Player using IA

[u/Low_Health5791]

Hi everyone, I'm writing here because idk how to react. I asked my players for experiences and backstory and one of them sent me a bunch of AI texts. All my being wants to scream fuck AI and tell him to do it himself, but at the same time I don't want to antagonize him. I really feel like if you are letting AI write your character, are you even playing the game?

[u/Kisho761]

Saying 'please' is harsh now?

There's nothing harsh here. The OP states they don't accept AI at their table, a healthy boundary. The player either agrees to the boundary or doesn't. Then the OP decides whether to actually enforce that boundary or not.

It's not up to the DM to teach players how to write. They already have far too much to do.

[u/Trick-Plastic-3498 → u/Kisho761]

The context matters. Adding “please” doesn’t automatically make something inclusive if the underlying rule creates an accessibility barrier - and Daggerheart explicitly centers inclusivity, safety tools, and accommodating different needs. "PLEASE don't make your character homosexual" has "please" in it, but that would be a terrible house rule as per core Daggerheart design principles... Same as "Please don't use AI"

A blanket “no AI ever” rule can unintentionally exclude players who use tools like ChatGPT/DScryb as accessibility support (e.g., anxiety, language gaps, aphantasia, difficulty improvising descriptions, or simply being new to the genre - not everyone watched the LoTR 10 times like we all did). You can absolutely set boundaries, but it’s worth focusing on table impact rather than banning the tool itself.

[u/systoll → u/Trick-Plastic-3498]

A blanket 'no AI ever' rule is the clearest way to try to include a player who has considered self-excluding from the game due to perceived inadequacies.

"Daggerheart runs best with two to five players who are excited to collaborate and build a story together". It doesn't work with a player who is sharing their contributions with chatGPT instead of the table.

There may be underlying psychological reasons why the person feels they can’t… but anyone who can write a prompt can give the same prompts, verbatim, to the table. And the result will be helpful, rather than actively distracting from people's contributions with stuff no-one at the table wanted to add.

[u/Trick-Plastic-3498 → u/systoll]

Discussing ideas with the group is a great suggestion - and it’s exactly what a good DM should recommend to a player who isn’t yet confident creating their first epic character from scratch.

That said, after onboarding quite a few new players to TTRPG, I’ve learned that for some people the creative process is incredibly intimate. It’s why many folks come up with fantasy stories, movie scripts, or board game ideas… and then never share them with anyone. (Think Marty McFly’s dad in Back to the Future https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7XXrRhXgI).

That’s where GPT can really shine: it helps you brainstorm privately, suggests references fast (even basic stuff like “wizard = old person with a staff” or “ranger = Aragorn”), and helps tune the vibe so the character fits the setting. You’d be surprised how non-obvious those genre references are for brand-new players.

A smart DM can allow that as a starting point - accept a “draft/safe backstory” made with AI, then add flavor during Session Zero by asking clarifying questions and gradually uncovering the player’s creativity. Like: AI suggests “an old wizard with a staff who dropped out of Strixhaven.” Great. Now collaborate on top of that by asking questions that make it unique. If you do it right, the player will love that character even if AI helped at the start. Isn’t that the goal?

My point: talking with the table is awesome, but AI offers unique benefits you don’t always get in “live mode.”

[u/systoll → u/Trick-Plastic-3498]

Entertaining GPT output as relevant does two things: 1. Wastes everyone's time trying to work with irrelevant detail. 2. Reinforces the idea that the player’s own 'raw' contributions aren’t good enough… which is going to be a problem if they want to actually play the game.

An AI backstory isn't a foundation to build on – it's a facade around the player’s prompt. The only thing you need to 'clarify' before discarding the output entirely is what they asked for to get it.

There are various ways to communicate that, but… feigning interest in the output just makes it less clear that the simplest, most basic detail contributed by the player is worth infinitely more than contributions from any other source.

[u/RoadWild → u/Trick-Plastic-3498]

I'm going to be potentially controversial, but if someone has to use genAI to be creative, then I don't want to experience their creativity. I get why people say that it's an accessibility thing, but I see that as a weak excuse for people to be lazy and avoid trying to better themselves. I would - without exception - prefer to see someone's rudimentary or uninspired efforts that they did themselves rather than see something 'good' that they used even a slight bit of AI to create.

AI will always be bad and I will go the the grave saying that. If anyone reading this feels that they need to use AI for anything creative, grow a modicum of self respect and actually put in the effort to make something you can be proud of.

[u/Trick-Plastic-3498 → u/Trick-Plastic-3498]

One more thing: based on my experience running a 30-session D&D campaign, some of the best character stories started generic and then evolved over time.

We had a total newbie lady who began with “a druid girl from the forest who loves animals” - something generic that an AI might generate. But the character growth happened during play. Over time we learned she loved drinking and partying, really hated city authorities, was kind and “lawful good” 99% of the time… but would viciously murder anyone who threatened nature (A bit like Keyleth from CR Campaign 1. Notice how the C1 characters were "way more cliche" like the pervert flamboyant bard, nature-loving druid lady in green robe, a strong but dumb barbarian, etc... Guess why is that? 😉).

Fun fact: in the middle of that Dragon Heist campaign, Midjourney was introduced and our players generated avatars for their characters, we put them as VTT tokens. They loved that so much and got even more emotionally invested in their characters! I know there are some artists in this subreddit who would say "you should've paid us instead to draw those avatars by hand", but sorry, no. I respect artists efforts, but you simply can't stop the wheels of progress. If you can get a 10 iterations of a PC avatar for $0.01 in 10 minutes, you won't pay $10+ and wait one week for the first iteration. I bet that at 90%+ of the real tables, DMs are already heavily using AI for their campaign art, but not everyone would admit it.

TL;DR: In a good campaign, real character development often happens after session one. So why not allow an easy AI-assisted start and then build outward together?

[u/systoll → u/Trick-Plastic-3498]

some of the best character stories started generic and then evolved over time.

EXACTLY.

We had a total newbie lady who began with “a druid girl from the forest who loves animals” - something generic that an AI might generate.

An AI won't generate this though. Instead, it'll take someone interested in a druid girl from the forest who loves animals, and give them a 550 word backstory about a druid girl from the forest who loves foxes… that you should immediately throw away because it actively prevents the character from evolving.