There is value to AI tools, absolutely, and that is not the point we are arguing. I'll give an example...
When we commission an art piece, the artist will provide several sketches to demonstrate composition - basically, where everything is going to go in the picture. While these are just rough sketches, they obviously take time to do.
So, some of our artists have started using AI to very rapidly (near instantly!) create composition mock-ups. They fire them back to us, and we say 'yes, that one right there, that is what we are looking for.'
Here is the important bit though. Once the composition has been selected, the generated piece is put to one side and the actual final piece is created from scratch.
We are all for AI making lives easier and more fulfilling. What we are against is the removal of the artist from the artistic process. And the reason for that is because what the effect of the removal of art from society will have.
We cannot stop this, obviously. But we can create a little Traveller-shaped island.
Matt, thanks for laying this out. I waited a beat to respond because I also wanted to be able to suggest things that may prove helpful in preserving that Traveller-shaped island.
Ironically, your example is the best argument
against a blanket ban, you are acknowledging
real value from AI in the workflow: your artists use it to explore compositions faster, then produce a human-crafted final. That proves the principle that Mongoose is living by isn’t “no AI,” it’s human authorship, accountability, and rights while leveraging AI as a tool in the workflow.
A blanket ban contradicts that principle and hurts the very people who follow it. You’ve accepted AI use at the beginning of your process, just not at the end. The line between “composition mock-up” and “final” is a production choice, not an ethical one; otherwise, you would not be using AI even there. Plenty of pros finish with paint-overs, 3D kitbash, photobash, stock, or AI-assisted refinement. The ethical bar should be: Is there a responsible human author? Are the rights clean? Is the quality high? Not “which button did you push & when.”
Bans reward deception and punish honesty. People who disclose AI get blocked without any nuance to how AI is used. People who don’t disclose slip through because detection is unreliable. That’s exactly what we see across marketplaces: unenforceable rules create perverse incentives and selective enforcement and do nothing to try and solve the problems you hope to avoid.
I know what I want to create and how to put it together; I don't need to pay someone to create for me because I can't afford an artist. When I need 3D models, I pay the artist who creates them, but I don't need them to render them for me. If I want my scene to get a final look, I don't want to not use photoshop or actions or plug-ins just because they use AI in some form.
Just because a vocal segment of the art community equates “AI” with theft. I don't believe that just because a poll here showed just 4 people tipped the percentage in favor of those who say “no” to AI use vs those who say Yes speaks to what the broader market feels is right. Even here, there is 9% undecided. I'm betting if the poll were seen by a larger segment of your market base, and was more nuanced, i.e. No AI, AI-Assisted, AI Originated; use of quality guidelines, rights assurance Vs the broader
Yes or No, that you will see a majority response that agrees to a need for a policy that is more nuanced. I guarantee you that there are also people across the different social media platforms who are reluctant to be supportive of that nuanced use of AI because of the toxic backlash from those who hate it.
I believe the majority of customers buy based on clarity, usefulness, style cohesion, resolution, and play value—not on whether a sketch layer came from pencil, Blender, or a model. Govern outcomes and rights, not the tool. A “Traveller-shaped island” reads more like self-imposed scarcity, and scarcity cedes market share.
I'm really hoping the leadership of Mongoose, Roll20, DriveThru, Chaosium, and others will see the need to educate, provide guidance, and create policies that help, and to please stop using gatekeeping as a PR safety net disguised as virtue.
One policy framework that I think would be easy to support and would scale well:
1. Disclosure, not disqualification, as simple as: Say “Hand-Crafted” or “AI Assisted” or “ AI Originated” labels, visible to buyers.
2. Rights assurance is needed now, and will keep the “Flood” you were concerned about under control because it could no longer be a free-for-all. creators attest they own/hold rights to all elements. Infringement = takedown and loss of the privilege to participate.
3. Set the quality bar, with guidelines on resolution, readability, and style consistency, and apply equally to all submissions. no fake signatures or false “hand-painted” claims or other deceptions.
4. Here is an important part, and one that should involve less work for existing staff: Evidence-based disputes, such as time-boxed reviews with neutral precedent. (Not saying you need to add staff; just standardize reviews. Creators provide the provenance, you apply a 20-minute checklist, and only credible, evidence-backed reports enter the queue. I can provide you detail on what this would look like and why it would not drown your people in work).
You said, “We are against the removal of the artist from the process.” I agree! So codify human authorship and rights, not a tool ban.
You see the endless debate that this conversation spirals into and in particular in this thread very long postings about, in essence that “History” is clear: new tools (camera, Photoshop, 3D) didn’t remove art from society they expanded who could participate or enable faster workflows just as you indicated some of your artists do - when they use the AI out of sight to make it clear what they need to then imitate with their untainted workflow.
Some artists who are faced with competing against AI have begun working with it to stay competitive and are still involved in “human authorship”. A vast majority of artists in this industry have never gotten a good income, even before AI, and now are badly needing to find a way to adapt to this new technology to stay competitive, preserve their livelihood, and navigate new ways to make a living as an artist, because there is not going to be a path where AI gets put back in the bottle. Blanket banning does nothing to help those artists materially. Just focus on clean rights, and visible disclosure and let customers decide on merit.
Sincerely,
Joel
