Then use one of the many workarounds for this issue. For you it's exceptionally easy - you tell your players "turn off the "Homebrew Content" tab in Preferences, and if you ever need to add some homebrew to their sheet or tell them to do so, tell them to flip that preference on just long enough to add the specific thing you're giving them before turning it back off. As long as it doesn't leave their sheet again, they'll retain your homebrew without having to see anyone else's.
I will note that I stand by my previous assertions in this thread. There's vastly more important things for DDB to work on, and the thing we could honestly use the most is simply allowing homebrew things to report their source in the character builder, the same way everything else does. When I'm selecting spells on my sheet for my cleric, I'd love to know who made what so I can follow the DM's directives in Session Zero.
I will also note that DMs who unilaterally ban homebrew of any sort unless they brew it themselves are usually doing so for a reason and I will not censure them...but I will encourage them to trust their players. Telling someone "your creativity is bad and terrible and you're banned from using it, but mine is awesome and cool and I know you're gonna love it" is kinda not square with me. A player's job is to comply with their DM's wishes and allow the DM to run a satisfying game for everyone at the table, DM included, but if you're going to allow homebrew at the table at all, you should try and be open to players creating cool things, too. If the player is willing to respect the world the DM is running and create things that fit and make sense - things that add to the game rather than being nonsense - I see no reason why a DM should tell the player 'No' without even giving them the time of day.
Jumping in here but I feel like people are getting a little distracted by the 'wanting the ability to turn off player homebrew.' when what they are funtimentaly asking for is more options and nuance when it comes to homebrew, not the ability to ban it or restrict their players. Yes that is the thread title, but its not the core problem the OP is asking to help fix.
Personaly I feel like the core issue is that players homebrew is programmed into a singlar "All or nothing" catagory. The issue at hand is not "We need to disable player homebrew" it is "We need player homebrew to have modular opt in funcionality."
The way it is now Is just hugely limiting to people with a lot of content or active campains. Or even people who might want to start making a homebrew campain but dont want it bleeding into their other games. That is a problem. it is in its own way a serious creative restriction. No one wants to spam players with irrelivant information. No one wants to overwhelm their new/ more casual group with things they need to tell them to ignore. ITs a point of stress that does not need to exist.
From a design standpoint this is not remotely unsolveable.
Idealy you would have something like The ability to sort your homebrew into curated lists, and then manualy opt in to those lists to a game individualy. (which is what I was looking for when I found this thread that answerd my question that I was out of luck.)
The standard "on off" toggle could even remain as is as the default option for basic players. And Homebrew used on a character sheet (Ie created by players on the fly) could be opted into automaticaly, making this new system functionaly the same for people who like things as they are, while putting powerfull tools in the hands of more prolific DMs.
The only reason I can see that they might hesitate to want something like this would be a fear of prople creating public 'lists' that effectively replicate copyrighted books of content, but that too is easy to fix, make lists private only, selectable only when a player decides which homebrew to share within a game.
Would this require a lot of hefty back end programming work? Yes. Irrelivant. Let the devs decide what is or is not feasable to do with their time and money budgets. It is silly not to ask for options like this this that would make such vast improvements for the sites most prolific players.
*quick edit: I would be serioulsy supprised if something along theese lines is not already within future plans, to be honest. DMs are the ones paying for the premium subs after all.
*quick edit: I would be serioulsy supprised if something along theese lines is not already within future plans, to be honest. DMs are the ones paying for the premium subs after all.
While I pay for everything on Beyond for my group, I definitely do not want Beyond to work on this feature at all. I am not against the idea, but seeing how stretched thin Beyond already is, there are higher priority items that needs to be tackled first, and this feels like scraping the bottom of the barrel kind of feature. I am more than satisfied with the way the current homebrew toggle works, and the work arounds are more than sufficient.
I think the vast majority of paying customers want Beyond to focus on implementing published materials as much as possible on a timely manner, and then work on the MASSIVELY HUGE GINORMOUS back log of published materials not being implemented or in the process of being implemented: containers like portable hole and bag of holding, and I assume mounts and vehicles might be next since they affect inventory too; epic boons, charms, piety, and other feat-like systems; temporary effects from spells, class features, illness, injuries, etc.; spell points, hero points, honor and sanity, and other optional rules; making sidekicks a playable option; and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
While homebrew is a key part of the D&D experience, it is not essential. I am not happy that UA is on the chopping block, but UA is not an essential part either. The best we can hope for is that once Beyond has finished most of the work on the official published materials, they can work on homebrew stuff and bring back UA.
To each their own but I think this is a vital feature for those of us who have groups/players who have subs and love to just add anything and everything to their collections. To me it's more important than a lot, not all but a lot, of published content or other new features they might implement.
In other words, yes I would be happy for them to delay working on some other content/functionality for this if necessary. Everyone's going to have their own opinion on what should take priority based on what affects them the most. This is on my list and I submitted it as such to their survey. I've tried all the above work arounds and it's still a pain in the ass.
If we could at least let spells show what source they are from it would prevent accidental usage of homebrew spells. Of course, it doesn't make much sense that content sharing can't just only show content from the person who enables it (usually the DM).
If we could at least let spells show what source they are from it would prevent accidental usage of homebrew spells. Of course, it doesn't make much sense that content sharing can't just only show content from the person who enables it (usually the DM).
Look at the spell, if it lists a “Version” field then it’s homebrew. Even if there is no version designation at all, it’s still a dead giveaway it’s homebrewed. (Official stuff doesn’t have a “version” so that field is omitted from official content.)
"I want to ban ALL HOMEBREW that I didn't personally create from my campaign, and force players to follow that restriction"
Just this plz
Then use one of the many workarounds for this issue. For you it's exceptionally easy - you tell your players "turn off the "Homebrew Content" tab in Preferences, and if you ever need to add some homebrew to their sheet or tell them to do so, tell them to flip that preference on just long enough to add the specific thing you're giving them before turning it back off. As long as it doesn't leave their sheet again, they'll retain your homebrew without having to see anyone else's.
I will note that I stand by my previous assertions in this thread. There's vastly more important things for DDB to work on, and the thing we could honestly use the most is simply allowing homebrew things to report their source in the character builder, the same way everything else does. When I'm selecting spells on my sheet for my cleric, I'd love to know who made what so I can follow the DM's directives in Session Zero.
I will also note that DMs who unilaterally ban homebrew of any sort unless they brew it themselves are usually doing so for a reason and I will not censure them...but I will encourage them to trust their players. Telling someone "your creativity is bad and terrible and you're banned from using it, but mine is awesome and cool and I know you're gonna love it" is kinda not square with me. A player's job is to comply with their DM's wishes and allow the DM to run a satisfying game for everyone at the table, DM included, but if you're going to allow homebrew at the table at all, you should try and be open to players creating cool things, too. If the player is willing to respect the world the DM is running and create things that fit and make sense - things that add to the game rather than being nonsense - I see no reason why a DM should tell the player 'No' without even giving them the time of day.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
Jumping in here but I feel like people are getting a little distracted by the 'wanting the ability to turn off player homebrew.' when what they are funtimentaly asking for is more options and nuance when it comes to homebrew, not the ability to ban it or restrict their players. Yes that is the thread title, but its not the core problem the OP is asking to help fix.
Personaly I feel like the core issue is that players homebrew is programmed into a singlar "All or nothing" catagory. The issue at hand is not "We need to disable player homebrew" it is "We need player homebrew to have modular opt in funcionality."
The way it is now Is just hugely limiting to people with a lot of content or active campains. Or even people who might want to start making a homebrew campain but dont want it bleeding into their other games. That is a problem. it is in its own way a serious creative restriction. No one wants to spam players with irrelivant information. No one wants to overwhelm their new/ more casual group with things they need to tell them to ignore. ITs a point of stress that does not need to exist.
From a design standpoint this is not remotely unsolveable.
Idealy you would have something like The ability to sort your homebrew into curated lists, and then manualy opt in to those lists to a game individualy. (which is what I was looking for when I found this thread that answerd my question that I was out of luck.)
The standard "on off" toggle could even remain as is as the default option for basic players. And Homebrew used on a character sheet (Ie created by players on the fly) could be opted into automaticaly, making this new system functionaly the same for people who like things as they are, while putting powerfull tools in the hands of more prolific DMs.
The only reason I can see that they might hesitate to want something like this would be a fear of prople creating public 'lists' that effectively replicate copyrighted books of content, but that too is easy to fix, make lists private only, selectable only when a player decides which homebrew to share within a game.
Would this require a lot of hefty back end programming work? Yes. Irrelivant. Let the devs decide what is or is not feasable to do with their time and money budgets. It is silly not to ask for options like this this that would make such vast improvements for the sites most prolific players.
*quick edit: I would be serioulsy supprised if something along theese lines is not already within future plans, to be honest. DMs are the ones paying for the premium subs after all.
This is absolutely a pain point for DMs and players and I would love to see DDB finally address it.
While I pay for everything on Beyond for my group, I definitely do not want Beyond to work on this feature at all. I am not against the idea, but seeing how stretched thin Beyond already is, there are higher priority items that needs to be tackled first, and this feels like scraping the bottom of the barrel kind of feature. I am more than satisfied with the way the current homebrew toggle works, and the work arounds are more than sufficient.
I think the vast majority of paying customers want Beyond to focus on implementing published materials as much as possible on a timely manner, and then work on the MASSIVELY HUGE GINORMOUS back log of published materials not being implemented or in the process of being implemented: containers like portable hole and bag of holding, and I assume mounts and vehicles might be next since they affect inventory too; epic boons, charms, piety, and other feat-like systems; temporary effects from spells, class features, illness, injuries, etc.; spell points, hero points, honor and sanity, and other optional rules; making sidekicks a playable option; and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
While homebrew is a key part of the D&D experience, it is not essential. I am not happy that UA is on the chopping block, but UA is not an essential part either. The best we can hope for is that once Beyond has finished most of the work on the official published materials, they can work on homebrew stuff and bring back UA.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/marketplace >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
More granular content sharing (homebrew or otherwise) is actually a rather highly requested QoL improvement for a lot of users.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
To each their own but I think this is a vital feature for those of us who have groups/players who have subs and love to just add anything and everything to their collections. To me it's more important than a lot, not all but a lot, of published content or other new features they might implement.
In other words, yes I would be happy for them to delay working on some other content/functionality for this if necessary. Everyone's going to have their own opinion on what should take priority based on what affects them the most. This is on my list and I submitted it as such to their survey. I've tried all the above work arounds and it's still a pain in the ass.
How to get your dice to look like the ones in my profile picture and a full site dark mode.
Tutorial thread by Hyrkali
If we could at least let spells show what source they are from it would prevent accidental usage of homebrew spells. Of course, it doesn't make much sense that content sharing can't just only show content from the person who enables it (usually the DM).
Look at the spell, if it lists a “Version” field then it’s homebrew. Even if there is no version designation at all, it’s still a dead giveaway it’s homebrewed. (Official stuff doesn’t have a “version” so that field is omitted from official content.)
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB