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.
And I'm not sure why you're bothered about the way my table chooses to play and use (or not) the tools provided? If your table is happy, then I'm happy for you. With more options more tables will be happy, where's the downside? In the end, this is obviously an issue as several different threads/posts have brought it up, and Curse have said they're going to look at implementing it, so they apparently don't think it's an unreasonable request, even if they would possibly not feel the need to make use of it. So we all win. And that's a good thing, yeah?
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.
It should be an optional thing, in my opinion. I agree that we cannot limit someone who has purchased something or who has had something shared with them. What I am saying is that we should be able to choose what it is we are sharing. If you haven't purchased Volo's, I have, and you are only in my campaign but I'm choosing not to use Volo's in this campaign, I should be able to limit the ability to share that book with my campaign. If you own Volo's or are a member of another campaign that shares it, there should be no way for me to limit you viewing it.
In your case, you (or whoever has your groups "master" account) just wouldn't limit the shared items. I'd imagine your group who chipped in could discuss the limiting feature, and likely choose not to use it. You sound like you are in a close group, so it shouldn't be a problem. Yes, you have the risk of whomever has the account with the purchased content being able to limit the content, but if you are afraid the person in control of the account you all designated as the "master" and chipped in for is going to prevent you from accessing materials for any malicious reason that would bother you, they could just as easily boot you all from the campaign, fall off the face of the earth, and you wouldn't have it shared with you anymore either -- there isn't a way to prevent that.
Also I want to point out that I think the majority of the reasons for this aren't to limit the Rulebooks like the DMG, Volo's, SCAG, etc. it's more to limit the actual Adventures like PotA, ToD, CoS. If you do a search everything with those shared (actually even without those shared), as I pointed out above in post #5, it's possible you get an inside look -- unintentionally -- at something coming up in a dungeon. I don't care about you knowing monster stats, but if you know ahead of time (because you saw a "spoiler" without gaining the knowledge in-game) that if you dress a certain way you will avoid a conflict or gain the trust of a group, that's going to hurt the game. Even if you saw it, read it, and try to act as if your character wouldn't know it, then you are limiting your own knowledge in that you might have deduced that information by some other means, but now you are overcompensating for the fact that you know it but aren't sure if your character should or does know it.
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.
In response to the bolded part, I went through a scenario above (post #5) where you do unintentionally get results that could have an effect on a campaign. Now using the filters does remove those answers, however the default search everything (which is located on every page) does not have an option to filter immediately, it just searches without any filters.
maybe by offering only 1 subscription account 4.50$ and let you share what you want with lets say 12 users total (not characters) of your choice that you can add or remove (change as needed) but pretty sure ppl will have the same ppl playing together most of the time
and list of specific things you own similar then buying specific stuff in the market place or even more specific and detailed.
For adventure let say in every adventure there is description of places for players you decide to share but not the description for DMs etc... like not sharing the monsters or secret doors but you can have a option that let you share magic items and spell found individualy during the adventure would be great
let say you chose something to share then you mark the box then you enter the users name you want to share that thing with and voila if for exemple one player found a magic item in an adventure you share the info of that magic item only to that user so he can use it with his character in this adventure
for the search engine why not just get acces of what you own + free basic content and stuff ppl share with you + forum and nothing else
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.
It should be an optional thing, in my opinion. I agree that we cannot limit someone who has purchased something or who has had something shared with them. What I am saying is that we should be able to choose what it is we are sharing. If you haven't purchased Volo's, I have, and you are only in my campaign but I'm choosing not to use Volo's in this campaign, I should be able to limit the ability to share that book with my campaign. If you own Volo's or are a member of another campaign that shares it, there should be no way for me to limit you viewing it.
In your case, you (or whoever has your groups "master" account) just wouldn't limit the shared items. I'd imagine your group who chipped in could discuss the limiting feature, and likely choose not to use it. You sound like you are in a close group, so it shouldn't be a problem. Yes, you have the risk of whomever has the account with the purchased content being able to limit the content, but if you are afraid the person in control of the account you all designated as the "master" and chipped in for is going to prevent you from accessing materials for any malicious reason that would bother you, they could just as easily boot you all from the campaign, fall off the face of the earth, and you wouldn't have it shared with you anymore either -- there isn't a way to prevent that.
Also I want to point out that I think the majority of the reasons for this aren't to limit the Rulebooks like the DMG, Volo's, SCAG, etc. it's more to limit the actual Adventures like PotA, ToD, CoS. If you do a search everything with those shared (actually even without those shared), as I pointed out above in post #5, it's possible you get an inside look -- unintentionally -- at something coming up in a dungeon. I don't care about you knowing monster stats, but if you know ahead of time (because you saw a "spoiler" without gaining the knowledge in-game) that if you dress a certain way you will avoid a conflict or gain the trust of a group, that's going to hurt the game. Even if you saw it, read it, and try to act as if your character wouldn't know it, then you are limiting your own knowledge in that you might have deduced that information by some other means, but now you are overcompensating for the fact that you know it but aren't sure if your character should or does know it.
You say that our group can just discuss the limiting feature, couldn't the opposite be true and your group just discuss which books you aren't allowing them to use? Just like at a table?
And while yes they could to what you are saying, that is a little more extreme than what we are discussing.
The rest of your post gets us into an area of talking about meta-gaming, which is a broad topic and not easy to quantify or measure. However, if they see a result from that book, why would they read it? They could easily just skip pass any details and the header info won't really tell them much at all.
The filters exist, so they should use them if they agree not to look at the material. The same as them not purchasing the module if agreed upon. It's all social contract. If you have someone willing to break the social contract, they are going to break it one way or another no matter what. If people don't want to accidentally see something, then using a filter in their search shouldn't be an issue.
That being said, I am not 100% opposed to the idea of having these limits, but maybe it needs to be something that the players themselves turn on for themselves so they aren't inconvenienced by having to be careful around the site? That would allow the same social contracts to be created digitally that already exist at the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
I'd be supportive of this content-filtering idea if it were a self-imposed thing; A user choosing to click the "don't show me stuff I don't want to see" button is entirely different, to me, from a user choosing to click the "limit what other people get to see to what I decide is okay for them" button.
Especially because my primary objection comes from the point of view of how a thing can affect the larger community mindset; How it shapes general perception of what is and what isn't "okay", and the desire of mine as a DM to prevent general perception from being that a person has to choose once, and stick to it forever, whether they will be a player and thus never learn anything that someone might consider "DM only", or be a DM and thus always considered lesser as a player because they know things that someone might consider "DM only" that "player's aren't supposed to know".
I understand your point, but we aren't going to agree on it. My view did change after reading your and other posts from where it initially was, and i saw things from the way you presented them, but i still do believe the account with the data should be able to choose the data shared.
As far as the social contract thing, and if someone would break it by reading an unintentionally received block of text that means that they are 100% going to find a way to break it some other way just isn't correct. Having one "line of defense" is better than none while deterring someone from doing something. Yes some people will go out of their way to do it, while others won't. However some of those who won't go out of their way will take advantage of an opportunity if it's put directly in front of them without any bar.
Having one "line of defense" is better than none while deterring someone from doing something.
That's not a fair equation. You are asking for a second line of defense, as the first line of defense is already in place; The "search everything" results list the source of the information presented preceding the information itself, so a person not wanting to read information from, for example, an adventure will be able to see that adventure's title and then not read any further.
However some of those who won't go out of their way will take advantage of an opportunity if it's put directly in front of them without any bar.
And again, I don't think that's exactly fair. You are acting like you saying to your player "Please don't look at information from [insert source here]" is still "without any bar", and that isn't the case.
Edit to add: Actually, there are already two lines of defense in place against unintentionally reading "search everything" results that are not wanted to be seen; The filters for search content are above even the source citations for the search results.
Having one "line of defense" is better than none while deterring someone from doing something.
That's not a fair equation. You are asking for a second line of defense, as the first line of defense is already in place; The "search everything" results list the source of the information presented preceding the information itself, so a person not wanting to read information from, for example, an adventure will be able to see that adventure's title and then not read any further.
However some of those who won't go out of their way will take advantage of an opportunity if it's put directly in front of them without any bar.
And again, I don't think that's exactly fair. You are acting like you saying to your player "Please don't look at information from [insert source here]" is still "without any bar", and that isn't the case.
Edit to add: Actually, there are already two lines of defense in place against unintentionally reading "search everything" results that are not wanted to be seen; The filters for search content are above even the source citations for the search results.
I don't understand how search everything is the first line of defense. The information is literally right there -- "hold on close your eyes for a second as you scroll by" is not a line of defense.
Also, having a filter after you get your search results again is not a line of defense. I already searched, and am seeing results at the top of the page. I just did the "elemental" search I previously referenced again and the order displayed is different than what I referenced the first time, now the first entry is direct info on elemental cults in PotA adventure. Yes I can click a filter at that point, but that's not a "line of defense" as it's an extra step needed to be taken by the person I'm proposing you "defend" the information from. If someone is trying to rob your house and you have a lock on your door but it isn't locked, that's not a line of defense.
Sorry this conversation is getting way off topic and doesn't need to devolve to this level.
I appreciate your viewpoint and understand it. I agree that there is nothing wrong with being both a DM and a player and sharing information. But my point is if I buy 3 books, but only want to share 2 with you, and you don't have any of those books, you should only be able to view the 2 I am sharing, not all 3. You obviously don't agree, which isn't a problem and I totally understand why. I think you understand why I have the viewpoint I do as well, but if not, I don't think I can put it any clearer.
I just want to say I think this feature should be an option. It doesn't have to be mandated (so it won't affect your table, if i want it to affect mine). I think mandating it would be a terrible idea anyway.
Having one "line of defense" is better than none while deterring someone from doing something.
That's not a fair equation. You are asking for a second line of defense, as the first line of defense is already in place; The "search everything" results list the source of the information presented preceding the information itself, so a person not wanting to read information from, for example, an adventure will be able to see that adventure's title and then not read any further.
However some of those who won't go out of their way will take advantage of an opportunity if it's put directly in front of them without any bar.
And again, I don't think that's exactly fair. You are acting like you saying to your player "Please don't look at information from [insert source here]" is still "without any bar", and that isn't the case.
Edit to add: Actually, there are already two lines of defense in place against unintentionally reading "search everything" results that are not wanted to be seen; The filters for search content are above even the source citations for the search results.
I don't understand how search everything is the first line of defense. The information is literally right there -- "hold on close your eyes for a second as you scroll by" is not a line of defense.
Also, having a filter after you get your search results again is not a line of defense. I already searched, and am seeing results at the top of the page. I just did the "elemental" search I previously referenced again and the order displayed is different than what I referenced the first time, now the first entry is direct info on elemental cults in PotA adventure. Yes I can click a filter at that point, but that's not a "line of defense" as it's an extra step needed to be taken by the person I'm proposing you "defend" the information from. If someone is trying to rob your house and you have a lock on your door but it isn't locked, that's not a line of defense.
Ah I am seeing your point now, sorry. There is no advanced search option. You can only filter after you have searched, yeah that doesn't solve the issue really.
To me it sounds like all of your concerns with your group is solved with the voluntary player turning their own filters on, but maybe I am missing something.
It will be interesting to see how Beyond solves this issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
I don't understand how search everything is the first line of defense. The information is literally right there -- "hold on close your eyes for a second as you scroll by" is not a line of defense.
Also, having a filter after you get your search results again is not a line of defense. I already searched, and am seeing results at the top of the page.
Unless the information is displaying in a different order for you than it is for me, the "top of the page" is where the filters are - not where the results are. That's how they are a line of defense - they are arranged to be seen before any information that is undesired.
Same with the source citations - they are arranged to be seen before any information that is undesired.
If someone is trying to rob your house and you have a lock on your door but it isn't locked, that's not a line of defense.
Which is why I'm suggesting you ask your players to go ahead and use one, or both, of the locks that D&D Beyond already put on their doors, rather than supporting your request for a lock on your players' doors that only you have the key for because you don't think trusting them to do as you've asked is enough.
I don't understand how search everything is the first line of defense. The information is literally right there -- "hold on close your eyes for a second as you scroll by" is not a line of defense.
Also, having a filter after you get your search results again is not a line of defense. I already searched, and am seeing results at the top of the page.
Unless the information is displaying in a different order for you than it is for me, the "top of the page" is where the filters are - not where the results are. That's how they are a line of defense - they are arranged to be seen before any information that is undesired.
Same with the source citations - they are arranged to be seen before any information that is undesired.
If someone is trying to rob your house and you have a lock on your door but it isn't locked, that's not a line of defense.
Which is why I'm suggesting you ask your players to go ahead and use one, or both, of the locks that D&D Beyond already put on their doors, rather than supporting your request for a lock on your players' doors that only you have the key for because you don't think trusting them to do as you've asked is enough.
I'm asking for a lock on my door -- I bought the content they didn't. If they also bought the content or someone else shared it with them there should be no way for me to limit that, and I have no issue with that. As i said If I buy 3 books, want to share 2 and you haven't bought any or have had any shared to you by someone else, you should only be able to see 2 books I shared, not the 3rd one.
I'm asking for a lock on my door -- I bought the content they didn't. If they also bought the content or someone else shared it with them there should be no way for me to limit that, and I have no issue with that. As i said If I buy 3 books, want to share 2 and you haven't bought any or have had any shared to you by someone else, you should only be able to see 2 books I shared, not the 3rd one.
I think I'm seeing a distinction without a difference between a player having gotten access to acopy of the information and having gotten access to your copy of the information.
There is a difference, but you're either ignoring it or not understanding it, which is fine. That's why this is being requested as an option -- if you don't want to use it, you shouldn't have to. But I (and apparently a few others, imo hopefully enough others to justify it being implemented) do want to use it.
Which is why I'm suggesting you ask your players to go ahead and use one, or both, of the locks that D&D Beyond already put on their doors, rather than supporting your request for a lock on your players' doors that only you have the key for because you don't think trusting them to do as you've asked is enough.
The entire premise of this is fundamentally flawed: it's not about trust, it's about inadvertent exposure. And frankly, you're arguing against something that would have absolutely no impact on you. My players don't want to see the content of the adventure module. If they did, they'd just go read the book.
If you don't want to use the option, then don't use it. That's the beauty of an option.
Besides the fact, sharing ceases when the campaign is ended. If people are just having some indefinitely running campaign to try and share content amongst themselves, that is clearly outside of the spirit of what the sharing is for.
As to "turning on the filters" - this is just needless work that just won't happen for multiple reasons.
One solution to this: logged in as. You can pick the player you're currently using D&D beyond as. It's not perfect, but there is no perfect solution here. The filters for all searching get applied when that character profile is active. Selecting no character or a character that is not in a campaign gives you all of your purchased content only.
Besides the fact, sharing ceases when the campaign is ended. If people are just having some indefinitely running campaign to try and share content amongst themselves, that is clearly outside of the spirit of what the sharing is for.
It was stated very clearly that one of the major factors for sharing of content was to allow groups to share the costs and allow everyone access to the content.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
Besides the fact, sharing ceases when the campaign is ended. If people are just having some indefinitely running campaign to try and share content amongst themselves, that is clearly outside of the spirit of what the sharing is for.
It was stated very clearly that one of the major factors for sharing of content was to allow groups to share the costs and allow everyone access to the content.
Sure, for the purpose of the campaign or campaigns you're going to be playing.
The entire premise of this is fundamentally flawed: it's not about trust, it's about inadvertent exposure[/quote]
If it weren't about trust, the player being the one to avoid it - whether by using the tools already available, or by an option that the person not wanting to see certain material could choose enable (rather than an option the person sharing material would choose whether or not to enable) - wouldn't be treated as not being a sufficient solution to the matter.
And frankly, you're arguing against something that would have absolutely no impact on you.
False. I am a gamer, a DM, and a person that often finds new people to play games with - so anything that has an effect upon the general knowledge or opinion of gamers has an effect upon me. In specific terms, anything supporting the idea that certain knowledge is "DM only" increases the chances that I get thought less of as a potential player, or get outright prevented from being a player, because some other person has bought into the idea and as a direct result thinks that anyone who is a DM either cannot, or should not, be a player too.
As to "turning on the filters" - this is just needless work that just won't happen for multiple reasons.
If clicking 1 extra thing before scrolling down is the threshold for "too much work", then I don't believe the person making that determination actually cares about whether or not they are inadvertently exposed to something. In fact, at the point the person supposedly wanting to avoid exposure to certain material scrolls down without clicking the filter that would accomplish their supposed desire, I wouldn't even classify the exposure as inadvertent.
I mean, it's not inadvertently eating [insert ingredient you don't want to eat] if you refuse to check the ingredients before you take a bite - it's a deliberate choice, and potentially a very poor one.
The entire premise of this is fundamentally flawed: it's not about trust, it's about inadvertent exposure[/quote]
If it weren't about trust, the player being the one to avoid it - whether by using the tools already available, or by an option that the person not wanting to see certain material could choose enable (rather than an option the person sharing material would choose whether or not to enable) - wouldn't be treated as not being a sufficient solution to the matter.
So, we all sit down to the table to play and the player says, "Hey, let me see that Storm King's Thunder book." As a GM, do you say, "oh sure, here you go", or "no".
The sharing mechanism is for players in the group. As the DM of that group, brining the books to the game, it's my prerogative alone on whom I share that content with. If the players want to read SKT on their own, fine, whatever. Though honestly, I'd simply not play with those types. If you want to game with those types, that's up to you.
For the players I play with, they don't want to see the SKT content. They don't want to come and search and inadvertently see content from any of the adventure modules that I've purchased. The problem with the system as it is now, they'll see stuff from Curse of Strahd, Tiamat, SKT, etc...
In addition, even if they had filters in place that could somehow magically persist, as soon as I purchase another source book, the new content is likely to start showing up. So again, they need to update stuff.
False. I am a gamer, a DM, and a person that often finds new people to play games with - so anything that has an effect upon the general knowledge or opinion of gamers has an effect upon me. In specific terms, anything supporting the idea that certain knowledge is "DM only" increases the chances that I get thought less of as a potential player, or get outright prevented from being a player, because some other person has bought into the idea and as a direct result thinks that anyone who is a DM either cannot, or should not, be a player too.
There absolutely is content that is "DM only" - it's the flipping story! If the players know the story, what's the point of even playing it? Do you start every session with, "well, here's the story, plot-twists, and all the secrets you should know for tonight's session."? Of course you don't.
I don't care if players see the source material for anything else other than the adventures, but the adventure stuff should, at the very least, be given an option for the DM to not share. If you want to share it, great! I don't want to and my players don't want to see it.
As to "turning on the filters" - this is just needless work that just won't happen for multiple reasons.
If clicking 1 extra thing before scrolling down is the threshold for "too much work", then I don't believe the person making that determination actually cares about whether or not they are inadvertently exposed to something. In fact, at the point the person supposedly wanting to avoid exposure to certain material scrolls down without clicking the filter that would accomplish their supposed desire, I wouldn't even classify the exposure as inadvertent.
I mean, it's not inadvertently eating [insert ingredient you don't want to eat] if you refuse to check the ingredients before you take a bite - it's a deliberate choice, and potentially a very poor one.
There are currently at least 17 different source books, 8 of these being the adventures. It's not "1 click" to filter those out. And yes, it's absolutely "too much work" to expect and require players that don't want to see it to do it for every search. My campaign has been going for six months, if you think it's reasonable to require my players to do that, then I don't know what to tell you.
I also think you're are confusing something fundamental: I'm sharing the content - if they want something I'm not sharing, they can buy and be able to search and read it to their own heart's content. The option only says, "the player doesn't have access to my copy of the material".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
maybe by offering only 1 subscription account 4.50$ and let you share what you want with lets say 12 users total (not characters) of your choice that you can add or remove (change as needed) but pretty sure ppl will have the same ppl playing together most of the time
and list of specific things you own similar then buying specific stuff in the market place or even more specific and detailed.
For adventure let say in every adventure there is description of places for players you decide to share but not the description for DMs etc... like not sharing the monsters or secret doors but you can have a option that let you share magic items and spell found individualy during the adventure would be great
let say you chose something to share then you mark the box then you enter the users name you want to share that thing with and voila if for exemple one player found a magic item in an adventure you share the info of that magic item only to that user so he can use it with his character in this adventure
for the search engine why not just get acces of what you own + free basic content and stuff ppl share with you + forum and nothing else
that was my 2 cents ;)
And while yes they could to what you are saying, that is a little more extreme than what we are discussing.
The filters exist, so they should use them if they agree not to look at the material. The same as them not purchasing the module if agreed upon. It's all social contract. If you have someone willing to break the social contract, they are going to break it one way or another no matter what. If people don't want to accidentally see something, then using a filter in their search shouldn't be an issue.
That being said, I am not 100% opposed to the idea of having these limits, but maybe it needs to be something that the players themselves turn on for themselves so they aren't inconvenienced by having to be careful around the site? That would allow the same social contracts to be created digitally that already exist at the table.
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
I'd be supportive of this content-filtering idea if it were a self-imposed thing; A user choosing to click the "don't show me stuff I don't want to see" button is entirely different, to me, from a user choosing to click the "limit what other people get to see to what I decide is okay for them" button.
Especially because my primary objection comes from the point of view of how a thing can affect the larger community mindset; How it shapes general perception of what is and what isn't "okay", and the desire of mine as a DM to prevent general perception from being that a person has to choose once, and stick to it forever, whether they will be a player and thus never learn anything that someone might consider "DM only", or be a DM and thus always considered lesser as a player because they know things that someone might consider "DM only" that "player's aren't supposed to know".
I understand your point, but we aren't going to agree on it. My view did change after reading your and other posts from where it initially was, and i saw things from the way you presented them, but i still do believe the account with the data should be able to choose the data shared.
As far as the social contract thing, and if someone would break it by reading an unintentionally received block of text that means that they are 100% going to find a way to break it some other way just isn't correct. Having one "line of defense" is better than none while deterring someone from doing something. Yes some people will go out of their way to do it, while others won't. However some of those who won't go out of their way will take advantage of an opportunity if it's put directly in front of them without any bar.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
That's not a fair equation. You are asking for a second line of defense, as the first line of defense is already in place; The "search everything" results list the source of the information presented preceding the information itself, so a person not wanting to read information from, for example, an adventure will be able to see that adventure's title and then not read any further.
And again, I don't think that's exactly fair. You are acting like you saying to your player "Please don't look at information from [insert source here]" is still "without any bar", and that isn't the case.Edit to add: Actually, there are already two lines of defense in place against unintentionally reading "search everything" results that are not wanted to be seen; The filters for search content are above even the source citations for the search results.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Sorry this conversation is getting way off topic and doesn't need to devolve to this level.
I appreciate your viewpoint and understand it. I agree that there is nothing wrong with being both a DM and a player and sharing information. But my point is if I buy 3 books, but only want to share 2 with you, and you don't have any of those books, you should only be able to view the 2 I am sharing, not all 3. You obviously don't agree, which isn't a problem and I totally understand why. I think you understand why I have the viewpoint I do as well, but if not, I don't think I can put it any clearer.
I just want to say I think this feature should be an option. It doesn't have to be mandated (so it won't affect your table, if i want it to affect mine). I think mandating it would be a terrible idea anyway.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
To me it sounds like all of your concerns with your group is solved with the voluntary player turning their own filters on, but maybe I am missing something.
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
There is a difference, but you're either ignoring it or not understanding it, which is fine. That's why this is being requested as an option -- if you don't want to use it, you shouldn't have to. But I (and apparently a few others, imo hopefully enough others to justify it being implemented) do want to use it.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
If it weren't about trust, the player being the one to avoid it - whether by using the tools already available, or by an option that the person not wanting to see certain material could choose enable (rather than an option the person sharing material would choose whether or not to enable) - wouldn't be treated as not being a sufficient solution to the matter.
False. I am a gamer, a DM, and a person that often finds new people to play games with - so anything that has an effect upon the general knowledge or opinion of gamers has an effect upon me. In specific terms, anything supporting the idea that certain knowledge is "DM only" increases the chances that I get thought less of as a potential player, or get outright prevented from being a player, because some other person has bought into the idea and as a direct result thinks that anyone who is a DM either cannot, or should not, be a player too.I mean, it's not inadvertently eating [insert ingredient you don't want to eat] if you refuse to check the ingredients before you take a bite - it's a deliberate choice, and potentially a very poor one.
So, we all sit down to the table to play and the player says, "Hey, let me see that Storm King's Thunder book." As a GM, do you say, "oh sure, here you go", or "no".
The sharing mechanism is for players in the group. As the DM of that group, brining the books to the game, it's my prerogative alone on whom I share that content with. If the players want to read SKT on their own, fine, whatever. Though honestly, I'd simply not play with those types. If you want to game with those types, that's up to you.
For the players I play with, they don't want to see the SKT content. They don't want to come and search and inadvertently see content from any of the adventure modules that I've purchased. The problem with the system as it is now, they'll see stuff from Curse of Strahd, Tiamat, SKT, etc...
In addition, even if they had filters in place that could somehow magically persist, as soon as I purchase another source book, the new content is likely to start showing up. So again, they need to update stuff.
There absolutely is content that is "DM only" - it's the flipping story! If the players know the story, what's the point of even playing it? Do you start every session with, "well, here's the story, plot-twists, and all the secrets you should know for tonight's session."? Of course you don't.
I don't care if players see the source material for anything else other than the adventures, but the adventure stuff should, at the very least, be given an option for the DM to not share. If you want to share it, great! I don't want to and my players don't want to see it.
There are currently at least 17 different source books, 8 of these being the adventures. It's not "1 click" to filter those out. And yes, it's absolutely "too much work" to expect and require players that don't want to see it to do it for every search. My campaign has been going for six months, if you think it's reasonable to require my players to do that, then I don't know what to tell you.
I also think you're are confusing something fundamental: I'm sharing the content - if they want something I'm not sharing, they can buy and be able to search and read it to their own heart's content. The option only says, "the player doesn't have access to my copy of the material".