I"m sure this isn't the first time this has been posted, but it would be great if we could have more campaigns to share our content with.

What you all have created with D&D Beyond is absolutely revolutionary, and honestly, is the only way I want to play anymore. But with that, having a limited amount of campaigns really makes it hard to try new things. I'm already paying for the Master Monthly subscription, and it would just be nice to be able to leverage this content more. 

 I don't see what the problem is having to switch sharing campaigns around or having different groups with overlapping players share a campaign.

In the interest of feedback (because "I don't like this, make it better" is bot very helpful):

• What is your problem with the current model?
  • Do you have more than 36 players?
  • Or just more than 3 groups of 7 with no overlapping players?
• How many campaigns do you think will need sharing for you to be satisfied?
• If it was switched to model of sharing with individual players instead of with whole campaigns, how many players would you need to be able to share with and is this a preferable model?

Ignoring your condescension for the sake of a constructive conversation around feedback: personally, I don't think there should be any limit to the amount of campaigns I share my resources with, especially considering I'm paying monthly to do so. So, at this rate, any increase would be great, but as far as "satisfied" goes, I simply want the D&D Beyond team to know that there is an appetite for more active sharing, and let them hear another voice, compile the data, and make a judgement call on what would be the best for their customers. If they do that, see that it's not a big deal, and decide to do nothing, then I'll live with it. You got up on your soapbox over me saying "it would just be nice to be able to leverage this content more." It's not like I proclaimed that all was lost and their product was trash because of this flaw. 

Now, I realize with the current set up, a person with a linked account get access to all the resources, but it would make more sense to have the digital features tied to the campaign itself. Sure, anyone with a shared account could see the books, but anyone that goes to your house can do the same, or dowloads the PDF. What makes D&D Beyond great is the integration of the content into a compartmentalized, functional output. So, open the content to anyone is a shared campaign, but only allow the characters in that campaign to use the content (classes, items, etc.). You can even restrict the adventures if your really worried about someone running a campaign via shared content. 

All in all, I'm not up in arms over this, but I wanted to add my voice to the conversation. I think there is a better way to do content restriction so that more people can be introduced to D&D and start their own epic collection and run their own games, but the person introducing them shouldn't have to deactivate a campaign every time they want to do a new one. 

 I don't think there should be any limit to the amount of campaigns I share my resources with

That seems a bit of an unreasonable expectation; there's got to be some limit otherwise people will abuse it. People will post campaign links on forums and discord communities for anyone to jump in and access content, rather than sharing with people you play with as is the intent.

Honestly, unless you're running a club or society (which DDB makes exceptions for, you just have to contact them), it's unlikely the average DM has more than 36 players to share with. I do think the sharing shouldn't be 12x3, but 36 users across all campaigns, but it certainly shouldn't be 'unlimited'

Also remember that physical book sharing is limited by the physical object and the ability to access it adequately and generally pdf sharing is  breaking the agreement under which you bought the pdf.

I agree the general tone of the response was a little snarky but disagree with the contention that there should be no limits.  I'm sure the sharing is limited by the license they purchased from wizards of the coast though there may be minor flexibilities.

What limit are you hitting that isn't met with current sharing?  what do you think the monthly value of additional sharing would be?

@davedamon - in its current state, I totally agree. But I think the goal should be finding the right restrictions so that you as a user don't end up being forced into a box because "it works." I mentioned a couple ideas in my post, but if you could only access the content shared to that character through the character page, it would actually end up being more restrictive without limiting the players. Maybe it has pitfalls and unlimited would be an impossible goal, but that doesn't negate the fact that it should be the target, imo. 

@mehrkat - I find the "physical book" argument a bit distracting, because it's apples to oranges. If our bar is simply that books will always be limited as a physical object so therefore we should be happy with what we get, then we never get a chance to discuss improvements. I brought up physical books because no matter how many people I have at my house, they can use the content to make character sheets. I've legally paid for the books, and there is no limit on how many character sheets can reference them. Parties galore. However, D&D Beyond just does it better (see opinion in first comment) and I would like to be able share the smooth and effect experience with more people, introducing them to the awesome world I think they're missing out on. 

The limit I'm hitting mainly comes down to the random mix of players leading us to any number of campaigns and characters being active. I have 3-4 groups that I may play with, but each group will not want to leave someone out, so we end up with about 3 campaign variations on the same groups to not leave anyone out. Or, even just test campaigns that we see if we like, but haven't decided one way or the other on yet. Disabling can work, but it's not very convenient, and it pulls the content from other people wanting to read about their characters and such. Also, while I"m not condoning the use of unpaid PDFs, it would be foolish to think that people won't go that route to play, just like pirating music. I think the goal should be to make things so convenient and available that people see pirating more hassle than it's worth. Maybe a lofty goal, but again, this should be a conversation about things. Not a binary "ya wrong because that's realistic" lol At least from my perspective. 

I think the goal should be to serve your customers well while trying to uplift the hobby pay your bills and make a profit at the same time.  Infinite slots doesn't allow for the last two.

Honestly, that is why I was curious why 36 player slots weren't enough.  Would just 36 people work if you could allocate the 36 slots anyway you wanted. (before I ask this please note I have no connection to DnD Beyond)   Would you pay $12 to go from 36 to 50 slots?  What about $25/month for 100 slots.    Would that serve your needs?   

The infinite slots is not reasonable in a capitalist society.  Honestly, I don't consider it a step too far for multiple copies of books and 2 master subscriptions to be required in for a group that is larger than 36 people.  I in fact consider their sharing to be one of the best sharing functions I've ever seen.  If you use the analogy of the physical books I would expect there to be 4 or 5 copies of the most used books (player handbook) and probably 2 or 3 of various other books.  The reason the analogy is valid is because this stares straight at the business continued functioning. 

If you have 100 people playing a game with one physical game book.  You can keep playing forever but no one makes money to keep the lights on so that might be the only book ever made.  When you further consider that DnDBeyond has computer costs, programmer needs, licensing fees (to get the books), effort to make the tools, access costs its practically amazing that they allow sharing with so many.

In my personal situation, if I could just pick 36 people to share with, and they got all my content and no campaign limits, it would work, currently. 

But again, I'm not sure why we got hung up on the "infinite slots" so much. I only mentioned no limit as a response to a loaded question. Initially, I simply provided a proverbial vote suggesting that the amount of campaigns be increased. The amount of which it should be increased would need to be determined based on a number of metrics and variables I don't have access to, but as a goal, a business should always try to give the customer what they want as long it's possible to do so.

We don't know the profits vs the cost vs R&D, etc. to be able to definitively say "what's possible," but what I can say is that is I already paid for the content, which costs about the same about for the physical books without the actual cost of printing them, as well as the monthly fee to be able to share this content with my friends, including months and months where no one even played. It's not like they're not getting money for the services they provide. 

Also, I made suggestions of methods to increase the amount of player involvement without necessarily given them access to book on its own. Does it have to be this way? No, but it does show that it's not a binary, all or nothing scenario. I bought all my books because I played and wanted my own copies. The idea that sharing content will immediately tank sales isn't a sound argument. People also share their streaming services, and those companies are still making a large profit because often, it's cheap enough that the average user won't mind getting their own account. Frankly, I'm surprised that you can't just pay a small fee on here to access the library without owning it. Again, doesn’t have to be this way, but there are creative solutions rather than just negating a critique. 

Quote from Lanthaous >>

But again, I'm not sure why we got hung up on the "infinite slots" so much. I only mentioned no limit as a response to a loaded question. Initially, I simply provided a proverbial vote suggesting that the amount of campaigns be increased.

 I just want to point out that the question to which you replied "there should [not] be any limit," was not loaded.

The 3 campaign limit was decided based on the average number of campaigns one person participates in at a time.

And also, the sub is not paying just to share the books, but also to allow others access to your purchases in DDB's tools.

As for why there is no subscription that allows you to access the books without buyong them, that is likely a restriction set by WotC.

I'd throw a vote behind specific user sharing over campaign sharing; perhaps with the caveat that they can only make a character using the features inside of one of my campaigns.

Quote from Welsh_Grifter >>

I'd throw a vote behind specific user sharing over campaign sharing; perhaps with the caveat that they can only make a character using the features inside of one of my campaigns.

 I was thinking along the same lines. Select to share with specific accounts, and as long as those accounts are in a campaign together they share amongst themselves.

It is more elegant, but also more complicated, so will take longer to set up (both for devs and users).

This brings me back to one of my questions in my first comment: if it was like this, how many accounts would you need to share with? Is 36 enough?

(Like I seriously did predict the whole discussion in the first comment, but it got thrown off when the OP answered "no limits.")

I think 36 accounts is more than enough, especially under the current 99 characters per account system. Once you go beyond having 36 distinct players needing to access your content, you're likely into club territory rather than a bunch of friends playing (that or you're trying to exploit content sharing). The average group size seems to be around 5, so that's 7 groups on average, which is basically a group a day per week.

36 is probably far more than most of us actually need; 25 would be right for most DMs, and I'd see no issue with them implementing "add ons" to subscriptions of 10 players for $5.

If people are worried about the extra cost, just stick a voluntary collection plate out on the table to get help paying for beyond, world anvil, Inkarnate etc.  You'd be surprised at the generosity of your players.  I'm not advocating Pay to Play, but if players know what things cost, they are usually happy to chip in.

Well I think you need to look at this holistically to properly understand the current model and then to be able to request adjustments accordingly.  There are three main services DNDBeyond is selling here.  First is content, second is character management, and third is campaign management(albeit that area is pretty feature light in comparison to the other two offerings, but will hopefully improve in the future).  Right now their model provides a fairly simple and straightforward model for users to pick the level of investment they want to engage in, with fairly generous sharing options if we are being honest especially considering the limitations that physical books would normally present.

I think to facilitate the original requestors idea one of two features could be added to address these problems while still allowing DNDBeyond to keep a reasonable level of control on the sharing.

Feature option number 1 could be to shift sharing function to an account centric model, where in the Content holder instead of sharing content with campaigns, could share content with specific accounts.  Where this might get messy is when an account that is getting access to content from one content holder, then goes and joins a campaign that holder is not a part of.  I have a feeling there might be some legal limitations that enforce the relationship between sharer and sharee to center around the construct we know as the campaign.

Feature option number 2 (and the one I think is probably more easily implementable) is to allow unlimited campaign creations, but to only have up to 3 (or whatever subscriber level permits) concurrent campaigns be active at a given time.  Campaigns could be switched to active and inactive states as the users of those campaigns need them.  I know a situation my group is about to face is we are currently playing in one campaign under one DM, but we are about to pause that campaign to play another campaign run by another DM (who plays as a player in the first campaign).  Granted we still have a campaign left to use but for the sake of example, lets say we knew we were not coming back to the first campaign for a few months, we could deactivate that campaign, essentially freezing the characters and other managed items while we go play in another active campaign.  When we are finished or ready to pause the second campaign, we could then create a third campaign and so on.  With up to 3 concurrent active campaigns and an unlimited number of inactive campaigns this would allow subscribers to dance between as many campaigns as they please so long as they are only active in their concurrent limit of campaigns at a time.  To prevent the abuse of just switching campaigns on and off as needed, provide a monthly allowance of toggles of say 4 (or some other even number since you need to toggle one off and one on) that only get refreshed after 30 days elapse.

That second option essentially allows content holders with top tier subscriber access to then host as many worlds with as many combinations of allowable source materials as they like over time for their group(s) but still limits how many they share with at any single moment in time.

Quote from DxJxC >>

Quote from Lanthaous >>

But again, I'm not sure why we got hung up on the "infinite slots" so much. I only mentioned no limit as a response to a loaded question. Initially, I simply provided a proverbial vote suggesting that the amount of campaigns be increased.

 I just want to point out that the question to which you replied "there should [not] be any limit," was not loaded.

The 3 campaign limit was decided based on the average number of campaigns one person participates in at a time.

And also, the sub is not paying just to share the books, but also to allow others access to your purchases in DDB's tools.

As for why there is no subscription that allows you to access the books without buyong them, that is likely a restriction set by WotC.

 I'm not looking for an internet argument. You asked "How many campaigns do you think will need sharing for you to be satisfied?" in a very goading manner, implying that my answer would simply back your initial statement of "I don't see what the problem is..." 

As I mentioned, multiple times in my suggestions for fixes, including my response to you, I understand that you let people access to the content in the DDB tools. But it's not about the current state and how it wouldn't work with a single suggested fit, but about what would be the ideal state that would alleviate the issue. Everything else is just on the table, along with any other ideas that would get us there. 

"As for why there is no subscription that allows you to access the books without buyong them, that is likely a restriction set by WotC." Again, dude, it was just a rhetorical comment in the context of the modern age of a la carte subcription models. The fact that there are actively restrictions or not doesn't take away from the fact that it's surprising that they haven't taken advantage of the market's apetite for it. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it has to remain that way. I mean, it's one of the major points of feedback. 

@Karghen - Those options make a lot of sense. I do feel if they got a handle on where in the application the sharing happened, option 1 would be far less legaly complicated. If you had to go through the campaign landing page to see the content associated with just that campaign, the fear of mass sharing would be pretty much removed. If the resources can't be reused out of their intended space, the only people gaining are those playing. 

This is also a win becaus then, DDB can choose to keep the sub structure as is, with full content sharing for 3 campaigns, for families and such, but still allow erroneous amounts of players to be in campaigns ran by the person who is hosting the campaign.  

Honestly I'd even pay for enhanced ability to pay for additional campaign shares. I run 6 games, some that meet weekly, and some that meet once in awhile. I'm running on the good graces of other players "lending" me their content shares. As someone who has all official and some unofficial content unlocked, I'd love to be able to enhance my subscription to be self-sufficient. Even if we made it more granular in the sense that I can only share a specific source x number of times.   

For example, I don't need to share XGE for my PHB only campaign, I'd love the free up that XGE share into another campaign that will use it.

I've not spent much time in the feedback forum and am amazed at how passionate everyone is for dndbeyond's well being and profitability. Such spirited reactions to a simple request.

Personally, I'd love it if they would raise the number of campaigns I could share content with. I can totally understand that most people don't have more than 3 campaigns and that's cool. So I'm above average for once in my life (woohoo!). If we could get the limit raised or, like Welsh_Grifter suggested, purchase an increase for a token amount of money, that would be awesome. I'd gladly pay another $20 or $30 a year to be able to share with 6 campaigns instead of 3.

I am a new subscriber at the Master level and could definitely use more than three campaigns that allowed shared content. I only have 17 players but I am running two monthly, one weekly, and one Discord campaign. It would be better if I could have those each in separate campaigns so I could have unique DM Notes, Encounters, etc. As it is now, I am sharing a D&D Beyond campaign across two actual campaigns which gets confusing for my players as they see content for the different groups. I would be fine if this was a 36 player limit with unlimited campaigns or an ability to pay for additional sharable content campaigns.