I'm slowly buying all the settings and content on D&D Beyond.
But to in order to pre-empt ths "No you can't have Silvery Barbs" conversation, until you provide me with the options to limit what players can use in the character builder for a given campaign, there are certain products I will not buy, no matter how much they interest me personally.
Either make the Campaign Sharing limit both readability and accessibility, or you will will continue to miss out on sales. It's a financial decision.
I mean I think for a small subset this feature would be useful, but also checking in with PCs prior to a campaign is also important. I follow up with PCs before and after they build their characters plus send out a little 1 page intro with restrictions.
But also a simple conversation with a group currently would allow you to still buy the product. If you want the other things in the product but one spell, you are really letting that one spell (I'm going to be honest, I don't see the issue with it.... nor did I have trouble with a twilight cleric in my strahd game but that is a different conversation) dictate what options you have avaiable?
Most of my players don't keep track of what stuff is in what source and just pick from the spells the character builder gives to them. They keep ending up with stuff I wasn't planning on having in the campaign because we need some content from Extended Sources and that includes just about every piece of published material.
That is, again, an issue of not communicating properly with your players. If my PF1e DM can clearly communicate to a whole group new to the ruleset what sources are and aren't available to the campaign without issue, you can do the same to players who can literally filter in lookups by source or source category. And if you come across an issue, just talk to the player about it, it's not a big deal.
(Just to point out: This isn't a Beyond issue AT ALL. You'd have to have the same conversation if you got the books physically and had players able to go through the player options there.)
(Just to point out: This isn't a Beyond issue AT ALL. You'd have to have the same conversation if you got the books physically and had players able to go through the player options there.)
Actually, "just to point out" a physical book is far easier to buy and not share with my players, because it's physical. I can put it on my shelf, and not let anyone read it.
You've illustrated the point. I'm asking for the same respect for digital Content Sharing.
You've also highlighted another problem that if they buy the digital book, I can't stop them from choosing items from it in my campaign, and have to spend my days policing their sheets, because no-one can tell what book something is from.
(Just to point out: This isn't a Beyond issue AT ALL. You'd have to have the same conversation if you got the books physically and had players able to go through the player options there.)
Actually, "just to point out" a physical book is far easier to buy and not share with my players, because it's physical. I can put it on my shelf, and not let anyone read it.
You've illustrated the point. I'm asking for the same respect for digital Content Sharing.
You've also highlighted another problem that if they buy the digital book, I can't stop them from choosing items from it in my campaign, and have to spend my days policing their sheets, because no-one can tell what book something is from.
I specifically called out having players browse the player options in said book, so your "I could just keep it on a shelf" statement is completely irrelevant. As for sources, I also brought up the source filtering in the lookups. You know. Having players use the tools at their disposal instead of blindly clicking buttons, like any good DM using digital tools should.
As for them buying the digital book, in the pen and paper example, the same issue comes up if you hoard the book on a shelf and they buy their own copy. So you're still at square one.
Talk to your players. Be clear with them. Anything short of that is wrong.
This is one of those situations where both sides are right: this is doable by being clear with your players, but DDB very much does not make it easy, on either a DM or a player level, to do it.
(Also, when people say "Strixhaven", they usually mean "Silvery Barbs", and when your problem is with one spell, you can just say "don't take X". The wizards in my game won't get automatic access to Wish when they hit 17th level, and they know it.)
This is one of those situations where both sides are right: this is doable by being clear with your players, but DDB very much does not make it easy, on either a DM or a player level, to do it.
(Also, when people say "Strixhaven", they usually mean "Silvery Barbs", and when your problem is with one spell, you can just say "don't take X". The wizards in my game won't get automatic access to Wish when they hit 17th level, and they know it.)
While this is generally true, there's other elements I don't want shared either, but the bigger issue is not having to parse out every book before buying it, to determine what is or isn't acceptable. I personally own a lot but it's almost impossible to tell my players to just stick to a limited set of books, because DDB is showing everything everywhere with very little indication of where it's from.
Also Frankly, it would not help in campaigns where people own the material themselves.
What you are really looking for is DDB to add a secondary system on top of the content sharing that would restrict what content people can use in the builder (they have a very loose way to do this with what kind of content you allow on a sheet individually). However, if a person in the campaign owns a book themselves (like in the pen and paper examples) you would not be able to stop them if the content sharing limits their access since, technically someone else would be controlling what the access of said content by said owner of the content.
So all in all a good idea for a system, but due to the way DDB likes to think of themselves, might be harder to implement since they would be allowing another user on this site to control someone's access to the content they own (albeit in a shared semi consented system but still semi problem filled). Like I own all the books for my group but don't always DM, so when someone else controls what content is shared, I still get to see it but in the system wanted by others, I would not be able to see or use (yes only in a specific area of the website but still someone else is controlling my access to my purchased content). Puts DDB in a tight spot which is why it is easier to just have the sharing system and asking DMs to better monitor their players, something I advocate for in general that no one should really come to your table without you having giving their sheet a once over every week.
This is one of those situations where both sides are right: this is doable by being clear with your players, but DDB very much does not make it easy, on either a DM or a player level, to do it.
(Also, when people say "Strixhaven", they usually mean "Silvery Barbs", and when your problem is with one spell, you can just say "don't take X". The wizards in my game won't get automatic access to Wish when they hit 17th level, and they know it.)
While this is generally true, there's other elements I don't want shared either, but the bigger issue is not having to parse out every book before buying it, to determine what is or isn't acceptable. I personally own a lot but it's almost impossible to tell my players to just stick to a limited set of books, because DDB is showing everything everywhere with very little indication of where it's from.
Again: The lookup system tells exactly where the item is from. This is a laziness and communication issue, plain and simple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm slowly buying all the settings and content on D&D Beyond.
But to in order to pre-empt ths "No you can't have Silvery Barbs" conversation, until you provide me with the options to limit what players can use in the character builder for a given campaign, there are certain products I will not buy, no matter how much they interest me personally.
Either make the Campaign Sharing limit both readability and accessibility, or you will will continue to miss out on sales. It's a financial decision.
I mean I think for a small subset this feature would be useful, but also checking in with PCs prior to a campaign is also important. I follow up with PCs before and after they build their characters plus send out a little 1 page intro with restrictions.
But also a simple conversation with a group currently would allow you to still buy the product. If you want the other things in the product but one spell, you are really letting that one spell (I'm going to be honest, I don't see the issue with it.... nor did I have trouble with a twilight cleric in my strahd game but that is a different conversation) dictate what options you have avaiable?
Literally just communicate with your players if you don't want them to take specific spells.
I mean, just tell them they can't use it? Why is that so hard?
Most of my players don't keep track of what stuff is in what source and just pick from the spells the character builder gives to them. They keep ending up with stuff I wasn't planning on having in the campaign because we need some content from Extended Sources and that includes just about every piece of published material.
That is, again, an issue of not communicating properly with your players. If my PF1e DM can clearly communicate to a whole group new to the ruleset what sources are and aren't available to the campaign without issue, you can do the same to players who can literally filter in lookups by source or source category. And if you come across an issue, just talk to the player about it, it's not a big deal.
(Just to point out: This isn't a Beyond issue AT ALL. You'd have to have the same conversation if you got the books physically and had players able to go through the player options there.)
Actually, "just to point out" a physical book is far easier to buy and not share with my players, because it's physical. I can put it on my shelf, and not let anyone read it.
You've illustrated the point. I'm asking for the same respect for digital Content Sharing.
You've also highlighted another problem that if they buy the digital book, I can't stop them from choosing items from it in my campaign, and have to spend my days policing their sheets, because no-one can tell what book something is from.
I specifically called out having players browse the player options in said book, so your "I could just keep it on a shelf" statement is completely irrelevant. As for sources, I also brought up the source filtering in the lookups. You know. Having players use the tools at their disposal instead of blindly clicking buttons, like any good DM using digital tools should.
As for them buying the digital book, in the pen and paper example, the same issue comes up if you hoard the book on a shelf and they buy their own copy. So you're still at square one.
Talk to your players. Be clear with them. Anything short of that is wrong.
This is one of those situations where both sides are right: this is doable by being clear with your players, but DDB very much does not make it easy, on either a DM or a player level, to do it.
(Also, when people say "Strixhaven", they usually mean "Silvery Barbs", and when your problem is with one spell, you can just say "don't take X". The wizards in my game won't get automatic access to Wish when they hit 17th level, and they know it.)
While this is generally true, there's other elements I don't want shared either, but the bigger issue is not having to parse out every book before buying it, to determine what is or isn't acceptable. I personally own a lot but it's almost impossible to tell my players to just stick to a limited set of books, because DDB is showing everything everywhere with very little indication of where it's from.
Also Frankly, it would not help in campaigns where people own the material themselves.
What you are really looking for is DDB to add a secondary system on top of the content sharing that would restrict what content people can use in the builder (they have a very loose way to do this with what kind of content you allow on a sheet individually). However, if a person in the campaign owns a book themselves (like in the pen and paper examples) you would not be able to stop them if the content sharing limits their access since, technically someone else would be controlling what the access of said content by said owner of the content.
So all in all a good idea for a system, but due to the way DDB likes to think of themselves, might be harder to implement since they would be allowing another user on this site to control someone's access to the content they own (albeit in a shared semi consented system but still semi problem filled). Like I own all the books for my group but don't always DM, so when someone else controls what content is shared, I still get to see it but in the system wanted by others, I would not be able to see or use (yes only in a specific area of the website but still someone else is controlling my access to my purchased content). Puts DDB in a tight spot which is why it is easier to just have the sharing system and asking DMs to better monitor their players, something I advocate for in general that no one should really come to your table without you having giving their sheet a once over every week.
Again: The lookup system tells exactly where the item is from. This is a laziness and communication issue, plain and simple.