Hasbro has reaffirmed its commitment to using AI in the making of Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants sourcebook was itted to have been AI-assisted. WotC responded by updating its artist guidelines to officially prohibit the use of AI, and many considered the matter ended.

But the controversy continued in December of that year, when a piece of art used to promote the 2024 Player's Handbook was revealed to have been AI-generated. WotC responded with a statement on D&D Beyond, in which it pledged not to use AI in generating "final D&D products," only to turn around and use an AI-generated image to promote a series of retro-styled Magic: The Gathering cards. But D&D's recurirng AI controversies are more than a series of coincidences. All the while, Hasbro's executives have continuously extolled the virtues of AI, proving there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes D&D great.

Hasbro Has Jumped Back On The AI Bandwagon

Hasbro's CEO Still Wants AI In D&D

During a recent Goldman Sachs conference (reported by Futurism), Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks made a series of positive statements about the use of AI in D&D, continuing a worrying trend. First, he its that Hasbro has already been using AI in the creation of D&D: "It's mostly machine-learning-based AI or proprietary AI as opposed to a ChatGPT approach." That's not so concerning in and of itself; these kinds of technologies have existed for a while, and aren't subject to the same moral quandaries as more recent generative AI systems. It's the other part of Cocks' statement, though, that's really rubbed D&D fans the wrong way:

"I'm probably more excited though about the playful elements of AI. I play with probably 30 or 40 people regularly. There's not a single person who doesn't use AI somehow for either campaign development or character development or story ideas. That's a clear signal that we need to be embracing it."

WotC has made it clear there's no place for generative AI in final game materials, but there are several clear loopholes in its AI policy. Per its own guidelines, AI can still be used for things like concept art or official promos, and may even be pushed on players wanting to generate content for their own campaigns. Cocks went on to hint that D&D's online platforms (like the already controversial D&D Beyond) would soon incorporate tools to players "using AI to enable -generated content, using AI to streamline new player introduction, [and] using AI for emergent storytelling."

So, whether players want it or not, AI might be coming to D&D before long. Many may decide to use it, and as long as the content they generate never leaves the campaign table, it shouldn't be an issue for those most concerned with WotC's previous uses of generative AI. For one thing, putting the choice of whether to use AI in the players' hands doesn't take away valuable, lucrative job opportunities from the hardworking artists and writers who make D&D what it is (although it may result in a general decrease in commissions of character portraits)

It also dodges any accusations of copyright infringement, like the class action lawsuit filed against Midjourney Inc, DeviantArt Inc, Runway AI, and Stability AI by multiple artists, including MTG artist Karla Ortiz. Ultimately, AI has become something of a corporate buzzword, and Cocks may simply be invoking it here to ensure investors that Hasbro is hip to the latest technology. However, it does raise another issue that cuts to the heart of what players really love about tabletop games - and proves that Hasbro higher-ups don't really understand what makes their products so popular.

What Hasbro's Insistence On AI Misses About D&D

Player Creativity Is The Real Appeal

The problem, though, is that for most players, imagination and creativity are half the fun of D&D. At the end of the day, a D&D campaign fills the same niche as an impromptu playground game. The only difference between running around the schoolyard playing cops and robbers and a high-level D&D campaign is the scant structure provided by the latter's rules - and most DMs are even willing to bend those in favor of the rule of cool. The most delightful parts of every D&D session always hinge on players' creative solutions to a campaign's conundrums, and the most exciting parts on a story's carefully crafted twists and turns.

Relying on generative AI sucks all the fun out of these best aspects of a D&D campaign. Even the worst player-made art is a source of joy and inspiration; AI-generated portraits are sterile by comparison, lacking the character of a shoddily-drawn Microsoft Paint portrait. Even the most contrived plot twist can provoke gasps from a sufficiently invested table; AI-generated emergent storytelling is cheap by comparison, and that's assuming it's even capable of coming up with sensible plots. Even the most cliché D&D character idea can serve as a jumping-off point for a complex arc filled with deep, emotionally fraught character development; AI-generated characters are distant by comparison.

Ultimately, Hasbro overestimates the importance of D&D's rules to the average player's enjoyment. If all the official and officially licensed D&D tools like Roll20, Avrae, and Beyond become laden with useless AI tools that clog up their interfaces and stifle player creativity, many will choose to look elsewhere. After all, the one thing every tabletop RPG has in common, from high fantasy alternatives like Pathfinder to complete genre upsets like Call of Cthulhu or Deadlands, is an encouragement of creativity. And players who appreciate that won't hesitate to look elsewhere.

Executives in every quadrant of the gaming industry continue to insist that AI is here to stay. But a large segment of players have consistently made it clear that they don't want generative AI in games. When used in the actual process of development, it decreases the quality of art and writing, and takes lucrative work opportunities away from talented artists. When used in the creation of homebrew tabletop content, it's simply not as fun. Whether each individual player decides to use Dungeons & Dragons' AI features will come down to personal preference, but Hasbro may be overestimating the number of players who will opt in.

Sources: D&D Beyond, Futurism