It says “you [aren’t] an effective DM” in response to the statement "Not everyone has the time, knowledge, imagination or resources to create D&D … art
Please, seriously, tell me how I’ve misinterpreted that?
I think y’all are mentally adding stuff to the conversation because you want it to only be about making content with AI, even though that’s not what it says. And you’re annoyed with me because my hatred of AI is not enough to overlook the actual words and actual meaning.
It didn’t say skill. Anyone can create art, always has been. Literally just a crayon drawing or the description you would have entered as a prompt is enough.
Respectfully, I believe you’re the one mentally adding stuff.
Damn, I really thought that’s what you were getting at.
OK actually, here’s another angle: a buddy of mine loves generating ai images and videos and showing them off. I tell him I’m not interested in the images because I can’t tell what parts come from him. I would rather see a crude sketch or hear a rough description from his mouth than something that looks like it comes out of the MCU.
When I tell him this he says “so you’d rather I not make anything, because if I didn’t use ai it wouldn’t exist” which makes 0 sense to me, so I say “it wouldn’t exist like that but it would exist” and we both walk away with the wheels turning in our heads trying to name sense of eachother’s wacky worldview.
Does that kind of by proxy get at it? Like, I want the rough draft, but you’re saying (?) you want the polished looking (?) output that an LLM generates? Like it’s either a case of using the LLM or not being able to produce anything?
So you admit you don’t have the imagination, time, knowledge, or resources to be an effective DM […]
The “or” is important there because it means you can supply any mixture of those things to be effective. If you supply none of them (by having genAI do it for you), then you can’t be considered effective because at that point, the players can just throw their answers into an LLM and spit out the same garbage.
And you purposely omitted two words that add to, and thus expand, the scenario: “campaigns and”.
If someone is having genAI to create both the story and the visuals for the campaign, then then they are not an effective GM. I hardly ever have artwork for my sessions; I just do the GM’s job and describe my world.
I think well-articulated writing matches literal meaning with intent. I’m criticising the post because the literal meaning doesn’t make sense, and doesnt align with what I think the author meant. They wanted to say something like “I don’t appreciate AI art in d&d campaigns and would rather none at all” but instead tried to make a less subjective objection.
in a meme? i accept that it’s not a format for debate or nuanced discussion and assume the author doesn’t mean everything 100% literally, then i chuckle at the joke and keep scrolling
Fair enough. I take some things more seriously, because I see a pattern in them that I think is negative, and because even if they were meant to be funny I think the (IMO negative) point they’re making was still meant honestly.
Is this claiming that you can’t be an effective DM if you don’t do your own art?
Literally yes.
It doesn’t say it has to be all you. A guide book is just fine, that’s what its there for! But if you’re just repeating what the chatbot generates, even if it’s slightly modified, I might as well talk to one myself.
You don’t have to be a great DM, if you’re trying you’re at least improving for next time. If you’re using a bot you’re not even doing that.
You say “literally yes” but then the rest of your response sounds like it’s answering a different question. What I asked was:
Is this claiming that you can’t be an effective DM if you don’t do your own art?
So, an example of a DM not doing their own art would be a DM who doesn’t have any art in their campaign at all. My interpretation of the OP is that this DM is ineffective. And I think they’ve only said that because they’re so keen to criticise AI use that they don’t really care whether they write their criticism in a way that might criticise something else.
I interpreted “art” as the DM’s storytelling in this case. If the DM doesn’t do that much, why even bother.
I have no qualms about the use of supplemental materials such as a guidebook, reference images, or otherwise. Ones preferably obtained from real artists.
Who knows, I care little about arguing such hypotheticals.
Either way, guide books contain pictures and there are plenty of websites people post their art to. You can just use such as reference material. A handdrawn map, even if crummy, is more charming than some AI hallucination.
But if you’re happy for people to crib existing artwork then I don’t think the objection (that you shouldn’t be DMing if you lack the “imagination, time, knowledge or resources”) is one you hold to. I think you just don’t want to see AI art in a D&D campaign and would happy to just say that, rather than what OP said.
![Be creative, don't pawn off the creative process [Rule]](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/f9267fd8-c41a-4d21-8fc4-04a7456cbf4d.png){kind=link}
Is this claiming that you can’t be an effective DM if you don’t do your own art? Nice gatekeeping if so.
Once again AI hate bleeds into other things.
It says “you [aren’t] an effective DM” in response to the statement "Not everyone has the time, knowledge, imagination or resources to create D&D … art
Please, seriously, tell me how I’ve misinterpreted that?
I think y’all are mentally adding stuff to the conversation because you want it to only be about making content with AI, even though that’s not what it says. And you’re annoyed with me because my hatred of AI is not enough to overlook the actual words and actual meaning.
It didn’t say skill. Anyone can create art, always has been. Literally just a crayon drawing or the description you would have entered as a prompt is enough.
Respectfully, I believe you’re the one mentally adding stuff.
… I also didn’t say skill? So I think we’re back to people other than me adding stuff :/
Damn, I really thought that’s what you were getting at.
OK actually, here’s another angle: a buddy of mine loves generating ai images and videos and showing them off. I tell him I’m not interested in the images because I can’t tell what parts come from him. I would rather see a crude sketch or hear a rough description from his mouth than something that looks like it comes out of the MCU.
When I tell him this he says “so you’d rather I not make anything, because if I didn’t use ai it wouldn’t exist” which makes 0 sense to me, so I say “it wouldn’t exist like that but it would exist” and we both walk away with the wheels turning in our heads trying to name sense of eachother’s wacky worldview.
Does that kind of by proxy get at it? Like, I want the rough draft, but you’re saying (?) you want the polished looking (?) output that an LLM generates? Like it’s either a case of using the LLM or not being able to produce anything?
I want a crayon drawn D&D campaign now.
Grok please generate a D&D art with a crayonIt literally doesn’t say that.
The “or” is important there because it means you can supply any mixture of those things to be effective. If you supply none of them (by having genAI do it for you), then you can’t be considered effective because at that point, the players can just throw their answers into an LLM and spit out the same garbage.
And you purposely omitted two words that add to, and thus expand, the scenario: “campaigns and”.
If someone is having genAI to create both the story and the visuals for the campaign, then then they are not an effective GM. I hardly ever have artwork for my sessions; I just do the GM’s job and describe my world.
But it says “campaigns or”, not “campaigns and”. That’s why I felt it reasonable to only focus on one.
Sure, if your imagination, time, knowledge and resources are such that you can’t do either, then you’re not offering much.
you’re reading things very literally vs understanding the authorial intent
I think well-articulated writing matches literal meaning with intent. I’m criticising the post because the literal meaning doesn’t make sense, and doesnt align with what I think the author meant. They wanted to say something like “I don’t appreciate AI art in d&d campaigns and would rather none at all” but instead tried to make a less subjective objection.
this approach is a great way to not get anyone to listen to you
Well, can you be constructive? What do you do when you see something that’s communicated poorly?
in a meme? i accept that it’s not a format for debate or nuanced discussion and assume the author doesn’t mean everything 100% literally, then i chuckle at the joke and keep scrolling
Fair enough. I take some things more seriously, because I see a pattern in them that I think is negative, and because even if they were meant to be funny I think the (IMO negative) point they’re making was still meant honestly.
Literally yes.
It doesn’t say it has to be all you. A guide book is just fine, that’s what its there for! But if you’re just repeating what the chatbot generates, even if it’s slightly modified, I might as well talk to one myself.
You don’t have to be a great DM, if you’re trying you’re at least improving for next time. If you’re using a bot you’re not even doing that.
You say “literally yes” but then the rest of your response sounds like it’s answering a different question. What I asked was:
So, an example of a DM not doing their own art would be a DM who doesn’t have any art in their campaign at all. My interpretation of the OP is that this DM is ineffective. And I think they’ve only said that because they’re so keen to criticise AI use that they don’t really care whether they write their criticism in a way that might criticise something else.
I interpreted “art” as the DM’s storytelling in this case. If the DM doesn’t do that much, why even bother.
I have no qualms about the use of supplemental materials such as a guidebook, reference images, or otherwise. Ones preferably obtained from real artists.
I think storytelling would fall under “campaign”, and so “art” is in contrast
Who knows, I care little about arguing such hypotheticals.
Either way, guide books contain pictures and there are plenty of websites people post their art to. You can just use such as reference material. A handdrawn map, even if crummy, is more charming than some AI hallucination.
But if you’re happy for people to crib existing artwork then I don’t think the objection (that you shouldn’t be DMing if you lack the “imagination, time, knowledge or resources”) is one you hold to. I think you just don’t want to see AI art in a D&D campaign and would happy to just say that, rather than what OP said.
I respect a DM who’s gone out to find useful references made by others.
I do not respect a DM who has asked a bot to generate some supplemental images.
I do not want to play with a DM who tasks a bot with coming up with a story or responses during play.
Simple as.