AI content policy

Documentation
, , , ,
1

RPG Trader is a creator-focused marketplace exclusively for handcrafted TTRPG content. This AI content policy reflects that focus.

Last updated: 28 May 2026

No AI-generated content allowed

Content that includes AI-generated text or images, even in part, is not allowed on RPG Trader. No exceptions.

What this policy applies to

This applies to:

  • Text and images inside products
  • Product images on the site
  • Text in any product fields

Note that machine-learning tools, such as grammar checkers and photo editing tools, do not fall under the generative AI banner. There is no restriction on how tools like that are used in the development process.

:information_source: At any time, RPG Trader may review this policy to include additional areas if the need arises. If that happens, the policy and the last updated date will be updated.

Why this policy exists

Tabletop games are, and have always been, all about human creativity. RPG Trader wants to encourage and foster that tradition. When you publish TTRPG content on this platform, it should reflect your personal creativity, voice, and effort.

How this policy is enforced

If a product is found to include AI-generated content in any of the areas listed above, the following steps will be taken:

  • If it is already published, it will be unpublished.
  • The author will be notified and asked to make the required changes to align with this policy.
  • If the AI-generated content is removed, the product will be published again.
  • If the author does not remove the AI-generated content, the product will be removed from the site.

If an author repeatedly violates this policy, they may be removed and/or blocked from publishing on RPG Trader and have all their products removed.

How AI-generated content is monitored

We use a combination of automated checks and human review to monitor for AI-generated content. No content will be removed from the site from automated checks alone - human moderation will always be a part of the process.

Creators can disclose their use of AI

To allow for self-disclosure, creators can indicate on their products if they include AI-generated content. The toggle for this includes a link to this AI policy in case new creators are not aware of it. If a product has that toggle enabled, it is prevented from being published, admins are notified, and the product will be reviewed.

Users can flag content for review

In addition to monitoring and self-disclosure, users can flag content for review. If you find a product that you believe violates this AI policy in some way, please use the flag button on the product to inform site admins. The product will be reviewed, and the actions indicated above may be taken.

Related content

3 Likes
Anti-AI filtering?
2

That’s better. I’d note that DriveThru has an active reporting system for undeclared content, and has kicked people from its platform for systematically lying (and/or reverting changes to continue to claim their slop is human-created).

1 Like
3

Thanks - that’s good to know.

If you ever see AI-generated content on RPG Trader, please flag it for review!

And I think this bit from the policy is worth repeating here:

2 Likes
4

EDIT: The policy was updated since I posted this comment to explicitly ban all genAI content from the site. I am extremely pleased with this change. I want to acknowledge the willingness of RPG Trader to listen to our feedback and adapt. It takes courage to be willing to change, and I applaud them for doing so. I know that moderating these policies presents an increasingly difficult challenge. I am not expecting perfection, but rather a genuine desire to do good and expect better in our industry. I think RPG Trader is doing that and I can’t wait to upload my catalogue of games!

I personally think a stronger stance would be better. Under the existing guidelines, all of the same problems exist as if it was an outright ban, but with a tacit endorsement of genAI in our industry; an endorsement I am not interested in supporting.

AI-generated content is noticeably demoted on the site… Anyone can opt out of seeing AI-generated content

These two measures will only encourage bad actors to try and pass off their genAI products as legitimate. There is no incentive to behave in good faith.

While it’s tempting to say “no AI-generated content of any kind is allowed, even in part”, we believe that approach will result in AI-generated content simply not being declared and then going unchecked.

There is nothing stopping someone from uploading genAI content and not declaring it with the current policy. You are already relying on a “catch offenders” methodology, while also incentivizing genAI users to try and dodge the policy since flagging their content truthfully will negatively impact their product’s visibility.

The current policy feels like it is coming from a good place. I think you understand that generative AI is an unethical technology that creates immense harm in both the world and our industry. But this policy does nothing to prevent the technology’s continued use, and in fact encourages bad behavior while offloading the moderation responsibility to users.

I don’t think there’s any way to avoid having user-reporting be a part of your genAI strategy, but an outright ban would properly disincentivize the content from being posted to begin with. It would also clearly communicate the risks of doing so and better enable clear, direct action when a violation is found.

I am excited to see another digital marketplace, particularly one focused on catering to TTRPG makers. I have well over a dozen titles that I would like to add to the storefront. But if I’m going to add yet another marketplace to my list of management tasks, I want that place to be one that I can fully endorse. Right now this policy is in line with the equally disappointing policies of Itch.io and DriveThruRPG. Why should I go through the effort of posting my products here when it does not better protect my content or more closely align with my ethics?

7 Likes
5

I fully agree with Krasiph on all points here.

3 Likes
6

Thank you - this is really great feedback and all valid points.

We’re currently revising the AI policy and will post an update soon.

Thank you for your support and excitement for the platform - we really believe this can be a great new outlet for TTRPG creators, and I hope by refining these policies we can make it a place that everyone can thrive.

And just to note that I appreciate the good faith assumption:

Some people tend to be more combative than that :smile:

2 Likes
7

I really appreciate you taking the time to read my feedback and respond. I’m super keen to see the updates.

2 Likes
8

This policy has just been updated to reflect our stance and the way forward. Please keep the feedback coming!

2 Likes
9

This is much better! My only query is this:

To allow for self-disclosure, creators can indicate on their products if they include AI-generated content. The toggle for this includes a link to this AI policy in case new creators are not aware of it. If a product has that toggle enabled, it is prevented from being published, admins are notified, and the product will be reviewed.

If you’re not allowing AI content this seems redundant? It might be legacy text from the old policy.

1 Like
10

I get what you mean - it feels unnecessary, since why would people disclose?

It’s really just there to help people have a chance to be honest and self-disclose. I chatted to people who manage a few other marketplaces, and there’s enough anecdotal evidence to show that a toggle like this gets at least some use and helps to educate people, that it’s worth including it. If it never gets used after some time, we might just remove it.

3 Likes
11

Thank you for this clear policy.

1 Like
12

I understand and respect RPG Trader’s desire to promote human creativity. Tabletop roleplaying games are deeply personal works, and the creativity of designers is one of the things that makes this hobby special.

However, I worry that a blanket ban on all AI-generated text may unintentionally exclude some disabled creators who use these tools as accessibility accommodations rather than replacements for creativity.

I have ADHD. One of m biggest challenges I face as a creator is not generating ideas. I have a million ideas every week. My challenge is organization, executive functioning, editing, and turning rough concepts into a coherent product. Actually finishing something.

When I use AI, I am not asking it to create a game for me. Instead, I use it in ways that are similar to other accepted assistive technologies. For example:

  • Turning my bullet points into a readable draft.
  • Helping me reorganize sections that I wrote.
  • Identifying inconsistencies in rules.
  • Suggesting clearer wording when my writing becomes difficult to follow.
  • Math

The creative decisions remain mine. The setting, mechanics, themes, characters, and design choices all originate from me. AI helps bridge the gap between the ideas in my head and a finished document that other people can actually use. Yes, I have help from AI. I’ve actually finished projects with it.

The current policy appears to treat all AI involvement as equivalent, regardless of whether the tool generated an entire adventure from a prompt or simply helped a creator rewrite a paragraph they already authored. Those are fundamentally different activities.

Many creators already use technology to compensate for limitations. Spell checkers help people with dyslexia. Grammar tools help improve readability. Layout software automates design tasks. Accessibility tools help people participate in creative communities that might otherwise be inaccessible.

For some creators with ADHD, AI can serve a similar purpose.

I am not arguing that marketplaces should allow fully AI-generated products. I understand concerns about originality, quality, and preserving a marketplace focused on human creativity. No one wants a flood of low effort content: human or computer generated.

Instead, I would encourage consideration of a more nuanced policy that distinguishes between AI-generated works and human-created works that use AI as an accessibility or editing aid.

The goal should be to celebrate human creativity. In many cases, accessibility tools help disabled creators express that creativity rather than replace it.

A policy that recognizes this distinction would continue to support the values of the tabletop community while also making room for creators whose disabilities make traditional writing workflows more difficult.

Human creativity comes in many forms. Sometimes the most creative thing a person does is finding a tool that allows their ideas to finally reach the page.

3 Likes
13

Thanks for this balanced and well-thought-out opinion and response.

Your use case for using AI in your workflow feels legitimate and reasonable, and I understand your need. I also feel like that kind of use (where you use AI tools to help improve your sentences and ideas, but you still create it all yourself), is still permitted within our AI policy as written. I don’t see a problematic conflict there, unless you have wholesale portions of your work that are completely AI-generated without your creative input.

What we care about here is the output of your work, not your methods for getting there. We can’t, in fact, police, monitor, or even know what method you use, provided the actual output is your own work.

We highlight this in the policy:

I feel like your work, as you have described it, will be allowed under this policy, so if you feel like the policy isn’t clear enough on that, or perhaps I’m not understanding your use-case correctly, please say so.

If you need to, you could give some more concrete examples - provide a section of your work and explain what part of it is AI-generated and what isn’t. If you used AI tools for part of the development process, but that output isn’t in your finished product, then you should be fine.

Happy to refine things here to make it more clear, if needed!

14

I dunno - “Turning my bullet points into a readable draft” sounds a lot like “getting the AI to do my writing for me”. And certainly if it was another person doing it, rather than a magic piece of software, there would be no question that that was what was happening (and said other human should be getting a writing credit and/or paid, depending on exact arrangements).

Likewise “Helping me reorganize sections that I wrote” is editing. If you get another person to do that, normally you credit them.

I know you are trying to be reasonable here and find some path which keeps everyone happy, but I’m not sure that can be done. Allowing AI written or edited material undermines the purpose of the “no AI” policy, and calls the site’s “handcrafted ttrpg content” branding into question. That policy has already attracted numerous people - it appears to have been one of the major selling points on social media. Rolling it back at this stage seems… questionable.

2 Likes
15

No plans to roll back the policy - I’m just seeking to clarify the use case here.

In general, I like this framing:

If indeed someone is writing bullet points and then getting AI to turn those into paragraphs of text, that would be considered AI-generated text that isn’t allowed on RPG Trader. If they’re using machine-learning tools for grammar improvements (even if those tools market themselves as “AI”), then that’s acceptable.

So yeah - no backtracking here, but I do want to clarify things to make sure we’re all on the same page.

1 Like
16

If I hand a list of bullet points to ChatGPT and publish the resulting text unchanged, I would agree that the AI is doing substantial writing work.

What I’m describing is a different workflow.

My concern is that discussions about AI often stop at “AI good” or “AI bad” without much room for nuance. I think the phrase “bullet points into paragraphs” may be creating a misleading picture of how I actually work.

For example, if I design a mechanic:

  • Roll 2d6 + Strength
  • 10+ is a success
  • 7-9 is a success with a complication
  • 6 or less grants the GM a move

and then use software to help turn that into a readable rules explanation, I don’t see the software as having designed the mechanic. The game design work was already done before the paragraph existed.

It also isn’t a matter of copying and pasting whatever the AI produces. Just like working with an editor, I evaluate suggestions, reject some, revise others, and remain responsible for the final text.

Popular tools like ProWritingAid and Grammarly already suggest rewrites, restructuring, and clarity improvements. The distinction, in my view, isn’t whether assistance exists. It’s where authorship resides.

Who created the mechanics?

Who created the setting?

Who made the design decisions?

Who is responsible for the final content?

If the answer is “the creator,” I would still consider that a human-created game, even if software was used during drafting and revision.

If the answer is “I gave a prompt and the AI created the game,” then I completely understand why that would fall outside the purpose of a handcrafted marketplace.

To me, there’s a meaningful difference between:

“Here are my ideas. Help me communicate them more clearly.”

and

“Create a game for me.”

The first enhances a creator’s work. The second replaces it.

I also think it’s the creator’s responsibility to be honest about their process. That’s why I’m explicit about my use of AI tools even if it costs me a potential audience.

My concern has never been defending AI-generated products. I don’t think a handcrafted marketplace should be flooded with prompt-generated books. My concern is making sure creators who use software to refine, organize, and communicate their own ideas aren’t automatically treated the same as people generating entire products from a prompt.

That distinction requires nuance, and I think it’s worth discussing.

17

FWIW, I’m not really asking RPG Trader to change its policy. I’m more interested in sharing a perspective that doesn’t reject AI out of hand and in discussing where the line should be drawn.

As I mentioned in my other post, Grammarly can suggest rewrites. ProWritingAid can suggest rephrasing, restructuring, and style changes. Those outputs are also generated by software. Most people seem comfortable with those tools, which suggests that nearly everyone agrees some level of assistance is acceptable.

The challenge is figuring out where assistance ends and authorship begins.

I don’t think that’s an easy question, and I appreciate the thoughtful responses here.

I’m also not trying to throw a wrench into RPG Trader’s plans. The marketplace has every right to decide what kind of content it wants to host. My interest is in contributing an alternate viewpoint to a discussion that’s happening across the entire creative community.

1 Like
18

I personally include “how the content is communicated” as part of the creative work, not just “how the content is generated”. To me, that means the above use case would be categorized as AI-assisted. “Human created the idea, AI rendered the idea, human signed off on the rendering” is still a level of AI assistance that I am not interested in.

Furthermore, I’m personally not wild about using generative AI for editorial work, including Grammarly and ProWritingAid, both of which are now pretty much entirely LLM tools these days (they didn’t start that way, but they are that way now).

2 Likes
19

Its worth pointing out that as far as the law is concerned, “ideas” aren’t creative. Its the expression of the idea which is the creative work and enjoys legal protection under e.g. copyright law. And in some jurisdictions (e.g. the US) using an AI to generate that expression means it is not protected.

More prosaicly, everyone has ideas. I have ideas as often as I have farts. Its the actual work of expressing them which is the creative process. People who don’t do that work aren’t creators, just as people who get “their” novels ghostwritten aren’t writers, and Milli Vanilli weren’t singers.

2 Likes
20

DriveThru, which permits labelled AI content, and so faces constant rules-lawyering on what “counts” as AI, has said on their Discord that using AI-Grammarly is AI, and so requires declaration by publishers and is banned from certain community content programmes.

RPG Trader can obviously do something different, but its a useful data point.

1 Like