Relatively recently, I've begun publishing DM's Guild content, and I decided to host some of spells I've created on D&D Beyond with a link to my DM's Guild content.
One of them (without a link) was accepted, but the rest were rejected with the following notice:
Rejected for:
Copyright - Copyright (Moderator's Note: Homebrew content created by others. You may not add public homebrew, that has been created by other people, to D&D beyond, unless you have their permission to do so (e.g. content from other websites).)
All my content is pay-what-you-want, so I don't care if people can see it on Beyond without paying cash money for it. I was under the impression that Beyond would be sort of an extension of the DM's Guild, and I'm scratching my head at how to prove that I'm the same person on both DM's Guild and D&D Beyond. Aside from the obvious, being that I use the same e-mail for both accounts.
The DM's Guild content in question is my Codex of Waves expanded water spells, and the only spell to make it through the moderation woodchipper is Aquabolt, which itself had no link to the Codex of Waves. All the others did.
I'm hoping they get this sorted out. I want to bring over the DMG content I've created as well once they open up homebrew classes. Thanks for pointing this out.
Hi folks - we've gotten extra information from staff on how we are going to handle these ones. I'll post what I can here so others are able to see, but for the current items pending I'll reach out directly via PM.
DMsGuild Content - will be allowed. If we have reports at a later time that the work is claimed by another individual, it will be removed from public and looked into by the moderator team.
Any content from DMsGuild can only link back (as a source) if the content is available there for free. Any paid for content link to DMsGuild would fall under the category of advertising which is against the Rules and Guidelines.
Please be aware that all of the other Homebrew and Site rules will still apply (copying non-SRD content, licenced names, copyrighted images, etc.).
Right, I'm new here and considering moving my play by post game, currently with 23 players (West Marches style) to D&D Beyond. However, this issue, and the response, concerns me.
D&D Beyond, for me at least, needs to augment and not restrict the game playing experience. If anything can be achieved in person that cannot be achieved using D&D Beyond, then as far as I am concerned the service has failed. Pay-related restrictions are a whole other issue, so I won't get into that.
We have examples here of Dungeon Masters creating their own content, opting to share it with others, and as a result of where and how they chose to share it they are less able to use D&D Beyond to augment their game, instead having to resort to other services and perhaps older methods (their own notes, for example). This should be considered a fundamental failing of the service.
Am I correct in surmising, then, that custom content without links, based on already-created content, would necessarily be allowed in D&D Beyond? Because this would circumvent the issues to a certain degree, and make clear that the issues only arise when direct conflicts over paid content are detected.
To get around this, perhaps the ability to link Dungeon Master's Guild accounts to D&D Beyond accounts would be prudent, allowing reference (either complete or in name only) to a Dungeon Master's content by said Dungeon Master. I recall reading that premium content will be available to players of a campaign using the D&D Beyond content provided the Dungeon Master has access to it, and so DMs Guild content could count as premium content (provided premium content is segregated into various components already) and thus would not breach any confidentiality or pay agreements, since the Dungeon Master, the content creator/holder, is giving permission to his own players to view his own content all within Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast/Dungeons and Dragons legal purview.
Is this something that is reasonable to implement without much alteration to how things are coded?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I'll try to answer.
For personal homebrew content you can create anything you want, without restriction, and share it with everyone in your campaign.
For published homebrew here on the site, you must adhere to the rules and guidelines for publishing homebrew. No "Goofy's Jedi Lightsaber" and no stealing of other people's work.
At this moment you cannot link DMGuild and Twitch accounts, but mods will err on the side of trusting you when you tell us the content is yours.
So I received both replies here and via private message. The private message stated that I needed to remove my links before submitting (bar nothing), where the message here is that links for free content are 100% alright.
First point of confusion: is "pay what you want" not the same as "free"? I've always considered them to be more or less synonymous, and I only publish homebrew under pay what you want.
Second point of confusion: I actually submitted another spell (Luck of the Sea, which you can see here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/3263-luck-of-the-sea ) with the link intact, and the submission was approved, link and all.
So I'm seeing three things: That no links are allowed, that links are allowed if it's free (which pay what you want could or could not be?), or that links of my nature are allowed and approved, as evidenced by Luck of the Sea.
Help me out, mods. I really want to know the genuine answer to this one.
Links to Content Outside of the D&D Beyond Website
You may not create content with the following:
Links to other websites.
Homebrew items are not to contain links themselves to websites outside D&D Beyond. --
The "links are OK if to free content vs not OK to paid content" are rules that have been established for public forum/community conversation. D&D Beyond does not authorize advertising links to paid content. If you wanted to create a forum post detailing your work on DM's Guild and create a tooltip listing of all homebrew items published, a link to referenced free content here would be fine. The confusion above lies in forum vs homebrew item description link inclusion.
Further being honest: I feel like you're hamfisting it in an attempt to force a solution to the problem.
The issue still is, is pay-what-you-want the same as free for this purpose? If you can (and I encourage people to) pay $0 for the content, is that free, or is "free" a distinct classification?
Follow-up question: How do you expect Beyond to integrate into Wizard's existing homebrew and information infrastructure without being able to link to the DM's Guild?
Also, if links are not allowed, why was a spell with a link accepted?
Hell, if links aren't allowed, why do spells have an option to include links at all?
I feel like not everyone on the mod team is on the same page here. Maybe round-table it and get back to me? I'd be cool with waiting if I could get one cohesive, well-reasoned answer.
Sorry if I come across as frustrated, I've just been getting (essentially) three different responses, expressed confusion, and got what seems like a really grumpy mod reply rather than a legitimate response to my concerns.
If the mods are grumpy, it's because they have way too many things to deal with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
The issue still is, is pay-what-you-want the same as free for this purpose? If you can (and I encourage people to) pay $0 for the content, is that free, or is "free" a distinct classification?
Essentially, no - it's not the same (though I can see your point).
"Pay what you want" is very much the same as, "You can have this for free, but I welcome payment if you feel the work is worth it" - this makes the link an advertisement, which may result in financial gain.
That isn't the discussion point though - the point is there is a very solid rule, already written up, saying that items should not have links out to other sites. There are a good many reasons for this, including user experience, but the main reasons is because D&D Beyond then becomes somewhat responsible for whatever is at the end of that link. First off, the moderator has to go check what's at the end of the link, to check it's not illegal/unethical. Second, once an item/spell/monster has been approved, it's possible for the content that the link leads to, to change, and become something illegal/unethical.
Follow-up question: How do you expect Beyond to integrate into Wizard's existing homebrew and information infrastructure without being able to link to the DM's Guild?
That's something that, as moderators, we don't have a view on - I know that the staff team have been discussing integrations with other sites, but I have no information I can share on which sites, or how that is planned to happen.
I will also say that some of this MAY change.
We are in beta and the site and homebrew is new - right now, we're being careful.
Apologies if you feel that you have been messed around on this, or if anything isn't clear - that was never the intent.
Also, if links are not allowed, why was a spell with a link accepted?
Hell, if links aren't allowed, why do spells have an option to include links at all?
I feel like not everyone on the mod team is on the same page here. Maybe round-table it and get back to me? I'd be cool with waiting if I could get one cohesive, well-reasoned answer.
Because this phase is new, and we are also learning/testing along with you. We don't have an answer defined for every situation that can arise, and sometimes have to make the puzzle pieces fit with what we're given. We are also human.
Spells have the option, as the description uses the site's text editor for input. As you can add a link here on the forum when crafting a post, you can also do it there. Perhaps in a future build, the team can drill down to further detail to prohibit such moving forward. --
As design moves forward, there may be other opportunities to share links with other DMs, perhaps through a 'comment' system associated with each homebrew item. The items submitted should be kept aligned with official layout, and it is a slippery slope when links and disclaimers/info are allowed. Once we move closer to launch, there should be more insight into how the homebrew listing system will improve and function. Of course, during the beta phase, you have the opportunity to convey your feedback in order to help improve the tools.
I will edit the previously approved submission, and will work on approving the ones in queue now once you've been able to alter.
So is monetization of homebrew something that D&D Beyond is outright against? Because at least one of the pieces selling the public on it stated that it'd be a new platform for homebrew authors to sell their wares.
That's besides the point, though, as that isn't what I'm trying to do here. I'm mostly trying to make sure that people who use my content on DM's Guild can have the material supported here, with a link back so people here can see where the content is from. It's about as far from a cash grab as I can make it, I'm legitimately providing all the spells in that supplement for free, hosted here. I just want people to know where the content is from, rather than thinking it's a free floating part of Beyond's homebrew pool.
Would it be reasonable to include a statement as to where the work is from without posting a link? That way, I could identify my spells as belonging to a broader collection without breaking any rules.
I sympathize that ya'll are overworked. I myself help moderate /r/dndnext, the biggest 5e subreddit out there, so I know how it is to be overwhelmed with thankless mod work. This is definitely a high-use time, and it will be easier. Thanks for taking some of this stressful time to help me out.
One of the things we do on reddit in regards to links is to build an automoderator bot that link-checks for us, filters posts, and identifies suspicious content for human intervention. Do you think that could work here? "Testing to see if links are safe" DOES sound like the job of a moderation team, after all.
I will edit the previously approved submission, and will work on approving the ones in queue now once you've been able to alter.
I'd rather you just un-approve it, not edit out the link. I'm feeling I should sit on this until the rules reach a more cohesive understanding of how they want to handle links.
So is monetization of homebrew something that D&D Beyond is outright against? Because at least one of the pieces selling the public on it stated that it'd be a new platform for homebrew authors to sell their wares.
That's besides the point, though, as that isn't what I'm trying to do here. I'm mostly trying to make sure that people who use my content on DM's Guild can have the material supported here, with a link back so people here can see where the content is from. It's about as far from a cash grab as I can make it, I'm legitimately providing all the spells in that supplement for free, hosted here. I just want people to know where the content is from, rather than thinking it's a free floating part of Beyond's homebrew pool.
Would it be reasonable to include a statement as to where the work is from without posting a link? That way, I could identify my spells as belonging to a broader collection without breaking any rules.
I sympathize that ya'll are overworked. I myself help moderate /r/dndnext, the biggest 5e subreddit out there, so I know how it is to be overwhelmed with thankless mod work. This is definitely a high-use time, and it will be easier. Thanks for taking some of this stressful time to help me out.
One of the things we do on reddit in regards to links is to build an automoderator bot that link-checks for us, filters posts, and identifies suspicious content for human intervention. Do you think that could work here? "Testing to see if links are safe" DOES sound like the job of a moderation team, after all.
I would believe the issue is that we're getting too far ahead of ourselves before the tool has been fully developed. We want content creators to be recognized for their contributions and do not intend to stifle growth or visibility. Gaining that visibility through a spell or items description card just may not be the right place to accomplish this.
Imagine if each homebrew item had an associated 'Notation' or comment thread. This would allow for said links/source and provide the community a way to discuss your homebrew outside the spell card itself, leaving the immersion intact for the endpoint users who receive the items created. Unfortunately, we don't have an implementation of this yet, but I have heard discussion around the possibilities. This is the feedback we're looking for - what needs do you have or desire to make this tool more adaptable for you?
Again, the monetization or integration with DM's Guild is something above us for the time being. Not being implemented now does not mean that it couldn't, or something isn't in the works. Phase 2/3 was about getting the toolset framework out there for testing whilst being improved. Things remain to be changed as worked towards launch.
What I'm doing is attempting to reference the source of the spell. I don't feel that breaks immersion any more than a page number reference for the PHB would break immersion. Both are merely there to tell you where the rules are located.
More than anything, spells, items, and monsters need a "source" section they can reference to, where you can link elsewhere to where the content is originally from. Beyond is a pretty late-game development here, and I guarantee others are going to do what I'm trying to, porting over existing homebrew content to what is Wizards' official online system, while wanting to credit where the content is originally from. Either the system accommodates that as a nexus of existing content, or it doesn't, and disincentivizes its own use.
Seems according to the Mods explanations, that at current, external links are not allowed in most instances for liability, copyright, and business model reasons. It's a beta so there's likely some bugs to automating those rules that which would explain the inconsistency and the policy may change as it's not currently a minimum viable feature they're testing.
Looks like the solution at current is to reference / footnote where it is from without a link (EX: John's Item Emporium on DM Guild) to give credit which seems to serve the purpose of giving credit and if the reader wants to find it, they now have the title and location to find it.
It's just beyond (ha) weird to me that they'd have links as a part of the UI, but then penalize you for linking to your own content on an official D&D website.
More than anything I just want to make stuff for people to enjoy, and get credit for what I've made. Money is at best tertiary to all that.
For personal homebrew content you can create anything you want, without restriction, and share it with everyone in your campaign.
Hey! How do we do this portion? Is it active yet?
My campaign is a lot less serious than most, and I'm worried that my parody spells or goofy magic items will be denied. I didn't see a way to share items specifically with my campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Relatively recently, I've begun publishing DM's Guild content, and I decided to host some of spells I've created on D&D Beyond with a link to my DM's Guild content.
One of them (without a link) was accepted, but the rest were rejected with the following notice:
Rejected for:
Copyright - Copyright (Moderator's Note: Homebrew content created by others. You may not add public homebrew, that has been created by other people, to D&D beyond, unless you have their permission to do so (e.g. content from other websites).)
All my content is pay-what-you-want, so I don't care if people can see it on Beyond without paying cash money for it. I was under the impression that Beyond would be sort of an extension of the DM's Guild, and I'm scratching my head at how to prove that I'm the same person on both DM's Guild and D&D Beyond. Aside from the obvious, being that I use the same e-mail for both accounts.
Any help? I'd really love for some feedback here.
The DM's Guild content in question is my Codex of Waves expanded water spells, and the only spell to make it through the moderation woodchipper is Aquabolt, which itself had no link to the Codex of Waves. All the others did.
I'm hoping they get this sorted out. I want to bring over the DMG content I've created as well once they open up homebrew classes. Thanks for pointing this out.
Dungeon Master - Writer - Mini Enthusiast
Hi folks - we've gotten extra information from staff on how we are going to handle these ones. I'll post what I can here so others are able to see, but for the current items pending I'll reach out directly via PM.
Please be aware that all of the other Homebrew and Site rules will still apply (copying non-SRD content, licenced names, copyrighted images, etc.).
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
Right, I'm new here and considering moving my play by post game, currently with 23 players (West Marches style) to D&D Beyond. However, this issue, and the response, concerns me.
D&D Beyond, for me at least, needs to augment and not restrict the game playing experience. If anything can be achieved in person that cannot be achieved using D&D Beyond, then as far as I am concerned the service has failed. Pay-related restrictions are a whole other issue, so I won't get into that.
We have examples here of Dungeon Masters creating their own content, opting to share it with others, and as a result of where and how they chose to share it they are less able to use D&D Beyond to augment their game, instead having to resort to other services and perhaps older methods (their own notes, for example). This should be considered a fundamental failing of the service.
Am I correct in surmising, then, that custom content without links, based on already-created content, would necessarily be allowed in D&D Beyond? Because this would circumvent the issues to a certain degree, and make clear that the issues only arise when direct conflicts over paid content are detected.
To get around this, perhaps the ability to link Dungeon Master's Guild accounts to D&D Beyond accounts would be prudent, allowing reference (either complete or in name only) to a Dungeon Master's content by said Dungeon Master. I recall reading that premium content will be available to players of a campaign using the D&D Beyond content provided the Dungeon Master has access to it, and so DMs Guild content could count as premium content (provided premium content is segregated into various components already) and thus would not breach any confidentiality or pay agreements, since the Dungeon Master, the content creator/holder, is giving permission to his own players to view his own content all within Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast/Dungeons and Dragons legal purview.
Is this something that is reasonable to implement without much alteration to how things are coded?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I'll try to answer.
For personal homebrew content you can create anything you want, without restriction, and share it with everyone in your campaign.
For published homebrew here on the site, you must adhere to the rules and guidelines for publishing homebrew. No "Goofy's Jedi Lightsaber" and no stealing of other people's work.
At this moment you cannot link DMGuild and Twitch accounts, but mods will err on the side of trusting you when you tell us the content is yours.
Site Rules & Guidelines --- Focused Feedback Mega Threads --- Staff Quotes --- Homebrew Tutorial --- Pricing FAQ
Please feel free to message either Sorce or another moderator if you have any concerns.
Hey, OP here again with some confusion.
So I received both replies here and via private message. The private message stated that I needed to remove my links before submitting (bar nothing), where the message here is that links for free content are 100% alright.
First point of confusion: is "pay what you want" not the same as "free"? I've always considered them to be more or less synonymous, and I only publish homebrew under pay what you want.
Second point of confusion: I actually submitted another spell (Luck of the Sea, which you can see here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/3263-luck-of-the-sea ) with the link intact, and the submission was approved, link and all.
So I'm seeing three things: That no links are allowed, that links are allowed if it's free (which pay what you want could or could not be?), or that links of my nature are allowed and approved, as evidenced by Luck of the Sea.
Help me out, mods. I really want to know the genuine answer to this one.
There is a defined answer right in the Homebrew Rules and Guidelines:
Homebrew items are not to contain links themselves to websites outside D&D Beyond.
--
The "links are OK if to free content vs not OK to paid content" are rules that have been established for public forum/community conversation. D&D Beyond does not authorize advertising links to paid content. If you wanted to create a forum post detailing your work on DM's Guild and create a tooltip listing of all homebrew items published, a link to referenced free content here would be fine. The confusion above lies in forum vs homebrew item description link inclusion.
Have I assisted in clarifying?
Being honest: no.
Further being honest: I feel like you're hamfisting it in an attempt to force a solution to the problem.
The issue still is, is pay-what-you-want the same as free for this purpose? If you can (and I encourage people to) pay $0 for the content, is that free, or is "free" a distinct classification?
Follow-up question: How do you expect Beyond to integrate into Wizard's existing homebrew and information infrastructure without being able to link to the DM's Guild?
Also, if links are not allowed, why was a spell with a link accepted?
Hell, if links aren't allowed, why do spells have an option to include links at all?
I feel like not everyone on the mod team is on the same page here. Maybe round-table it and get back to me? I'd be cool with waiting if I could get one cohesive, well-reasoned answer.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersPun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
--
So is monetization of homebrew something that D&D Beyond is outright against? Because at least one of the pieces selling the public on it stated that it'd be a new platform for homebrew authors to sell their wares.
That's besides the point, though, as that isn't what I'm trying to do here. I'm mostly trying to make sure that people who use my content on DM's Guild can have the material supported here, with a link back so people here can see where the content is from. It's about as far from a cash grab as I can make it, I'm legitimately providing all the spells in that supplement for free, hosted here. I just want people to know where the content is from, rather than thinking it's a free floating part of Beyond's homebrew pool.
Would it be reasonable to include a statement as to where the work is from without posting a link? That way, I could identify my spells as belonging to a broader collection without breaking any rules.
I sympathize that ya'll are overworked. I myself help moderate /r/dndnext, the biggest 5e subreddit out there, so I know how it is to be overwhelmed with thankless mod work. This is definitely a high-use time, and it will be easier. Thanks for taking some of this stressful time to help me out.
One of the things we do on reddit in regards to links is to build an automoderator bot that link-checks for us, filters posts, and identifies suspicious content for human intervention. Do you think that could work here? "Testing to see if links are safe" DOES sound like the job of a moderation team, after all.
What I'm doing is attempting to reference the source of the spell. I don't feel that breaks immersion any more than a page number reference for the PHB would break immersion. Both are merely there to tell you where the rules are located.
More than anything, spells, items, and monsters need a "source" section they can reference to, where you can link elsewhere to where the content is originally from. Beyond is a pretty late-game development here, and I guarantee others are going to do what I'm trying to, porting over existing homebrew content to what is Wizards' official online system, while wanting to credit where the content is originally from. Either the system accommodates that as a nexus of existing content, or it doesn't, and disincentivizes its own use.
Seems according to the Mods explanations, that at current, external links are not allowed in most instances for liability, copyright, and business model reasons. It's a beta so there's likely some bugs to automating those rules that which would explain the inconsistency and the policy may change as it's not currently a minimum viable feature they're testing.
Looks like the solution at current is to reference / footnote where it is from without a link (EX: John's Item Emporium on DM Guild) to give credit which seems to serve the purpose of giving credit and if the reader wants to find it, they now have the title and location to find it.
It's just beyond (ha) weird to me that they'd have links as a part of the UI, but then penalize you for linking to your own content on an official D&D website.
More than anything I just want to make stuff for people to enjoy, and get credit for what I've made. Money is at best tertiary to all that.
Hey! How do we do this portion? Is it active yet?
My campaign is a lot less serious than most, and I'm worried that my parody spells or goofy magic items will be denied. I didn't see a way to share items specifically with my campaign.