As a professional DM, I currently run 8 adventures with 2 to 6 players in each adventure. However, DNDBeyond only allows Content Sharing in up to 5 Campaigns. In practice, this means I need to double up adventures per DNDBeyond Campaign. Before WOTC bought DNDBeyond, I understood the need to limit licenses and content sharing (I didn't quite understand 5x12 rather than 10x6 as the paradigm). Now that WOTC owns DNDBeyond, is there any thought of changing how Content Sharing works, ie Master Tier can simply share with 60 PCs apart from the number of campaigns? Having to double-up adventuring parties under a single campaign renders the Campaign Log practically usesless.

As a DM who runs multiple adventures, I'd love it if Content Sharing was simply a matter of being allowed to share a certain number of times with players, ie 60 players. Moreover, as a Professional DM, I'd be willing to pay for more licenses or an "Archmage Tier" or "Platinum Dragon" subscription level to get more licenses, if needed.

I love DNDBeyond and my players (new and experienced) love it too. Both players and DMs would benefit from a change in Content Sharing procedure and policy.

If nothing else, since cost isn't the issue for you, you could create a second account with a Master Tier Sub and have it "Join" campaigns 6-10 to turn Content Sharing on. Anyone in the campaign can provide the Master Sub and/or book content, it doesn't have to be the DM account.

That cost is an issue. Paying for more licenses makes sense. Starting a second subscription and buying all the digital content is prohibitive and unnecessary. And that would depend on one of my players having content to share. I like to run for New Players who may go on to invest in WOTC products but have not done so, yet.

No, you wouldn't need to re-buy the content. Your 2nd Master Sub could "Join" the other 5 campaigns that your main account is DM for, and enable Content Sharing, which would share all the content you own with those campaigns. The only extra cost is 1 additional Master Sub.

Okay. So this may be a work around but I’m hoping for something more straightforward and simple. Why not just have subscribers pay for the licenses or Campaigns they need rather than ask them to manage two accounts?

i appreciate your clarification. This was the suggestion before WOTC bought DNDBeyond but now the process should be simplified. :)

The reasoning being that they want the bonus for your campaign: it's not meant to be "share your content with up to 60 others so DDB loses the sales of content to 59 people in exchange for $5 a month", it's "when you run a campaign, you can share everyone's content to so you can all be on the same page".

What is the likelihood that someone will be needing loads of campaigns? If they want it, it's probably because they're trying to get around the system so they and their buddies can use the content for dirt cheap. For less than the cost of a single book, they could gain access to the entire library for over a decade, then it's $1 per year.  The 12 person limit is simply to allow large parties the possibility. The vast majority of users won't form anywhere near 12 person parties, but occasionally someone might. However, having 10 parties of 5 each plus your dummy account that has the sub and content? That would be a dream for those who are trying to wring the deal for all it's worth. Those drawbacks (having to double up parties) are intentional to discourage people from doing that.

I'm not sure WotC are going to change the policy. For one, they'd have to have wanted it in the first place - they controlled the various pricing schemes as franchiser. The cause of the policy hasn't changed either, they're still going to be concerned about people buying dummy accounts. They evidently just don't think people generally have more than 5 parties at a time. As a professional DM, you'll be able to afford a second subscription. Just charge an extra 20 cents a month per player to pay for a second sub. When you get to those numbers, the savings of the sub make the costs and even the effort negligible.

To answer the original questions. I'd rather 5 campaigns with upto 12 players each. I might end up one day running a 7+ party, but O can't see me running more than 5 campaigns simultaneously. If I do, that's a simple fix. It's much more challenging to figure out how to do 7+ players when I have a limit of 6.

I wouldn't generally pay more for the ability to host more than 5 campaigns. If a single session is 4 hours (when you add on things like breaks, setting up, clearing away, etc), that 24 hours of playing D&D per week. Then there's prepping...you're talking 40+ hours. That's never going to happen. If others want to, that's fine...but I'm not sure there's much of a market for it. As mentioned in my previous post, it's a defence against people abusing the system...I don't see them adding ways around it when it's so cheap to just get a second full sub.

I think that the paradigm is in place precisely to prevent (or at least discourage) what you are attempting. The whole point of content sharing is ''sharing your book with your buddies at the table." They don't want to tip the scales towards a 'scanning and reselling 5e books for profit' model. Your use-case is far from standard and overlaps a ton with people who want to abuse the system. 

Thinking how the 5 campaign thing was a sort of a Covid era gift too... I don't see the Master Tier changing.  Especially if we're talking about this being something specifically to benefit "pro" DMs.

i think the the solution could be a "Pro" tier, that would cost something WotC/DnD would think is fair market.  I think with proper documentation (school letterhead type stuff) the pro tier could be subscribed to at a discount by schools maybe some nonprofits, etc.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Thinking how the 5 campaign thing was a sort of a Covid era gift too... I don't see the Master Tier changing.  Especially if we're talking about this being something specifically to benefit "pro" DMs.

i think the the solution could be a "Pro" tier, that would cost something WotC/DnD would think is fair market.  I think with proper documentation (school letterhead type stuff) the pro tier could be subscribed to at a discount by schools maybe some nonprofits, etc.

 Maybe for official organisations I could see them doing something...although any discount will be tight and probably not worth the hassle on either side. I think it would be more of a case of a bigger discount on the bundles or something. The school acts like an advertisement for the game, they get X% off of the bundle, then when the students (or whoever) leave or decide they want to do it on their own, they're likely to come to DDB. Or they give a free sub or something. I don't really see another tier going into something like this.

I don't see how it is a defense against "abusing the system" if the solution is precisely a work-around of which they are aware. I'm just suggesting that they get rid of the "hey, have multiple accounts work-around" and just have it function under one account that you pay more for, ie pay a fee per content share.

Also, in my experience, players who begin playing on DNDBeyond for free frequently subscribe and begin buying books as well both digital and hard copies.

Because it forces you to have multiple accounts rather than just using one when you start having an inordinate number of people. It's a prompt to be honest. Sure, the only way to really enforce it is to have a limit of a single campaign...but this is the compromise. It's like Netflix having only so many screens.

If it's a straight choice to just continue as is, or pony up the money and have it in your own account, people will just continue on. And if you can have 10 parties, there's no real motivation to change. 

And to be frank, it is a work around. I daresay if it became something that registered on the radar of the higher ups at DDB, they put a stop to it. At the moment, they're relying on you either having a prick in your conscience or deciding it's not worth the hassle, and not doing it.

The deal is that you can share your content with up to 5 parties. That's the deal and what they're expecting out of it. They allow up to 12 in a party, not because they're happy with you sharing it with 59 others, but because they recognise that some parties can be quite large and as a gesture of goodwill (plus not having to deal with arguments etc), they allow up to 12 in a party with the recognition that the majority will not go above 6 and the vast majority won't go above 8 or so. The deal is 5 parties, not 60 licences.

If you wanted to do things in complete good faith, you'd get a second account with a copy of the content and a sub as well. If you can't bring yourself to go that far, then do the trick suggested that allows you to have content on one account but shared using two subs. However, the deal was never for 60 licenses to use as you see fit, it's 5 campaigns with a goodwill gesture that you can have an inordinate number of people in a party to account for larger parties that really shouldn't be the norm. That's why they don't offer alternative structures.

Quote from Linklite >>

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Thinking how the 5 campaign thing was a sort of a Covid era gift too... I don't see the Master Tier changing.  Especially if we're talking about this being something specifically to benefit "pro" DMs.

i think the the solution could be a "Pro" tier, that would cost something WotC/DnD would think is fair market.  I think with proper documentation (school letterhead type stuff) the pro tier could be subscribed to at a discount by schools maybe some nonprofits, etc.

 Maybe for official organisations I could see them doing something...although any discount will be tight and probably not worth the hassle on either side. I think it would be more of a case of a bigger discount on the bundles or something. The school acts like an advertisement for the game, they get X% off of the bundle, then when the students (or whoever) leave or decide they want to do it on their own, they're likely to come to DDB. Or they give a free sub or something. I don't really see another tier going into something like this.

You're missing the main point, the vetted school or nonprofit discount (that would require like an annual cert or vallidation) is a way for those groups to take advantage of a hitherto non existent "pro" subscription that would be available to "power users" of the campaign system like the OP is asking for ... the only folks I imagine who would have a need for that would be "professional" or for pay DMs.  I think there's probably a market for to make D&D Beyond more friendly to professional users (especially if it ever wants to really cut into the VTT space) but it would be priced very differently than the Master Tier.

General question, VTTs must have some sort of content sharing or at least content distributing system, right?  How do paid DMs negotiate that or what support does the existing VTT space provide for pay DMs?  

Thinking out loud let's say you got 60 people spread over your campaigns and they're paying $5 for games that meet once a month.  $5 a month for the DM's master tier is very very low overhead/operating expense for any sort of enterprise.  

Thanks. Even as a Professional DM still growing my businessI , can't see myself running more than 10 games per week. Anything beyond that would simply be impossible with respect to time and quality. Also, I personally don't like to run for more than 6 paying players on-line per session because each player ought to have time to "shine." So, really all I am asking is that D&DBeyond and WOTC reconsider how they configure their current content sharing or, as I think you (MidnightPlat) are suggesting, introduce a Pro Tier subscription that allows for more campaigns or more flexibility. Something more stream-lined so I don't have to Deactivate and Activate players in Campaigns and they have access to Character Build options throughout the week. (The more they are on DNDBeyond, the more likely they are to buy in-app purchases, dice skins, their own books, etc.

I'd love to be able to make full use of DNDBeyond's Game Log and (like schools) I also introduce New Players to D&D, DNDBEyond etc all the time. I am currently running 4 Lost Mine Adventures and getting people hooked on D&D and DNDBeyond. The Professional DM and WOTC have a symbiotic relationship not an adversarial relationship.

So, some options are:

1. Reconfigure license sharing with more Campaigns with fewer shares per Campaign, ie 10 campaigns with 6 shares.

2. Allow users to subscribe to more Campaigns for a set fee, ie $5/month per Campaign.

3. Permit 60 shares and make it distinct from Campaigns. So, one campaign could have 7 players another have 2 players, a West Marches style could have 30 players.

Thanks for all the feedback and comments thus far. DNDBeyond has a great community which is part of its appeal.

I want the "higher ups" to be aware of this issue because I think streamlining is an improvement and I'm willing to pay for it.

Just to be clear. WOTC and DNDBeyond are aware of the work around. They are the ones that told me that's what I should do. Also, "in good faith", I asked this question in the Official Forum precisely to get attention drawn to this issue. IMHO, and I have experience in the publishing industry and sales, my suggestion would eliminate the work around and actually result in a more regular and direct revenue stream than the work around  currently does. Players or DMs would be subscribing monthly for shared content licensing, ie Paying extra for an extra Campaign with 12 licenses.

As to your comment, "If you wanted to do things in complete good faith, you'd get a second account with a copy of the content and a sub as well."

Yes but then why two accounts? Why not do it all under one account? Even if WOTC said, yes you can have 5 more campaigns but it will cost you the same amount as a bundle purchase, that would be still more streamlined than managing two accounts. I also think it must be a mess to track stats with the work around. A second account with a PC share is unnecessarily cumbersome. Also, if, for instance, they had a Professional DM tier, WOTC and DNDBeyond would be better able to market research that niche market and aim product and services at DMs. At present, with the current work around the stats are likely inflating the number of actual customers if there are customers with multiple accounts. As in government bureaucracy, work-arounds and loop-holes in business often cost more than simply making a change to streamline the process.

I understand where you are coming from (Linklite) and I hope that you understand that I am asking this question in good faith. I want DNDBeyond and WOTC to succeed as I really enjoy my new role as Professional DM and I am betting WOTC wants me to be successful too. So, my intent here is not to get something for free but to suggest ways that DNDBeyond could be streamlined. I agree WOTC and DNDBeyond have been generous with 60 shares over 5 campaigns. I think they can profit from a reconfiguration. I raised the question here to see if others felt the same way.

Peace.