What is even the purpose of creating a campaign if the owner of the campaign can't designate what sourcebooks are used? Why can non-owner players create characters using prohibited materials if the owner restricts that sourcebook?

D&D Beyond its unlikely to enact a feature that could prevent users from accessing their own content.

Simple solution - You could just always lay out the law before you have a Session Zero/Session One.

Before the start, say what you can/can't use i.e. 'when creating your amazing characters, you can use anything from the Players Handbook, Xanathar's and Tasha's. However I'm banning the use of Dream of the Blue Veil because I'd rather the campaign stays in the setting I've created'.

Quote from Davyd >>

D&D Beyond its unlikely to enact a feature that could prevent users from accessing their own content.

Campaign management is the weakest feature on D&D Beyond, allowing a DM to screen out undesired player options from official sources and homebrew for character's generated in that DM's campaign is something asked for a lot of this service by master tier subscribers.  It doesn't deprive a player of access of their own content anywhere else.  If "player access" to their content is part of D&D Beyond's rationale for not granting DMs more control over options within a campaign, that reads as laziness pretending to be a customer-serving feature.  Character maker allows filtration of Tasha's, Crit role, the technology is there and can be developed so that the DM could apply those toggles to their campaign and have more options to toggle.

Quote from Lamoon01 >>

Simple solution - You could just always lay out the law before you have a Session Zero/Session One.

Before the start, say what you can/can't use i.e. 'when creating your amazing characters, you can use anything from the Players Handbook, Xanathar's and Tasha's. However I'm banning the use of Dream of the Blue Veil because I'd rather the campaign stays in the setting I've created'.

And a DM can say that, but reading about DMs facing players bringing unwelcome homebrew and official player options into is not an uncommon experience on these boards.  Let's remember that the character builder integrates all player owned and master tier shared content and doesn't cite where the option is coming from except maybe in fine print if the player researches the option.  So in your hypothetical game, you could find yourself with players who bring in characters from Fizban's, Van Richten's, Wildemont, even other player's homebrew even though your players assented to your limitations, because the builder does nothing but allow "all in" unless the player makes some proactive steps to a very limited, incomplete set of options.  So the DM invested in narrow game parameters is required to spend time reviewing sheets with a degree of scrutiny that's frankly more readily accomplished in a paper and pencil or otherwise non DDB facilitated space because without DDB a lot of what tbe DM would like to prevent would be less likely on hand for players, or the player would at least recognize their pulling stuff from out of campaign scope books.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Quote from Davyd >>

D&D Beyond its unlikely to enact a feature that could prevent users from accessing their own content.

 

Campaign management is the weakest feature on D&D Beyond, allowing a DM to screen out undesired player options from official sources and homebrew for character's generated in that DM's campaign is something asked for a lot of this service by master tier subscribers.  It doesn't deprive a player of access of their own content anywhere else.  If "player access" to their content is part of D&D Beyond's rationale for not granting DMs more control over options within a campaign, that reads as laziness pretending to be a customer-serving feature.  Character maker allows filtration of Tasha's, Crit role, the technology is there and can be developed so that the DM could apply those toggles to their campaign and have more options to toggle.

 I think you may have misconstrued my point (or I failed to communicate it clearly).

If you own some content (say you've purchased Explorer's Guide to Wildemount), D&D Beyond is unlikely to enact a feature where, under any circumstance, you are prevented from accessing the content you paid for.

However, more granular content controls for content sharing and content flags for character building based on campaign settings is something on the teams radar. However, there would be the rub of reconciling that increased granularity/DM control with not restricting a user from accessing the content they have paid for. I've personally seen lots of interesting suggestions (which have been passed along to the team, as we do with all feedback) on how to solve this, ranging from flags that say "this content is disallowed in this campaign" to separating out options into two 'piles' of allowed and disallowed.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

And a DM can say that, but reading about DMs facing players bringing unwelcome homebrew and official player options into is not an uncommon experience on these boards.  Let's remember that the character builder integrates all player owned and master tier shared content and doesn't cite where the option is coming from except maybe in fine print if the player researches the option.  So in your hypothetical game, you could find yourself with players who bring in characters from Fizban's, Van Richten's, Wildemont, even other player's homebrew even though your players assented to your limitations, because the builder does nothing but allow "all in" unless the player makes some proactive steps to a very limited, incomplete set of options.  So the DM invested in narrow game parameters is required to spend time reviewing sheets with a degree of scrutiny that's frankly more readily accomplished in a paper and pencil or otherwise non DDB facilitated space because without DDB a lot of what tbe DM would like to prevent would be less likely on hand for players, or the player would at least recognize their pulling stuff from out of campaign scope books.

Very good points. I guess, in my hypothetical scenario, I am trusting a lot in the players so as to avoid having to meticulously pour over their character sheets to check for anything I as a DM would have ruled out. 

I can see why people ask for more granular control over what gets used though. That said, I'm probably just lucky I play with a group I can trust!

If my DM says "No you can't have that" Then no, you cannot have that. Plenty of DMs rule that even official sources aren't allowed. Silvery Barbs is a common ban at plenty of tables, including some I'm in. Should dndbeyond put a switch on every single spell/item/subclass option/feat/racial trait to allow or disallow? That would be overwhelming for even the most involved and dedicated DMs to complete.

Well our current alternative is to memorize which spells are banned and try to remember to tell a player they may or may not be allowed to use it.

Or just use the pages under Games Rules on here and filter by the books allowed. Now you see only the valid choices. Make note of what you want, go to sheet and add it. 

Just seems easier. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Quote from Davyd >>

D&D Beyond its unlikely to enact a feature that could prevent users from accessing their own content.

 

Campaign management is the weakest feature on D&D Beyond, allowing a DM to screen out undesired player options from official sources and homebrew for character's generated in that DM's campaign is something asked for a lot of this service by master tier subscribers.  It doesn't deprive a player of access of their own content anywhere else.  If "player access" to their content is part of D&D Beyond's rationale for not granting DMs more control over options within a campaign, that reads as laziness pretending to be a customer-serving feature.  Character maker allows filtration of Tasha's, Crit role, the technology is there and can be developed so that the DM could apply those toggles to their campaign and have more options to toggle.

 I think you may have misconstrued my point (or I failed to communicate it clearly).

If you own some content (say you've purchased Explorer's Guide to Wildemount), D&D Beyond is unlikely to enact a feature where, under any circumstance, you are prevented from accessing the content you paid for.

However, more granular content controls for content sharing and content flags for character building based on campaign settings is something on the teams radar. However, there would be the rub of reconciling that increased granularity/DM control with not restricting a user from accessing the content they have paid for. I've personally seen lots of interesting suggestions (which have been passed along to the team, as we do with all feedback) on how to solve this, ranging from flags that say "this content is disallowed in this campaign" to separating out options into two 'piles' of allowed and disallowed.

I understand implementation of something at this sort granular level may be seen as a challenge.  At the same time, if DDB can divvy up books into piecemeal options in the marketplace, where you can buy single spells and I think single magic items, I don't see putting a DM "go/nogo" toggle defaulted to "go" in campaign management as monumental a challenge, assuming the marketplace is integrated into the toolset as a system of locked content toggled unlocked at purchase.  This would be, roughly and broadly, speaking an adaptation of that.