies there are "good ones" when it comes to generative AI. There are more complex ones, yes. More resource-intensive, sure. But I don't know that "good" is a word I'd allow for describing any genAI. Feels a lot like talking about having a "good" flu. So sure, the generated images might not apply non-euclidean geometries to human anatomy as often or as badly as they used to, the end products still lack the quality of either a real photograph or actual art made through human creative effort.

 Bad at the task vs capable at the task, definitely.

Not declaring a moral judgement.