I have a Master subscription and I would love to have more than 3 campaigns. I mostly play with less than 6 players and I don't want them in the same campaign. Some of them play the same story but they are in different parts of it and I would love to post story info in the campaign for everyone to see it. But currently, I can't as it would spoil it for those who are not that far.
Also, most of my players are kids and there is no option for someone else to buy all books and share it.
I would be most grateful to have a limit on characters that I can share my resources with but not limited by a number of campaigns. So technically I could have for example 36 campaigns with one character each or one campaign with 36 characters.
I would like to know if there is even a demand for something like that. And if there is any chance for Curse to implement it.
I moved this to the 'Feedback' board. I recall this being discussed while in beta status a year ago, ultimately being decided that having more than 3 active campaigns would be abnormal for the average user. Of course there are always chances for things to change moving forward; this thread will provide the feedback of your request.
Just to clarify my idea is when we have 36 "slots" for characters now, there is no reason to limit the number of campaigns. I can have technically 6 campaigns with 6 characters each and still share with 36 people but it is not a comfortable solution. My suggested change would make it easier to manage and still had the same limit for the sharing of resources.
I know that my number of campaigns is higher than average but it is due to the fact that I'm a boy scout leader and a lot of our kids want to play DnD :-)
I think it's a fairly reasonable idea, don't limit the number of campaigns, but the number of active players across all campaigns. 12 players seems like an exceptionally high number for a given campaign, so I think 6 over 6 would at least be a fairer compromise.
I get your point but I personally have 2 campaigns with 8 players each and know that lots of other groups play in those numbers. And also Critical Role has higher numbers. I would still limit just the total number of players and not a number of campaigns. That is IMO fairest option.
Oh totally, having 36 sharable slots across between 1 and 36 campaigns would be so much better for the users. Although i'm not sure what the level of complexity for implementing that would be on Curses end.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the current limit since sharing can be toggled on and off at no penalty. Character's really only need source sharing during creation, during play, and immediately before or after play to level up. The current system facilitates that fine. The master tier subscriber of my play group has been part of up to 5 campaigns at a time.
If players don't have physical books they have no other option to browse their character and decide what to use next, what spells to prepare for each session and so on. If I play almost every week with at least one group it is not possible to just toggle sharing on and off. If I would disable sharing for one campaign, my other players can't prepare for their session. Yes, what are the odds that at that exact time will someone need to do it? Slim, but if I can share it with 36 people why limit the number of campaigns?
But I get your point. There are solutions for my situation and I'm glad that there is at least some option to share. I'm just looking for any chance of improvement. :-)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi all,
I have a Master subscription and I would love to have more than 3 campaigns. I mostly play with less than 6 players and I don't want them in the same campaign. Some of them play the same story but they are in different parts of it and I would love to post story info in the campaign for everyone to see it. But currently, I can't as it would spoil it for those who are not that far.
Also, most of my players are kids and there is no option for someone else to buy all books and share it.
I would be most grateful to have a limit on characters that I can share my resources with but not limited by a number of campaigns. So technically I could have for example 36 campaigns with one character each or one campaign with 36 characters.
I would like to know if there is even a demand for something like that. And if there is any chance for Curse to implement it.
Thank you all and "beep beep"
Good morning Anawer!
I moved this to the 'Feedback' board. I recall this being discussed while in beta status a year ago, ultimately being decided that having more than 3 active campaigns would be abnormal for the average user. Of course there are always chances for things to change moving forward; this thread will provide the feedback of your request.
Thank you much for the input!
Thank you for your time Sadge,
Just to clarify my idea is when we have 36 "slots" for characters now, there is no reason to limit the number of campaigns. I can have technically 6 campaigns with 6 characters each and still share with 36 people but it is not a comfortable solution. My suggested change would make it easier to manage and still had the same limit for the sharing of resources.
I know that my number of campaigns is higher than average but it is due to the fact that I'm a boy scout leader and a lot of our kids want to play DnD :-)
This too would be fantastic. As it stands I play in 3 campaigns and DM one. Its a juggling act to help share the content.
I think it's a fairly reasonable idea, don't limit the number of campaigns, but the number of active players across all campaigns. 12 players seems like an exceptionally high number for a given campaign, so I think 6 over 6 would at least be a fairer compromise.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I get your point but I personally have 2 campaigns with 8 players each and know that lots of other groups play in those numbers. And also Critical Role has higher numbers. I would still limit just the total number of players and not a number of campaigns. That is IMO fairest option.
Oh totally, having 36 sharable slots across between 1 and 36 campaigns would be so much better for the users. Although i'm not sure what the level of complexity for implementing that would be on Curses end.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Personally, I don't have a problem with the current limit since sharing can be toggled on and off at no penalty. Character's really only need source sharing during creation, during play, and immediately before or after play to level up. The current system facilitates that fine. The master tier subscriber of my play group has been part of up to 5 campaigns at a time.
If players don't have physical books they have no other option to browse their character and decide what to use next, what spells to prepare for each session and so on. If I play almost every week with at least one group it is not possible to just toggle sharing on and off. If I would disable sharing for one campaign, my other players can't prepare for their session.
Yes, what are the odds that at that exact time will someone need to do it? Slim, but if I can share it with 36 people why limit the number of campaigns?
But I get your point. There are solutions for my situation and I'm glad that there is at least some option to share. I'm just looking for any chance of improvement. :-)