We were discussing just today on how to implement this. The main issue is, as listed above, that you add non SRD data to a homebrew item and then try to publish it.
The approach we're considering would be to not let you publish a homebrew item if it has non SRD material, thus restricting it to only ever be private, but sharable in your campaigns.
While I enjoy being able to publish content for other people, being able to allow my players to use items and spells that I create is ultimately the only thing that I need. Currently, I have items that allow them to use custom made spells and with the restrictions as they currently are, I'm unable to make those items. Hopefully we can get the publication options that you've detailed made available soon.
Sure, to use the example above, if you don't have Tiamat, you can't see Tiamat and shouldn't be able to see a homebrewed 'copy' of Tiamat.
But there are two major flaws with that as a rationale.
First: To be published, the homebrewed content must be (or is at least supposed to be) something other than simply a small change to an existing element. If it is very similar to a published element, it should be rejected anyway - whether that element is from the basic rules or some other content block.
Second: The system only stops lazy people. It doesn't do anything to prevent someone from building Tiamat from scratch exactly like the published version. What stops people from reproducing copyrighted elements from scratch and publishing them is not a filter (which prevents those who bought the content from fully using that content) - it is the vetting process itself.
Regardless of whether the Tiamat (or other restricted content) was made by copying and editing or made from scratch, it is the responsibility of the content vettors to make sure that it is sufficiently different to satisfy their desire to protect the copyrighted IP.
But using an approach (such as blocking copying of the restricted material) that only inconveniences the paying user and doesn't actually stop the undesirable behavior seems questionable as a business strategy.
That said, if I were trying to solve this problem, I'd probably embed a hidden tag in all elements that identified where it came from, and which could be used to identify the template used to make it as well as the source of all content within the item. This could then be used to do any of the following (in increasing complexity): Reject for publication anything containing a restricted tag; Flag items with restricted tags for additional scrutiny prior to approval; or restrict homebrew content to subscribers with matching tags.
As I am only making homebrew content for my campaigns and have no intention of making the items public I see this only as a restriction.
May I suggest a compromise.
Allow the use of paid content in creating homebrew content (as all content is by default private) and if the item does access paid content then flag it
If the homebrew is being submitted to become public, then give the publisher an option
Keep the content as private or
Set the item as requiring paid content (listing the paid items and the cost of adding that paid content to the users account)
This would allow me to make the magic shortbow that has one use of Ensnaring Strike and share it with my players, and if I were to attempt to make that item public I'd be giving the options of Keep It Private or Requires Paid Content (Ensnaring Strike @ $1.99)
From where I'm sitting it looks like there are several ways to address the "stop people from sharing paid content for free" issue....and with all due respect Curse has implemented the worst of these solutions. Two solutions that are far better come to mind right away (and have been touched on previously)
Easy Way: Non-SRD items can never be made public. It's an easy workaround for the moment, but in the long term this really stifles the homebrew community. Please do this ASAP at least as a temporary solution.
Hard Way: Non-SRD homebrew items can be published, but if another user who hasn't purchased the requisite content tries to utilize the item, the details in question will not display. So to use the Staff of Disco posited above, another user would see the staff casts "Chromatic Orb" but sees no details on what that spell is, and it will not function in the character sheet when they try to spend charges/etc. I assume this would be a more complex solution from a technical perspective, but is the only way I can envision a robust Homebrew library that still respects all legal/pricing concerns.
I respect everything Curse and WotC are doing here, just trying to offer constructive feedback. The current model makes it nearly impossible to run my home campaign via this platform, even though I have purchased all the content and subscribe at Master tier.
Hard Way: Non-SRD homebrew items can be published, but if another user who hasn't purchased the requisite content tries to utilize the item, the details in question will not display. So to use the Staff of Disco posited above, another user would see the staff casts "Chromatic Orb" but sees no details on what that spell is, and it will not function in the character sheet when they try to spend charges/etc. I assume this would be a more complex solution from a technical perspective, but is the only way I can envision a robust Homebrew library that still respects all legal/pricing concerns.
And they could include an ad for the missing stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
From where I'm sitting it looks like there are several ways to address the "stop people from sharing paid content for free" issue....and with all due respect Curse has implemented the worst of these solutions. Two solutions that are far better come to mind right away (and have been touched on previously)
Easy Way: Non-SRD items can never be made public. It's an easy workaround for the moment, but in the long term this really stifles the homebrew community. Please do this ASAP at least as a temporary solution.
Hard Way: Non-SRD homebrew items can be published, but if another user who hasn't purchased the requisite content tries to utilize the item, the details in question will not display. So to use the Staff of Disco posited above, another user would see the staff casts "Chromatic Orb" but sees no details on what that spell is, and it will not function in the character sheet when they try to spend charges/etc. I assume this would be a more complex solution from a technical perspective, but is the only way I can envision a robust Homebrew library that still respects all legal/pricing concerns.
I respect everything Curse and WotC are doing here, just trying to offer constructive feedback. The current model makes it nearly impossible to run my home campaign via this platform, even though I have purchased all the content and subscribe at Master tier.
The easy way you suggested is the same as others and it sounds like that would be the best option in to give us what we are looking for without a significant load on the back end. If I'm understanding what Hartless said, the hard way you're describing would cause issues in the character sheet because the item wouldn't function.
I agree, Mittens. A private/public checkbox at the beginning of the item creation flow that then limits available options if public but allows sharing of private homebrew content within a campaign would be elegant from the user side of things. I look forward to the team's solution.
Is there any update form the Dev team or timeline for a proposed solution?
Not in a while. BadEye was busy at PAX, but the team is working hard on several things. Hopefully this is something that is on the near radar, but I don't know where it would fit in the prioritized list he posted a while ago.
Those solutions will not work for one simple reason. Characters can move between campaigns, from a shared to an unshared, and keep items/spells/etc given to them during the shared campaign. At that point, the "private" option thing is then spread to other games. If you limit it to "requires purchased content", then the character has an item that now becomes unusable should you forget the wording, but was "earned" by the player in a game. The current implementation is the best compromise until a resolution that includes this scenario, as well as the other issues, is figured out.
Don't like it? Blame the people attempting to publish purchased content for public use so they don't need to pay for the content. It happens constantly... Unfortunately, it'll probably never stop. It's the "This is why we can't have nice things" problem.
Those solutions will not work for one simple reason. Characters can move between campaigns, from a shared to an unshared, and keep items/spells/etc given to them during the shared campaign. At that point, the "private" option thing is then spread to other games. If you limit it to "requires purchased content", then the character has an item that now becomes unusable should you forget the wording, but was "earned" by the player in a game. The current implementation is the best compromise until a resolution that includes this scenario, as well as the other issues, is figured out.
Don't like it? Blame the people attempting to publish purchased content for public use so they don't need to pay for the content. It happens constantly... Unfortunately, it'll probably never stop. It's the "This is why we can't have nice things" problem.
How does it work when a character leaves a sharing campaign in which he or she gained purchased content, such as a Rod of the Pact Keeper? If they get to keep that, what's the difference in keeping a homebrewed item with a purchased-content spell? If they don't, then the same implementation can be applied to a homebrewed item with a purchased-content spell.
I'm patiently waiting for Curse to resolve this satisfactorily. It can be done. It might take longer than I want, and I don't know what solution they will come up with. But I know Adam is big on the customization aspect of Dungeons & Dragons, so I am confident that sometime down the line the current situation will resolve.
Currently, it works as the second part I mentioned: It becomes "useless" (read: can't confirm it's use with text) because they can't access the content about it unless they're in a shared campaign with that particular content.
Yes, but unless the moderators link the items to every source individually pulled from for each item, it won't happen for homebrew. That's putting WAY too much work into it, and trying to automate that could lead to many false flags as text could be close enough to trigger the link. It works for the character sheet options because the explanations to the autocalculations are hidden behind the paywall and aren't able to be mechanically altered. It's why homebrew for certain character options aren't completed yet, as well. It's way too easy to provide paid content for free. Then, DDB becomes liable for costs...
You may have to explain this to me like I'm 5 because I am not following you. If it is in place for the purchased content, then why wouldn't be in place for homebrew content that uses the purchased content as a template?
As for homebrew from scratch that mimics purchased content, that can already be done. Yes, it can be rejected from public availability, but it can still be used in private campaigns.
What's your source for this being the reason the custom races, sub-classes, and feats aren't yet available?
Then you won't ever understand. And the source is the numerous posts by moderators and staff on the large number of complaints about this and similar topics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi, I can't use volo's guide monsters as base for a homebrew monster either. Is that related to the same reasoning and is it beeing looked into?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
My fingers are crossed that team solves this for us soon!
FWIW: I suspect this is a pointless restriction.
Sure, to use the example above, if you don't have Tiamat, you can't see Tiamat and shouldn't be able to see a homebrewed 'copy' of Tiamat.
But there are two major flaws with that as a rationale.
First: To be published, the homebrewed content must be (or is at least supposed to be) something other than simply a small change to an existing element. If it is very similar to a published element, it should be rejected anyway - whether that element is from the basic rules or some other content block.
Second: The system only stops lazy people. It doesn't do anything to prevent someone from building Tiamat from scratch exactly like the published version. What stops people from reproducing copyrighted elements from scratch and publishing them is not a filter (which prevents those who bought the content from fully using that content) - it is the vetting process itself.
Regardless of whether the Tiamat (or other restricted content) was made by copying and editing or made from scratch, it is the responsibility of the content vettors to make sure that it is sufficiently different to satisfy their desire to protect the copyrighted IP.
But using an approach (such as blocking copying of the restricted material) that only inconveniences the paying user and doesn't actually stop the undesirable behavior seems questionable as a business strategy.
That said, if I were trying to solve this problem, I'd probably embed a hidden tag in all elements that identified where it came from, and which could be used to identify the template used to make it as well as the source of all content within the item. This could then be used to do any of the following (in increasing complexity): Reject for publication anything containing a restricted tag; Flag items with restricted tags for additional scrutiny prior to approval; or restrict homebrew content to subscribers with matching tags.
Carl "Syrsuro" T.
As I am only making homebrew content for my campaigns and have no intention of making the items public I see this only as a restriction.
May I suggest a compromise.
This would allow me to make the magic shortbow that has one use of Ensnaring Strike and share it with my players, and if I were to attempt to make that item public I'd be giving the options of Keep It Private or Requires Paid Content (Ensnaring Strike @ $1.99)
From where I'm sitting it looks like there are several ways to address the "stop people from sharing paid content for free" issue....and with all due respect Curse has implemented the worst of these solutions. Two solutions that are far better come to mind right away (and have been touched on previously)
Easy Way: Non-SRD items can never be made public. It's an easy workaround for the moment, but in the long term this really stifles the homebrew community. Please do this ASAP at least as a temporary solution.
Hard Way: Non-SRD homebrew items can be published, but if another user who hasn't purchased the requisite content tries to utilize the item, the details in question will not display. So to use the Staff of Disco posited above, another user would see the staff casts "Chromatic Orb" but sees no details on what that spell is, and it will not function in the character sheet when they try to spend charges/etc. I assume this would be a more complex solution from a technical perspective, but is the only way I can envision a robust Homebrew library that still respects all legal/pricing concerns.
I respect everything Curse and WotC are doing here, just trying to offer constructive feedback. The current model makes it nearly impossible to run my home campaign via this platform, even though I have purchased all the content and subscribe at Master tier.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I agree, Mittens. A private/public checkbox at the beginning of the item creation flow that then limits available options if public but allows sharing of private homebrew content within a campaign would be elegant from the user side of things. I look forward to the team's solution.
Also Agreed with a checkbox during creation.
Is there any update form the Dev team or timeline for a proposed solution?
Those solutions will not work for one simple reason. Characters can move between campaigns, from a shared to an unshared, and keep items/spells/etc given to them during the shared campaign. At that point, the "private" option thing is then spread to other games. If you limit it to "requires purchased content", then the character has an item that now becomes unusable should you forget the wording, but was "earned" by the player in a game. The current implementation is the best compromise until a resolution that includes this scenario, as well as the other issues, is figured out.
Don't like it? Blame the people attempting to publish purchased content for public use so they don't need to pay for the content. It happens constantly... Unfortunately, it'll probably never stop. It's the "This is why we can't have nice things" problem.
Currently, it works as the second part I mentioned: It becomes "useless" (read: can't confirm it's use with text) because they can't access the content about it unless they're in a shared campaign with that particular content.
That seems like a natural way for it to work.
Yes, but unless the moderators link the items to every source individually pulled from for each item, it won't happen for homebrew. That's putting WAY too much work into it, and trying to automate that could lead to many false flags as text could be close enough to trigger the link. It works for the character sheet options because the explanations to the autocalculations are hidden behind the paywall and aren't able to be mechanically altered. It's why homebrew for certain character options aren't completed yet, as well. It's way too easy to provide paid content for free. Then, DDB becomes liable for costs...
You may have to explain this to me like I'm 5 because I am not following you. If it is in place for the purchased content, then why wouldn't be in place for homebrew content that uses the purchased content as a template?
As for homebrew from scratch that mimics purchased content, that can already be done. Yes, it can be rejected from public availability, but it can still be used in private campaigns.
What's your source for this being the reason the custom races, sub-classes, and feats aren't yet available?
Then you won't ever understand. And the source is the numerous posts by moderators and staff on the large number of complaints about this and similar topics.