Best D&D map makers for dungeons, cities and worlds
dicebreaker.com
dicebreaker.com
GPT-3 couldn't remember what it said 30 minutes ago, and was basically incapable of planning, so unless you want a simple dungeon rougelike-esque adventure, it'll lose track of things and start hallucinating. It will also sometimes forget the rules.
My initial impressions are that GPT-4 is nearly as competent as a human DM, and much faster and more flexible. Also, unlike GPT-3, it will roll dice for you, and it knows the rules just as well as most players.
These maps + GPT-4 could = infinite campaigns.
Perhaps it's just a matter of time -- and just a few years, at that -- before generative text and graphic AIs merge, and games like Baldur's Gate can quite literally be made on the fly.
I'd question the fairness of those rolls.
But yeah, DMing seems like an excellent fit for these models. But you probably need to track hitpoints and stats separately, GPT-4 can't do math either. Or I guess it not doing math might be a feature, that way it will tell you what reasonably happens with fuzzy logic, might be a more immersive experience.
GPT can learn do to that: not providing true randomness, but the illusion of it to serve the game.
So I'm not sure you are right.
Runs for Shadowrun are also possible, really nice. Great for systems where you don't have a lot of published adventures.
I wonder what kind of campaigns we're talking about here. I mean, if it's just mindless modern encounter-based design, sure, I can believe that. Kicking down doors, rolling for initiative, GOTO 10.
But even mildly more moderate DM work like re-jiggering set up monsters to react to the actions of the players (in e.g. a Caves of Chaos type of setup)?
No matter how much effort you put in to prompting and coaxing it, GPT-3 really couldn't manage anything but the simplest encounter-based game design.
There were things that GPT-3 did really well -- it could write you a 600-word essay on the characteristics and atmosphere of each chamber or passage you find yourself in -- but it couldn't stick to a narrative or engage in anything resembling long-term planning. So, ultimately, you're left with something quite strange and dreamlike: A campaign that's vividly -- even hyper-realistically -- described, but where nothing makes sense and there's no logical continuity over time.
GPT-4 knows what it's doing, though. It's very different. As far as I can tell right now, it combines the outstanding descriptive capabilities of GPT-3 with the ability to (a) remember things it has previously said and establish logical relations over time, and (b) make sure that the campaign appropriately mirrors a "normal" D&D campaign. GPT-3 would frequently mess up and have you fight dragons at Level 1; GPT-4 more appropriately sticks to goblins and bandits. And, when it comes to tactics, pacing, etc., it's really quite good. I suppose it's a little bit conventionally-minded, but that's to be expected.
Almost scary to think that it'll only get better from here on out, because GPT-4 is damn near "good human DM" tier, and already much better than a bad DM.
Edit: but I could be wildly off here?
I've however also spoken to other people, living in different places, and they remember the same time period being all about rules lawyering and "war gaming".
I've also observed a Europe/US divide where the US tends more heavily towards "war gaming" focused role playing with physical maps and moving miniatures around on a table, while Europe tends towards more story focused role playing. But I could be imagining that.
In the 90s and 00s it was almost always about the minis and tactical gameplay. DnD 3.5 was a lot more numbers heavy so it kept a lot of the story people out of the game.
Now DnD 5 the numbers have such a gentle, predictable curve with bounded accuracy and damage and stuff, you may as well ignore them because there's nothing exciting about rolling the dice anymore.
So the story is a lot heavier focus, the character journey. I never used to encounter people who got upset if their character died or groups who had the mentality that characters must always fail forward for the sake of the story.
That stuff is everywhere now.
Just the fact that the tile is "D&D map makers..." instead of "RPG map makers..." is very telling.
But now I don't even see Pathfinder out there much.
I think DnD podcasts and webseries and such were incredibly successful in cementing DnD as the only game in town. They brought in a ton of new players who have only heard of DnD and only want to play DnD.
Here, at least since mid to late 3rd edition, we got a very strong focus on combat "encounters", where you got pre-packaged situations where combat would arise. A combination of monsters, location and possibly events happening during that time. Monsters might even be built for this specific situation, even though their names are generic enough (i.e. a "Orc Battlescout").
Your dungeon FSM gets to a certain state and this encounter gets triggered.
Whereas the canonic ideal of older games was a more fluid setup. Often described as "Combat as War" vs. today's "Combat as Sport". Sure, played very simply, you got an even less sophisticated environment: Room #13 has 4 orcs, guarding a chest, which has 380 copper coins. Kick down door, fight orcs, spend coins on torches for next dungeon. But no experienced DM sees a dungeon that way. Because next to that, you got room #14, where the orc chieftain is preparing the prized pigs they stole from the goblins in room #27, which are currently sneaking up to get it back. Then, as you say, you might have your random encounter, so while the players are heading for the orc room, wolves attack (the goblins aren't guarding the wolf-forest-gates, the DM muses). The fight makes a lot of noise. The orcs look. The orc chieftain looks. The goblins use that distraction. The characters might notice that or not, etc.
Even rather simple setups can achieve rather complicated results, if you're not emulating a 12 year old mastering their first adventure where they just picked monsters from the tables in their Dungeon Masters Guide that are appropriate for a level 2 party of characters.
That's a bare minimum where I'd consider a "AI" DM-like, otherwise you mostly got a NLP interface on gameplay that I could've had with the old SSI Gold Box games on an C64.
The problem I had with GPT-3, most of all, was that it tries to "finish the story". E.g. if the players are on a grand campaign to defeat some big bad boss, then this might happen:
GM (GPT): You enter the tavern, and you see a halfling bartender and a few gnome patrons.
Player: I ask the bartender for information about <BIG BAD EVIL GUY>
GM (GPT): The bartender tells you <BIG BAD EVIL GUY> lives in a castle. You and your party storm the castle and manage to defeat <BIG BAD EVIL GUY>.
But on the other hand, just like open world was a terrible curse with hundred of games feeling empty, I'm afraid we will see a wave of games with a lot of generated but eventually uninteresting content because this is so easy to do.
After all, good content is coherent, and filtered. It's not just about producing a lot, it's what you don't put in the game, and what you do to glue things together.
I sure GPT will eventually be better at it than humans, but for now, having a human veto is necessary to have a good noise/signal ratio and because GPT is "good enough", being lazy is tempting.
But yeah, I can confirm GPT4 is already quite good at it and will only improve from this point.
This is going to be very interesting years.
Edit: I just made it write a full video game scenario, using BG as a competitor for basis. At first it was average, but with directions, it refined it and became quite good. Some kind of steam punk guild called the Navigators reading the wind, living in floating islands and a girl rediscovering the earth bellow the clouds and rebuilding old aliances with lost civilizations, plus a politician leader trying to prevent that and even a mentor to help her. Not bad.
I would play this, and even read it.
You can see the inspiration from "The Pillars of the Earth", "Gunnm", "Baldur's Gate" and "nausica" proving again it's mostly assembling known stuff.
But a cake is mostly assembling known stuff and it's still good. The "last of us" is just a good take on something that has been done a thousand times.
So why not?
| |
| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+---+---+---+
| |
| |
| | |
| | .
| | /
| | /
+-----------+-+
This is a (very crude) hand. This registers as a hand for you, because it has the structure of a hand. This is less similar to a photorealistic hand than a 6-fingered AI hand, objectively, however it fits the human understanding of what a hand is supposed to be, because it has the right kind of shapes in the right relations to one another. In the same vein, if we could get the AI to understand the structure of a story, it should be able to DM session by session, starting from a high level abstract idea and refining it based on player actions, incorporating player input into the game. I'm not sure if hierarchical abstract reasoning should be forcibly added to the model, or if it can be emergent in a specific configuration, but if we figure out how to build an AI with that, then it should be able to produce something a lot more sensible."Considering the hint that the image is part of a human being and the diagonal line is similar to the vertical lines, it appears that the image might represent a hand, specifically an open hand with fingers splayed out. The vertical lines represent the fingers, and the diagonal line represents the thumb, which is extending out at an angle from the square (representing the palm of the hand). The image is a 2D, stylized representation of a human hand.
With the provided hints and context, the interpretation of the ASCII art as a hand seems more plausible. If you have more hints or information, please share them, and I'll be happy to refine the interpretation further if necessary."
This technology appears to show great promise, but is clearly still in its infancy.
| |
| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+---+---+---+
| |
| |
| | |
| | .
| | /
| | /
+-----------+-+
Oh, hey, a nice steaming cup of tea!...
Uh oh.
>> For a human, that is all that's needed to recognise a hand, i.e.
Blast it! Cover blown.
:poof:
> Before, you couldn't have a chatbot run a D&D campaign. But GPT3 is a solid DM
and then when all the hype died down to acceptable levels, turns out it was not. So forgive me if I stay skeptical until I see convincing evidence.
- Created character sheet for me, at desired level with spells and abilities
- Was able to add a cat to the game upon request
- Took hints.
- Was an outstanding writer, far better than any DM in terms of sensory descriptions and articulation
- Had to ask it to only tell 5 paragraphs at a time
- Performed combat rolls and math, all apparently correctly for a long while
- The first 20 rolls were all greater than 10, asked it give more random rolls and it seemingly did for a while
- Added elements on the fly consistently without losing track mostly
- Used puzzles and challenges and created a sense of danger. Adapted well on the fly to unusual character behavior (guessing an unreasonable answer for a puzzle solution).
- After a few hours it started confusing classes in my party (I think there is some context window). It forgot I had agonizing blast after a few hours.
- Sometimes fudged distances
Overall for a DM with infinite patience and an entirely customizable campaign on the fly with no need to plan/recover it seems promising at first. But some sort of prompt engineering will eventually prove necessary i think.
This is a case where Asimov’s laws of robotics would have to be bent a bit. If you ask an AI to let you win a single-player game, should it comply, or argue that letting you win will harm you?
Game AI (single player in particular) is all about providing the player with openings and ways to win and feel powerful without them realising that's what is happening... all the way from NPCs coordinating with one another (and barks to make it clear what they are planning so they can be ambushed or stopped), to "Director AIs" that work on rules of tension and release to make sure the player's having the most fun and not being overloaded.
This comes up every time AI is mentioned and I feel like people are drawing entirely the wrong conclusion from Asimov. First and foremost he designed his laws so conflict was inevitable. The laws are designed to produce interesting fiction, not to be a template to follow in real life. They are as much a manual as "1984" is, that is - not at all. Asimov's laws should have no bearing on AI in reality except to inform people to do something different.
So broadly I am agreeing with you - AI should follow laws that are more rich than Asimov's made up universe. The part that irks me is that people even consider using them at all. It's fiction, not reality. The consequences of an action in a person's imagination rarely match the consequences in reality. The entirety of science is an effort to produce word-based imaginary systems and processes, whose outcomes match the outcomes in reality. You cannot just substitute one man's imagination for the missing science of AI reasoning.
2) an interesting runaround copyright. GPT4 probably has every "d20" product and others ingested for processing and use.
Look people, here's the ultimate test: write Winds of Winter and Dream of Spring for us.
Between all the reddit /r/asoiaf and fantheories plus all the other works of fantasy, it should be able to do some facsimile.
Honestly GRR should be cranking out a chapter or two a day with GPT4 help.
There should be entire eras filled in by GRR with edited GPT4 output.
GPT-6 or 7? That would be great.
At some point, each of us can have our own ending to the series, with as many additional books as we want.
Then all recreated as a photorealistic VR show. Viewed from the perspective of the respective point-of-view character of each chapter.
Then a complete role playing version where the entire plot is contingent on our own choices, ... all the Martin and HBO's Westeros world building paying off. Every time you die, you are dropped into another interesting character in the vicinity of one of the latest fulcrums of the Westerosy future.
Massively multi-player, in real time.
This would have seemed speculative fantasy (hah!) not so long ago. But now perhaps, inevitable in the not-too distant future.
The dystopia of having no work, but being endlessly entertained, has never looked so good.
Wow. G.R.R. Martin, much like Stephan King, writes to the least common denominator, which is about a 5th or 6th grade reading level. I challenge you to find a complex sentence in either of their catalogs, which is not to say their ideas are bad, because they're not. But their writing is absolute shit. Shakespeare, Dickens, Hemingway, Tolstoy, Joyce, and Camus are all outstanding writers, while the only thing that made Martin's writing bearable is H.B.O.
I don't think it is a matter of years, it is a matter of months.
All we need after that is an AI generated musical theme / background ambience / sound effects. This came to mind while listening to https://open.spotify.com/episode/1xs8fxI5ZdaIA1i386IHH2 yesterday
I tend to be an AI pessimist, but this seems like a good example of a way that AI could be used to supplement human creativity instead of just replacing it entirely.
When the book came out I was a child programmer and I had total contempt for the idea that a player could just decide to burrow into the eye of the giant and that the engine would generate a result.
I was used to Sierra games where you'd click an inventory item on something you saw and the game would tell you "there's nothing useful you can do with that."
Very simple, easy to use, and can play online.
* Cave/Glade Generator
* Neighbourhood Generator
* Perilous Shores: Fantasy region generator
* One page dungeon generator
* And my favourite: Village GeneratorI’ve stopped playing video games for the most part as the impact and sense of wonder just isn’t there for me the same way it is when I play D&D with my online compatriots. We’re even meeting up later this year! It’s been a fantastic experience.
On the topic of D&D tabletop becoming more advanced, Stable Diffusion now has models that can be used to take a simple Donjon map and make it more detailed and add a theme and colorize it. Type a theme like “in hell”, use the model, and use Controlnet’s edge detection. Boom, mostly automated D&D maps that look pretty dang good for a DM.
A few more steps and you’ll be able to automate most of the process, provided interesting NPCs and everything in a self contained adventure that the DM can then tweak.
In the interest of discussing tabletop map tools, one that isn't mentioned which is frankly amazing is: TaleSpire[1]. The quality of their asset packs for building maps is fantastic and you can actually play with friends using it.
It has automation as far as it can in terms of being agnostic to other systems outside of D&D5E. It's pretty useful but if you want full automation Foundry VTT might be better suited.
> Looks like the devs clocked out after hitting EA.
Could not be further from the truth. They have been churning out features and content consistently since EA. Their dev blog is filled to the brim with updates.
Requiring the players to make that kind of upfront investment can put people off from engaging at all.
You do have to self host (LAN is easy of course) or pay a hosting partner a monthly fee on top of the license cost.
We've done a bit of experimenting with Tailscale sharing and seemed to work okay (but does require a bit of technical skill). Tailscale funnels would probably also work and be easier for players. ngrok would be an option as well or a vps.
So, I had a go at making a little tool that lets you quickly make rough sketches of the map, as well letting you move tokens (for the characters) around. It's not particularly fancy, but it seems to work for us!
I have a small tutorial here: https://wiki.tyghsh.net/creating_3d_maps_tabletop_simulator.
I found the user experience of Roll 20 horrible. I fumbled my way around the interface, eventually sort-of getting some maps going but the scene "transitions" were me just deleting the previous tiles because I couldn't work out how to set out proper scenes.
A lot of the other tools were random "download this .jar" applications which didn't run well at all.
I was fully prepared to throw £20 at a good solution for designing a few maps I could then easily put into roll20 to coordinate a session or print out for offline sessions.
But while there were a few good open sets of raw tilesets, the actual tools for putting together tilesets into dungeons seemed completely missing.
For such an established market I expected to be inundated with mature tooling, but even the official stuff like "d&d beyond" is only just coming together and still mostly lacks the tools for actually running a session.
I think it's worth pointing out that VTTs (Foundry, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, etc) don't tend to be good at actual map-making, since the program design and the target users are pretty different, and you're better off with other tools for that. Some of them export into a format that's easily importable into your VTT of choice, complete with walls and such, which helps getting started.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11kpesp/dn...
I built a web directory to find them here: https://rpggen.dev/
And kind of odd not to mention CC3 or any of the rest of the ProFantasy suite when it comes to drawing tools.
GameScape (https://gamescape.app)
Basically I wanted something to approximate pen, grid paper and physical tokens during the pandemic when I was playing with some old high school friends remotely. Roll20 was just too clunky.
I’ve got a new startup now (unrelated) so I haven’t had much time to work on it. If anyone wants to work on TTRPG tools (I’ve considered OSS this, or maybe even paying for dev) let me know!
> link different devices
> always active