Why is it so hard to find an ai free campaign?

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from IKVAvenger1 >>

I'm not sure what the issue is with a DM using AI for some artwork?  Not everyone is an artist (I am actually but that's not the point) and not everyone can afford to hire an artist.  Since it's just a game meant for enjoyment, why would it ruin someone's day for their DM to present a scene or diagram or whatever that was generated by AI?

Not an AI proponent at all but if a simple tool forwards the story then I don't see the negatives. 

 
This is a question that understandably gets some folks on this forum upset, but often leads to threads getting locked due to the tensions it can raise. I will try to answer this with limited editorial and sticking to the factual counter arguments:

- First, AI is built on theft.  Models need to be trained on content, such as art, writings, etc. and they do so more often than not without the consent of the original creator.  AI models are also not creative - they do not generate anything truly new, but rather synthesize from their largely stolen databases a conglomeration of the stolen content.

- Second, AI is extremely resource intensive, particularly in terms of power consumption, water (for cooling), and technological components (hence the RAM crisis hurting countless other industries).  Under present technology, the generative AI being widely used is hurting the planet in exchange for little real gain. (To be clear, I am talking about GenAI here - obviously there are places like medicine where AI has incredible utility). 

- Third, while not everyone can afford an artist, GenAI takes some of those who can afford artists and then makes it so they no longer feel the need to commission art.  Fewer consumers means less work for artists. 

- Fourth, AI is incredibly disruptive to the general workforce and has already resulted in mass layoffs, with more very likely to come.   Seemingly harmless things like GenAI art normalize usage of AI and thus help prop up support of more disruptive GenAI usage.

- Fifth, AI is demonstrably making us dumber.  Gen Z is already the first generation in history to score cognitively worse by every conceivable measure than the one prior, with a lot of that measurably attributed to technology use in education, including GenAI directly.  This problem is expected to be exacerbated for generations to follow.  That is before we even get into the significant issues of AI induced psychosis and other mental health problems.

All told, GenAI art might seem harmless, but it is built atop an objectively dangerous and disruptive industry.  It is not hard to see why folks might be against supporting such businesses.

I'll add a sixth to this -- if my DM was consistently using AI art for tokens, maps etc., I'd wonder what else in the campaign they were using AI for, and whether the campaign was ultimately worth my time if the DM was putting that little effort into it

I appreciate the detailed responses.  I don't necessarily agree and feel that it's an over-reaction.  I think it would be a stretch to assume a DM is putting little effort into a campaign because they showed a picture of a trapped door, puzzle on the floor or other visual aid that lends to the immersion of the game. However, folks are entitled to feel the way they want.  That's why we have so many flavors of ice cream.  :)

Quote from IKVAvenger1 >>

that lends to the immersion of the game.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it -- AI art would significantly decrease my "immersion", not add to it. I would much rather do TOTM than look at shitty plastic-y AI art 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from IKVAvenger1 >>

I'm not sure what the issue is with a DM using AI for some artwork?  Not everyone is an artist (I am actually but that's not the point) and not everyone can afford to hire an artist.  Since it's just a game meant for enjoyment, why would it ruin someone's day for their DM to present a scene or diagram or whatever that was generated by AI?

Not an AI proponent at all but if a simple tool forwards the story then I don't see the negatives. 

 
This is a question that understandably gets some folks on this forum upset, but often leads to threads getting locked due to the tensions it can raise. I will try to answer this with limited editorial and sticking to the factual counter arguments:

- First, AI is built on theft.  Models need to be trained on content, such as art, writings, etc. and they do so more often than not without the consent of the original creator.  AI models are also not creative - they do not generate anything truly new, but rather synthesize from their largely stolen databases a conglomeration of the stolen content.

- Second, AI is extremely resource intensive, particularly in terms of power consumption, water (for cooling), and technological components (hence the RAM crisis hurting countless other industries).  Under present technology, the generative AI being widely used is hurting the planet in exchange for little real gain. (To be clear, I am talking about GenAI here - obviously there are places like medicine where AI has incredible utility). 

- Third, while not everyone can afford an artist, GenAI takes some of those who can afford artists and then makes it so they no longer feel the need to commission art.  Fewer consumers means less work for artists. 

- Fourth, AI is incredibly disruptive to the general workforce and has already resulted in mass layoffs, with more very likely to come.   Seemingly harmless things like GenAI art normalize usage of AI and thus help prop up support of more disruptive GenAI usage.

- Fifth, AI is demonstrably making us dumber.  Gen Z is already the first generation in history to score cognitively worse by every conceivable measure than the one prior, with a lot of that measurably attributed to technology use in education, including GenAI directly.  This problem is expected to be exacerbated for generations to follow.  That is before we even get into the significant issues of AI induced psychosis and other mental health problems.

All told, GenAI art might seem harmless, but it is built atop an objectively dangerous and disruptive industry.  It is not hard to see why folks might be against supporting such businesses.

 

I'll add a sixth to this -- if my DM was consistently using AI art for tokens, maps etc., I'd wonder what else in the campaign they were using AI for, and whether the campaign was ultimately worth my time if the DM was putting that little effort into it

I get where you're coming from, but let me offer another perspective.

Art is a specialized skillset. Not everyone is a Da Vinci or Picasso. A while back while writing notes for something I want to run eventually (takes that group forever to meet so who knows when I'll finally get to use it) I did use a generator to get some images of various NPCs and monsters in addition to searching Google for images. But that's because art is a skillset I lack.

Whereas when it comes to other things, figuring out questlines / custom stack blocks is a skillset I can actually work with. It's much easier for me to be able to write down a paragraph to remind myself of an NPCs motives or the lore of an area than it is to draw. So in my case the use of generative AI was to cover a hole in a skillset I lacked, not because I wasn't interested in putting effort in overall. So that campaign I'll run some time did have a lot of effort put into it.

But, to contrast, there's been cases where I've put off prep for a one-shot until the day-of. In those cases I've searched DMs Guild for something pre-made and skimmed through to see if it interests me. So despite the lack of AI in those one-shots, there's a lot less effort I've put into making it. (Though I will say if I didn't have enough experience I wouldn't be able to pull it off. And the group has enjoyed them quite a bit too.)

So while I get where you're coming from, I wouldn't say AI = less effort. 

So I have this great Kurt Vonnegut quote that is super relevant here: "When I was 15, I spent a month working on an archaeological dig. One of the archaeologists asked those kinds of 'getting to know you' questions you ask young people: 'Do you play sports? What's your favorite subject?' And I told him, 'No, I don't play any sports. I do theater, I'm in choir, I play the violin and piano, I used to take art classes.' And he went, 'That's amazing!' And I said, 'But I'm not good at any of them.' And he said something then that I will never forget and which absolutely blew my mind: 'I don't think being good at things is the point of doing them. I think you've got all these wonderful experiences with different skills, and that all teaches you things and makes you an interesting person, no matter how well you do them.' And that honestly changed my life. Because I went from a failure, someone who hadn't been talented enough at anything to excel, to someone who did things because I enjoyed them. I had been raised in such an achievement-oriented environment, so inundated with the myth of talent, that I thought it was only worth doing things if you could 'win' at them."

It ties in with another piece of wisdom I picked up some years ago: Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly. Doing something poorly is better than doing nothing at all, and it's a step to doing better. Nobody should be expecting their DM to be cranking out visual aids on par with the Dutch masters. I mean, if you're a DM and you have the time and have put in the practice to illustrate every scene with a realist painting on par with Rembrandt, more power to you. But I'm not going to ding anyone for just using the illustrations that come with the adventure they're running. Or doing what the Outside Xbox and Outside Xtra folks used to do and using existing art, stock art, and video game screenshots. Or drawing some basic stick figures. Because those are all earnest creative efforts. Ugly art is better and shows more investment than slop every time.

We know that using AI even for brief periods erodes the ability to persist in challenging situations. It removes the opportunity for productive struggle, which is where learning, growth, and development occur. So for my players' development as players and as people I would rather see them do a stick figure or hastily edit a stock photo or snip part of a screenshot from a work of art. But I also wouldn't mind if they went with no character art because it isn't necessary and they would rather just describe their character to the group and to me as the DM. Because I want my players to be interesting people who make interesting characters. And that's not going to happen if they're engaging in cognitive surrender.

Same goes for how the players generate their characters' backstories and for how DMs generate worlds, adventures, encounters, etc. I don't need overwrought literary grandeur for character backstories, nor do I need a meticulously plotted 20-part epic cinematic universe for the setting. I'm perfectly happy when players hit me with their sad orphan growing into a power fantasy character archetypes and when DMs hit me with "you meet at an inn" adventures as long as I know they're the ones putting in the creative efforts and I get to see them exercise those creative muscles and get more confident and more creatively adventurous over time.

I've sworn off generative AI completely because of all the ethical issues anyway, but as a DM I know that my players want me to keep DMing because they want more of my storytelling. If I gave them slop instead they would have every right to be upset with me. Generative AI can never match the idea I have in my head. It doesn't have access to my mind. What it does have access to is a very large body of work stolen from others. So probability heavily favors the AI spitting out aspects of others' works mashed up together instead of anything approximating the creative idea I have in my head. And even if I just wanted to use it as a brainstorming tool to build off of, it takes so much effort to turn the slop into something worth while that it behooves me to just do it myself from the get go, and thereby do it right the first time.

I suppose that DM's that don't want to use AI really don't have to use AI.  And DM's that feel it adds to the game in some way can of course avail themselves of the tool.

I agree with above that AI does NOT equal lack of effort or laziness on the part of the DM.  In fact, quite the opposite imho.  In my experience it adds to the immersion.  If some feel that it breaks immersion for them that is also fine.  

Personally, I would prefer to use an AI generated image for a particular scene and spend time saved on more creative endeavors such as forwarding the plot, creating an interesting trap, coming up with a plot twist, fleshing out a puzzle etc.  

Writing is not a more creative endeavor than creating visual arts.

This is a common problem across disciplines when it comes to generative AI. Creatives who for some reason support using genAI in the creative process often prefer using it for tasks outside of their own disciplines. Writers are more likely to be okay with using it to generate the visuals as long as it's kept well away from writing. Illustrators are more likely to be okay with using it to generate text as long as it's kept well away from their visuals.

I have to question the claim that genAI imagery adds to immersion. I don't see any compelling argument to support the idea that genAI imagery specifically adds to the immersion in a way that having any art at all presented doesn't already accomplish. 

Quote from 0l1v3r_ >>

Hi! I've been looking for campaigns all over the place, but I've yet to find one where either maps, npc's, story or actual character art isn't ai. I really can't stand this, d&d is supposed to be a creative game full of wonder, yet people can't be asked to actually use their own creativity or commission actual real artists for their art needs. Personally, I would draw character and npc art for free for anyone in the campaign or the dm. Maps are another thing, there are so many free maps out there made by actual people. And most importantly, if you need ai to write your story or character backstory, you shouldn't be playing d&d. I'm so sick of people pretending and saying that ai has a place in creative spaces, because it doesn't. Art and stories have been made and told for centuries without any ai, but now it seems people can't be creative or are just lazy and have ai write and create for them (ai doesn't create, it steals and badly puts stolen photos together). I'm sick and tired of this, you are ruining the game and creativity, please stop using ai.

 

I've been meaning to comment all week on this topic, but sadly Ihurt myself early in the week and typing is hard when your left arm is in massive pain. 

First off and this is important, I absolutly hate AI companies, AI techbros, and capitalistic sociopathy that you see with the Techbros and people in power. generative AI in the way they are using it, and being unregulated, and stealing material to train the AI should all be addressed, and most the AI tech Bros should be in prison for life, and their money should be seized for goverment rebates. As their wealth is stolen from everyone. 

Are we clear on my stance about AI as we see it? 

Because my second point is I think the concept of the technology, and if they were still training in the way they had been going before this new bubble was being pushed is actually important, although the final product should be done differantly than it was. As machine learning can be a powerful aid for disabled people. Early versions of machine learning were used for spelling and grammer checking, online translation, and other highly useful tools. 

So on  the second point you can see my hate is only aimed at the Billionaires and techbros who are harming humanity, and stealing intilectual property. 

So now I can talk about AI use and D&D. 

As a DM I have experimented with free use AI while it first started, mostly to see what it looked like, and to see what was possible. You could say I was training my mind to pick out AI material. I'm kind of annoyed that AI types like I do. But I think that is because I've been a forum poster on many forums since 1997 and I type in the Forum clarity method. Which seems to be how chat AI types, which means they scrapped a bunch of public forums, reddit, and 4chan. All places I learned to type. yes I hang my head in shame for being forever online since 1997. I have touched grass this week promise I did. 

Sorry go side tracked, I do that often I'm brain spicy and will sometimes over explain a  tangent. 

So while I have tested AI when they first opened to the public, I am hardlined against the use of it. Honestly anyone living near a Data Center needs to get their local goverments to close those down and tear the buildings down, along side banning ALL generative AI access. aka it's time for the butlerian jihad, Cybernetic Revolt, the battle against the Trade Federation, the war against Skynet. 

So as a DM I do not use any AI material. I publically rant on gen AI, I often joke about the Socialist Revolution to my players. That said if my players grab character art from one of the AI places I'm not going to comment, they know my stance, they should know I judge them poorly behind my DM screen, but they are adults and can make their own choices. 

As a DM if I need fast character Art I pay money for Heroforge, and I'm somewhat compitent at making minis, taking screen shots and using them as my NPCs. 

See: h

ttps://www.heroforge.com/load_config=41267318/

Also with GIMP I tend to make my own maps, not the high def amazing art, but you know what I like my old scool dry erase look. 

Edit: Also my method for map making is find a city map or transist map, and trace them out turning them into the map I use. The above map is from London. 

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I have to question the claim that genAI imagery adds to immersion. I don't see any compelling argument to support the idea that genAI imagery specifically adds to the immersion in a way that having any art at all presented doesn't already accomplish. 

 
To again be clear, not advocating for AI, just trying to answer the question in an objective way.

The reason art adds to immersion is that it makes every player’s imagination generally on the same page.  Everyone can look at an image and have an idea of what was in the mind of the player or DM presenting the art.  

However, with traditional art, something almost always gets lost in the translation.  For searching online, you always are going to have “close enough” not exactly what you envisioned.  Commissioning is the same problem - it might be closer to your imagination and require your approval throughout the process, but it is still going to be your imagination through the lens of another’s.  Even creating your own art has a translation problem, as skill, style proficiency (a great artist might not be proficient in the style they want to use for a character), time constraints, or evolving views on the character after points of no return on the art can all result in a final product that doesn’t match the final view on the character.

GenAI, at least now that it is much more adept, is the only tool that allows you to take your imagination, instantly create it yourself in exactly the style you want, tweak it to be almost exactly right, and thus take your imagination directly from your brain into a situation others can share

Thus, as an immersion tool, it is pretty easy to see the appeal - in almost every use case, other than the artist who can do it themselves and is pleased with the final work, it is going to be the best tool at translating imagination to group immersion (“best” by that sole metric alone). By way of example, “This is exactly what I want” is clearly more immersive than “this, but with different colored clothing.” 

Now, as others and myself has said, there are extreme costs to that level of immersive translation.  And there are some whose anger with GenAI might ultimately reduce the immersion.  All of that is a strongly compelling reason not to use AI for immersive purposes.   But from an objective analysis, on the solitary question of “does AI add immersion in a way that any art does not?”  Sure.  But that does not mean it is the right answer. 

Quote from gothicshark >>

[cat princess with a SAW]

Just an aside but I absolutely love this character already.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I have to question the claim that genAI imagery adds to immersion. I don't see any compelling argument to support the idea that genAI imagery specifically adds to the immersion in a way that having any art at all presented doesn't already accomplish. 

 
To again be clear, not advocating for AI, just trying to answer the question in an objective way.

The reason art adds to immersion is that it makes every player’s imagination generally on the same page.  Everyone can look at an image and have an idea of what was in the mind of the player or DM presenting the art.  

However, with traditional art, something almost always gets lost in the translation.  For searching online, you always are going to have “close enough” not exactly what you envisioned.  Commissioning is the same problem - it might be closer to your imagination and require your approval throughout the process, but it is still going to be your imagination through the lens of another’s.  Even creating your own art has a translation problem, as skill, style proficiency (a great artist might not be proficient in the style they want to use for a character), time constraints, or evolving views on the character after points of no return on the art can all result in a final product that doesn’t match the final view on the character.

GenAI, at least now that it is much more adept, is the only tool that allows you to take your imagination, instantly create it yourself in exactly the style you want, tweak it to be almost exactly right, and thus take your imagination directly from your brain into a situation others can share

Thus, as an immersion tool, it is pretty easy to see the appeal - in almost every use case, other than the artist who can do it themselves and is pleased with the final work, it is going to be the best tool at translating imagination to group immersion (“best” by that sole metric alone). By way of example, “This is exactly what I want” is clearly more immersive than “this, but with different colored clothing.” 

Now, as others and myself has said, there are extreme costs to that level of immersive translation.  And there are some whose anger with GenAI might ultimately reduce the immersion.  All of that is a strongly compelling reason not to use AI for immersive purposes.   But from an objective analysis, on the solitary question of “does AI add immersion in a way that any art does not?”  Sure.  But that does not mean it is the right answer. 

I mean, we can throw out the word objective because this is all about feelings and subjective values.

GenAI can at best only approximate what you're imagining in your head based on your prompts. You can keep refining it with repeated prompts, but all it knows how to do is steal from other artists' work and imitate their styles. Something in the style, proportions, details, etc., is going to fall short of the mental image and the person doing the prompting will have to settle for some version of "good enough." In the most optimistic case it can only attempt to do the same as commissioning a human artist who can get close to what you're picturing in your head but never perfectly reproduce your mental image. We have to settle for "almost exactly right" no matter what since perfect reproduction of the DM's mental image is off the table.

I'll take messy, amateur art as more immersive than well composed slop. I'd rather have a verbal description than slop, because then at least I can form my own mental picture.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

By way of example, “This is exactly what I want” is clearly more immersive than “this, but with different colored clothing.” 

I feel like we have very different definitions of "immersive" here

"This is exactly what I want" would almost be the opposite of immersive to me, since it leaves no room for the imagination to be involved at the table at all. A good verbal description of a character is far more immersive than any piece of AI art could ever be

I don't need what I have in my head to exactly match what you have in yours. That's not immersion