Pleased to see this coming alive :) Unfortunately, whenever I attempt to use the system, I get a spinning black & red circle. I have sued various browsers. I have tried to access the system via a web page on my phone. I have restarted my PC. I have deleted cookies.
It might be possible to get additional clues with the Developer Tools in Chrome on desktop:
Access the page, press Ctrl+Shift+I (or F12) to bring upp the developer console. Top right corner, to the left of the "three-dot-menu", there might be a warning or error (personally I have none since my page is working correctly). Additional information will be in the text area. Press F12 or the keyboard shortcut (or X) to close it.
Could this level of content management be made available to anyone that has content sharing on, not just the DM of the campaign? I'm in one campaign as a player that shares many players with a second campaign that I DM. That makes turning off compendium content for the second campaign moot, as I can't turn off those same adventures in the campaign that I'm only a player in (without turning off my content sharing altogether).
Our current concept of a campaign is one DM leading a group of main characters through a campaign. While other configurations do happen, it's something that we hope to handle in other ways.
So when it comes to content sharing, we think it'll be much more simple for DMs to choose which content to share.
Let me ask you. Why do you and your friends use one campaign for multiple adventuring groups? Is it because there's a limit to only 3 campaigns that you can share content with?
Thanks for the interest!
It doesn't sound like they do use one campaign for multiple adventuring groups - rather, they do have 2 separate campaigns on D&D Beyond for the 2 actual campaigns, but the 2 groups have a lot of overlap in terms of players. And in this case, Halfwing is a player in the first campaign but a DM in the second - but they're unable to prevent their adventure content from being shared in the first campaign, because only the DM of that campaign can limit/control what content is shared in the first campaign (even though Halfwing is the one that owns some of that content).
This is exactly it.
I'm a player in one campaign, with content sharing on for everyone else in that group. I'm a DM in a second, entirely different campaign, but that includes a large overlap of players from the first group. I can't manage which content I share as the player in campaign 1, which means that restricting content as a DM in campaign 2 does nothing for those players, as they can still access it all from campaign 1.
Just reiterating again, after Adam's answer in today's livestream about a question similar to this...
Basic facts:
I am a player in one campaign, and I have enabled content sharing
I am a DM of a second campaign, with many overlapping players to the first campaign
Since I can't personally control what content is shared in the first campaign (as I'm not the DM), it doesn't matter what I disable as DM of the second campaign, unless I coordinate with the first campaign's DM and have them disable the same options. This means that ANY TIME there is content that I want to disallow (whether it's new content, or content I no longer have a reason to hide), I'm at the mercy of having to wait for somebody else to control the shared content with me.
I see no reason why the person who is actually sharing the contentshouldn't have primary control over what is available. Perhaps if it's even split into two tiers:
The person sharing the content chooses what's available, and then...
The DM of the campaign (if it's a different user) chooses from that.
This would be the same as a player showing up with a backpack full of sourcebooks: They might pull all of them out except for Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and then the DM says "Mmmm, I'd prefer if you also don't share Waterdeep: Dragon Heist either..." But I doubt that any DM would reach into the bag, pull out Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and force the owner to share it with the table against their wishes.
Okay, so similar situation... I have a Master Tier sub, one of my players has the Legendary Bundle, and content sharing is enabled. When I utilized the content management option on the adventures, I was blocked from viewing the adventure. Only the ToC and... strangely, the map key, were available.
Seeing as I am the DM that enabled this, shouldn't I be able to view the content while concealing it from the others, excluding that player whose contribution to the group is the DDB books?
And, if I may ask a follow up to that... in future enhancements, can we get a "tattle tale" feature for those players who do own the material? I know, it's asking a lot... but, as I noted in the CM survey, it would be nice to throw a similar "magical barrier" screen, but with the option to dispel it to proceed. Upon it being "dispelled" an alarm should notify the DM's of any campaigns said player belonged to and was "blocked" by said DM's.
I hope that made sense.. and..."Am I evil? I'm the DM, yes I am..."
Okay, so similar situation... I have a Master Tier sub, one of my players has the Legendary Bundle, and content sharing is enabled. When I utilized the content management option on the adventures, I was blocked from viewing the adventure. Only the ToC and... strangely, the map key, were available.
Seeing as I am the DM that enabled this, shouldn't I be able to view the content while concealing it from the others, excluding that player whose contribution to the group is the DDB books?
That issue should be fixed for you now, DethangelsShadow.
Thank you! It appears to be working as intended now... :)
Sure you guys don't need another IT guy hanging around the office? I do have a degree in Computer Programming and Analysis and 30 years of experience in the field.... if any of that matters.... :P
BTW... I love Huntsville... planning on moving there abouts very soon... ;)
Just reiterating again, after Adam's answer in today's livestream about a question similar to this...
Basic facts:
I am a player in one campaign, and I have enabled content sharing
I am a DM of a second campaign, with many overlapping players to the first campaign
Since I can't personally control what content is shared in the first campaign (as I'm not the DM), it doesn't matter what I disable as DM of the second campaign, unless I coordinate with the first campaign's DM and have them disable the same options. This means that ANY TIME there is content that I want to disallow (whether it's new content, or content I no longer have a reason to hide), I'm at the mercy of having to wait for somebody else to control the shared content with me.
I see no reason why the person who is actually sharing the contentshouldn't have primary control over what is available. Perhaps if it's even split into two tiers:
The person sharing the content chooses what's available, and then...
The DM of the campaign (if it's a different user) chooses from that.
This would be the same as a player showing up with a backpack full of sourcebooks: They might pull all of them out except for Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and then the DM says "Mmmm, I'd prefer if you also don't share Waterdeep: Dragon Heist either..." But I doubt that any DM would reach into the bag, pull out Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and force the owner to share it with the table against their wishes.
I'd also really appreciate D&D Beyond's thoughts on this.
Content management should also involve the owner of the content not just the DM
Just reiterating again, after Adam's answer in today's livestream about a question similar to this.
...
I see no reason why the person who is actually sharing the contentshouldn't have primary control over what is available. Perhaps if it's even split into two tiers:
The person sharing the content chooses what's available, and then...
The DM of the campaign (if it's a different user) chooses from that.
This would be the same as a player showing up with a backpack full of sourcebooks: They might pull all of them out except for Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and then the DM says "Mmmm, I'd prefer if you also don't share Waterdeep: Dragon Heist either..." But I doubt that any DM would reach into the bag, pull out Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and force the owner to share it with the table against their wishes.
I'd also really appreciate D&D Beyond's thoughts on this.
Content management should also involve the owner of the content not just the DM
I'm interested in what people think the order should be. I can see both options being feasible.
Content sharing is turned on, DM gets first pick at books (hard yes, okay, and hard no), then the player(s) who have the books can turn off any "okay" book they don't want to share.
Content sharing is turned on, player(s) with books select which ones they share and don't, GM can then select based on remaining items.
I can see either way working, and I'm not sure that I have a preference. I suppose the player going first would make sense because if a player in my campaign is running a module for another campaign the same group (or some players of the group) is in, they would be able to control it being turned off in both.
This is a great addition to DDB! But what would be even better would be to also block that content in the character builder as well. For example, If I want to create a basic campaign that only allows players to use the PHB content only, there should be a way to make the character "illegal" for play and give the player a notice that they need to fix some content before the character is playable.
Just reiterating again, after Adam's answer in today's livestream about a question similar to this.
...
I see no reason why the person who is actually sharing the contentshouldn't have primary control over what is available. Perhaps if it's even split into two tiers:
The person sharing the content chooses what's available, and then...
The DM of the campaign (if it's a different user) chooses from that.
This would be the same as a player showing up with a backpack full of sourcebooks: They might pull all of them out except for Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and then the DM says "Mmmm, I'd prefer if you also don't share Waterdeep: Dragon Heist either..." But I doubt that any DM would reach into the bag, pull out Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and force the owner to share it with the table against their wishes.
I'd also really appreciate D&D Beyond's thoughts on this.
Content management should also involve the owner of the content not just the DM
I'm interested in what people think the order should be. I can see both options being feasible.
Content sharing is turned on, DM gets first pick at books (hard yes, okay, and hard no), then the player(s) who have the books can turn off any "okay" book they don't want to share.
Content sharing is turned on, player(s) with books select which ones they share and don't, GM can then select based on remaining items.
I can see either way working, and I'm not sure that I have a preference. I suppose the player going first would make sense because if a player in my campaign is running a module for another campaign the same group (or some players of the group) is in, they would be able to control it being turned off in both.
Option 2.
The owner of the content gets to decide what they want to share with the campaign
The DM gets to decide which of any shared content they want the players in the campaign to see
The DM should not have the option to see content an owner does not want them to see.
As a DM I should not be able to force Halfwing to share his copy of Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but if he does share it, I should be able to restrict it from the other players.
I'm interested in what people think the order should be. I can see both options being feasible.
Content sharing is turned on, DM gets first pick at books (hard yes, okay, and hard no), then the player(s) who have the books can turn off any "okay" book they don't want to share.
Content sharing is turned on, player(s) with books select which ones they share and don't, GM can then select based on remaining items.
I can see either way working, and I'm not sure that I have a preference. I suppose the player going first would make sense because if a player in my campaign is running a module for another campaign the same group (or some players of the group) is in, they would be able to control it being turned off in both.
Option 2.
The owner of the content gets to decide what they want to share with the campaign
The DM gets to decide which of any shared content they want the players in the campaign to see
The DM should not have the option to see content an owner does not want them to see.
As a DM I should not be able to force Halfwing to share his copy of Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but if he does share it, I should be able to restrict it from the other players.
Option 2, but the DM should be able to switch content on or off even before they are shared (but obviously only have access to it if it is in fact purchased and shared by someone).
For example, if I don't own Ravnica as a DM, I cannot prevent a player join and share it with the others until I notice it has been shared, which might not happen for a while. So when I set up the campaign, I want to be able to turn off materials I don't want players to use/share, even if noone owns and shares it currently.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--[ Natural 20 - that's how I roll! ]-- We've stopped this OGL madness, but stay vigilant, they tried it once, they can try it again.
This is a great addition to DDB! But what would be even better would be to also block that content in the character builder as well. For example, If I want to create a basic campaign that only allows players to use the PHB content only, there should be a way to make the character "illegal" for play and give the player a notice that they need to fix some content before the character is playable.
I would even move this outside of the scope of content sharing - I would like to be able to set this up for campaigns that does not have content sharing enabled. For example I might want to allow or deny players to use backgrounds from adventures I have not bought if they own it, even if they don't share it.
I would also require one more thing: character legality check. If I want to join a campaign with an existing character, it should not allow me to do so if my character is using material not allowed, even if I own it. (Preferably with listing at least the disabled sources the character is using.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--[ Natural 20 - that's how I roll! ]-- We've stopped this OGL madness, but stay vigilant, they tried it once, they can try it again.
I'm interested in what people think the order should be. I can see both options being feasible.
Content sharing is turned on, DM gets first pick at books (hard yes, okay, and hard no), then the player(s) who have the books can turn off any "okay" book they don't want to share.
Content sharing is turned on, player(s) with books select which ones they share and don't, GM can then select based on remaining items.
I can see either way working, and I'm not sure that I have a preference. I suppose the player going first would make sense because if a player in my campaign is running a module for another campaign the same group (or some players of the group) is in, they would be able to control it being turned off in both.
Option 2.
The owner of the content gets to decide what they want to share with the campaign
The DM gets to decide which of any shared content they want the players in the campaign to see
The DM should not have the option to see content an owner does not want them to see.
As a DM I should not be able to force Halfwing to share his copy of Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but if he does share it, I should be able to restrict it from the other players.
Option 2, but the DM should be able to switch content on or off even before they are shared (but obviously only have access to it if it is in fact purchased and shared by someone).
For example, if I don't own Ravnica as a DM, I cannot prevent a player join and share it with the others until I notice it has been shared, which might not happen for a while. So when I set up the campaign, I want to be able to turn off materials I don't want players to use/share, even if noone owns and shares it currently.
I agree, this makes the most sense. Having the DM essentially say "Of all the possible published materials, these are the ones I will allow you to bring to the table:" and setting blanket permissions for any possible shared content, regardless of whether it's currently available. Then, separately, allowing any member of the campaign that owns any content to choose whether to actually bring it to the table.
I'm interested in what people think the order should be. I can see both options being feasible.
Content sharing is turned on, DM gets first pick at books (hard yes, okay, and hard no), then the player(s) who have the books can turn off any "okay" book they don't want to share.
Content sharing is turned on, player(s) with books select which ones they share and don't, GM can then select based on remaining items.
I can see either way working, and I'm not sure that I have a preference. I suppose the player going first would make sense because if a player in my campaign is running a module for another campaign the same group (or some players of the group) is in, they would be able to control it being turned off in both.
Option 2.
The owner of the content gets to decide what they want to share with the campaign
The DM gets to decide which of any shared content they want the players in the campaign to see
The DM should not have the option to see content an owner does not want them to see.
As a DM I should not be able to force Halfwing to share his copy of Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but if he does share it, I should be able to restrict it from the other players.
Option 2, but the DM should be able to switch content on or off even before they are shared (but obviously only have access to it if it is in fact purchased and shared by someone).
For example, if I don't own Ravnica as a DM, I cannot prevent a player join and share it with the others until I notice it has been shared, which might not happen for a while. So when I set up the campaign, I want to be able to turn off materials I don't want players to use/share, even if noone owns and shares it currently.
I agree, this makes the most sense. Having the DM essentially say "Of all the possible published materials, these are the ones I will allow you to bring to the table:" and setting blanket permissions for any possible shared content, regardless of whether it's currently available. Then, separately, allowing any member of the campaign that owns any content to choose whether to actually bring it to the table.
So really, we're saying a bit of column A and a bit of B. Which translates into two different content sharing screens; one for players and one for the DM.
Something else to be considered - and this is from a non-studied person in web application and platform building - is that DDB is looking at the ability for us to trade the DM role down the line. So these options would have to be transferable without getting screwed up when I no longer am going to run our game and I pass the reigns over to Halfwing, or someone. In my mind, the permissions of the screen needs to move without resetting the established rules for content sharing.
To my knowledge, the discussion on a stream was a "no" but caveated with "I am not sure I understand what your concern is" before a renewed round of questions clarifying above in the thread for feedback (i.e. here).
I also can't see anything historic in discord either, but having just joined the channel I may well not see where I should be looking.
That they're aware of the demand for those features and they'll keep them in mind during the next iteration of the feature. Basically they're aware of what people are asking for, but it's still early days of the system.
It might be possible to get additional clues with the Developer Tools in Chrome on desktop:
Access the page, press Ctrl+Shift+I (or F12) to bring upp the developer console. Top right corner, to the left of the "three-dot-menu", there might be a warning or error (personally I have none since my page is working correctly). Additional information will be in the text area. Press F12 or the keyboard shortcut (or X) to close it.
Page Reference: Core Rules to DDB
Page Reference: DDB to PHB
Page Reference: DDB to DMG
Page Reference: DDB to MM
Just reiterating again, after Adam's answer in today's livestream about a question similar to this...
Basic facts:
Since I can't personally control what content is shared in the first campaign (as I'm not the DM), it doesn't matter what I disable as DM of the second campaign, unless I coordinate with the first campaign's DM and have them disable the same options. This means that ANY TIME there is content that I want to disallow (whether it's new content, or content I no longer have a reason to hide), I'm at the mercy of having to wait for somebody else to control the shared content with me.
I see no reason why the person who is actually sharing the content shouldn't have primary control over what is available. Perhaps if it's even split into two tiers:
This would be the same as a player showing up with a backpack full of sourcebooks: They might pull all of them out except for Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and then the DM says "Mmmm, I'd prefer if you also don't share Waterdeep: Dragon Heist either..." But I doubt that any DM would reach into the bag, pull out Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and force the owner to share it with the table against their wishes.
Okay, so similar situation... I have a Master Tier sub, one of my players has the Legendary Bundle, and content sharing is enabled. When I utilized the content management option on the adventures, I was blocked from viewing the adventure. Only the ToC and... strangely, the map key, were available.
Seeing as I am the DM that enabled this, shouldn't I be able to view the content while concealing it from the others, excluding that player whose contribution to the group is the DDB books?
And, if I may ask a follow up to that... in future enhancements, can we get a "tattle tale" feature for those players who do own the material? I know, it's asking a lot... but, as I noted in the CM survey, it would be nice to throw a similar "magical barrier" screen, but with the option to dispel it to proceed. Upon it being "dispelled" an alarm should notify the DM's of any campaigns said player belonged to and was "blocked" by said DM's.
I hope that made sense.. and..."Am I evil? I'm the DM, yes I am..."
That issue should be fixed for you now, DethangelsShadow.
Thanks for reporting that!
Dave
I am the Inquisitor Imperitus. I am judge, jury, and executioner. Draw your last breath now, as I send you to the Nine Hells.
Thank you! It appears to be working as intended now... :)
Sure you guys don't need another IT guy hanging around the office? I do have a degree in Computer Programming and Analysis and 30 years of experience in the field.... if any of that matters.... :P
BTW... I love Huntsville... planning on moving there abouts very soon... ;)
I know a more detailed system in on the way, but I'd like to share what I'm hoping to see in it.
I want to be able to disable race, subrace, class, subclass, and background options individually from any source, including homebrew.
Thanks for all the work you're doing.
I'd also really appreciate D&D Beyond's thoughts on this.
Content management should also involve the owner of the content not just the DM
I'm interested in what people think the order should be. I can see both options being feasible.
I can see either way working, and I'm not sure that I have a preference. I suppose the player going first would make sense because if a player in my campaign is running a module for another campaign the same group (or some players of the group) is in, they would be able to control it being turned off in both.
This is a great addition to DDB! But what would be even better would be to also block that content in the character builder as well. For example, If I want to create a basic campaign that only allows players to use the PHB content only, there should be a way to make the character "illegal" for play and give the player a notice that they need to fix some content before the character is playable.
Option 2.
The DM should not have the option to see content an owner does not want them to see.
As a DM I should not be able to force Halfwing to share his copy of Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but if he does share it, I should be able to restrict it from the other players.
Option 2, but the DM should be able to switch content on or off even before they are shared (but obviously only have access to it if it is in fact purchased and shared by someone).
For example, if I don't own Ravnica as a DM, I cannot prevent a player join and share it with the others until I notice it has been shared, which might not happen for a while. So when I set up the campaign, I want to be able to turn off materials I don't want players to use/share, even if noone owns and shares it currently.
--[ Natural 20 - that's how I roll! ]--
We've stopped this OGL madness, but stay vigilant, they tried it once, they can try it again.
I would even move this outside of the scope of content sharing - I would like to be able to set this up for campaigns that does not have content sharing enabled. For example I might want to allow or deny players to use backgrounds from adventures I have not bought if they own it, even if they don't share it.
I would also require one more thing: character legality check. If I want to join a campaign with an existing character, it should not allow me to do so if my character is using material not allowed, even if I own it. (Preferably with listing at least the disabled sources the character is using.)
--[ Natural 20 - that's how I roll! ]--
We've stopped this OGL madness, but stay vigilant, they tried it once, they can try it again.
I agree, this makes the most sense. Having the DM essentially say "Of all the possible published materials, these are the ones I will allow you to bring to the table:" and setting blanket permissions for any possible shared content, regardless of whether it's currently available. Then, separately, allowing any member of the campaign that owns any content to choose whether to actually bring it to the table.
So really, we're saying a bit of column A and a bit of B. Which translates into two different content sharing screens; one for players and one for the DM.
Something else to be considered - and this is from a non-studied person in web application and platform building - is that DDB is looking at the ability for us to trade the DM role down the line. So these options would have to be transferable without getting screwed up when I no longer am going to run our game and I pass the reigns over to Halfwing, or someone. In my mind, the permissions of the screen needs to move without resetting the established rules for content sharing.
I no longer have a content sharing button on any campaign?
Always remember and never forget. No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
Has your master tier subscription lapsed?
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Any chance of a response regarding the thoughts people have discussed on content sharing involving the content owner please?
Thanks
They have given responses both on the dev stream and on the AMA on discord yesterday
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
And they were?
To my knowledge, the discussion on a stream was a "no" but caveated with "I am not sure I understand what your concern is" before a renewed round of questions clarifying above in the thread for feedback (i.e. here).
I also can't see anything historic in discord either, but having just joined the channel I may well not see where I should be looking.
That they're aware of the demand for those features and they'll keep them in mind during the next iteration of the feature. Basically they're aware of what people are asking for, but it's still early days of the system.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules