I just bought the PHB, DMG, MM, Volos, and Curse of Straud. I also subscribed to the Master level subscription for a year.
I'm half in love and half disappointed. All negativity is due to the inability to control WHAT content of mine is shared with my players.
Based on my experiences so far I would recommend to both players and DMs to buy the core books, but to hold off on the Masters subscriptions and maybe think twice about buying the APs. Specifically:
PHB, DMG, MM, Volos. I am very happy with the core books. It will be create to have all this on my laptop and smart phone. But I DON'T want to share the MM or most of Volo's with players.
Curse of Straud. I sort of regret buying this as I already have the print book. I'm not sure the price was worth it just to have a searchable version. I'm disappointed that the maps are not clickable (e.g. click on a numbered item on a map and go to the text for that location). It really isn't that much easier to navigate than using a book. If you don't already have the book, however, it might be worth buying. But my main regret with buying the DnD Beyond version of CoS is that if I have a campaign and share my content, I'm also sharing the Adventure. Now I wish I didn't buy CoS so that I could share the core content.
Master Level Subscription. I knew going it that the "campaign" feature for DMs is basically just a character sheet and content share feature. It is no Realm Works. I'm fine with the price and am happy to support the company so they are incented to continue to develop and improve the service. But since I can't control what I share, and since I bought an AP, the campaign feature is mostly useless to me. It is an expensive way for players to share their characters with me without any in-game tools to manage / reference those characters. I was hoping to use the service to share PHB and some other content.
Urgently needed for the campaign feature to be even marginally useful is to select which products I want to share with my players. Eventually, I should be able to select by chapter/section in the books (e.g. ONLY the character creation option in Volos and ONLY the character options in the adventure paths). But now, at a minimum, and ASAP, we need to be able to share the PHB but not an adventure or the MM.
I think, as a DM that likes to also get to play a character from time to time while someone else is DMing, that there is a massive flaw in the idea that there is "DM only" rules content. When I see people say they want to stop their players from seeing what is in the Monster Manual (or worse, the Dungeon Master's Guide), I think they are basically saying "That guy Aaron is a DM, so he can't possibly ever be a player because he knows too much" as if there is no possible way that my knowledge doesn't actually make me a disruptive jerk player.
And then there is the adventure content; you are not stopping anyone that wants to get an unfair advantage from reading the adventure. They will find a way, regardless of whether it is made more difficult to do so or not. The way you stop these players from disrupting the fun of someone in your gaming group is to exclude disruptive jerk players from your group.
So while it might be nice to be able to share books bit-by-bit instead of all-in, it's not great to have so little trust in the people playing the game with you that you feel like problems will occur if the only obstacle in their way is having been asked not to look (or really just them already not wanting to look because they know it won't improve their enjoyment to do so).
So yeah, everybody stop playing with jerks so that maybe I stop wondering if there are folks that legitimately ban folks from their games because they have ever DMed before like the claims of needing a way to hide portions of the game rules imply.
I'm sharing content I paid for so that they can use it at the table in my games. Other groups may have rotating GMs or something and have different needs. It is a matter of choice and customization.
I guess I don't care that much about Volos and MM material. My players are experience enough to have a good idea about many / most of the core monsters but mature enough to roleplay appropriate to their character's knowledge.
But it is different with the AP material. It is not so much whether the players will be able to resist reading the AP material. If they really wanted spoilers, they can go to the game store and flip through the pages. But when you run a "search everything" it will pull up AP materials as well.
Another aspect of this is that I'm used to Realm Works where I can share on a "snippet" level. It would be nice to be able to share portions of the APs for the areas that the party has already encountered. I would love to eventually see paragraph by paragraph reveal a la RealmWorks, but for now just being able to select what books I share would be nice.
I think, as a DM that likes to also get to play a character from time to time while someone else is DMing, that there is a massive flaw in the idea that there is "DM only" rules content. When I see people say they want to stop their players from seeing what is in the Monster Manual (or worse, the Dungeon Master's Guide), I think they are basically saying "That guy Aaron is a DM, so he can't possibly ever be a player because he knows too much" as if there is no possible way that my knowledge doesn't actually make me a disruptive jerk player.
And then there is the adventure content; you are not stopping anyone that wants to get an unfair advantage from reading the adventure. They will find a way, regardless of whether it is made more difficult to do so or not. The way you stop these players from disrupting the fun of someone in your gaming group is to exclude disruptive jerk players from your group.
So while it might be nice to be able to share books bit-by-bit instead of all-in, it's not great to have so little trust in the people playing the game with you that you feel like problems will occur if the only obstacle in their way is having been asked not to look (or really just them already not wanting to look because they know it won't improve their enjoyment to do so).
So yeah, everybody stop playing with jerks so that maybe I stop wondering if there are folks that legitimately ban folks from their games because they have ever DMed before like the claims of needing a way to hide portions of the game rules imply.
The problem is more of the inadvertent finding of information. Say I'm running PotA, and I have a player who is about to level and thinking of taking the Conjure Elemental spell or maybe they just got the Elemental Gem and I told them that they can add it, but instead they first search for it to read the description. They want to read what it does, and don't type the whole name into the search bar but instead enter "elemental" and search. What pops up?
Elemental Gem is first, so if that's what they were looking for, great. However then comes Elemental Cults, so they get a glimpse of info on the cults that they may not have known, even without clicking the link. You get the elemental monsters, so again a glimpse of what the monsters can do without actually clicking. The worst one i see is the following (in a spoiler block as it contains info on a dungeon within PotA)
A section called "P17 Elemental Guardian" -- which details a section of a dungeon telling you that you will be attacked if you aren't already dressed like a water cultist. This is in the blurb, without clicking on the link/section.
Note that there are multiple occurrences of this type of item in the search results. Actually to further point out the issue, i see a section for "Rise of Tiamat" which I do not own under the elemental search. Thus I see something that happens within a section of that adventure, that includes an NPC's name. As a player I would know now a part of that adventure involving that NPC's motives and his "followers" so to speak. This is a problem with the search overall that I think should be rectified. I don't think that adventure path "blurbs" should be included in search results.
They come across all of this information by mistake looking for a spell or item. Just quickly glancing through it's hard to not read that info. Then they know potentially something that is going to occur, without the intent of finding that information. Even if they try to play it like they don't know, it will likely create a less-fun experience for them because they have to limit "what their character knows" versus what they actually know, where if they didn't know it in the first place, they could fully use their mind to strategize.
I think it's an overall problem with the "search everything". You can filter to "Compendium" which would give you the items/spell listings, but unfortunately that also gives you the adventures. If I filter to Compendium while searching for elemental I get even more info on the adventure. I think this should be broken down further to filter by rules/adventures, with the ability to set a default filter (to include 1, the other, or both). At least then you possibly wouldn't inadvertently reveal Adventure details to yourself while searching.
I wasn't aware of how much info shows up when you search everything... though I'm also not sure why a player would search everything when they know they are actually looking for a spell or an item, since it would be entirely more efficient to search only spells and items in that case.
But, at least the information that shows up when you do search everything has appropriate labeling for the purpose of a person being able to see where the content is from, and thus whether it is a "spoiler" or not, so they can still avoid learning anything they don't want to know without the need for a feature that implies players cannot be trusted and/ore DMs cannot be players.
I feel dumb -- I didn't realize you could filter to the spell-item-monster level even though it's literally right next to "compendium". I suppose that would be the most likely thing done.
I still would like the ability to at least limit the info, but I guess I am starting to see why it's not that big of a deal. Honestly if someone is going to be "cheating" they are going to do it no matter what.
You're right that if you can't trust the DM/Player then something at your table is wrong and hurting your D&D experience overall.
Edit: Let me bring this to address the point that I do not like the way you "filter" search results. It is difficult for me to see the difference when an icon is selected and when it isn't. It's just slightly more highlighted in my opinion when it is selected. I think a simple checkbox/dropdown would be much more accessible and user-friendly.
Hey there everyone, BadEye has posted a Campaign Management - Features Wish List where you can post your ideas for improving the Campaign Management tools in D&D Beyond.
Help shape the way D&D Beyond tools work! Your feedback and ideas matter!
It is not so much whether the players will be able to resist reading the AP material. If they really wanted spoilers, they can go to the game store and flip through the pages. But when you run a "search everything" it will pull up AP materials as well.
Yes. It's not a question of trust. It's a question of information overload. The real world analogy would be for every player to have a printed copy of the adventure module at the table next to their character sheet; just so they can avoid looking at it. What's the point? We have separate books for players and DMs, I don't see why digital shouldn't follow. If a player is also a DM, they will have their own copies of the DMG, MM, etc.
Having said that, I think the advantage with digital is the ability to expose the bits of the DMG and adventure modules that players often need, such as the details on how to use their magic items or maps. That is, the things we've previously left to photocopying.
I upvoted a post asking for the same thing on the Features Wish List, but I have to say that I've never been a fan of using internet forums for feature requests management. It is hard to know what has already been posted to avoid double posting, commenting and voting on requests is messy. It would be great if the developers would use something like UserVoice for feature-request management.
I upvoted a post asking for the same thing on the Features Wish List, but I have to say that I've never been a fan of using internet forums for feature requests management. It is hard to know what has already been posted to avoid double posting, commenting and voting on requests is messy. It would be great if the developers would use something like UserVoice for feature-request management.
Don't worry about the methods being used - that thread is just a mechanism to get some ideas on what people want to see and will drive additional community engagement.
My group and I are sharing the cost of the content and subscription. (one of the stated intentions for the DM subscription) I would hate to have the DM in a campaign be able to limit my access to content throughout the compendium. I helped pay for those materials I have a right to see them. The only argument I can understand in this line of thinking, is the idea that you want to limit the options during character creation to streamline the process or maybe help new players.
I own every book physically and so do a lot of my players. I can't stop them from looking at whatever book they want. I also can't stop them from asking to use certain features from books. I can't stop my players from buying the physical books and reading the adventure that way either. Or scanning them and having them on their phone to "cheat" with. In the end, if a player wants to cheat they will find a way. Yes, this may make it easier, but in the end it doesn't change them much. Also, if that is the way the player has fun, then who am I as a DM to argue? Unless they are blatantly trying to thwart the campaign or meta-gaming, it doesn't bother me that they know what's coming, if that's what they want to do. I watch movies I've seen a hundred times, and my wife reads the plot of every movie she watches. I can still make it fun for the others at the table, I can throw curve-balls and surprises, and it is really hard to cheat at the roleplaying part of the game.
I will be very interested to see how Beyond handles this particular feature request. It seems very important to a lot of people, but I could see it causing some issues as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
I'd say that if limiting sharing is a choice then no one loses?
I ran my first session with DnDB at the table on Sunday, just for me as DM. At the end of the session I explained to the players that I'd been using these great digital tools for the first time and wondered if they'd be interested in moving their paper assets over to DnDB for future games, using campaign sharing. They were really interested in this, until I explained that unfortunately they'd have to be aware of inadvertently exposing themselves to the search results from the AP, and that it'd be on them to not look at the adventure book, be very careful in how they searched etc. At this point they all said they'd only be interested if that content was NOT available to them, either deliberately or inadvertently, and so declined the offer, which has saved the cost of a subscription, I suppose, but I imagine isn't what Curse intended. These are not people that are looking to cheat or gain advantage, they just don't want their enjoyment tarnished by inadvertent spoilers. Some people are more spoiler-phobic than others, and having sharing OPTIONS would cater to all levels of concern over real or perceived potential spoilers.
I wonder if most of the staff at Curse DM as much as they play, or if they are very experienced players for whom surprise and wonder at the world being revealed to them is no longer such a big draw? For my new players it is, and they just want to keep that potential to still be surprised as long as possible.
And maybe 'Search Everything...' is not the benefit we all assumed it would be?
Do people not allow a DM to ever play? Do you realize players could have always bought the books themselves? Or sat in a Barnes and Noble and thumbed through it? It's all social contract. You have to trust your players not to spoil things for themselves and foe the other players. DnD is all about trust in each other. I'm really surprised people are as freaked out about players having the ability to see the campaign if they want, because that's always been an option. I've got an aspiring DM in my campaign. He's got the DMG, the MM, and Volos and I never worry about or think about him spoiling things.
The problem is, searches inadvertently and unexpectedly exposing info is not about trust, and this is not about me trying to keep things from my players, it's the actual players calling for this, I'd be happy to go as-is. If someone want's to DM they can have access to all the books if they want, but my players, that want to remain players, have expressly said they don't like the set up as is. The players.
I'm equally surprised people are as freaked out about people having options, if I'm honest.
And hopefully this isn't coming across as I'm right and other's are having badwrongfun or anything, it's just trying to acknowledge that each table is different, with different dynamics and to have more, I am guess not impossible to develop, options in place can only be a good thing. If the devs came back and said that to implement whitelisting or restricted sharing or whatever would hold up all other development goals for a year I think we'd be accepting of what we've got, but I'm hoping/guessing that isn't the case
Having used Fantasy Grounds, with their very granular sharing, I've never known anyone to claim a problem with restricting content access to the players, it just seems a natural thing to do?
The fact that this topic has been raised several times by different people shows that for them, and their players, it is an issue, maybe not for you and your table, and more power to you for that, but it is for others. Neither wrong, just different, and can be ameliorated with a simple set of options that you and your table can choose not to use.
I hope this doesn't come across as combative, it's not meant to be, but lets embrace our differences, it's the strength of the hobby that we are all playing the same game totally differently! Hurrah and Huzzah to that!
My group and I are sharing the cost of the content and subscription. (one of the stated intentions for the DM subscription) I would hate to have the DM in a campaign be able to limit my access to content throughout the compendium. I helped pay for those materials I have a right to see them. The only argument I can understand in this line of thinking, is the idea that you want to limit the options during character creation to streamline the process or maybe help new players.
I own every book physically and so do a lot of my players. I can't stop them from looking at whatever book they want. I also can't stop them from asking to use certain features from books. I can't stop my players from buying the physical books and reading the adventure that way either. Or scanning them and having them on their phone to "cheat" with. In the end, if a player wants to cheat they will find a way. Yes, this may make it easier, but in the end it doesn't change them much. Also, if that is the way the player has fun, then who am I as a DM to argue? Unless they are blatantly trying to thwart the campaign or meta-gaming, it doesn't bother me that they know what's coming, if that's what they want to do. I watch movies I've seen a hundred times, and my wife reads the plot of every movie she watches. I can still make it fun for the others at the table, I can throw curve-balls and surprises, and it is really hard to cheat at the roleplaying part of the game.
I will be very interested to see how Beyond handles this particular feature request. It seems very important to a lot of people, but I could see it causing some issues as well.
If I am sharing content I should be able to restrict what I'm sharing. If you get that content from a different source (be it buying it yourself, or being in another campaign that is sharing it), my restrictions shouldn't apply (except maybe within the campaign as far as character creation and items/spells available).
Just like if I bought the book, I could decide to let you look or not. If you buy the book yourself or another friend shares it with you there is nothing I can do about it.
Edit: I want to add in that I think when material is shared it should indicate somewhere where that info is being shared from. Say I'm in 3 campaigns and have no material purchased myself. Campaign 1 has PHB, and MM shared, 2 has Volos, PHB, MM, DMG, 3 has SKT and that's it. I should when viewing those sources in the compendium/monster listing/item listing/spell listing see not only the source, but who is sharing it to me (shared from User2 in campaign1).
I'd say that if limiting sharing is a choice then no one loses?
I ran my first session with DnDB at the table on Sunday, just for me as DM. At the end of the session I explained to the players that I'd been using these great digital tools for the first time and wondered if they'd be interested in moving their paper assets over to DnDB for future games, using campaign sharing. They were really interested in this, until I explained that unfortunately they'd have to be aware of inadvertently exposing themselves to the search results from the AP, and that it'd be on them to not look at the adventure book, be very careful in how they searched etc. At this point they all said they'd only be interested if that content was NOT available to them, either deliberately or inadvertently, and so declined the offer, which has saved the cost of a subscription, I suppose, but I imagine isn't what Curse intended. These are not people that are looking to cheat or gain advantage, they just don't want their enjoyment tarnished by inadvertent spoilers. Some people are more spoiler-phobic than others, and having sharing OPTIONS would cater to all levels of concern over real or perceived potential spoilers.
I wonder if most of the staff at Curse DM as much as they play, or if they are very experienced players for whom surprise and wonder at the world being revealed to them is no longer such a big draw? For my new players it is, and they just want to keep that potential to still be surprised as long as possible.
And maybe 'Search Everything...' is not the benefit we all assumed it would be?
I don't think it would be as big a deal as they are thinking. Unless they are searching things specific to that campaign, I doubt they would see those results. Also they can choose to filter content right now in the advanced search, so that doubly shouldn't be an issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
My group and I are sharing the cost of the content and subscription. (one of the stated intentions for the DM subscription) I would hate to have the DM in a campaign be able to limit my access to content throughout the compendium. I helped pay for those materials I have a right to see them. The only argument I can understand in this line of thinking, is the idea that you want to limit the options during character creation to streamline the process or maybe help new players.
I own every book physically and so do a lot of my players. I can't stop them from looking at whatever book they want. I also can't stop them from asking to use certain features from books. I can't stop my players from buying the physical books and reading the adventure that way either. Or scanning them and having them on their phone to "cheat" with. In the end, if a player wants to cheat they will find a way. Yes, this may make it easier, but in the end it doesn't change them much. Also, if that is the way the player has fun, then who am I as a DM to argue? Unless they are blatantly trying to thwart the campaign or meta-gaming, it doesn't bother me that they know what's coming, if that's what they want to do. I watch movies I've seen a hundred times, and my wife reads the plot of every movie she watches. I can still make it fun for the others at the table, I can throw curve-balls and surprises, and it is really hard to cheat at the roleplaying part of the game.
I will be very interested to see how Beyond handles this particular feature request. It seems very important to a lot of people, but I could see it causing some issues as well.
If I am sharing content I should be able to restrict what I'm sharing. If you get that content from a different source (be it buying it yourself, or being in another campaign that is sharing it), my restrictions shouldn't apply (except maybe within the campaign as far as character creation and items/spells available).
Just like if I bought the book, I could decide to let you look or not. If you buy the book yourself or another friend shares it with you there is nothing I can do about it.
Edit: I want to add in that I think when material is shared it should indicate somewhere where that info is being shared from. Say I'm in 3 campaigns and have no material purchased myself. Campaign 1 has PHB, and MM shared, 2 has Volos, PHB, MM, DMG, 3 has SKT and that's it. I should when viewing those sources in the compendium/monster listing/item listing/spell listing see not only the source, but who is sharing it to me (shared from User2 in campaign1).
I understand what you are saying. My point was that one of the major selling features of the DM subscription was the ability to share the cost among all the players. If I was a player who put in money to buy everything, I would be very upset if I was then limited to whatever the controlling account wanted me to see.
Also with our subscription, I am the DM on one game and someone else is the DM on another. We would then have to restrict the content for each other? That wouldn't really work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
My group and I are sharing the cost of the content and subscription. (one of the stated intentions for the DM subscription) I would hate to have the DM in a campaign be able to limit my access to content throughout the compendium. I helped pay for those materials I have a right to see them. The only argument I can understand in this line of thinking, is the idea that you want to limit the options during character creation to streamline the process or maybe help new players.
I own every book physically and so do a lot of my players. I can't stop them from looking at whatever book they want. I also can't stop them from asking to use certain features from books. I can't stop my players from buying the physical books and reading the adventure that way either. Or scanning them and having them on their phone to "cheat" with. In the end, if a player wants to cheat they will find a way. Yes, this may make it easier, but in the end it doesn't change them much. Also, if that is the way the player has fun, then who am I as a DM to argue? Unless they are blatantly trying to thwart the campaign or meta-gaming, it doesn't bother me that they know what's coming, if that's what they want to do. I watch movies I've seen a hundred times, and my wife reads the plot of every movie she watches. I can still make it fun for the others at the table, I can throw curve-balls and surprises, and it is really hard to cheat at the roleplaying part of the game.
I will be very interested to see how Beyond handles this particular feature request. It seems very important to a lot of people, but I could see it causing some issues as well.
If I am sharing content I should be able to restrict what I'm sharing. If you get that content from a different source (be it buying it yourself, or being in another campaign that is sharing it), my restrictions shouldn't apply (except maybe within the campaign as far as character creation and items/spells available).
Just like if I bought the book, I could decide to let you look or not. If you buy the book yourself or another friend shares it with you there is nothing I can do about it.
Edit: I want to add in that I think when material is shared it should indicate somewhere where that info is being shared from. Say I'm in 3 campaigns and have no material purchased myself. Campaign 1 has PHB, and MM shared, 2 has Volos, PHB, MM, DMG, 3 has SKT and that's it. I should when viewing those sources in the compendium/monster listing/item listing/spell listing see not only the source, but who is sharing it to me (shared from User2 in campaign1).
I understand what you are saying. My point was that one of the major selling features of the DM subscription was the ability to share the cost among all the players. If I was a player who put in money to buy everything, I would be very upset if I was then limited to whatever the controlling account wanted me to see.
Also with our subscription, I am the DM on one game and someone else is the DM on another. We would then have to restrict the content for each other? That wouldn't really work.
And, again, that's great for your table, but all we are asking for are more options which wont impact your table one bit. I'm not looking to share any costs with my players, so you can see options are a good thing 'cause we're all coming to this with different needs and desires. No one is stopping you making a full share of all your books, but please don't make me share stuff my players don't want me to. I fail to see what the issue is with other people's tables wanting different things???
I just bought the PHB, DMG, MM, Volos, and Curse of Straud. I also subscribed to the Master level subscription for a year.
I'm half in love and half disappointed. All negativity is due to the inability to control WHAT content of mine is shared with my players.
Based on my experiences so far I would recommend to both players and DMs to buy the core books, but to hold off on the Masters subscriptions and maybe think twice about buying the APs. Specifically:
PHB, DMG, MM, Volos. I am very happy with the core books. It will be create to have all this on my laptop and smart phone. But I DON'T want to share the MM or most of Volo's with players.
Curse of Straud. I sort of regret buying this as I already have the print book. I'm not sure the price was worth it just to have a searchable version. I'm disappointed that the maps are not clickable (e.g. click on a numbered item on a map and go to the text for that location). It really isn't that much easier to navigate than using a book. If you don't already have the book, however, it might be worth buying. But my main regret with buying the DnD Beyond version of CoS is that if I have a campaign and share my content, I'm also sharing the Adventure. Now I wish I didn't buy CoS so that I could share the core content.
Master Level Subscription. I knew going it that the "campaign" feature for DMs is basically just a character sheet and content share feature. It is no Realm Works. I'm fine with the price and am happy to support the company so they are incented to continue to develop and improve the service. But since I can't control what I share, and since I bought an AP, the campaign feature is mostly useless to me. It is an expensive way for players to share their characters with me without any in-game tools to manage / reference those characters. I was hoping to use the service to share PHB and some other content.
Urgently needed for the campaign feature to be even marginally useful is to select which products I want to share with my players. Eventually, I should be able to select by chapter/section in the books (e.g. ONLY the character creation option in Volos and ONLY the character options in the adventure paths). But now, at a minimum, and ASAP, we need to be able to share the PHB but not an adventure or the MM.
+1 to limited sharing.
I want to share player content with my players, but not DM only content or adventure modules.
I think, as a DM that likes to also get to play a character from time to time while someone else is DMing, that there is a massive flaw in the idea that there is "DM only" rules content. When I see people say they want to stop their players from seeing what is in the Monster Manual (or worse, the Dungeon Master's Guide), I think they are basically saying "That guy Aaron is a DM, so he can't possibly ever be a player because he knows too much" as if there is no possible way that my knowledge doesn't actually make me a disruptive jerk player.
And then there is the adventure content; you are not stopping anyone that wants to get an unfair advantage from reading the adventure. They will find a way, regardless of whether it is made more difficult to do so or not. The way you stop these players from disrupting the fun of someone in your gaming group is to exclude disruptive jerk players from your group.
So while it might be nice to be able to share books bit-by-bit instead of all-in, it's not great to have so little trust in the people playing the game with you that you feel like problems will occur if the only obstacle in their way is having been asked not to look (or really just them already not wanting to look because they know it won't improve their enjoyment to do so).
So yeah, everybody stop playing with jerks so that maybe I stop wondering if there are folks that legitimately ban folks from their games because they have ever DMed before like the claims of needing a way to hide portions of the game rules imply.
I'm sharing content I paid for so that they can use it at the table in my games. Other groups may have rotating GMs or something and have different needs. It is a matter of choice and customization.
I guess I don't care that much about Volos and MM material. My players are experience enough to have a good idea about many / most of the core monsters but mature enough to roleplay appropriate to their character's knowledge.
But it is different with the AP material. It is not so much whether the players will be able to resist reading the AP material. If they really wanted spoilers, they can go to the game store and flip through the pages. But when you run a "search everything" it will pull up AP materials as well.
Another aspect of this is that I'm used to Realm Works where I can share on a "snippet" level. It would be nice to be able to share portions of the APs for the areas that the party has already encountered. I would love to eventually see paragraph by paragraph reveal a la RealmWorks, but for now just being able to select what books I share would be nice.
A section called "P17 Elemental Guardian" -- which details a section of a dungeon telling you that you will be attacked if you aren't already dressed like a water cultist. This is in the blurb, without clicking on the link/section.
Note that there are multiple occurrences of this type of item in the search results. Actually to further point out the issue, i see a section for "Rise of Tiamat" which I do not own under the elemental search. Thus I see something that happens within a section of that adventure, that includes an NPC's name. As a player I would know now a part of that adventure involving that NPC's motives and his "followers" so to speak. This is a problem with the search overall that I think should be rectified. I don't think that adventure path "blurbs" should be included in search results.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
I think it's an overall problem with the "search everything". You can filter to "Compendium" which would give you the items/spell listings, but unfortunately that also gives you the adventures. If I filter to Compendium while searching for elemental I get even more info on the adventure. I think this should be broken down further to filter by rules/adventures, with the ability to set a default filter (to include 1, the other, or both). At least then you possibly wouldn't inadvertently reveal Adventure details to yourself while searching.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
I wasn't aware of how much info shows up when you search everything... though I'm also not sure why a player would search everything when they know they are actually looking for a spell or an item, since it would be entirely more efficient to search only spells and items in that case.
But, at least the information that shows up when you do search everything has appropriate labeling for the purpose of a person being able to see where the content is from, and thus whether it is a "spoiler" or not, so they can still avoid learning anything they don't want to know without the need for a feature that implies players cannot be trusted and/ore DMs cannot be players.
I feel dumb -- I didn't realize you could filter to the spell-item-monster level even though it's literally right next to "compendium". I suppose that would be the most likely thing done.
I still would like the ability to at least limit the info, but I guess I am starting to see why it's not that big of a deal. Honestly if someone is going to be "cheating" they are going to do it no matter what.
You're right that if you can't trust the DM/Player then something at your table is wrong and hurting your D&D experience overall.
Edit: Let me bring this to address the point that I do not like the way you "filter" search results. It is difficult for me to see the difference when an icon is selected and when it isn't. It's just slightly more highlighted in my opinion when it is selected. I think a simple checkbox/dropdown would be much more accessible and user-friendly.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersHey there everyone, BadEye has posted a Campaign Management - Features Wish List where you can post your ideas for improving the Campaign Management tools in D&D Beyond.
Help shape the way D&D Beyond tools work! Your feedback and ideas matter!
Pun-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!"🔊
I upvoted a post asking for the same thing on the Features Wish List, but I have to say that I've never been a fan of using internet forums for feature requests management. It is hard to know what has already been posted to avoid double posting, commenting and voting on requests is messy. It would be great if the developers would use something like UserVoice for feature-request management.
-
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!"🔊
My group and I are sharing the cost of the content and subscription. (one of the stated intentions for the DM subscription) I would hate to have the DM in a campaign be able to limit my access to content throughout the compendium. I helped pay for those materials I have a right to see them. The only argument I can understand in this line of thinking, is the idea that you want to limit the options during character creation to streamline the process or maybe help new players.
I own every book physically and so do a lot of my players. I can't stop them from looking at whatever book they want. I also can't stop them from asking to use certain features from books. I can't stop my players from buying the physical books and reading the adventure that way either. Or scanning them and having them on their phone to "cheat" with. In the end, if a player wants to cheat they will find a way. Yes, this may make it easier, but in the end it doesn't change them much. Also, if that is the way the player has fun, then who am I as a DM to argue? Unless they are blatantly trying to thwart the campaign or meta-gaming, it doesn't bother me that they know what's coming, if that's what they want to do. I watch movies I've seen a hundred times, and my wife reads the plot of every movie she watches. I can still make it fun for the others at the table, I can throw curve-balls and surprises, and it is really hard to cheat at the roleplaying part of the game.
I will be very interested to see how Beyond handles this particular feature request. It seems very important to a lot of people, but I could see it causing some issues as well.
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
I'd say that if limiting sharing is a choice then no one loses?
I ran my first session with DnDB at the table on Sunday, just for me as DM. At the end of the session I explained to the players that I'd been using these great digital tools for the first time and wondered if they'd be interested in moving their paper assets over to DnDB for future games, using campaign sharing. They were really interested in this, until I explained that unfortunately they'd have to be aware of inadvertently exposing themselves to the search results from the AP, and that it'd be on them to not look at the adventure book, be very careful in how they searched etc. At this point they all said they'd only be interested if that content was NOT available to them, either deliberately or inadvertently, and so declined the offer, which has saved the cost of a subscription, I suppose, but I imagine isn't what Curse intended. These are not people that are looking to cheat or gain advantage, they just don't want their enjoyment tarnished by inadvertent spoilers. Some people are more spoiler-phobic than others, and having sharing OPTIONS would cater to all levels of concern over real or perceived potential spoilers.
I wonder if most of the staff at Curse DM as much as they play, or if they are very experienced players for whom surprise and wonder at the world being revealed to them is no longer such a big draw? For my new players it is, and they just want to keep that potential to still be surprised as long as possible.
And maybe 'Search Everything...' is not the benefit we all assumed it would be?
Do people not allow a DM to ever play? Do you realize players could have always bought the books themselves? Or sat in a Barnes and Noble and thumbed through it? It's all social contract. You have to trust your players not to spoil things for themselves and foe the other players. DnD is all about trust in each other. I'm really surprised people are as freaked out about players having the ability to see the campaign if they want, because that's always been an option. I've got an aspiring DM in my campaign. He's got the DMG, the MM, and Volos and I never worry about or think about him spoiling things.
DM for the Adventures in Erylia Podcast
Where five friends sit around the table and record themselves playing Dungeons and Dragons
The problem is, searches inadvertently and unexpectedly exposing info is not about trust, and this is not about me trying to keep things from my players, it's the actual players calling for this, I'd be happy to go as-is. If someone want's to DM they can have access to all the books if they want, but my players, that want to remain players, have expressly said they don't like the set up as is. The players.
I'm equally surprised people are as freaked out about people having options, if I'm honest.
And hopefully this isn't coming across as I'm right and other's are having badwrongfun or anything, it's just trying to acknowledge that each table is different, with different dynamics and to have more, I am guess not impossible to develop, options in place can only be a good thing. If the devs came back and said that to implement whitelisting or restricted sharing or whatever would hold up all other development goals for a year I think we'd be accepting of what we've got, but I'm hoping/guessing that isn't the case
Having used Fantasy Grounds, with their very granular sharing, I've never known anyone to claim a problem with restricting content access to the players, it just seems a natural thing to do?
The fact that this topic has been raised several times by different people shows that for them, and their players, it is an issue, maybe not for you and your table, and more power to you for that, but it is for others. Neither wrong, just different, and can be ameliorated with a simple set of options that you and your table can choose not to use.
I hope this doesn't come across as combative, it's not meant to be, but lets embrace our differences, it's the strength of the hobby that we are all playing the same game totally differently! Hurrah and Huzzah to that!
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
Also with our subscription, I am the DM on one game and someone else is the DM on another. We would then have to restrict the content for each other? That wouldn't really work.
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.