Board Game Arena

As of this writing, the rules summary provided for the game seems to be clearly AI-generated. It begins:

Yes, I know the general rules for "Castles of Mad King Ludwig." It's a popular tile-laying game where players compete to build the most impressive and point-scoring castle for the eccentric King Ludwig II of Bavaria. Here's a breakdown of the core mechanics:

I admit I don't know the policy on BGA for AI-generated content, but I think the game deserves a rules summary written with care by actual players. The bullet point items provided by (what I presume is the) AI are vague and unhelpful:

They set these prices strategically. The prices typically range from very cheap to very expensive.

The game ends immediately after the round in which a specific number of room tile stacks (depending on player count) have been completely depleted.

Is this commonplace on BGA? I have never seen this before.

I would just delete it. Not because it's AI per se, but because if it hasn't even been reviewed (as that introductory sentence proves) it has a very high chance of being incorrect and misleading. Everyone can edit the rules summary.

I was also surprised by the AI-generated rules. It's missing some key elements. I have in mind to edit it when I get a chance, but if anyone beats me to it please go ahead!

Jellby wrote: ↑08 August 2025, 08:46 I would just delete it. Not because it's AI per se, but because if it hasn't even been reviewed (as that introductory sentence proves) it has a very high chance of being incorrect and misleading. Everyone can edit the rules summary.

The short rules like https://en.doc.boardgamearena.com/Gameh ... kingludwig don't have any review process, unlike other texts on this site. As you said, everyone can edit the rules summary. So I think it were more helpful to correct the short rules than totally delete them.

cigma wrote: ↑09 August 2025, 09:28 The short rules like https://en.doc.boardgamearena.com/Gameh ... kingludwig don't have any review process, unlike other texts on this site.

I meant reviewed by whoever added that text. It's fine to use AI to summarize rules or whatever, but you should always review the text before posting it. Same goes if you're copy-pasting from some other site, always read what you're pasting.

So I think it were more helpful to correct the short rules than totally delete them.

More helpful, yes, but more work too. My point is that given the current AI status, having nothing is probably better than having an unreviewed AI-generated text.

I deleted it.

The link to rules is for some garbage website as well, rather than an upload (or just the official website). This implementation just has so many small issues it puts me off