>>98155608
>buying rulebooks

I only pirate books, so i honestly dont care if the pics look flavourful to whatever the book is about. That dwarf is totally fine.

Is it a $60 rulebook or $60 art book? Choose one, OP.

>>98155608
It makes me upset. I'm not strictly anti-AI or even anti-AI art, but a pricey professional product should do better than that. At the very least there should be enough effort put into it to not have art that is obvious about being made with AI.

>>98155608
I don't buy 60 dollar rulebook. The indie devs I support price lower and don't have AI sloppa.

File: more ai.png (1.3 MB, 1120x704)

1.3 MB PNG

>>98155616
you might want to get your eyesight checked anon

>>98155608
i simply would never buy one. whatever the project, if it was not important enough to the (((author))) to write it themselves, then why should i ever waste my time reading it?
>its just art though
is it? once you've shown that you're willing to use slop in one aspect, the trust is gone. you didn't care that your "art" was slop, so we know what your values were when you made the rest of it.

>>98155655
The problem is obvious here but I have no idea what OP's image is trying to point out.

>>98155608
It could be a free book, still a reason to not get it.

Hopefully the crash won't take until 2030 to happen. Hopefully it won't be worse than 2008.

File: does ai ever stop.png (1.57 MB, 1163x821)

1.57 MB PNG

>>98155674
good point
trust is severely deteriorated especially considering the author didn't disclose the use of generative AI
and later allegedly confirmed AI art but only for non-central pieces
and we can clearly see AI in class description illustrations, clearly central pieces

>>98155675
the fingers don't know if they want to be fingers or decorations on the glove

>>98155608
what game?

>>98155735
ACKS

>>98155675
His fingers are melting through the gloves. Also the Book of Grudges is sunken into the floor.

>>98155750
the more you look at it the more uncanny it seems
what is going on with that axe head or the handle? why do the left-right armor elements (pauldrons, knee-pads, gauntlets) mismatch? the book itself, etc.

>>98155608
Part of what you pay for when you purchase an expensive rulebook is the art. The rules you can technically get for free, what you purchase is everything surrounding it which should, through writing and visual identity help you in understanding how to best run and play the game you have the rules for. Using AI art for that is inherently dishonest and damaging because the AI cannot create art that fits the game properly because it, unlike an actual artist, cannot understand thematic identity and creative intent. As a result, including AI art in a rulebook is inherently damaging to the quality of the product.

>>98155608
>rulebook
Calling it that is the egregious part.

>>98155608
My stance is that I'm not buying it. Pour water on this fucking garbage already.

>>98155616
>>98155675
Blind soulless retards.

>>98155692
Also, the gloves on the one hand are completely different from the gloves on the other hand.

>>98155689
Is no-one going to mention the completely random allocation of the rivets, and that all the rivets look different from eachother and doesn't seem to know whether they should be rivets or rocks? I'll point it out.

Sure, there's a few odd details, but overall it's actually pretty good for AI art, I'm rather impressed. It's better than much of the AI art in Dragons Down, for example:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/351648/dragons-down

How long do you think it'll take for AI art to become completely indistinguishable from handmade art?

OP's intent is laudable perhaps, but he's fighting a reaguard action. Give it a few years and it'll be considered absolutely normal.

>>98155608
If you're not going to put actual work into making your product you won't get any of the money I did actual work to get.

>>98155608
I'm more interested in the mechanics.

File: ImpCity.jpg (1.86 MB, 2688x1792)

1.86 MB JPG

>>98155828
>How long do you think it'll take for AI art to become completely indistinguishable from handmade art?
It's pretty close, at least with Midjourney. Nanobanana and Grok are clean, but have clear styles. Last I checked Stable Diffusion is great too, but all the quality checkpoints are for porn.

Pic related. Not perfect but I feel in a book you wouldn't be able to look close enough to see the artifacts, and if you were an editor you could easily fix the artifacts anyway.

>>98155608
Nope.

File: 519614069_128167232352050(...).jpg (176 KB, 1222x1920)

176 KB JPG

>>98155828
>Give it a few years and it'll be considered absolutely normal.
>Slop will be considered absolutely normal
They hyped us all up for elevators to Mars, I'm not settling for this utter shite

>>98155655
Its just.. who cares? Its just some filler pics next to the actual rules.

File: file.png (7.53 MB, 1792x2688)

7.53 MB PNG

>>98155907
If you couldn't tell the difference, would you really care? Sure if the AI art looks like complete slop, then yeah it's dog shit. But if it looks as good, or better than most other art, would it detract from your experience in reading giant blocks of text next to it?

>>98155608
if youre gonna use generative AI, just be up front about it - in the credits even.
if youre NOT gonna use AI, great.
but these motherfuckers who say they dont use AI and clearly do, theyre fucking liars, so fuck their brand and their products.
this includes YOU, Fatt Collville.

>>98155914
Yes, because a good reason that I enjoy looking for certain artists is because I want to see more of their cool shit. There's a sticky on the passing of John Blanche up right now, and I have an entire body of work of his to look at. Something we'll never get more of in the future, no matter how many robots try to blindly imitate it. There's a reason people don't give a shit about imitations and fakes of the Mona Lisa over the original.

That and almost every attempt to show me how "superior" AI art looks just looks like dog shit, just with the AI renderer throwing a tantrum how I'm a luddite and holding back the future where we grow wheat on the moon despite the only thing I'm doing is saying I don't like a piece of art.

>>98155907
You won't and I won't but normies will.

>>98155608
I'll assume it was made by Indians.

>>98155608
what game?

>>98155674
This is my main issue with AI, if you dont care enough about the vision to actually sculpt it, and instantly randomly generated it, then i dont care either. Even worse than the fact he used AI is the fact there is no shared artistic style between these picture, you might as well google "fantasy dwarf" and just paste whatever picture you liked.

To me using AI art is no different from taking random pictures from google. Acceptable for maybe a guy running a campaign who wants quick art. Absolutely not for an actual paid product.

Without a unified vision, you may as well not include the art.

>>98156057
boku no pico

>>98155608
And this impacted your traditional games somehow?

If its baby's first rule book and they couldnt afford actual artists then its fine to use AI art for pictured examples of what something may look like.

I'm not fully against AI mostly because its a tool in the end, I still remember when a bunch of VAs got pissed at a guy who did a stop motion Scooby Doo FNAF animation for a school project, as such he used AI for the voice acting because they were a student. Of course this was deemed as evil and so they were harassed by a bunch of people with first world problems and even some of the scooby doo VAs got involved.

In short AI is a punishment to self righteous cunts

>>98155828
>>98155891
Even if AI becomes 10 times better and I can no longer instantly notice it, I wont use a product that uses AI art. All it tells me is the author doesnt care enough to actually to have his vision detailed to his liking and instead is ok with "close enough" this my main issue with corpo committee design and modern vidya/movies.

I dont want this issue to spread even further because of AI.

I actually hope that in the future, AI art advances a lot, allowing it to aid you in drawing your own stuff, detailing however you wish as the AI fills in colours and stuff for you as you crudely draw exactly what you want. However, as per what I am seeing that is not the direction its going in.

>>98156057
ACKS

>>98155608
If I am paying for a product, I expect you to give a shit about the art.
I'd, genuinely, prefer no art to art that shows me that you do not give a shit.

>>98155608
>98155655
>all those mistakes
I don't get it
the free tier of chatgpt does better than this
I mean it's still obviously souless and ugly but you don't see such obvious mistakes.

>>98155674
This is like those arguments where some obnoxious cunt praises a pointless race swap and goes
>why do you care?
And the obvious answer is always
>if it doesn't matter, then why did you change the character?

AI Art in game books and other material is admitting that art and presentation are important. They cared enough to generate hundreds, maybe thousands, of pictures just so they could pick out the best ones to put in their book to make it look just like a real big boy books that have lots of art from lots of artists, sometimes woven into the layout, and definitely on very important page. If it doesn't have any art, then it doesn't look like a real game book, and then why would anyone be tricked into buying it?

So, if art doesn't matter, then why gen a bunch of art in a semi-cohesive art style, with a unifying theme, all so it can be sold to idiots, whom the creator is hoping won't look that closely? If art does matter, then it requires extra effort to clean up and or extra money, to get real artists to create things, neither of which are acceptable because AI addicts are convinced that they deserve all the wealth and success and fame that real creators get, just without any of the effort or care that they have to put in... Which betrays that their actual goal is just to get money they don't deserve.

>>98155787
>Blind soulless retards.
I think it's just the ACKShill performing damage control.

Even people who are fine with AI art don't like shitty AI art, and that's some incredibly shitty, primitive AI art.

>>98156352
Reminds me of the old adage of how you can have something made fast, cheap, or good, but you can't do all three at once.

Reminder that this is a fishfag thread. His attempts at replacing /osrg/ are failing and now he’s back to attacking ACKS unprompted.

If it puts the faggy artists who drew mexican orcs, black elves and gay beholders out of a job then I'm all for it.

>>98156489
>presuming that the corpos won't just tell AI to incorporate all the beaner orcs and rainbow beholders into their artwork for cheap now that they don't have to pay humans to do it
Reminder that someone had to tell those faggy artists what to draw in the first place, lol

>>98155608
I already oppose the idea of buying TTRPG rulebooks, so having a pricetag that rivals a fucking video game with art produced by AI on top of that just makes it worse.

I would rather have AI make the art than foreigners make it, any day.

>>98155935
Most people didn't give shit about Mona Lisa either until relatively recently. The 1911 theft and subsequent recovery made it world famous.

>>98155907
If you're not settling, are you making art, or building elevators to Mars?

>>98155608
I'm against any tool that requires the labour of others in order to function, but whose seller refuse to pay the labourers for the production of the tool.

>>98156500
Yes of course, it will still be corpo slop. But at least the smug artists who took sadistic pleasure in defiling beautiful and beloved things and rubbing it in people's faces will now be flipping burgers.

>>98156630
No, I'm just not going to pay for products with AI in it. I'm not going to make the claim I'm better than a robot at art since my doodles are beyond amateur hour. But I'm just not going to fellate AI artwork either out of some misbegotten spite towards my superiors. I'm a schlub with mediocre art skills, and I can live with that.

>>98156637
No, I'm saying if you really cared you should be calling equally for the corpo drones commissioning the art to be fired and made into pariahs as well, not just the creeps that accepted money to do their bidding. Next to none of these artists are getting paid to sell this rainbow shit that they made on their own time to corporates, the corporations specifically ask them to make more shit that you hate as part of their business dealings. So you're going to see more of it whether or not it's made by AI or commiefornia artists.

>>98156630
No, I don't cook, and I'm also not going to eat your shitty food. I will eat better food made by better cooks than you instead. Enjoy unemployment.

>another forgettable fantasy dungeon crawler

don't you guys ever get bored of playing the exact same game for years?

>>98156674
The game they're playing is bag-passing.
Sell lazy clones of pre-existing games, slap bad AI art onto it without disclosing that it's AI, and then shamelessly shill it until you get banned and then have to move to another place to shill.

>>98156129
>Even if AI becomes 10 times better and I can no longer instantly notice it, I wont use a product that uses AI art.
You wouldn't know which products not to use if you can't tell the difference, silly

>>98156674
Nah, ACKS is better. It's got rules for an actually functional economy, magic research, creation of new monsters, etc. Dungeon crawling is like, 20% of what it does. I would say it's invaluable to anyone doing fantasy RPGs.

>>98156637
The corpos will just have the bot make their 'fantasy world rehab center' art.

File: carlos.jpg (16 KB, 447x447)

16 KB JPG

>>98156468
Seems prompted to me.

Christ, this CuCKS faggot really can't stop himself from being the most transparent shill.

>it's got rules for everything!
>sure, they're terribly designed, poorly formatted, and take forever to resolve, but they exist!

He's the kind of guy who would promote AIDS as a weight-loss solution.

>>98156797
There's a solid chance a lot of the rules were AI generated.
They're so bland and bad.

>>98155608
Stop spamming about ACKS.

>>98156715
Carlos!

I'll use this thread for the question. What if I don't use AI as an artist but as a business/development assistant? Do people care as much if I use an AI to tell me my rules ideas are good? Or help to come up with a skeleton that I can craft a game around?

>>98157194
Sounds like a way to make rules that look fine on paper but are terrible in practice; ie. the worst possible type of rules.

>>98157194
AI doesnt know whats good or bad. so its just gonna kiss your ass and tell you whatever you made is awesome regardless of how shitty it is.

I hate it. I hate it for the same reason that I hate people that seem to enjoy having AI generate sessions to run or make their character's background using AI. I hate it because being creative has always been about being creative for me, not necessarily about the quality of the end product.

Regardless if AI becomes better and indistinguible from human made stories or rulebooks, I will still hate it.

Rulebooks like this make me believe that the creators have no passion or care for the thing itself. For creating. Therefore, why should I care ? It's a difficult thing to quantify.

>>98156797
>>98156817
The rules are fine. You can't point to a single rule that doesn't work.

>>98155608
You fucks will never win.

Complain all you want, the rising price of human labor makes AI art inevitable. It's just business, and your opinion will not be asked.

Your choice is to abandon your hobby altogether, or abandon your distaste for AI.

>>98157374
Fuck off, ACKShill.
You act like the game hasn't been torn to shreds a hundred times now, while you plead on every point to try and wear everyone out.

You even act like it doesn't have one of the most cumbersome, time-wasting initative systems that turns the already slow combat into a complete and utter slog.

>>98157415
I choose neither, shill. I did fine playing tabletop games without AI for over a decade, I'll keep doing fine without it.

>>98155674
I'm reminded of that game by the Myst devs where they used AI for a lot of the text and puzzles. This was early chatgpt too so it was even more nonsensical than usual. It's not always easy to tell with text as it is with the art OP has been posting.

>>98157209
>>98157269
So as long as the game itself is quality there's not as much pushback against the use of AI as a development tool

File: 1699299651046525.png (29 KB, 1295x1112)

29 KB PNG

>>98156129
I'd like that. If a clanker could guide my hand so my chicken scratch becomes clean lines I'd be drawing all day. But until then I am okay with drawing stickmen.

>>98156693
I don't know which jeans in the store had a child die to make them, but if one of them advertised with "small malaysian child died to make these jeans" I'd buy other jeans. It's not complicated. Either way right now it's a hypothetical, because l; because I look at >>98155891
and think "Cool!" then I look closer and go "Ergh." Impressive detail, but it didn't get the walls right which is the entire premise of the city so into the trash it goes, which means it is only impressive from the perspective of "no one made this" rather than "someone made this".

>>98155620
For 60 bucks it better be both

>>98157423
You have never produced an argument beyond "I don't like it."

The initiative system is extremely simple and intuitive. 1d6+mod from everyone participating. Repeat every round. Exactly how it was in old D&D. Even simpler, because ACKS doesn't have casting/weapon speed.

So, wrong. Initiative works fine.

>>98155608
>>98155655
>>98155689
So? Humans also make these anatomical/detail mistakes.

Not a fun game. Corners cut everywhere and it shows. Not worth your time.

>>98157491
And those humans who make those mistakes deserve to be made fun of. So what exempts AI from being mocked? Or the moron who took a look at it, failed to notice said mistakes, and went "Yep, this is definitely worth paying for, mmmhmmm".

>>98157437
just dont expect LLMs to be honest with you, because they dont know whats good or bad.

>>98157491
What an absurd thing to say.
Artists are criticized for their mistakes when they are selling their skills. If they are good, their mistakes are few(er), and the art is better. That's why they are paid.

Using AI art in your book is cheaping out on hiring a good artist, so the resulting art is cheap and bad, detracting from the entire product. Much prefer a book having no art to it having generic that lacks effort, intent, and doesn't stir the imagination. Even bad art has intent and effort behind it.

It's not about the technical quality of art, it's about the intent and the message it conveys. AI art says: "This is the generic fantasy you're used to, there's nothing special here, and we couldn't be bothered to pay someone for their time and skill, so they can put our vision into an image."

How is that in any way desirable as either an author or a reader? Unless you simply don't care what you consume as a reader, and the author is just doing this for profit.

There is a use case there for "it's just for the rules, don't look at the art" but then WHY IS IT THERE? It's just a waste of space and effort, detracting from the whole.

> But what if AI art gets good?
What if the sky falls? Am I obligated to defend something I don't find good because it has the potential to be good in the future?
I recognize that the technology is here to stay, and I'm actively looking for ways to apply it, but free imagery in published work for the express purpose of cutting costs without cutting selling prices isn't it.

>>98157554
Exactly

>>98156407
I feel like that saying now needs a parallel to it about "cheap and fast" producers have to compete with everyone else with access to the same ability to make things cheap and fast. AI tools aren't special or limited. Anyone can use them and the people who already developed the writing, drawing, and editing skills professional creatives need to use can also use AI and apply all of their knowledge and experience while they're doing so.

If you're an illiterate subhuman who has never had a creative thought in your life, it doesn't matter how quickly you can make the AI spit out slop for you hastily try to resell to people you assume are dumber than you. You will not have good ideas and you will be lagging behind everyone else who knows how to use AI better than you, and those people are lagging behind real artists and writers who don't have to fake it and also have the inherent legitimacy that comes with being an actual creative.

>>98157487
>from everyone participating. Repeat every round. Exactly how it was in old D&D.
That's wrong. Old D&D did group initiative, (one roll per side of the conflict, typically just two) which made rolling for it simple and easy to do every round (roll 2d6 and compare), and easy to keep track of, and even rules like weapon speed or optional modifiers were quick to resolve (though typically ignored, even by Gygax).

Individual initiative every round was a rare house rule in OD&D, and an optional rule in 2e, but an unpopular one because Individual Initiative every round was a tedious process that adds several rolls that need to be compared, ordered, and tracked every round with every player involved. It was unpopular but manageable if the system was relatively light, but use it in a system that isn't light and it makes a slow game with slow combat a slow death by a thousand blunt cuts.

>>98155608
I'd need to cut my IQ in half to give a shit that someone used AI in their book. Only thing that matters is if it looks good enough and conveys the tone

>>98156129
RPG authors usually aren't making their own art so it will always be "good enough" anyway since they're just giving prompts to commission artists instead of AI. I'd rather give money to an AI company than some leftist artist.

>>98159383
Your IQ would be unchanged if divided in half.
Seriously though, why bother expressing your opinion at all if you do it in such a way that makes it clear you're a braindead retarded cunt? You undermine whatever position you stand on just by being yourself.

>>98159405
The opinions of people as dumb as you aren't relevant to me. Either address the point or listen

>>98155608
>Something a guy made and released himself
Fine
>Something published by an actual company with money to spend
Gay

I don't expect a regular dude writing a wargame as a hobby that he plans to post on 4chan or reddit for free to spend $500 hiring an illustrator to make dozens of images, but if you're a company with actual writers and the ability to hire illustrators fuck off with that slop.

>>98159383
Usage of AI, while trying to hide it, is a thing that conveys so much more information about the overall quality and intentions of the creator than not. To have no opinions on AI usage is an act of willful ignorance, usually motivated by spite or fatigue about AI discourse.

>>98156355
Oh, this is just another fishfag thread schizoing out about ACKS. I should have guessed.

>>98155608
I'd rather have no art in a book than AI art.

>>98155608
What is this from?

>>98155608
I'm not paying extra for slop. I guarantee the rules alone aren't worth that much.

>>98157415
Except searchable digital documents are more convenient for most people so the market collectively is going to be the ones to decide whether they want and objet d'art filled with dogshit art

>>98159850
want an*

>>98155608
I think artists are poofters who operate as the willing vanguard of authoritarian government in order to use the power of the government to suppress the people they're too stupid to win an argument against, so I think it's great and companies should keep doing it until all of the degenerate furry porn peddlers rope themselves in despair at the thought of having to get a real job.

>>98159887
>more things should be ugly and shit actually, because I'm schizophrenic

>>98155608
I'd never pay for this shit. If you can't make or afford actual art then just don't include an image; this just looks like cheap garbage and undermines my interest in the rest of the content.

>>98159617
>Oh, this is just another fishfag thread schizoing out about ACKS. I should have guessed.
Looks like you missed this post:
>>98155707
Fishfag's psychiatric conditions are getting worse.

>>98159383
>literally complained that corpo "close enough" is something i hate a lot, and AI makes the issue wider
>errrm actually "good enough" happens without AI
first of all Kill yourself retard. Second of all in the ancient past of 20 years ago, books had art made by an artist whose vision dominated the books aesthetic. We literally have a stickied post about such an artist

>>98159992
People want to see images

>>98160265
>muh vision
Meaningless buzzword

>>98157491
I don't think most people above the age of seven would make the mistake of giving a guy six fingers on a hand, anon.

File: totally good art.jpg (149 KB, 224x414)

149 KB JPG

>fuck you fag
>no FUCK you fag!
>BROSR or DND faggots talking about their own game not even the OP
>ad nauseum
Nice thread and all but the points you guys have raised are moot when the AI """art""" is ripping off crap like Alpha Clash, Western Comics, and Diesel. There's a reason why x-men sells like shit compared to Dragon Ball Z

>>98160564
Fuck off spic

>>98156637
>people responsible won't suffer, but at least I can gloat to some literal burger flippers!

>>98155608
What gets me is that these huge corporations will not pay an artist a bit of cash to make some art. How expensive can that be? It is such levels of greed that make me lose all hope for society.

>>98160573
Two sets of people are responsible. One of them getting the pink slip is good news even doe both would ideally be getting it.

AI images are fucking boring.

>>98155608
If it has generative AI then I'm morally obligated to pirate it

>>98160576
>"artists" (using this term very loosely) deserve to be given money because, uhm...

>>98160457
Images are a form of communication. They contain information.

Lazily generated AI art that's not disclosed to be AI art communicates quite a bit, but not what the person who tried to decieve people with them probably wanted to say.

Instead of "This is a premium product filled with creative direction and vision that will help inspire you, made with care and attention to detail that you can trust," it instead says "I wanted to trick people into buying a worthless product by cheaply imitating the appearance of books made by people who actually cared enough to notice if someone has six fingers, while belittling everyone I think would purchase these books by thinking they would be too stupid to notice obvious and terrible AI art."

AI art isn't neccesarily bad in and of itself.
Shitty AI art, however, made with stolen assets, with uninspired prompts and no QC, communicates quite a lot, and mostly negative traits about the person. But, taking it a step further and not disclosing that it's AI art and trying to pass it off as human generated art is another whole level of shitbaggedness.

File: orks.jpg (206 KB, 1456x728)

206 KB JPG

Here is that soulful human art I was talking about btw

File: hartfingers.jpg (9 KB, 229x318)

9 KB JPG

Some professional artists cannot draw hands. Behold Christopher Hart, the author of all those "How to Draw Manga" books.

>>98160645
Whoever drew this is probably whining about how AI is killing creatives.

>>98155608
I doubt good games has this shit. Is this some meme game or something?

>>98160625
Given how little artists are paid in most industries to begin with, the amount of money saved with using inferior product such as AI would be measured in dongs.

>>98160475
... how about direction? Theme? Style? Do you understand those words?

I don't mind AI art being used for concept art or to build a premise especially if you're a solo developer and have minimal artistic talent or money to pay for art, but selling AIslop for a premium is a shit move all around. People who buy physical content usually want real art.

>>98160685
It's a pretty shit game that's basically a scam. It's already been banned from several websites because its discord was caught shilling on those platforms.

It's a game with rules that do nothing but waste time, because the goal wasn't to make a smart, efficient game, but to bloat the page count to more than a thousand pages. Just rules for the sake of having rules.

>>98155910
Color prints, especially of full page artworks, really eat into production costs.

>>98160729
>direction? Theme? Style?
AI can follow directions and output different themes and styles.

>>98160770
Chinese room

>>98155608
If you use AI, I won't get that book. Pay for a fucking artist or use stick art. I can forgive it in homemade nature free products, but not in paid products

>>98155910
You are paying for color printed images next to your rules. If they don't want to make sure those images are worth buying then they could just leave them out entirely and make the rulebook cheaper. This is literally pouring stones and dirt into their grain to bring the weight up and get better prices. It is BLOAT and they are stealing money from anyone who buys that book.

>>98155608
I don't care that much. We are all just passing time as our human meat slowly oxidizes until the day electricity no-longer animates the twitching fibers of our flesh. Use your gooey eyes to examine pictures so that you will experience the effect of hormones running rampant across your neural circuitry. Who gives a shit.

>>98160904
>baby's first wouldbe nihilist post

>>98160770
No it cant, it doesnt get it, it always produces something "close enough", thats the problem.
I swear talking with you is like running in a circle. If you reply to another thing like a retard again i will assume you are generating these responses.

>>98161000
uhm yeah actually it does
> i will assume you are generating these responses.
Say nigger or I will make the same assumption about you.

>>98161021
No it doesnt, if it did this entire thread wouldnt exist. Also AI can say nigger.

>>98161000
>cant
>doesnt
>thats
>If you reply to another thing like a retard
Ironic.

>>98160645
Honestly, what is wrong with this art?

>>98160702
Given how little they produce its a wonder they get paid at all

>>98161102
At its core, nothing's wrong with it at all. It portrays the new D&D vision of orcs and half-orcs as a more civilized species, using frontier fashion and imagery to signal they're meant to be more rough and tumble wanderlust types. But some people don't like that and prefer orcs and half-orcs being closer to the more savage and antagonistic portrayal in previous editions. That's really it. One could quibble about the fact they look less like brutish monsters and more like humans with tusks and grey skin in order to sell that they're "nicer" due to being softer looking, or that most of their fashion choice is pretty obviously based after mexican fashion, but that's basically the main issue. Some people don't like it because it's different from what they wanted.

File: 1713199590097038.jpg (189 KB, 1024x1024)

189 KB JPG

>>98161102
The art itself is fine, the design and depiction is fucking gay modernism that is endemic of modern artists and design now, and is a firm argument sadly for why AI should take their fucking job.

If I asked AI to design a cool orc, they would give be a cool orc, if I ask a modern artist to design a cool orc, they make this lame shit where "cool" to them is a bunch of mexican humans with fucked up faces. This is only cool to the artist, who is lame.
If I ask the AI to draw a dwarf, it just gives me a cool dwarf. If I ask a modern artist to draw a cool dwarf they are going to do something fucking retard like make them black and not have a beard. Its an eye rolling things now to "subvert" and AI by nature can only work with what humans have made, it struggles to subvert, so it just gives you what you fucking expect and want. The artists are making themselves redundant, AI STRUGGLES to make something this lame, like you really have to tailor the prompts to make it look uncool, humans now struggle with the idea of just making something that looks good. Its fucking sucks that its like this but thats the culture now.

You get blacked Lord of the Rings, instead of just the Lord of the Rings etc. It needs to stop, the are making the argument for why AI should be used instead of them. Noone would look back and say "yea, I want more of that shit that isnt like what I wanted, just because its human" when AI starts actually just making shit people want to see.

>>98161265
Something you need to recognize, good sir, is that most of these artists are making what they're told to by the companies that commission this shit. You see more "lame" orcs and dwarves because companies want more lame orcs and dwarves. It's one thing if the artists were making this on their own dime. It's another if they're paid to, since a job is a job. Plenty of furry freaks with too much money will commission artists to make their stupid fursonas into reality, that doesn't mean the artists they pay like it. Look at how many pictures wonderbread freak's commissioned to get the same picture over and over again drawn.

Also, final note, those same companies commissioning artists to make gay orcs and dwaves making kissy face at each other will just do the same if they turn to AI, they just save pennies on the dollar doing it.

File: 1696114950612638.jpg (180 KB, 1024x1024)

180 KB JPG

>>98161297
I think its a bit of both. I think the companies only hire people who will naturally just make the kind of stuff they want to see.

This is how these things go;
>I want you to design an orc based on these parameters: Make no doubt that they are an allegory for black people and remove the barbarian aspect as its offensive.
And then depending on the artist they will come back with a bunch of stuff based on that. If the artist is lame, they come up with lame designs, and wouldve keep their role if they were coming up with stuff that was not in line with the company.

There are still artists that make cool stuff, but they do not get work now due to companies having a different view of what they need, they need someone who will draw black Aragorn, not angelic depictions of a western archetype, and sadly, with the emergence of AI, they probably never will get jobs again if this carries on. If AI does the jobs of both kinds of artists it will replace both. Make no mistake, I dont like this, but it is the climate the artists made. You dont have to make the designs lame just because the brief says the design had to change from what they were, I doubt at any point they said "make it lame" when giving directions.

File: Capture.png (247 KB, 605x815)

247 KB PNG

>>98159236
Suck my dick you disingenuous faggot. Though I suppose you'd enjoy that, so actually don't suck my dick, but instead go and eat some .45 cal aspirin.

>>98161102
What's that quote about "the leftist's greatest tactic is pretending to not understand."

If you don't see what's wrong with that illustration (calling it art is incorrect), you're banned from having opinions about art, until you spend a decade going to non-modern art museums weekly.

>>98161399
Are you actually, genuinely stupid?
Here is your opportunity to realize your mistake, correct yourself, and apologize.

Or, you can double down and try another edgy retort just to embarrass yourself further. Your choice.

>>98161184
Yeah, orcs have not been just monsters for decades now. That ship has sailed.
>>98161265
You mean it's using the modern orc and not the mindless raping savage version. The artists draw what they are often directed to drawl.

This is the direction d&d took the orcs as it's what players want. They want another species not a mindless monsters. That ship sailed with WoW

>>98161408
This shows me you have zero understanding of art as a basic concept

>>98160904
If nothing mattered then you wouldn't have posted this.

>>98159514
Define "trying to hide it".
As long as they don't lie and say there isn't ai then it's no issue. Honestly I'd defend them lying since so many imbeciles are anti-ai for ignorant reasons.
I have an opinion, that opinion is Ai is good in principle and will become better and better.

>>98160265
Ai doesn't make the issue wider. You used to have an imperfect reflection of the authors vision and you still do. Arguably it's better with Ai. Case in point you saying we used to have books dominated by an artists "vision" except that vision couldn't possibly be exactly the same as the author's vision. Depending on the Ai service used it can get closer to the author's vision than any random commission artist

>>98161567
>As long as they don't lie and say there isn't ai then it's no issue
That's the issue. Most do exactly that. Because they know that the people that care are not going to pay for it if they know it was made by a machine, so they lie.
>Honestly I'd defend them lying
So you're a moron. Got it.

>>98155608
Yeah, actually buying rulebooks has always been a dumb scam.
This is at least finally taking the last reason that anyone would have to pay off the pile. If you can't even get good art inside, why pay for some half-tested rules?

>>98155616
>>98155675
Usually human artists trend towards symmetrical designs or ones with an obvious asymmetry.
This has that AI slop style where it is both trying to be symmetrical but can't keep track of details so the design is neither obviously designed to be asymmetrical nor does it follow standard design conventions. It just melts into detail soup.

>>98161443
Bruh, I'm quoting book and verse at you. You're just a retarded faggot.

>>98161522
Art is anything pre-20th century created by Europeans and that hangs in a museum, aka worthy of presentation.

File: 1764801518448698.jpg (18 KB, 320x408)

18 KB JPG

>>98161408

Bad rpg art replaced by bad rpg art. I'm not sure it's a substantial difference.

>>98155608
They shouldn't have had art at all if they weren't able to. Plenty of amateur rulebooks don't have detailed pictures and they work fine.

>>98161694
So, you are genuinely stupid.

With that understood, here's your last chance to avoid revealing you're nothing more than an irredeemable bad-faith idiot to everyone. You are stupid, but let's see just how dumb you're willing to act.

Read the post again, carefully this time.
Hint:
"Every round" was not a point in contention.

>>98157415
>the rising price of human labor
That's bullshit, wages are rising far slower than inflation.

>>98156489
>I want things to get shittier for everyone just to spite this one specific group

>>98161800
lol fuck you

>>98161580
It wasn't made by a machine. The art was made by a machine
>so you're a moron
lol. Guaranteed you're far dumber. Hence why you didn't challenge the point and resorted to ad hominem. There's plenty of good reasons to lie, one of which is to trick imbeciles into enjoying something for your monetary gain.

>>98161800
But it's not shittier

If you are ok with no art you are ok with bad art.

>>98161770
They were able to. They clearly have art in the book. Why have no art when you could have art? To spare the feelings of retards?

>>98161924
It's ad hoenim to point out that you're an idiot who thinks someone is justified in lying the the consumer about their art not being machine made, solely because you don't like artists?

>>98157415
>the rising price of human labor
Productivity's outpacing labour costs on all fronts, so for the last couple decades, labour's actually only been getting cheaper per production unit.

>>98161957
If the lie has no relevance to the actual product then it's perfectly acceptable. The value of art comes from what it is/does, not how it's made.

>>98161957
>ad hoenim
lmao retard

>>98162003
>It doesn't matter how the sausage is made as long as the customers find it tasty
Yeah, good luck arguing that in court, retard.

>>98161102
I don't like their interpretation of classic fantasy race.

>>98162039
>in court
Good luck with that, there's no obligation to disclose the use of AI art thank fucking god.

>>98160645
It's racist towards Mexicans.

>>98162050
With enough retards trying to blatantly lie to their customers' faces, that's going to be made an obligation sooner rather than later

>>98162049
It's a modern fantasy, not a classic one. How orcs are viewed changed decades ago and kept changing. Orcs in modern pop culture are not pre 2000 orcs

>>98162054
Explain how.

>>98162055
>that's going to be made an obligation
lol

There's a guy who started chatting me up at a place. He uses generative AI to make art. See. it's all about how you use AI, if you are good at it like me it's not a steaming pile of shit. Look at this (it's a steaming pile of shit). Amazing bruh, what a steaming pile of Indian flavored shit. He tells me about the nerdy things he does with AI, he's such a nerd haha. I fucking hate his guts so fucking much. I fucking hate every second this faggot tries to make conversation with me. But I am so used to concealing my hatred for normalniggers and making small talk he's thoroughly convinced I enjoy the 5 minute chat before I have to leave while I hatred beam his stupid fucking AInigger face while I pretend I'm making small talk to get him to fuck off and die. Fucking faggot holy fucking shit. Die die die. Fucking AInigger piece of shit fucking DIE. Total AInigger death. Genuinely praying he has an accident and I never see his faggot AInigger ass ever again. I hope every AInigger is trying to make friends with someone like me. If I found an AInigger in carwreck I'd give it a nice push to make it roll off the street. Fucking AIniggers die in a fire.

>>98162062
>spoon feed me
no

>>98162072
So you don't know. Gotcha

>>98162086
So you're too stupid to understand it on your own.

>>98162070
nice copypasta

>>98162039
False equivalence. Sausage is something you consume and can have knock on effects towards your health. Ai art doesn't have a different impact on your life than normal art if it looks the same

>>98162092
You made a super vague claim with zero points. You have not explained how it's racist. It sounds like you are just repeating buzz words

>>98162408
>It sounds like you are just repeating buzz words
To racists, perhaps.

>>98162417
Go ahead, point out what is racist about it.

>>98155914
This is pretty good sloppa. You generate this? If so, what'd you use?

>>98161102
Objectively: Inconsistent depth, busy, repetitive
Subjectively: Fat ugly subjects, anachronistic, culturally derivative

>>98161778
Read the reply chain, you mongrel.

>>98161712
I don't call the scribblings of madmen and non-whites "art," and neither should you.

>>98162518
D&D is culturally derivative. I personally like it, but it's fair is you personally do not.

>>98162535
Everything is culturally derivative to some degree. The issue here is how blatant it is and also out of place. I have the same issue with the Monk in all editions it exists in.

>>98161102
First of all, it's not art, it's slop.
Second of all, it looks like a gay LARP, but then again that's all DnD illustrations. The perspective is kinda fucked: what's with the hawk? Heavy and inconsistent anti-soul gas

>>98162438
(You)

>>98162629
That's fair, but they do fit right in with Eberron. Look at the art in the new book, it's not really classic fantasy and jumps all over. The PHB is a toolkit,so I have no issue here. But would in like FR.

>>98162631
It's art, you just don't like it. I get it triggered you but not liking art does not magically make it not art

File: Screenshot 2026-06-05 at (...).png (82 KB, 1018x430)

82 KB PNG

>>98162525
Wow, you just gave up. You could have stayed quiet and saved what little chance you had of being mistaken for a non-complete-retard, but instead you chose to speak up to remove that last little chance.

You fucked up. The discussion was about Group vs. Individual initiative, and despite being given three chances to fix your mistake, you doubled down to make it clear you are both an idiot and a bad faith troll who will keep shitting himself even when he knows he's wrong just to try and save face. It's to late now, and of course you're going to make some desperate effort to save face after this post, but it's too late for that.

ACKS does individual initative for "each adventurer, monster, and group of identical monsters", while old D&D does it by "each side". The former is considerably slower, and attach it to a slow combat system in general and you have a game that is absolutely miserable to play unless you enjoy wasting time because of a designer's inability to understand how to consolidate rolls and otherwise make a system have any sort of efficiency.

>>98162728
True, to an extent. FR is the de facto setting for DnD, so it's weird to have something that better fits Eberron in the PHB.
Then again DnD sucks, so it really doesn't matter.
In my derivative settings I prefer to change more words in the fabrication. So instead of NotRome, it's notRome in the jungle, or instead of notfeudaleurope it's notFuedaleurope where lords/knights are senators in a Republic. That image is just notWildwest

>>98162761
Are you fucking retarded? Read the text that you quoted

EACH adventurer, monster, and group of identical monsters. It's fucking transitive. It's EACH adventurer, EACH monster, and EACH group of identical monsters. It's not group initiative you fucking mongoloid. Holy shit, third worlders should be banned from 4chan.

>>98162838
...what is wrong with you?
I literally just said that's not group initative but individual initiative. That screenshot is from ACKS.

Which word are you struggling with? What is your major mental malfunction?

If your whole goal is just to make ACKS shills look like complete retards, boy, you've got me convinced.

>>98162821
I agree with you derivative stuff needs changed. They are doing a bit better than they used to do.

>>98162860
Then what the fuck are you bitching about you absolute retard. ACKS has individual initiative, same as the older editions of D&D. Faster, even, because they don't do weapon speed or spell cast times.

>>98162838
>It's fucking transitive.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

>>98163063
Actually that's fair. The retard got me so pissed off, I misspoke. It's distributive, not transitive.

>>98163083
>It's distributive, not transitive.
It's neither, midwit.

>>98163114
X(a+b+c) = aX + bC + cX.
Each adventurer, monster, group of identical monsters = Each adventurer, each monster, each group of identical monsters.

>>98163050
>same as the older editions of D&D.
Wrong. Older editions of D&D do it, as you can see in the screencap you posted,
>>98161399
with each -side- making a roll. That's group initiative.

File: Capture.png (168 KB, 508x723)

168 KB PNG

>>98163164
Now go and read the Initiative section of the DMG. Initiative is rolled every round AND it could be individual.

>>98163220
Now go read >>98159236
Fucking hell, you are really fucking stupid.

>>98163138
I have a degree in maths, and that doesn't make any fucking sense.

>>98163220
That's not the DMG, that's the 2e DMG.

>>98163244
You have a degree in baloney.

>>98163247
Which is an older version of D&D, yes.

>>98163233
>rare
It wasn't. It was the standard rule at cons and the RPGA.

>>98163298
I accept your concession

>>98163308
Get in line, I'm accepting his concession first. He had almost a whole day to concede to >>98159236 and is just finally getting around to it.

>>98163298
>It was the standard rule at cons and the RPGA.
That's also wrong. Partly for the sake of time (which was very important), RPGA tournaments actually skipped rolling initiative entirely and just had simultanelous blows, a concept creatively called simultaneous combat.

I don't hate AI in general, however the controversy demonstrates to me that people in this hobby have forgotten how value works. If a project uses AI, all the savings should be passed on to the customer. That's how it's supposed to work: price is cost to make + profit for the creator. If cost of production goes down, price should go down too. It's surreal that people have forgotten this and think that an RPG should just kind of naturally be $60+, and it hurts the hobby to assume that.

>>98156100
That's probably the best anti-AI take I've ever heard, and I agree. Unfortunately, it feels like most of the RPGs I consoom do just lazily use stuff taken from deviantart and artstation. If the anti-AI crowd starts pursuing RPGs having unified artstyles again I'll support that 100%.

>>98163244
You might be retarded

>>98163436
Depends how it's distributed. Digital distribution you could cut into price for such a thing to recoup production cost. For physical the art is probably dwarfed by the other costs and you probably need to push savings into production or marketing

>>98163449
You might be as retarded as they are. I guarantee you 95% or higher RPG makers don't "sculpt" their own art for their product

>>98163138
>maths
>Britbong
Don't you have a muslim to get murdered by?

>>98162501
Midjourney with two personalised styles, one drawn entirely from stuffing Cyberpunk 2077 and RED concept art into it and the other using character portraits from cRPGs

>>98155828
>Sure, there's a few odd details, but overall it's actually pretty good for AI art, I'm rather impressed.
His left hand has no thumb. It's trash.

>>98155608
I only buy older books like chuthlu, stormbringer, 3,5, 3.0, 4e D&D, dragon warriors, merp, gurps, traveller and the old games workshop wfrp, paranoia, judge dred etc etc so I don't care, I did not dislike 5e d&d particularly but I disliked the art very much so don't own them The only new stuff I get are starter box sets because I like them and have a collection of rpg starter sets stuff like chuthlu, modern wfrgp, d&d

The vast majority of modern rpgs are too gay humorless and sjwish for my taste,

>>98163436
The averga eserver LLM can shit out a complete themed RPG better than most of the crowdfunded stuff. Truth hurts. They'be been trained on all the RPG rulebooks that existed for 40 years, it's not a suprise. What they ARE great for is verbal and spoken NPCs at a real table or making up numbers a a table.

>>98160645
To be fair it's a very effective bit of commercial illustration aimed straight at their target audience of overwhelmingly lefty American normie nerds and those downstream from their culture. The pushback just makes the virtue signalling more effective. People that want the old school, people that don't want publicly listed Hasbro slop, that don't want a mass market product have a million other options. Shit, I bought 3rd when I was a kid, and the art was pretty garbage back then, and normie fantasy art has just been human AIs generating self-referential slop ever since.

There's a huge number of illustrators that are making good art though and it's piss-easy to start following accounts. There's more options than filling a full price rulebook with nufantasy garbage or computer generated images trained om that same shit.

>>98163771
I've seen zero games made by machine that are even remotely functional or good looking

>>98163418
Bruh, no. That's false and retarded if you spend a minute thinking about it.

>>98163308
My concession on what? The fact that you're wrong and AD&D has individual, per-round initiative? I showed you two excerpts. You're just an incel faggot, which is worse than a regular incel or a regular faggot.

Jesus christ this acks shill troll is still trying.

>>98156665
No offense but if you're a man and can't cook you're worse than the ai prompters. This just makes anti ai males look like incompetent manchildren

>>98162732
so is AI LMAO

>>98163771
That is because most crowdfunded RPG products are crap not because LLM are good at generating functional themed rules systems.

>>98159236
I how hard is it for your players to roll 1d6 every few minutes?

>>98164289
Considering this thread is messing with his livelihood, it's to be expected.

>luddites pile on the 1 sloppa they manage to identify declaring how they hate all AI, period
>happily consoom all of the AI sloppa they failed to identify as AI sloppy
>they will tell you they're very good at identifying AI despite every blind study showing the opposite
these morons are the best source of my sloppa commissions btw
>pass the savings to consoomer
stop being brain broken about AI usage and maybe, MAYBE I'll consider it

>>98155608
You needed to zoom in to realize this dwarf is AI?

>>98164449
You don’t have to be a luddite to be tired of no-effort slop being shat onto your screen, whether made by a deviantarlet or by a brainless machine. Nor be uninterested at the prospect of paying 60+ bucks for that trash.

>>98164494
>deviantarlet
But why did you use that name anon? Might it be because deviantart was an example of pure raw unadulterated sloppa made by humans tm? Yeah, then stop crying about AI and go pointlessly whine about slop. I will do as I have always done - ignore slop and appreciate non-slop.

>>98164585
>ignore slop and appreciate non-slop.
I am. Why do Tim think I hate all the ai slop and the ai worshippers like you so much? All you propose doing is replace garbage with your own garbage, then throw a hissyfit when people turn their noses up at it

>>98164599
NTA. Nobody "worships" AI art, we just don't give a fuck. The fact that you need to replace not caring with worship only shows how you are completely out of arguments and ideologically riled up against something of very little importance for most people.

The truth is that TODAY if someone is a truly original and talented artist, he has nothing to fear from AI, and of he's a struggling "artist" who struggles competing with AI because his natural slop is as good as AI slop at best, he's societally better off flipping hamburgers.

And if there ever comes a day when AI art reaches the levels of Rembrandt and Raphael, which I strongly doubt, that'll only be good news. Abundance is a universal good.

>>98164880
>we just don't give a fuck
That's why you constantly monitor 4chan for anti-slop posts to make sure to defend AI and AI spammers and call people tired of slip "luddites".
Because you don't give a fuck.

>>98165193
I don't give a fuck whether a book contains art that is AI or not.

I do care that there's ideological luddites in the world with a superiority complex about their inferior art skills, and I post in these threads to point at laugh at them (You).

The fact that I need to spell it out for you is further proof that your time is best dedicated to flipping hamburgers.

>>98165539
damn, imagine being such a loser

dude, you give so many fucks that your seethe is palpable from the screen

Either way anti AI people will keep blacklisting AI slop and it will keep tanking because people are already fed up with it.
Luddites and shit are just retarded alt right keywords.
Humans just wanna interact with stuff made by other humans and the knowledge that it was made by a computer removes all semblance of soul any piece of art has and so it sours them.
Nobody wants a bad taste in their mouth when doing a hobby for fun.
Misanthropes like you might get a perverse joy from it but this just aint the experience of most of humanity.

You can keep screaming to the void but AI will flop like it has been

>>98155689
Bad art isnt automatically ai

>>98165559
>I'm not seething, you're seething!
Pointing and laughing is fun. Literally the opposite of seething.

>alt right
lol go back to RPGnet and plebbit, faggatron tourist

>>98165580
ignoring all arguements and resorting to insults and pretending to not be a trigger happy bitch that joined an anti ai thread to cry about it
typical right wing retard behaviour
pol is tha way anon. get your retarded talking points outta here you fucking faggot

>>98165598
>t. totally not the one who's seething

>>98165666
retards like you just need to be called out and shown how unwelcome you are to the rest of humanity

>>98165598
>joined an anti ai thread
This is not an "anti AI thread", it's a thread for discussing AI art in games, read the OP. And even if it WERE an anti-AI thread, it still wouldn't make it a safe space where people are not allowed to dissent.

>right wing behavior
The other Anon is right, you really think and talk like a tourist from reddit or RPGnet.

>>98165680
>t. thinks he speaks for the rest of humanity
lol
lmao, even

>>98164320
AI can't do art, it can only create images from stolen images. You really don't know what art is

>>98165574
NTA and while true, this screams AI. I can't unsee the fingers and the whole fucking shield. Look at the rivets, they change style and pattern by section. That pulled me in so hard.

>>98165559
>Misanthropes like you might get a perverse joy from it but this just aint the experience of most of humanity.
I'm new to this conversation, and this thread, but unfortunately you're probably wrong. Most people simply don't care about the use of AI. Ancedotal, but perhaps it will give you some perspective. I see AI images used in professional emails, slides, websites, platforms, etc. on a daily basis within my employment. There are roughly 500,000 employees within my company. At all levels of communication, national, regional, and local, I'm seeing the casual use of AI images in professional emails, slides, websites, platforms, etc. AI images have simply taken the place of stock photos/art. I haven't seen a single complaint lodged against the use of AI images within these professional emails, slides, websites, platforms, etc. Any private complaints have either been ignored or simply don't exist, as the use of AI images has only continued to increase in regularity. If people don't care about it being used professionally, it's likely they also don't care about it being used casually or in any other capacity.

>>98166087
this is not a hobby. It's a corporate environment that used stock images in the first place. It is just a replacement for stock images or images "illegally" downloaded and used.
And none of these people are getting joy out of using ai. They just replaced one form of slop for another in a work environment where doing the absolute minimum is the gold standard

>>98166116
To my point at the end of that post, it's unlikely these same people care about the use of AI in any of their hobbies either.

>>98166140
>the average normoid doesn’t care about AI because they’re used to consuming slop in every aspect of their lives
Gee, stop the fucking presses. What a shock.

>>98166140
i guess i just have a different perspective. The way i see it, It's is the hobby environment where people are not willing to compromise to slop because they arent doing it because they have to to survive but for their personal joy and contentment.
Maybe it's also about not associating with normies and even the people i know who dont hate ai wouldnt like it in any of their hobby stuff

>>98166153
Exactly. Hence why that anon was, unfortunately, wrong about "the experience of most of humanity". Most of humanity are normies used to consuming slop. That's reality. I'm not defending AI, just to be clear. I'm actually an artist in my free time, and I harbor a great appreciation for artists and art. But I'm aware enough to understand that's not exactly the norm for the general public.

>>98155655
i see it but i don't care, there was already bad art before ai

I backed ACKS II core set, Treasure tome, By this Axe, Before all Others, and never did I see AI disclosed. That's what pisses me off. I like ACKS but if you're going to use AI you need to be upfront about it.

i don't understand how can people be so dishonest and move the goalposts of the entire arguement just to support ai slop.
You are fine with ai slop. That's ok. It's your right to have that opinion.
You know that art doe by artists costs money. Even bad art costs money though usually significantly less than good art or at least competent art. In fact it costs a significant amount of an rpg book's budget. Using ai means they are cutting on the cost but still demanding the same price.
This is just unacceptable as a consumer no matter your moral stance on ai or not.
So no paying the same price for ai generated images in a gamebook is never ok, because you are being scammed out of your money especially if they never explicitly state that the used ai and how much so you can judge how much money are they skimming of the top.
Basically this guy >>98166228 is the correct take.
If you are disclosed that the entire artwork will be ai generated and the price is still such and such and you choose to pay it then you are a sucker for sure but not the first or the last one out there and it's on you. Otherwise you re being scammed.

>>98166116
>none of these people are getting joy out of using ai
So what?

>>98166256
>Using ai means they are cutting on the cost but still demanding the same price.
This is just an ideological article of faith. There's literally nothing preventing publishers from using AI art and reducing prices thanks to that.

>you are being scammed out of your money especially if they never explicitly state that the used ai
Wrong. There's no legal obligation to disclose the use of AI. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it a scam.

>how much money are they skimming of the top
There's nothing wrong with profit, Zoran.

>>98163298
NTA
>>98163220
>Individual Initiative (Optional Rule)
>(Optional Rule)

>>98166723
>There's no legal obligation
Actually, it breaks the Kickstarter Terms of Service. That's technically a legal agreement.

You can, will, and should be banned from that platform for undisclosed use of AI.

>>98166723
>This is just an ideological article of faith. There's literally nothing preventing publishers from using AI art and reducing prices thanks to that.
yes there isnt but they arent doing that in this case. ACKS is literally asking top dollar for a book full of AI art when they didnt even disclose that at any point during the kickstarter.
I dont see the books costing 20 dollars on print because he didnt have to pay an artist.
He is just a scummy fuck.
>There's nothing wrong with profit, Zoran.
there is when they are making all the extra money off my back. I know you worship the jew but i dont.

>>98166695
rpgs arent a job you retard. you play them to have fun. if something makes things less fun for you then you tend to avoid it

>>98166256
You are taking it for granted that if there's undisclosed AI art it's always the publisher's fault. It might as well be that it's the artist who's using AI without telling the publisher.

>>98166763
it's your job to check. you commissioned the art. You have to see that it's up to par. You know up to your standards.
You dont commission something from an artist and then accept the first thing they send without feedback if it sucks.
If an anon can zoom in half the art in the book and see the ai sloppa hard at work then macris can do so as well

>>98166763
That's the publisher's responsibility. You need to vet and use trusted artists and have a skilled art director who can detect AI and do simple things like ask for Works-in-Progress.

It's no different than if a publisher used art given to them by an artist that the artist plagiarized/stole. It is the publisher's responsibility to make sure all the legal issues are ironed out before the book goes to print.

>>98166775
>>98166791
I'm sure there's already many artists who are "AI enhanced" and don't disclose it. You can't always detect it.

>It's no different than if a publisher used art given to them by an artist that the artist plagiarized/stole.
Legally it's very different.

>>98156129
Even if AI becomes 10 times better, I still won't pay money for an AI product. If you used AI art, how do I know you didn't use AI for the rest of it? Why pay for a rulebook that's all computer generated if I could just generate it myself or buy an older system that actually had work put into it?

>>98166759
In the cases where there's an explicit legal agreement, then sure, there's a legal agreement. There's no general obligation, though.

>>98166808
i am sure that you are correct but this is not the case here. You can see the ai sloppa from a mile away

>>98166813
>Even if AI becomes 10 times better, I still won't pay money for an AI product.
If AI becomes 10 times better you won't know that it's AI, so yes, you will be paying for it.

>If you used AI art, how do I know you didn't use AI for the rest of it?
If you can't tell whether AI was used for a book or not, then you have nothing to complain about.

>>98166821
I was talking in general.

>>98166759
cool let us know how your crusade goes o algo

>>98166835
AI wont even get 2 times better. They have already harvested every good piece of art in the internet. Optimising can only get you so far. We are either at the peak or near the peak right now.
You will only see micro-improvements from here on unless some completely new tech provides a breakthrough and there is none on sight as far as i know.
Quite the opposite actually, with all the poisoned well data from all the ai art that gets regurgitated into the machine these days it might actually get worse in certain departments.
I remember prompting 2 years ago for the slop thread give better results on some art styles

>>98166835
>If you can't tell whether there’s salmonella in the chicken or not, then you have nothing to complain about.

>>98166879
What a retarded comparison. AI art doesn't send you to the hospital.

>>98166874
>AI wont even get 2 times better.
Wishful thinking.

>>98166901
It's the reality on the ground. All the shit they are spamming for hype and extra money are irrelevant.
And the free money is running out so expect either very expensive prompts or paid only models for 10x their current cost

>>98166920
You dont know shit about AI development or even just how it works lol

>>98166959
He's a struggling "artist". Don't expect him to be smart.

>>98166893
It’s the visual equivalent of food poisoning

>>98167017
>everyone who hates slop is a seething artist and not just someone tired of slop

>>98167159
nta, but in this analogy, food poisoning would be the noticing of ai art, if you don't notice it then that's the equivalent of not getting poisoned by the food

it's still histrionic to call noticing ai art the equivalent of food poisoning, but at least keep your logic straight

>>98167181
you are still pretending there is a theoretical critical point where slop will inevitably be unnoticeable while it has been promised since at least 2 years ago and it still aint here

>>98167194
sounds like bog standard perception bias to me, at this point you've certainly seen ai art without noticing that's what it was, maybe you could have identified it if you looked closer but you don't look close at everything that passes in front of your face

incidentally, i'm not aware nor care about what other discussion this point connects to as i wasn't part of the previous discussion (this is what nta means, in case you're new to 4chan)

>>98167221
you make it sound like it's hard to notice ai art when it really isnt.

>>98167246
you know what perception bias is, right

you know how it connects to the amount of attention you pay to a certain thing, right

>>98167252
do you know how perception bias works anon?
you know that if you expect something to potentially be ai you dont have a blind spot right?
it is only if you are a naive or indifferent retard.
maybe stop being condescending when you are kinda retarded

>>98167246
Just because there's some AI art that you notice doesn't mean that you notice all AI art.

>>98167267
when i mentioned perception bias i meant it more in the sense that obviously you'll always notice when you notice ai art, because all of the cases when you didn't notice it just seem like it wasn't ai art to you, so in your biased perception you'd have a 100% notice rate no matter what the actual proportion was

it's a clown mentality that you see in all sorts of places

>>98155608
If it's DnD you deserve to get fleeced! Really though, I know these books on average barely break even so I would say it's necessary. Artists are just too expensive for the size of the workload you need and what they will charge for it.

Big publisher books don't have that excuse, so either their artists are assholes using AI to avoid work, as typical of them, or they are so problematic the company would rather not deal with them, which is also typical.

>>98155674
You're like an artesian cheese dish of fallacies.

AI writing has a very obvious style. I'm a much better writer than a drawer so I could never understand letting an AI write for you, just clacking clack and there you go, you know? I do know that AI now can access a database of docs you input and operate from that so if you have a thousand notes on your setting but nothing cohesive it could do that but still, again, not a problem for me so I can't sympathesize entirely.

>>98155608
My stance is that I don't fucking care how it's made. I only care about the quality of the product I'm getting for my money.
If business / market pressures are such that some obscure niche tabletop publisher can't afford to commission multiple artists of the caliber who command 70k a year income on average, then ok? Do what you gotta do. I don't give a fuck what's making the images.
If those artists can't compete with generative AI... then it sounds like they need to take that into account when they attempt to pursue commissions.

>>98167625
>My stance is that I don't fucking care how it's made. I only care about the quality of the product I'm getting for my money.
Generally, that's the main reason I'm against AI at this point. The people making almost all of it aren't some grand innovators, they're universally lazy shitheads trying to cut corners. Instead of just coming out and saying "This is our shit, we made it with AI, buy it or don't", they either lie about its origins out of clear shame or they try to nag and guilt-trip you into supporting it, spouting off how this tech will improve in the future as if it absolves them of having shit art in the PRESENT. Bad art is bad art, whether human or machine made, and I wouldn't pay 60 bucks for a book of generic cookie-cutter amateur hour art for the same reason I wouldn't pay 60 bucks for the most generic and bland shit around where people have warped and crinkled hands and the details melt into a sludge, just cause the person making the book wanted to buy an extra latte at Starbucks.

If you're going to use AI for your work, just say so. Trying to hide it makes it look like you're a kid trying to hide how his hand is stuck in the cookie jar.

Refreshing to read so many anti-anti-AI and AI-apathetic voices in this thread. The tide is turning.

>>98167935
>treating technology like a sport team thing
What a waste of air you are

>>98167935
The ai derangement syndrome faggots are overly sensitive and incrediby annoying, they really ruin their own cause by acting like that. Basically like vegans.

>>98167959
I don't think he's being genuine.
He kinda just sounds like an ACKSfag hoping that its undisclosed use of shitty AI won't seem so objectively awful if he demonizes anyone that complains about AI.

Even his whole being pro-ACKS is just part of that whole "team" mindset, so it's actually kind of funny that he's stuck trying to figure out how to spin gay slop into something not awful.

>>98167959
spot teams is the core of the human soul and how normal brains psychology works
it's sportballs all the way down

>>98168017
Normalfag take.

>>98167962
>Basically like vegans.
The two demographics overlap in more ways than one. A bunch of under-30 middle class white city soibois with pink hair. I wouldn't be surprised if several of the anti-AI fanatics in this thread actually are vegan.

>>98167959
That doesn't make any sense. I'm talking about cultural trends, not about factions. When I say "the tide is turning" I'm talking about a cultural phenomenon that is in flux, the exact opposite of entrenched sports fanaticism.

>>98168156
oh no
anyway

Idc.