I’m in a similar position. I was already thinking up ideas until I saw the rules in detail. It’s odd to me that “AI art” is allowed but not “AI” for writing. If this is just a tool with no ethical problems, why the distinction? It seems to me that people devalue the work of artists and don’t mind their work being stolen or plagiarised en masse but think that writing is somehow more sacred and should be protected. For people who say they can’t afford an artist for a game jam, I would say then don’t use one. Personally I would prefer amateurish attempts that reflect the origins of this hobby as something shared between friends. And for those who say it is already here and there is no stopping it, there are plenty of crimes or unethical decisions that are easy to do or make but that does not absolve us from doing the right thing. “Everyone else does it” is for lemmings.
Viewing post in Disappointed that "AI art" is permitted
I wonder if it’s because the AI generated documents tend to be super rambly. I’ve seen some adventures posted to r/osr that was AI generated and it was impossible to understand.
No layout, no formatting, really long paragraphs that don’t really say anything, etc.
Or it at least provides some barrier to entry since you’d need to sit down and actually write something.
One of the grading metrics is writing. None of them is for art. It's not an ethical question. It's a "I want to see the adventure you WRITE!" question. The art is kind of irrelevant to that end. Sure art helps make the product look professional, but you don't need it. And to that end, AI images make the product look unprofessional.
Knave 2e has plenty of spreads with no art. Ben's adventure The Waking of Willowby Hall is practically artless (just nix the portraits). Art is icing on the cake that is your adventure. In contrast, you can't turn in an adventure with no writing . It's absolutely required.