Here I am ready to drop $360 and then after a test purchase of the Tortle Package and LMOP with my wife, I realize I cannot choose what content I share. I love my players, but I can't let them be able to just type in things in the search bar and jump directly to the page of an adventure I'm on. They have the restraint to not buy an adventure themselves if they aren't running it, but they won't be able to help stumbling across spoilers this way.
This has to have been brought up ad nauseum at this point, but why hasn't it been a higher priority for the developers? I'm not going to buy each character option à la carte until it gets fixed so they're missing out on an 'all in' DM until this gets updated. Am I missing something? Is everyone else good with just having the entire copy of the adventure itching at their players' fingertips while running?
I like the product from what little I've played with it, but this is a dealbreaker.
And I just realized that the "Search Everything..." at the top literally does search everything, regardless of whether you've paid for the content or not. So my players could curiously type in any name or location they've just heard about and immediately pull up multiple actual sentences from the book showing spoilers without having any idea what they were doing beforehand. That's a no-go too. It shouldn't give you context for content you don't have access to, but of course this is all just my 2 cents. I'm just boggled this was purposely set up this way.
I'm just disappointed because I was ready to pull the trigger on everything (I already did pull the trigger on the master yearly subscription and the aforementioned two products) but these things would absolutely ruin my campaigns in two or three sessions. I'm glad people are reading feedback, and I wish the service well, but it's off the table for us for now.
For me it isn't better than no sharing because like most DMs, I'm the one fronting the financial costs of all this stuff and I can't use it at all with my group as it is.
Is everyone else good with just having the entire copy of the adventure itching at their players' fingertips while running?
Yes cause my players don't cheat?
Maybe talk with your players and tell them how you feel that they would cheat, and maybe they will leave the game and you won't have a problem. Because that's what I would do if my DM told me that he was that sure I would cheat if given the opportunity.
The accidental stuff with the search I agree with, the entire search algorithm needs help, but blatantly saying that you are playing with people that you know would cheat seems very strange to me.
If that is your biggest concern with D&D Beyond, it sounds like you have bigger problems than what can be solved with a content block. Good luck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
Maybe talk with your players and tell them how you feel that they would cheat, and maybe they will leave the game and you won't have a problem. Because that's what I would do if my DM told me that he was that sure I would cheat if given the opportunity.
That's cute and all to say that players would never look anything up or to accuse me of being a jerk in a roundabout way, but if you have a group of 6+ people and they have access to every single word of the campaign book at their fingertips intermixed with other content they are supposed to be perusing and think that none of them are ever going to either accidentally get into it nor be too curious to ever take a look at something even just trying to recall a previous detail or verify someone's name then you're being naive.
That's cute and all to say that players would never look anything up or to accuse me of being a jerk in a roundabout way, but if you have a group of 6+ people and they have access to every single word of the campaign book at their fingertips intermixed with other content they are supposed to be perusing and think that none of them are ever going to either accidentally get into it nor be too curious to ever take a look at something even just trying to recall a previous detail or verify someone's name then you're being naive.
So... you're saying that you think it is naive of me to keep my adventures on the same shelf as the Player's Handbook and the like and believe that while I'm out of the room (like taking a bathroom break, or in the kitchen cooking dinner) the players aren't going to ever be too curious and go take a look at something they aren't "supposed" to?
That's nonsense. If I couldn't trust my players to not want to look at spoilers, I'd be silly to keep playing with them.
Now, the accidental case is a bit more of an actual thing given the way the search everything feature currently works - but there are clear labels of where things are from, so players that aren't trying to get information they aren't supposed to have do have means to avoid it, even while still using the search everything feature instead of knowing where to find what they are looking for.
I leave all my books around and I let anyone who wants to borrow them. But yes, it's naive to think that people prone to playing on their phones won't just click around on a site I as the DM am telling them to use. It really doesn't matter right now though because the search function would still be a major problem even if you could properly granulate and restrict shared content. So complete dealbreaker for me.
If not for anyone else, lovely, but if they're looking at the internal numbers and wondering about adoption rates this is one of the reasons. Or if they notice that people are buying core books but not adventures, it's part of the reason. They're leaving more than $300 on the table with me plus whatever else they put out. I have no problem spending that money on software, miniatures, etc for my players - it's all well worth it to make for a more seamless and immersive experience- but I'm not dropping it here to have someone start clicking around for whatever reason and ruin the adventure for themselves.
Were it just a matter of people getting spoilers, it would be moot given that people can google spoilers for these things easily. Which is why I didn't use the word 'cheating' in my post. It's the complete mix of spoiler content with general player content that is a real problem. And focusing on cheating players, which isn't what I meant, isn't going to fix the problem or get people to shell out the money for this platform.
t's the complete mix of spoiler content with general player content that is a real problem.
I don't think calling the current situation a "complete mix" is a fair assessment. That implies that you can't, even if you are aware of the potential and wanting to avoid it, avoid getting spoiler content when you go looking for something other than spoiler content.
I'm hoping when they add this option it will also have more control than just which books to share. For example I would not want to share adventures, but I definitely want to share the magic items that come with those adventures so the players can add them.
I'm hoping when they add this option it will also have more control than just which books to share. For example I would not want to share adventures, but I definitely want to share the magic items that come with those adventures so the players can add them.
Exactly. If I'm running SKT I need to be able to pass out magic items from the book without letting them browse the book.
t's the complete mix of spoiler content with general player content that is a real problem.
I don't think calling the current situation a "complete mix" is a fair assessment. That implies that you can't, even if you are aware of the potential and wanting to avoid it, avoid getting spoiler content when you go looking for something other than spoiler content.
Just an example of how pervasive the problem is in the search function, if you search Mordenkainen (which any player might do) the third result or so reveals a fun spoiler for a published adventure. The only way to avoid it at all is to tell players not to use the search function at all, which is a shame because it seems like a really good resource for quick rule or class feature reference.
Just an example of how pervasive the problem is in the search function, if you search Mordenkainen (which any player might do) the third result or so reveals a fun spoiler for a published adventure. The only way to avoid it at all is to tell players not to use the search function at all, which is a shame because it seems like a really good resource for quick rule or class feature reference.
I don't think that's a good example. Seems more likely to me that either A) a player searching "Mordenkainen" is doing so because they are looking for spells, so they open up the spell section of the site rather than using the search everything box, or B) the player clicks one of those first two results that aren't spoilers without even realizing that the third result is a spoiler of some kind.
Well, agree to disagree. I think players are infinitely more likely to use keyword search than to use a navigation tree during the game. And that it was the third result was an example that it wasn't obscure or difficult to find by accident. It being the third result is high on the list when it comes to search results.
I think players are infinitely more likely to use keyword search than to use a navigation tree during the game.
...then what is the point of the site having sections like that in the first place? It really sounds like the difference we are having is a difference in our expectation of how efficiently players are going to be when trying to figure something out quickly.
The same point of most professional websites still having a redundant navigation tree buried somewhere regardless of whether they actually organize their content with it or if it even reflects their layout. Saying that players are more likely to click through four or five links to find a section ignores the total domination of search engines on almost all websites and internal built guis these days. I think you must play with a lot more type A personalities than I do. If search wasn't important, it wouldn't have a 20+ point font slot dominating the header of this website.
But again, it doesn't matter. It's good for the system to have multiple ways to find the same information for all personality types. The search returns spoilers and it shouldn't. Everyone who has commented thus far has agreed on that point.
I think you must play with a lot more type A personalities than I do.
My whole group is probably going to have a good laugh about this comment when we get together to game later.
If search wasn't important, it wouldn't have a 20+ point font slot dominating the header of this website.
I'm not meaning to drag out some kind of an argument here, but I feel the need to clarify that I never said, nor meant to imply, that the search everything function wasn't important.
I was only commenting on the specific example you used not being a good one for illustrating the problems of the search function because of other features likely to be in use (like the spell listing, which a player of a spell-casting character is likely to keep open in a tab because then every spell they might need to reference is a quick search/filter away, even if they aren't a type A personality)
Great, then add some examples you feel are more appropriate if you think of them later.
I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm not trying to argue with anyone either, just illustrating why I can't use this tool that I want to use with my group in the hopes that it spurs others to reflect and express their opinion if this is an issue for them so that it gets a higher priority by the dev team or WOTC if they're the one making mandates on the content or design specs.
Here I am ready to drop $360 and then after a test purchase of the Tortle Package and LMOP with my wife, I realize I cannot choose what content I share. I love my players, but I can't let them be able to just type in things in the search bar and jump directly to the page of an adventure I'm on. They have the restraint to not buy an adventure themselves if they aren't running it, but they won't be able to help stumbling across spoilers this way.
This has to have been brought up ad nauseum at this point, but why hasn't it been a higher priority for the developers? I'm not going to buy each character option à la carte until it gets fixed so they're missing out on an 'all in' DM until this gets updated. Am I missing something? Is everyone else good with just having the entire copy of the adventure itching at their players' fingertips while running?
I like the product from what little I've played with it, but this is a dealbreaker.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThere's a LOT of back-end database work that has been going on recently, which is paving the way for future functionality.
Part of that functionality that will be coming is a much more granular solution to sharing.
As you say, it should be absolutely possible to share your PHB and other sourcebooks with players, without sharing the adventures.
Unfortunately, I don't have a date on that.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
And I just realized that the "Search Everything..." at the top literally does search everything, regardless of whether you've paid for the content or not. So my players could curiously type in any name or location they've just heard about and immediately pull up multiple actual sentences from the book showing spoilers without having any idea what they were doing beforehand. That's a no-go too. It shouldn't give you context for content you don't have access to, but of course this is all just my 2 cents. I'm just boggled this was purposely set up this way.
"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'm just disappointed because I was ready to pull the trigger on everything (I already did pull the trigger on the master yearly subscription and the aforementioned two products) but these things would absolutely ruin my campaigns in two or three sessions. I'm glad people are reading feedback, and I wish the service well, but it's off the table for us for now.
For me it isn't better than no sharing because like most DMs, I'm the one fronting the financial costs of all this stuff and I can't use it at all with my group as it is.
Maybe talk with your players and tell them how you feel that they would cheat, and maybe they will leave the game and you won't have a problem. Because that's what I would do if my DM told me that he was that sure I would cheat if given the opportunity.
The accidental stuff with the search I agree with, the entire search algorithm needs help, but blatantly saying that you are playing with people that you know would cheat seems very strange to me.
If that is your biggest concern with D&D Beyond, it sounds like you have bigger problems than what can be solved with a content block. Good luck.
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
That's cute and all to say that players would never look anything up or to accuse me of being a jerk in a roundabout way, but if you have a group of 6+ people and they have access to every single word of the campaign book at their fingertips intermixed with other content they are supposed to be perusing and think that none of them are ever going to either accidentally get into it nor be too curious to ever take a look at something even just trying to recall a previous detail or verify someone's name then you're being naive.
I leave all my books around and I let anyone who wants to borrow them. But yes, it's naive to think that people prone to playing on their phones won't just click around on a site I as the DM am telling them to use. It really doesn't matter right now though because the search function would still be a major problem even if you could properly granulate and restrict shared content. So complete dealbreaker for me.
If not for anyone else, lovely, but if they're looking at the internal numbers and wondering about adoption rates this is one of the reasons. Or if they notice that people are buying core books but not adventures, it's part of the reason. They're leaving more than $300 on the table with me plus whatever else they put out. I have no problem spending that money on software, miniatures, etc for my players - it's all well worth it to make for a more seamless and immersive experience- but I'm not dropping it here to have someone start clicking around for whatever reason and ruin the adventure for themselves.
Were it just a matter of people getting spoilers, it would be moot given that people can google spoilers for these things easily. Which is why I didn't use the word 'cheating' in my post. It's the complete mix of spoiler content with general player content that is a real problem. And focusing on cheating players, which isn't what I meant, isn't going to fix the problem or get people to shell out the money for this platform.
I don't think calling the current situation a "complete mix" is a fair assessment. That implies that you can't, even if you are aware of the potential and wanting to avoid it, avoid getting spoiler content when you go looking for something other than spoiler content.
I'm hoping when they add this option it will also have more control than just which books to share. For example I would not want to share adventures, but I definitely want to share the magic items that come with those adventures so the players can add them.
Well, agree to disagree. I think players are infinitely more likely to use keyword search than to use a navigation tree during the game. And that it was the third result was an example that it wasn't obscure or difficult to find by accident. It being the third result is high on the list when it comes to search results.
...then what is the point of the site having sections like that in the first place? It really sounds like the difference we are having is a difference in our expectation of how efficiently players are going to be when trying to figure something out quickly.
The same point of most professional websites still having a redundant navigation tree buried somewhere regardless of whether they actually organize their content with it or if it even reflects their layout. Saying that players are more likely to click through four or five links to find a section ignores the total domination of search engines on almost all websites and internal built guis these days. I think you must play with a lot more type A personalities than I do. If search wasn't important, it wouldn't have a 20+ point font slot dominating the header of this website.
But again, it doesn't matter. It's good for the system to have multiple ways to find the same information for all personality types. The search returns spoilers and it shouldn't. Everyone who has commented thus far has agreed on that point.
My whole group is probably going to have a good laugh about this comment when we get together to game later.
I'm not meaning to drag out some kind of an argument here, but I feel the need to clarify that I never said, nor meant to imply, that the search everything function wasn't important.I was only commenting on the specific example you used not being a good one for illustrating the problems of the search function because of other features likely to be in use (like the spell listing, which a player of a spell-casting character is likely to keep open in a tab because then every spell they might need to reference is a quick search/filter away, even if they aren't a type A personality)
Great, then add some examples you feel are more appropriate if you think of them later.
I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm not trying to argue with anyone either, just illustrating why I can't use this tool that I want to use with my group in the hopes that it spurs others to reflect and express their opinion if this is an issue for them so that it gets a higher priority by the dev team or WOTC if they're the one making mandates on the content or design specs.