AI Art in TTRPGs
Is this a tool bringing power to the people, or a blight increasing the signal to noise ratio?
I have strong opinions, obviously, about AI, and I have made two recent videos about the subject. One was directly related to its use in TTRPGs, with the other being about AI art in a more general sense and a response to various comments in the first video.
One thing I think you all have learned about me is that I like philosophy and theology. Along with pen-and-paper RPGs and art, these are some of my favorite areas to read about and study. I would write and talk about them more, but I have a fairly strict view, given my inquiry into Eastern Orthodox Christianity, on laymen trying to teach theological issues. I don’t usually find it appropriate. Teaching is the office of clergy, I think. That said, I will try to steer clear of too much theology and stick to philosophical concepts here to further explain why I think AI art is ugly, not actually creative at all, and ultimately not a problem for most traditional artists.
“Art is Subjective”
I think the easiest way to tackle this is to take on common arguments I have seen. The first one is the claim that art is subjective.
Art is not subjective. It never has been. Only since relativism and postmodern nonsense have been assumed in the minds of midwits and mouth-breathers has relativism, and relativism in the arts in particular, been the presupposition of a majority of practically illiterate people. It is no coincidence that the very low-IQ types who think AI art is the future and, finally, we can get rid of human artists, will appeal to this claim to justify AI art as “real art.”
Relativism is a pretty dumb position to take and is dead in the water in regards to epistemology. I talk about epistemology quite a bit because I am of the mind opposite most “empiricists.” I believe that the logical and abstract truths are more true than any scientifically verifiable thing. Why? Because science has changed drastically since it was first used as a practice to understand the natural world, but the rules of logic, metaphysics, and argumentation have not changed in nearly the same amount.
But what is epistemology? It is the study of how we know what we know. It’s how we distinguish justified true belief from opinion. Therefore, we will use it to examine this claim of art being subjective and relativistic in nature.
A second preliminary point to clarify is first-order claims, second-order claims, and higher-order claims. First-order claims are direct statements about the world. “The sun is out today,” is just such a claim. Second-order claims are claims about first-order claims. “I know that the sun is out,” is a second-order claim. A claim about the second-order claim is a third-order claim, and all claims about the previous order claim are higher claims. Skeptics will generally attack second-order and higher claims; therefore, being skeptical that all art is subjective, I will question the higher-order claims about this one.
The claim, “art is subjective,” appears to be a first-order claim about the nature of art. Is this claim objectively true? I ask this because if the person who holds this view says “yes,” they contradict themselves. If they say it is objectively true that all art is subjective, it means there is one thing universally true about art. This is a contradiction, and we can therefore conclude this belief is nonsense. Art is a universally objective thing if one thing about art is universally true, at least in regards to the original claim. This person can deny that the statement is objectively true, though, thus hoping to weasel their way out of the logical trap. But then we just question the second-order claim at the higher level. Is it objectively true that it is subjective that art is subjective? And we can continue this an in an infinite number of claims, never actually justifying the claim that art is subjective because the moment the logical loop stops, the claim is objective and thus undone.
Here are some potential pushbacks from the person who might believe art is subjective.
"I didn’t mean everything about art is subjective—just the value or appreciation of it. There can still be objective facts about art, like who made it or when, but its worth or beauty is subjective."
This doesn’t solve the problem. It’s still an objective value statement about the value of art. It does not get this person out of the infinite regress.
"When I say art is subjective, I mean it’s true for me, or for each person individually. It’s not meant as an objective universal claim."
This makes the claim mere opinion in some respects. Who cares about your opinion? Why should I believe your opinion in this debate? But it is itself an objective universal claim about how each person understands art. Does this person have a universal mind to know that each person experiences art in this manner?
"Look, I’m not making a grand philosophical claim—I’m just pointing out that people experience art differently, and that’s what matters in practice."
Art is a form of communication. Communication, in order to even work, has to reference abstract concepts that are outside of all of us and our minds. Universals. If communication were locked to only referencing things in each individual subjective mind, then communication would be impossible. If I say, “The seven coconuts and seven bananas are on the counter,” how do I know that when I reference “seven” or “coconut” or “banana” for me, that it is the same for you? Therefore, if art, which is a form of communication, is subjective, it cannot actually communicate anything valuable. And I think this is why AI art apologists make this claim. Because they consistently use art made by an algorithm and static that says nothing and communicates nothing. And this is also why modern art is also terrible. It’s all in the same camp.
"Yes, even my claim that art is subjective is subjective. Everything’s subjective, including this conversation."
The problem of communication I just highlighted above would apply here as well. We are all just babbling nonsense then. And if this person attempts to press the issue, they fall into a potential performative contradiction. Why are they trying to convince me of their subjective view if it isn’t technically true at all?
"‘Subjective’ doesn’t mean there’s no truth—it means truth depends on the subject. My claim is truth is relative to human experience, not some cosmic standard."
Statements like this merely kick the can down the road. I can ask the question, “Is it objectively true that truth depends on the subject and human experience?” And the infinite regress problem of trying to justify the statement begins.
Therefore, art is objective. I will say that art is a language and thus objective, but there is a difference between the language and interpretation and the quality of how the message is communicated. Poor understanding of a message in art can lead to misinterpretation, just like how a poorly worded phrase can. And if art is a form of communication, because AI is a simulacrum trying to ape human intelligence, it invariably ends up just producing incoherent babbling in image form more often than not.
Art history relies on art being epistemically grounded in the universally true.
“Another major concern of art history is, of course, subject matter, encompassing the story, or narrative; the scene presented; the action’s time and place; the persons involved; and the environment and its details. Some artworks, such as modern abstract paintings, have no subject, not even a setting. The ‘subject’ is the artwork itself. But when artists represent people, places, or actions, viewers must identify these aspects to achieve complete understanding of the work.”1
This quotation presupposes the objective nature of communication and referencing universals in order to have story, narrative, and action. It continues.
“Iconography—literally, ‘the writing of images’—refers both to the content, or subject of an artwork, and to the study of the content in art. By extension, it also includes the study of symbols, images that stand for other images or encapsulate ideas. In Christian art, two intersecting lines of unequal length or a some geometric cross can serve as an emblem of the religion as a whole, symbolizing the cross of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion. A symbol can also be a familiar object that artist imbued with greater meaning. A balance or scale, for example, may symbolize justice or the weighing of souls on Judgement Day.
Artists may depict figures with unique attributes identifying them. In Christian art, for example, each of the authors of the New Testament Gospels, the four evangelists, has a distinctive attribute. People can recognize Saint John by the eagle associated with him, Luke by the ox, Mark by the lion, and Matthew by the winged man.”2
So much of art history, and for it to even explain anything, relies on art being objective. I hammer this point home with such depth because establishing art as objective and with standards will help in identifying how AI art is worthless. It doesn’t weave coherent stories. This is why the only thing AI can actually do well is static poses and portraits. A character standing there in a neutral pose is easier to generate than asking for that same character in a foreshortened pose, locked in combat with enemies all around. As we read above, good art has narrative and story in it. It communicates ideas. And even in the case of static characters in static poses, it can’t even tell a coherent story there. Costumes are inaccurate, with buttons, folds, belts, loops, and other aspects connected in strange ways or in strange places that make no sense.
AI Art is “Good Enough!”
I despise this “argument,” and this is also why AI art is increasingly being associated with low-effort slop, a stigma those who use it will have to deal with moving forward. Art is art for the purpose of observing and looking at, not glancing at. The fact that AI advocates do not understand this shows they lack any amount of creativity or sense of artistic wonder in their lives, a sad existence for sure. Art is art for the purpose of looking at and observing it for an extended period. In TTRPG books, they are there to look at for inspiration. How many nostalgic stories are there about someone growing up in the 1980s, looking at one of the rulebooks for Dungeons & Dragons and being inspired by it? People have their favorite pieces from these classic books and their favorite artists. That art was not “glanced” at; it was food for the eyes, like all quality art throughout all of human history. It told a story. It had a subject, a narrative, and symbolism, all relevant to inspiring young wargamers in their fantasy adventure campaigns.
AI Art and Photoshop
I had a number of people compare the rise of digital art tools like Photoshop to AI. The claim is that there was a lot of pushback from traditional artists that it was fake or cheating. But this comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of digital tools.
Having Photoshop does not magically give you knowledge of form, value, color theory, anatomy, perspective, composition, storytelling in an image, movement, gestural drawing, and so forth. Just like with traditional media, you still need those skills when you sketch in Photoshop. All Photoshop does is put the paint, brushes, pencils, and markers into a digital format to be used, as they would be used in traditional media, in a digital way.
Now I know what the AI apologist will say here. “Ah, see, you are misunderstanding AI tools just like the traditional artists misunderstood digital tools.”
No.
Read the above paragraph again slowly. Digital tools digitize the tools, not the painter and artist as well. That leads us to the next point.
AI “Artists” Are Clients, Not Artists
I have been doing freelance art and illustration since 2015. I have a decade of interacting with clients in this industry under my belt. Clients will generally approach me with, essentially, a prompt. Just like the AI “artist.” Sometimes the client gives me reference images… Just like the AI artist gives the art generator. I then begin work on the image. I will update the client with progress images. The client may give me direction or ask me to change certain things they may dislike about the composition, a character, or a pose in a piece… Much like what AI artists will do with their iterative generations. The point being, AI “artists” are not creators but consumers. They are clients. They function in the same manner as a traditional client, with the AI art generator acting as the artist. This is also why I said Photoshop and AI are not the same. AI has the paintbrushes, paint, and the “artist” themselves digitized. This is obviously different from digitizing paint and brushes and painting an image with the same mindset digitally as one would traditionally with, say, oil paints. No “artist” is trapped in a digital box of static when someone paints in photoshop with a tablet and stylus.
AI Art Advocates are Solipsistic
I notice that many AI art advocates are excited to see “art generation” tools in the hands of the people. They don’t seem to understand the simple fact that they are not the only ones with these tools, and the implications are disastrous for them. In the replies to so many of my posts and videos on the subject are people excited that they have the means to get that TTRPG project completed because now they have access to art. Well, guess what? So does everyone else you are competing against, and so do a host of totally new entrants into the market who have access to the same tools as you. Unless your idea is good, you are going to get lost in the noise with the millions of others all generating the same-looking AI art. And as the internet gets more and more infested with AI art images, the generators will get more incestuous and will generate more generic-looking, ugly, boring images with no soul, heart, story, or narrative.
Everyone has these tools. The AI art fans are excited that power is given to the people! The tide has risen for all! And yet the metrics and challenge of actually being successful rose with the tide in proportion. You are still no better off than you were before. What do you have that makes your product stand out? You better hope your writing is damn good and not reliant on AI text generators!
But this is all solipsistic. These people have not considered this. They really think they can finally publish that successful RPG book from their notebook now and that people will be able to find it in a sea of slop, let alone want to purchase it, read it, and play it. It’s delusional. If you didn’t have any creative juices to help you stand out before AI, you are not going to have it now.
The Stigma of AI
In my recent videos, I asked my viewers if they would buy RPG products with AI art. Some said yes, some said that it would depend, and most said no. They avoid AI altogether. I would liken avoiding AI to banning tieflings from your home game. Sure, not everyone who wants to be a tiefling is a mentally deficient, insufferable, edge lord. But removing them from the game means you dramatically decrease your chances of encountering such people. And that’s ultimately a good thing and worth it in most cases for many people.
So sure. Not everyone who uses AI is a slop peddler. But avoiding AI RPG products altogether is a sufficient way of avoiding low-effort slop that wastes your time. AI art “creators” don’t like being associated with slop. But they tell us artists that AI is the future, we have to deal with this reality now. Adapt or die. To that I say, being associated with low-effort slop is the future for you. Adapt or die.
True art and beauty are under attack. Something humans have cherished since the Paleolithic era—just see their caves. Anyone who thinks this is a good thing exposes themselves as a mentally deficient bug man.
Good Free to Affordable Human Art Resources
Below are resources for human made art that I think will make your projects look better than using AI.
oldbookillustrations.com - A fantastic resource of public domain images. There are great pieces in here for fantasy projects.
Dean Spencer - Dean is a great artist who sells very affordable stock art on DTRPG.
Carlos Castillo - Another great and stylistic artist who has had his art in many projects. He sells very affordable black and white stock art, perfect for OSR projects or projects that need an old school vibe.
My Landscape Art Pack - Some simple color paintings of fantasy themed landscapes I have for sale for $10.
Kleiner, Fred, and Christin Mamiya. Gardner’s Art through the Ages 12th edition. Boston, MA: Thomson, 2005.
Ibid.