I'm making a new thread because I like to feel important and constantly require attention to provide me the illusion of self-worth.

Also, because I wanted to take the two issues and combine them and discuss a specific aspect about them, that being how these two elements interact and what the future holds for player and character slots.

I recall Adam mentioning, sort-of as an off-hand comment (forgive me if he's gone into it in greater depth but I can't recall a time when he has), that they're looking at changes to how campaigns and character slots work but I believe that was mainly about looking into concepts before development, rather than anything being currently in the pipeline. One of the things I think he mentioned was about having unlimited slots for characters but other than that, I'm not sure what, or if, there was any other things mentioned. I have also seen a lot of references and complaints about the current paradigm, a lot of which I would echo, primarily because, as generous as a 36 character sharing is, it's a kinda clunky fit to how most people use and run campaigns.

So, I'd mainly like to talk about how something could be implemented that would satisfy the most people whilst still being viable to implement for the D&D Beyond developers, and D&D Beyond as a company still needing to make money.

My personal thought is that there should be a greater degree of flexibility in the subscriptions to allow ad-hoc increases or decreases based on need. For instance, you purchase a Master Tier subscription at, say, $3 a month (yes, I realise that the Hero Tier would need to be reduced but that's irrelevant for hypothetical theorising). That gives you unlimited character slots, the ability to publish homebrew, and one campaign sharing allotment, and 6 D&D Beyond accounts allowed in the campaign, rather than any limit on character slots. The vast majority of groups, IMO, are 6 or less players (not including the DM).

Now let's say you're a very prolific DM and you have huge groups. OK, but you're an outlier and therefore need to pay extra. So you have add-ons to your base Master Tier subscription, say, an extra $1 a month for another account slot in a campaign, and another $1 for an extra content sharing in a campaign per month. This allows maximum flexibility because not everyone wants or needs to share all their content, so they could make campaigns without content sharing on, and just pay extra if they have groups bigger than six players. And it also allows for people who share everything but want to share it with more people.

To be clear, the prices I'm listing aren't necessarily reflective of what I think they should be, or what's realistic, they're more just placeholders in order to begin the conversation. I also realise that this would essentially end up being more expensive than the current offering, which will cause complaints and issues, but again, this is just a starting point and a framework to discuss the issue. Then again, I think that the current Master Tier structure is overly generous. I mean, really, 36 players plus the DM sharing hundreds of dollars of content for $7 a month is bananas. Plus, for the people who currently max that limit and got the LB and MT specifically due to that generous allotment, there could also be discounted bundle plans. Adam also mentioned something about doing plans for schools, and really, I think that the majority of people who are maxing that 36 character limit are probably schools and Adventurer's League and the like clubs anyway.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Defiantly an interesting take on the subscription model.  Essentially this type could replace the hero end of the spectrum (if need be), especially if the basic master level covers all that it does for about much the same price, thus simplifying it into one subscription with options.

What the subscriptions offer just isn't of value to me (I can see it could have value to others) as I have never had any book sharing issues of note in the 20+ years I have been gaming for (so it essentially feels like it is being forced on me to pay to let a different person use one book at a time, reducing the value of the product as a whole), and have little need for more than the handful of character slots for the groups PCs (NPCs I write up digitally in other programs, and not PC info), and a singular campaign at any one time (presuming my group is even playing D&D for the current campaign, we move around systems as well).  I would be surprised if I am alone in that area. 

That is just my group however, each group is free to determine the value of a subscription (or the product as a whole) for themselves, though this could tick the boxes for more that just need the basics of it all and not everything.

These are some excellent ideas, dropbear8mybaby. OMG something we can finally agree on!

Well done!

A variable subscription isn't a bad idea, but I don't really understand why it's such a big issue for so many people. If you play in 4+ campaigns, isn't it pretty fair to ask another person to also sub so that they can enable content sharing? Especially if they play in your 4th and 5th and 6th campaigns. I do get what you are saying, but if I join a 4th campaign in a few months, I think its pretty fair to ask someone else to share in that one. 

Personally I feel the price and number of share slots is perfectly fair though I would prefer if an account has multiple characters in the same campaign they only count as one. Main reason being I have  2 large group campaigns and 1 5 person campaign so this has a great deal of value for me.