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.
You wouldn’t need to go into that level of detail if you just wanted to share/not share the entire book. You'd just have a page in the campaign listing each book, and each one would have two global toggles, one to share in the builder and one to share in the compendium, then for those who want it a "Custom" button that would take you to a page for that book to toggle individual features on/off.
If you don't want that level of detail you just use the global toggles, but those that want more control could have it.
All these features are coded as seperate unlocks as part of the old a la carte system, shouldnt be too hard to switch sharing on/off for each one individually. As things stand if I only own one subclass from a book it will happily just share that one subclass so the system is capable of sharing individual items.
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.
You wouldn’t need to go into that level of detail if you just wanted to share/not share the entire book. You'd just have a page in the campaign listing each book, and each one would have two global toggles, one to share in the builder and one to share in the compendium, then for those who want it a "Custom" button that would take you to a page for that book to toggle individual features on/off.
If you don't want that level of detail you just use the global toggles, but those that want more control could have it.
All these features are coded as seperate unlocks as part of the old a la carte system, shouldnt be too hard to switch sharing on/off for each one individually. As things stand if I only own one subclass from a book it will happily just share that one subclass so the system is capable of sharing individual items.
I think you missing the point too. That is exactly what this system is asking for though? It is not enough to say either they have content or they don't. Having Campaign toggles that limit the content shared be beyond simply the compendium content, will require a massive overhaul and frankly make more of a headache for those that try to use the system without the granularity that explained in my example.
The poster says he won't buy Strixhaven because of one spell, that means that DDB would need to get down to that level of granularity to make this system viable. SURE if I am someone that does not care I can "ignore" the system. But that does not actually solve the complexity that adding this system would add to the site for frankly (a similar argument being had in other places) a subset of users. I would love for everyone to be happy with how this sight works, but that is not how sites this big works and to not rehash an argument again it is easier and simpler to NOT add a complex system that only a part of the site would use, and one that adds again a level of granularity that, imo, does not alleviate the DMs job, but makes it more complicated, especially when you again get into "what to do if someone owns the content being shared but someone else is controlling their access to it." - This has been my biggest argument against this wanted system.
The poster says he won't buy Strixhaven because of one spell, that means that DDB would need to get down to that level of granularity to make this system viable.
Nonense.
I'm not buying Strixhaven, until I can turn off Strixhaven in my campaigns. I might read it for interests sake, but I have no interest in incorporating the book into my game. I have not once mentioned any specific spell, subclass or setting component.
They already control by Source for reading. I want that same level of control in the Character Builder. If I turn off Strixhaven, I don't want anything from Strixhaven. If you do, then by all means don't toggle it off. The expected default for this would be everything turned on, just like when you turn on campaign sharing right now. It would be an additional toggle per source to say whether it is allowed in the character builder or not. It's not that hard. They already control by source as to whether you own it or not. Just extend that to be "It's owned/shared and not explicitly turned off in this campaign.".
I haven't played around a lot with blocking access to certain books in my campaigns, so if I am wrong about how it works someone please correct me, but it really does not make sense that I can block Acquisitions Incorporated from being accessed by players for the campaign, yet they would still somehow have access to Gift of Gab.
I'm sure it would be quite the undertaking for the dev team, but really it makes sense as a basic functionality of the site. The DM says "We're using only materials from the PHB, MM, DMG, and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount." That should only allow access to materials from those books for the character builder for players.
Having more granular options would be useful as well. If you want players to have access to only some of the character species options in Volo's Guide to Monsters but not all of them, or if you are doing a more grimdark world where healing/resurrection magic is more limited and wanted to block some of those spells from being accessible to players, having the option to turn off just some of the material from a book would be useful. Now sure, you can just tell players "Hey, you can't use those spells", but being able to block the option entirely seems useful for a digital platform that should have additional functionality versus paper and pencil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You wouldn’t need to go into that level of detail if you just wanted to share/not share the entire book. You'd just have a page in the campaign listing each book, and each one would have two global toggles, one to share in the builder and one to share in the compendium, then for those who want it a "Custom" button that would take you to a page for that book to toggle individual features on/off.
If you don't want that level of detail you just use the global toggles, but those that want more control could have it.
All these features are coded as seperate unlocks as part of the old a la carte system, shouldnt be too hard to switch sharing on/off for each one individually. As things stand if I only own one subclass from a book it will happily just share that one subclass so the system is capable of sharing individual items.
They have a toggle for this on character sheets already.
I think you missing the point too. That is exactly what this system is asking for though? It is not enough to say either they have content or they don't. Having Campaign toggles that limit the content shared be beyond simply the compendium content, will require a massive overhaul and frankly make more of a headache for those that try to use the system without the granularity that explained in my example.
The poster says he won't buy Strixhaven because of one spell, that means that DDB would need to get down to that level of granularity to make this system viable. SURE if I am someone that does not care I can "ignore" the system. But that does not actually solve the complexity that adding this system would add to the site for frankly (a similar argument being had in other places) a subset of users. I would love for everyone to be happy with how this sight works, but that is not how sites this big works and to not rehash an argument again it is easier and simpler to NOT add a complex system that only a part of the site would use, and one that adds again a level of granularity that, imo, does not alleviate the DMs job, but makes it more complicated, especially when you again get into "what to do if someone owns the content being shared but someone else is controlling their access to it." - This has been my biggest argument against this wanted system.
Nonense.
I'm not buying Strixhaven, until I can turn off Strixhaven in my campaigns. I might read it for interests sake, but I have no interest in incorporating the book into my game. I have not once mentioned any specific spell, subclass or setting component.
They already control by Source for reading. I want that same level of control in the Character Builder. If I turn off Strixhaven, I don't want anything from Strixhaven. If you do, then by all means don't toggle it off. The expected default for this would be everything turned on, just like when you turn on campaign sharing right now. It would be an additional toggle per source to say whether it is allowed in the character builder or not. It's not that hard. They already control by source as to whether you own it or not. Just extend that to be "It's owned/shared and not explicitly turned off in this campaign.".
I think this is a fantastic suggestion!
I haven't played around a lot with blocking access to certain books in my campaigns, so if I am wrong about how it works someone please correct me, but it really does not make sense that I can block Acquisitions Incorporated from being accessed by players for the campaign, yet they would still somehow have access to Gift of Gab.
I'm sure it would be quite the undertaking for the dev team, but really it makes sense as a basic functionality of the site. The DM says "We're using only materials from the PHB, MM, DMG, and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount." That should only allow access to materials from those books for the character builder for players.
Having more granular options would be useful as well. If you want players to have access to only some of the character species options in Volo's Guide to Monsters but not all of them, or if you are doing a more grimdark world where healing/resurrection magic is more limited and wanted to block some of those spells from being accessible to players, having the option to turn off just some of the material from a book would be useful. Now sure, you can just tell players "Hey, you can't use those spells", but being able to block the option entirely seems useful for a digital platform that should have additional functionality versus paper and pencil.