It's a little disheartening to hear the method by which you are planning to apply content filters for campaigns. One of the issues with DnD right now is that there is so much content and no real way to filter it realistically. AL is easy, cause its just 2 official book releases, and all you would need to implement is toggles for each individual book, but most normal campaigns are far more nuanced than that.
As a DM, i allow many different things from many different books, but i also disallow things from the same books. Its a constant struggle with some of my more casual players who see the vast amount of race and subclass options available to them, and making characters with that content, only to find out that they cant use that content.
What i as a DM want is a RESTRICTIVE filter, as you have called it. A way to go through each piece of content in each book release and either enable or disable it. I dont want the "Marked" subraces from eberron, but i do want the base races from eberron. I dont want every subclass and spell from tasha's, but i do want a portion of them. And most importantly, i want all of those decsions to be reflected in the character builder for my players, so that when they open up their builder to make a new character, they dont have to worry about what things are there that they arent allowed to use, because everything that i have allowed them to see is everything that they can use.
People often retort to me "just make a list of content for them to reference", but thats a very unrealistic request for some of my players as some of them struggle with things like Autism and ADHD. I cant ask them to constantly look between the builder and a 3 page list of "this is what you can use, this is what you cant use". Not to mention, my campaigns still share EVERY piece of homebrew in ALL my players libraries, further adding to the clutter in their builders. And i cant ask them to disable it because some of them are DMs too and that content is vital to their own campaigns.
I really do urge DDB to reconsider their approach to the content filter, or to at least offer the DM a choice of the "Permission" or "Restrictive" filter types, as you have described them. I as a DM need an in-depth restrictive filter, to ban and allow individual pieces of content (spells, feats, races, subraces, subclasses, etc. not just whole books), as well as decide who can and cannot contribute homebrew to the campaign.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
This sounds like maybe the intent of the permissive filter was misunderstood or miscommunicated.
What was discussed on the Dev Update was a filter that would mark content as not being used in a campaign with the players being able to enable it should they wish. However if they do so, the DM is notified. This gives the best of both worlds; the DM can clearly communicate what is and is not being used, but players are not blocked from accessing content should they wish to.
Ultimately when it comes to restricting content, the core mechanism should be communication; telling players what content is and isn't allowed in a campaign, rather than taking it away from them wholecloth. I'd hope that no one has a group that disregards what the DM says so completely that they would refuse to follow the content restriction messaging.
This sounds like maybe the intent of the permissive filter was misunderstood or miscommunicated.
What was discussed on the Dev Update was a filter that would mark content as not being used in a campaign with the players being able to enable it should they wish. However if they do so, the DM is notified. This gives the best of both worlds; the DM can clearly communicate what is and is not being used, but players are not blocked from accessing content should they wish to.
Ultimately when it comes to restricting content, the core mechanism should be communication; telling players what content is and isn't allowed in a campaign, rather than taking it away from them wholecloth. I'd hope that no one has a group that disregards what the DM says so completely that they would refuse to follow the content restriction messaging.
Yes, but it still would be nice to be able to go through individual items and still say wholesale "No." especially with homebrew items. and especially when us as the DMs offering content sharing have everything, so new players we may have might be overwhelmed by options, so it would nice and easy to just go "look, now you can't see what I don't think you need to see at this time. We'll let everyone see more content as we get settled in." or something to that effect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
This sounds like maybe the intent of the permissive filter was misunderstood or miscommunicated.
What was discussed on the Dev Update was a filter that would mark content as not being used in a campaign with the players being able to enable it should they wish. However if they do so, the DM is notified. This gives the best of both worlds; the DM can clearly communicate what is and is not being used, but players are not blocked from accessing content should they wish to.
Ultimately when it comes to restricting content, the core mechanism should be communication; telling players what content is and isn't allowed in a campaign, rather than taking it away from them wholecloth. I'd hope that no one has a group that disregards what the DM says so completely that they would refuse to follow the content restriction messaging.
Yes, but it still would be nice to be able to go through individual items and still say wholesale "No." especially with homebrew items. and especially when us as the DMs offering content sharing have everything, so new players we may have might be overwhelmed by options, so it would nice and easy to just go "look, now you can't see what I don't think you need to see at this time. We'll let everyone see more content as we get settled in." or something to that effect.
Ah, I getcha now
I don't think the specifics of how the content would be flagged was discussed. However if I was to make assumptions based on how existing parts of the character builder UX function, I'd imagine it's something like feats where you don't meet the pre-requisite for. Everything your DM is permitting would be immediately visible, and the disallowed options would be tucked under a 'Disabled Content' header. The player could then, if they so wish, expand and explore that header, but they'd still be shown only the allowed content first and foremost.
As for the granularity of what is allowed and disallowed, again I don't think that was discussed but that's where feedback is important. With more granularity comes more complexity, so it'd be about finding the balance.
Basically, the details given were very scant, so assuming the system would work in the worst possible way is maybe doing the hard working designers and devs a disservice.
This sounds like maybe the intent of the permissive filter was misunderstood or miscommunicated.
What was discussed on the Dev Update was a filter that would mark content as not being used in a campaign with the players being able to enable it should they wish. However if they do so, the DM is notified. This gives the best of both worlds; the DM can clearly communicate what is and is not being used, but players are not blocked from accessing content should they wish to.
Ultimately when it comes to restricting content, the core mechanism should be communication; telling players what content is and isn't allowed in a campaign, rather than taking it away from them wholecloth. I'd hope that no one has a group that disregards what the DM says so completely that they would refuse to follow the content restriction messaging.
Yes, but it still would be nice to be able to go through individual items and still say wholesale "No." especially with homebrew items. and especially when us as the DMs offering content sharing have everything, so new players we may have might be overwhelmed by options, so it would nice and easy to just go "look, now you can't see what I don't think you need to see at this time. We'll let everyone see more content as we get settled in." or something to that effect.
Ah, I getcha now
I don't think the specifics of how the content would be flagged was discussed. However if I was to make assumptions based on how existing parts of the character builder UX function, I'd imagine it's something like feats where you don't meet the pre-requisite for. Everything your DM is permitting would be immediately visible, and the disallowed options would be tucked under a 'Disabled Content' header. The player could then, if they so wish, expand and explore that header, but they'd still be shown only the allowed content first and foremost.
As for the granularity of what is allowed and disallowed, again I don't think that was discussed but that's where feedback is important. With more granularity comes more complexity, so it'd be about finding the balance.
Basically, the details given were very scant, so assuming the system would work in the worst possible way is maybe doing the hard working designers and devs a disservice.
touche. But uh... well, despite my large pool of patience for the Beyond devs and an understanding that coding takes time and effort far beyond what I can imagine since I do not know coding or the hardware we're working with... my patience for certain valued features (namely the General Features system) is running a tad low.
...but that might also be the pain talking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
This sounds like maybe the intent of the permissive filter was misunderstood or miscommunicated.
What was discussed on the Dev Update was a filter that would mark content as not being used in a campaign with the players being able to enable it should they wish. However if they do so, the DM is notified. This gives the best of both worlds; the DM can clearly communicate what is and is not being used, but players are not blocked from accessing content should they wish to.
Ultimately when it comes to restricting content, the core mechanism should be communication; telling players what content is and isn't allowed in a campaign, rather than taking it away from them wholecloth. I'd hope that no one has a group that disregards what the DM says so completely that they would refuse to follow the content restriction messaging.
Yes, but it still would be nice to be able to go through individual items and still say wholesale "No." especially with homebrew items. and especially when us as the DMs offering content sharing have everything, so new players we may have might be overwhelmed by options, so it would nice and easy to just go "look, now you can't see what I don't think you need to see at this time. We'll let everyone see more content as we get settled in." or something to that effect.
Ah, I getcha now
I don't think the specifics of how the content would be flagged was discussed. However if I was to make assumptions based on how existing parts of the character builder UX function, I'd imagine it's something like feats where you don't meet the pre-requisite for. Everything your DM is permitting would be immediately visible, and the disallowed options would be tucked under a 'Disabled Content' header. The player could then, if they so wish, expand and explore that header, but they'd still be shown only the allowed content first and foremost.
As for the granularity of what is allowed and disallowed, again I don't think that was discussed but that's where feedback is important. With more granularity comes more complexity, so it'd be about finding the balance.
Basically, the details given were very scant, so assuming the system would work in the worst possible way is maybe doing the hard working designers and devs a disservice.
If, as you say, all the "disallowed" content is sectioned off in its own little corner, i think that might be acceptable. It seems like you are indicating that a new toggle will be added alongside those on the 1st page of the builder, probably underneath the homebrew toggle, which ensures the banned content is disabled. At the end of the day, i will be happy with any filter that clearly displays what my players can use without having to worry about what they cant use. The question that remains is; to what level of accuracy can the content be filtered?
I simply implore that the answer not be just "by book". Ideally, being able to go through multiple subdivisions of every piece of content and say yes or no is preferable.
Example: Book (PHB, TCoE, XGtE, etc) ^Type of content (subclasses, spells, feats, backgrounds, races, subraces, magic items, etc) ^Individual pieces of content (separating warforged from changeling, or allowing shifter with only 2 of its subraces)
If the system we end up with stops at "Type of content", i think i could work with that, ala duplicating the content i do like and having it as homebrew. But the more fine-tuning the filter can have, the more problems it will solve.
And while yes, there are probably many players who would respect the DMs wishes when it comes to content bans, giving the players the ability to circumvent the filter seems counter to that point. Many of my players would advocate that they dont even want to see the banned content, simply to reduce the quantity of information on their screen. Any player that wishes to read descriptions for banned content can do so in the compendiums, which they automatically have access to by being a part of my campaigns (i own the majority of content), removing the need for it to be visible in the builder itself. Should they wish to play barbie and dress a character up in the content that they dont own, well then perhaps that lends more credence to the "permission" style of system, but i have created a dud campaign and shared content in it so that my players can make whatever they want in there without filling up the official campaign with irrelevant characters (i understand not everyone can do this, due to the limited number of campaigns that we can share with, but i dont think any DM would be happy with their primary campaigns being flooded with non-pertinent characters. which breeds a tangential issue of the lack of sorting options for characters in campaigns, but thats a different forum post)
And as usual, of course i appreciate everything the dev team and PR team do, there is no tool as good as DDB out there. I also understand that coding is hard, and that the website wasnt designed for continuous updates when its foundations were paved.
It just takes so long for very simple features to come out, and its so hard to request changes to them once they release, that it has breed this culture of nail-biting anticipation (at l;east in my opinion). I have this feeling of needing to guide the final versions of features for the website as much as possible prior to release, as after its out, it may be impossible to get it reworked into something that fixes all the problems the feature needs to. I'm much happier to wait for the feature we need than the feature thats easiest to make, and i know thats easier said than done (for both the community and the devs), but i and many others in the community really just want to see this site be the best it can be for ourselves and our players.
All in all, you and the mods and devs all have a lot of opinions to consider, and my props to you guys for managing that as best you can. This is just m,y long-winded articulation of what i think that looks like. All i ask you takeaway from my ranting is that giving the DMs fine control over every piece of content our players can see when they open the builder will do leagues for the site and for our experiences. If theres also a toggle that lets them circumvent that, then thats ok too, so long as the ban/allow system is in-depth.
It just takes so long for very simple features to come out,
As a software developer, I'd like to point out that "simple features" is a misleading term.
A feature may be conceptually simple to a human, like whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell’s level, but to implement that in software is not so simple.
It's tough enough for a human to figure out what happens if a Life Domain Cleric casts Goodberry with a 4th level spell slot. Then you have to figure out how to put that in code. Then you have to figure out how to make it work with crazy homebrew spells.
Automating D&D rules is hard. Even the simple rules.
As a DM that frequently has new players, a feature like OP is describing would be a godsend. Relying on communication about what is and isn't allowed is far too overwhelming for all but the most eager of the new players I engage with. The majority of them want what DnD Beyond has been building, a "Click next, next, next and you're ready to go" toolset without knowing more than what the DM thinks is necessary. Some of the features in XgtE and Tasha's are exactly what new players are looking for. WotC have iterated and play tested 5th Edition so much to provide the gameplay that many want when they play DnD. But there is also a sizeable amount for the veteran, who is rightly looking to add new and spicy things to the game, not to improve the basic rule set and PHB but to deepen them.
Being able to pick and choose as a DM what the new player sees is just the right tool to help someone hesitant to try DnD to take the plunge and to make that first experience the best it can be.
A personal pick of mine would be a feature to be able to restrict individual races.
It's a little disheartening to hear the method by which you are planning to apply content filters for campaigns. One of the issues with DnD right now is that there is so much content and no real way to filter it realistically. AL is easy, cause its just 2 official book releases, and all you would need to implement is toggles for each individual book, but most normal campaigns are far more nuanced than that.
As a DM, i allow many different things from many different books, but i also disallow things from the same books. Its a constant struggle with some of my more casual players who see the vast amount of race and subclass options available to them, and making characters with that content, only to find out that they cant use that content.
What i as a DM want is a RESTRICTIVE filter, as you have called it. A way to go through each piece of content in each book release and either enable or disable it. I dont want the "Marked" subraces from eberron, but i do want the base races from eberron. I dont want every subclass and spell from tasha's, but i do want a portion of them. And most importantly, i want all of those decsions to be reflected in the character builder for my players, so that when they open up their builder to make a new character, they dont have to worry about what things are there that they arent allowed to use, because everything that i have allowed them to see is everything that they can use.
People often retort to me "just make a list of content for them to reference", but thats a very unrealistic request for some of my players as some of them struggle with things like Autism and ADHD. I cant ask them to constantly look between the builder and a 3 page list of "this is what you can use, this is what you cant use". Not to mention, my campaigns still share EVERY piece of homebrew in ALL my players libraries, further adding to the clutter in their builders. And i cant ask them to disable it because some of them are DMs too and that content is vital to their own campaigns.
I really do urge DDB to reconsider their approach to the content filter, or to at least offer the DM a choice of the "Permission" or "Restrictive" filter types, as you have described them. I as a DM need an in-depth restrictive filter, to ban and allow individual pieces of content (spells, feats, races, subraces, subclasses, etc. not just whole books), as well as decide who can and cannot contribute homebrew to the campaign.
You have my full +1.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
This sounds like maybe the intent of the permissive filter was misunderstood or miscommunicated.
What was discussed on the Dev Update was a filter that would mark content as not being used in a campaign with the players being able to enable it should they wish. However if they do so, the DM is notified. This gives the best of both worlds; the DM can clearly communicate what is and is not being used, but players are not blocked from accessing content should they wish to.
Ultimately when it comes to restricting content, the core mechanism should be communication; telling players what content is and isn't allowed in a campaign, rather than taking it away from them wholecloth. I'd hope that no one has a group that disregards what the DM says so completely that they would refuse to follow the content restriction messaging.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yes, but it still would be nice to be able to go through individual items and still say wholesale "No." especially with homebrew items. and especially when us as the DMs offering content sharing have everything, so new players we may have might be overwhelmed by options, so it would nice and easy to just go "look, now you can't see what I don't think you need to see at this time. We'll let everyone see more content as we get settled in." or something to that effect.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Ah, I getcha now
I don't think the specifics of how the content would be flagged was discussed. However if I was to make assumptions based on how existing parts of the character builder UX function, I'd imagine it's something like feats where you don't meet the pre-requisite for. Everything your DM is permitting would be immediately visible, and the disallowed options would be tucked under a 'Disabled Content' header. The player could then, if they so wish, expand and explore that header, but they'd still be shown only the allowed content first and foremost.
As for the granularity of what is allowed and disallowed, again I don't think that was discussed but that's where feedback is important. With more granularity comes more complexity, so it'd be about finding the balance.
Basically, the details given were very scant, so assuming the system would work in the worst possible way is maybe doing the hard working designers and devs a disservice.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
touche. But uh... well, despite my large pool of patience for the Beyond devs and an understanding that coding takes time and effort far beyond what I can imagine since I do not know coding or the hardware we're working with... my patience for certain valued features (namely the General Features system) is running a tad low.
...but that might also be the pain talking.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
If, as you say, all the "disallowed" content is sectioned off in its own little corner, i think that might be acceptable. It seems like you are indicating that a new toggle will be added alongside those on the 1st page of the builder, probably underneath the homebrew toggle, which ensures the banned content is disabled. At the end of the day, i will be happy with any filter that clearly displays what my players can use without having to worry about what they cant use. The question that remains is; to what level of accuracy can the content be filtered?
I simply implore that the answer not be just "by book". Ideally, being able to go through multiple subdivisions of every piece of content and say yes or no is preferable.
If the system we end up with stops at "Type of content", i think i could work with that, ala duplicating the content i do like and having it as homebrew. But the more fine-tuning the filter can have, the more problems it will solve.
And while yes, there are probably many players who would respect the DMs wishes when it comes to content bans, giving the players the ability to circumvent the filter seems counter to that point. Many of my players would advocate that they dont even want to see the banned content, simply to reduce the quantity of information on their screen. Any player that wishes to read descriptions for banned content can do so in the compendiums, which they automatically have access to by being a part of my campaigns (i own the majority of content), removing the need for it to be visible in the builder itself. Should they wish to play barbie and dress a character up in the content that they dont own, well then perhaps that lends more credence to the "permission" style of system, but i have created a dud campaign and shared content in it so that my players can make whatever they want in there without filling up the official campaign with irrelevant characters (i understand not everyone can do this, due to the limited number of campaigns that we can share with, but i dont think any DM would be happy with their primary campaigns being flooded with non-pertinent characters. which breeds a tangential issue of the lack of sorting options for characters in campaigns, but thats a different forum post)
And as usual, of course i appreciate everything the dev team and PR team do, there is no tool as good as DDB out there. I also understand that coding is hard, and that the website wasnt designed for continuous updates when its foundations were paved.
It just takes so long for very simple features to come out, and its so hard to request changes to them once they release, that it has breed this culture of nail-biting anticipation (at l;east in my opinion). I have this feeling of needing to guide the final versions of features for the website as much as possible prior to release, as after its out, it may be impossible to get it reworked into something that fixes all the problems the feature needs to. I'm much happier to wait for the feature we need than the feature thats easiest to make, and i know thats easier said than done (for both the community and the devs), but i and many others in the community really just want to see this site be the best it can be for ourselves and our players.
All in all, you and the mods and devs all have a lot of opinions to consider, and my props to you guys for managing that as best you can. This is just m,y long-winded articulation of what i think that looks like. All i ask you takeaway from my ranting is that giving the DMs fine control over every piece of content our players can see when they open the builder will do leagues for the site and for our experiences. If theres also a toggle that lets them circumvent that, then thats ok too, so long as the ban/allow system is in-depth.
As a software developer, I'd like to point out that "simple features" is a misleading term.
A feature may be conceptually simple to a human, like whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell’s level, but to implement that in software is not so simple.
It's tough enough for a human to figure out what happens if a Life Domain Cleric casts Goodberry with a 4th level spell slot. Then you have to figure out how to put that in code. Then you have to figure out how to make it work with crazy homebrew spells.
Automating D&D rules is hard. Even the simple rules.
As a DM that frequently has new players, a feature like OP is describing would be a godsend. Relying on communication about what is and isn't allowed is far too overwhelming for all but the most eager of the new players I engage with. The majority of them want what DnD Beyond has been building, a "Click next, next, next and you're ready to go" toolset without knowing more than what the DM thinks is necessary. Some of the features in XgtE and Tasha's are exactly what new players are looking for. WotC have iterated and play tested 5th Edition so much to provide the gameplay that many want when they play DnD. But there is also a sizeable amount for the veteran, who is rightly looking to add new and spicy things to the game, not to improve the basic rule set and PHB but to deepen them.
Being able to pick and choose as a DM what the new player sees is just the right tool to help someone hesitant to try DnD to take the plunge and to make that first experience the best it can be.
A personal pick of mine would be a feature to be able to restrict individual races.
Ick, yes. This can get very ridiculous very quickly, especially with players who don't regularly police their own collections.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.