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.
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.
Yes. Most players read the spell descriptions, not the one line source. And then I have to police their sheets. I'm guessing you're generally a player. The ENTIRE D&D Beyond website could be described as 'laziness' by that logic, because you're not using pen and paper.
If you don't want to use it, that's fine, but this would make a big difference to making games easier on the DM who already has a lot of things to check, and has been something many people have asked for over many years, repeatedly. Not everything is about you, and none of the site is anything but making things easier for people.
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.
In a given campaign, the DM should be able to control the content that is used. You're right, this would be the logical and well worth it extension. I agree. Relieving the pressure on the DM to manage everything, is what this site is for.
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.
Do you understand the purpose of DnDBeyond? It exists to make running and playing D&D easier by taking care of the admin. If people are asking for better campaign tools then that is exactly the sort of thing DDB should be looking to implement (as I'm sure they've agreed in the past, its just that like everything else they've not put the resources in to do it).
By your logic everyone should stop using the site altogether as its just laziness not to use pen and paper instead.
Actually Going to disagree that this website is meant for relieving pressure on the DM to manage everything. All it is really meant for is replicating Pen and paper play but on a website. For example the character sheet just allows you players too not only add any spells available to them (within the limits of spells known and progression which honestly is better implemented than what I am about to say) but also add an unlimmited number of Feats, items, override their scores, add proficiency to skills, etc. No yes a lot of these will be easy to catch at a glance on a PCs sheet, but to say that a DM is not required to look over someone's sheet OR say that the sight should be managing what PCs can add (or even require another players permission to add said thing) does lead to a lot more backend and honestly for me complication to the website.
Would we be required to input at what levels they can select items, will we in game give out health potions and then when a PC goes to add it get a notification in the campaign saying we can approve it or not? Adding what players can and cannot access on their sheet via content sounds like a nice idea, but it will only stop one way in which a DM is no longer required to check a PCs sheet. I'd much rather just talk to my players than start the first step to the system above that I just described.
If you beleive this sight is meant to relieve the role pf DM being arbiter than cool, but I think this sight is more focused on a place for people to make PCs and all the DMing tools were added later for the express desire of people which might clash with the original intention of the website (hence the 50/50 way and idea like this was implemented.
OH I just thought of another issue with this kind of system: Campaign books. These books typically add items, but for example in Curse of Strahd I have set content sharing to off, but I am playing that game with people, so I would need to toggle on items so they could add the sunsword once they pick it up? OR I as the DM have to go in and add things to override my own rulings? That just makes more of a hassle than the system preposed would fix imo.
Again not the system for me and if they did implement it, I would hope for an opt out option (something unfortunately not always an option on this sight) so I would not need to worry about all the edge cases I described that would come up.
If you beleive this sight is meant to relieve the role pf DM being arbiter than cool, but I think this sight is more focused on a place for people to make PCs and all the DMing tools were added later for the express desire of people which might clash with the original intention of the website (hence the 50/50 way and idea like this was implemented.
The single biggest headache for DMs that can be alleviated by 'external means' is character generation and management. That's literally the point right here.
OH I just thought of another issue with this kind of system: Campaign books. These books typically add items, but for example in Curse of Strahd I have set content sharing to off, but I am playing that game with people, so I would need to toggle on items so they could add the sunsword once they pick it up? OR I as the DM have to go in and add things to override my own rulings? That just makes more of a hassle than the system preposed would fix imo.
And again, campaign book sharing is about helping the players manage their characters easier, instead of having to hand over the physical campaign book where they might read something they shouldn't. If you're playing Curse of Strahd, you would share the builder access to Strahd. But if you're not playing it, you can prevent campaign specific items and subclasses from being used.
Again, you're reiterating the point of this request while trying to refute it.
The "opt out" here would be "DM clicks 'allow everything'" or doesn't turn on restrictions at all. No restrictions would be the default. Nothing described above is an "edge case".
You've missed the point entirely with my strahd example. With the system as is, I can say "No see strahd content" and my players (again unless they also own it) cannot read the book. HOWEVER they CAN add the items and weapons as they get them in the builder with out me changing any toggles. SO your system would be to require a toggle for content AND a toggle for the builder for EACH book.
Sorry but I personally would rather tell a player "You can't have silvery barbs" than go through and approve or deny access on that granular of a level.
Another point beyond limiting resources is making it less confusing when there's both 2024 and 2014 content. I've had numerous campaigns where 2014 is being run but someone accidentally uses 2024 options during character creation that aren't fully compatible with what everyone else has. Part of it is because only things with a direct counterpart in 2024 say "legacy" on them so you have to actively tell your players to filter it out or else be very vigilant on what you're choosing, but a simple toggle for 2024 and 2014 for the campaign would make this a lot easier.
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.
Yes. Most players read the spell descriptions, not the one line source. And then I have to police their sheets. I'm guessing you're generally a player. The ENTIRE D&D Beyond website could be described as 'laziness' by that logic, because you're not using pen and paper.
If you don't want to use it, that's fine, but this would make a big difference to making games easier on the DM who already has a lot of things to check, and has been something many people have asked for over many years, repeatedly. Not everything is about you, and none of the site is anything but making things easier for people.
In a given campaign, the DM should be able to control the content that is used. You're right, this would be the logical and well worth it extension. I agree. Relieving the pressure on the DM to manage everything, is what this site is for.
Do you understand the purpose of DnDBeyond? It exists to make running and playing D&D easier by taking care of the admin. If people are asking for better campaign tools then that is exactly the sort of thing DDB should be looking to implement (as I'm sure they've agreed in the past, its just that like everything else they've not put the resources in to do it).
By your logic everyone should stop using the site altogether as its just laziness not to use pen and paper instead.
I don't see any downside to this suggestion.
Actually Going to disagree that this website is meant for relieving pressure on the DM to manage everything. All it is really meant for is replicating Pen and paper play but on a website. For example the character sheet just allows you players too not only add any spells available to them (within the limits of spells known and progression which honestly is better implemented than what I am about to say) but also add an unlimmited number of Feats, items, override their scores, add proficiency to skills, etc. No yes a lot of these will be easy to catch at a glance on a PCs sheet, but to say that a DM is not required to look over someone's sheet OR say that the sight should be managing what PCs can add (or even require another players permission to add said thing) does lead to a lot more backend and honestly for me complication to the website.
Would we be required to input at what levels they can select items, will we in game give out health potions and then when a PC goes to add it get a notification in the campaign saying we can approve it or not? Adding what players can and cannot access on their sheet via content sounds like a nice idea, but it will only stop one way in which a DM is no longer required to check a PCs sheet. I'd much rather just talk to my players than start the first step to the system above that I just described.
If you beleive this sight is meant to relieve the role pf DM being arbiter than cool, but I think this sight is more focused on a place for people to make PCs and all the DMing tools were added later for the express desire of people which might clash with the original intention of the website (hence the 50/50 way and idea like this was implemented.
OH I just thought of another issue with this kind of system: Campaign books. These books typically add items, but for example in Curse of Strahd I have set content sharing to off, but I am playing that game with people, so I would need to toggle on items so they could add the sunsword once they pick it up? OR I as the DM have to go in and add things to override my own rulings? That just makes more of a hassle than the system preposed would fix imo.
Again not the system for me and if they did implement it, I would hope for an opt out option (something unfortunately not always an option on this sight) so I would not need to worry about all the edge cases I described that would come up.
The single biggest headache for DMs that can be alleviated by 'external means' is character generation and management. That's literally the point right here.
And again, campaign book sharing is about helping the players manage their characters easier, instead of having to hand over the physical campaign book where they might read something they shouldn't. If you're playing Curse of Strahd, you would share the builder access to Strahd. But if you're not playing it, you can prevent campaign specific items and subclasses from being used.
Again, you're reiterating the point of this request while trying to refute it.
The "opt out" here would be "DM clicks 'allow everything'" or doesn't turn on restrictions at all. No restrictions would be the default. Nothing described above is an "edge case".
You've missed the point entirely with my strahd example. With the system as is, I can say "No see strahd content" and my players (again unless they also own it) cannot read the book. HOWEVER they CAN add the items and weapons as they get them in the builder with out me changing any toggles. SO your system would be to require a toggle for content AND a toggle for the builder for EACH book.
Sorry but I personally would rather tell a player "You can't have silvery barbs" than go through and approve or deny access on that granular of a level.
Another point beyond limiting resources is making it less confusing when there's both 2024 and 2014 content. I've had numerous campaigns where 2014 is being run but someone accidentally uses 2024 options during character creation that aren't fully compatible with what everyone else has. Part of it is because only things with a direct counterpart in 2024 say "legacy" on them so you have to actively tell your players to filter it out or else be very vigilant on what you're choosing, but a simple toggle for 2024 and 2014 for the campaign would make this a lot easier.