Can't say I'm too interested in the philosophy of my request or its impact on general expectations regarding sharing content.
It comes down to this: most other content providers that allow a GM to share content with players offers some level of granular reveals.
The ability to support GMs making granular reveals will become increasingly important as they try to build support for campaign-management features.
I bought all the core materials, Volos, and Curse of Strahd. As soon as I realized that I had not option to select what not to share with players, I turned off all sharing. This makes the subscription I bought very low value to me and I doubt I'll renew when it is up unless they offer something more useful than lack of advertising on content that I purchased. I don't think that allowing granular content revieal will affect those who want to share everything, so long as it is easy to share everything. They stand to lose more existing and potential subscribers by not offering granular reveal than they do by offering it.
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".[/quote]
I thought we were discussing players that don't want to inadvertently learn something that would spoil their own fun - by suggesting a player is going to ask to see the adventure, you are describing a situation in which a player is actively trying to spoil their own fun. I won't join you in pretending those are the same thing.
Or, to phrase that differently: No, we all sit down to the table to play and the player doesn't ever ask to see Storm King's Thunder because it's an adventure they intend to play and they don't want spoilers.
And to put that into D&D Beyond terms: The player searches for some key word and starts looking at results, and when they notice that a result says "Compendium->Adventures->Storm King's Thunder" they elect not to read any further part of that search result.
Though honestly, I'd simply not play with those types. If you want to game with those types, that's up to you.
If you aren't playing with folks that are going to read the adventure, then you don't actually need anything more than is already present. They will see that a search result is from an adventure and they will not read it. Just like they could see that a real life book is an adventure and then not read it. Also, you are creating a strawman to argue against by suggesting that my disagreement with you means I want to play with folks that read adventures - I do not, but I trust my players don't want to read adventures, so I don't feel any special thing needs to be done to prevent them from doing so.
There are currently at least 17 different source books, 8 of these being the adventures. It's not "1 click" to filter those out.
If the prior portion of your post in which you say that the only thing you are concerned about your players seeing is the "story", then it is absolute 1 click to filter out the things you don't want them to see and that they don't want to see; They only need to click "characters" or "spells" or "items", any one of which will ensure that none of the "story" parts of any adventures show up for them to fail to prevent themselves from reading. And, to be completely frank, I don't think that is "too much work" because it not only accomplishes the desired goal of not spoiling the story, but also is something the player will probably already be doing because the player undoubtedly knows which of those three categories the thing they are actually looking for will be found in and will be narrowing the results to only that category to make getting to the information they want more expedient.
@AaronOfBarbaria, look, multiple people have said they would like the filter. Adding the filter doesn't impact you or your group. You are essentially saying that your way to have fun is good enough for everyone so we should just do it your way.
Every single counter example you provide has limitations, or simply increases the time and effort to look up something.
I'd like to see D&D Beyond be flexible enough to allow different types of groups to play effectively and not need a bunch of workarounds. Flexibility means options so that people can decide what is best for them and their group.
Adding the filter doesn't impact you or your group.[/quote]
Yes it does. Just as much as not having a filter that the content owner, rather than the content viewer, sets impacts the people asking for it and those people's groups.
You are essentially saying that your way to have fun is good enough for everyone so we should just do it your way.
That is false. I presented my reasons for objecting to the originally proposed filter mechanism, and also my support of a secondary proposal that seemed to me to solve the initially stated problem (players inadvertently accessing information they don't want to have) without also doing the two things I was specifically stating objections to (1. Lend credence to the idea that one is either a player or a DM and never both because to DM is to know things a player "shouldn't"; 2. Treat all players as though they cannot be trusted to police their own information intake, even while insisting it isn't a matter of trust leading to asking for a filter).
So no, I'm not essentially saying that my way is good enough for everyone - I'm compromising by trying to find a solution that solves a problem I don't experience but other people apparently do, without that solution actively causing or perpetuating problems I will/do experience.
What I have been met with, however, is outright dismissal of my opinion as if I'm not equally entitled to weigh-in on the issue as those that don't agree with me, and a solidly stubborn attitude that doesn't seem willing to accept any outcome as 'good enough' unless it is the precise outcome originally asked for. With false pretense that I'm trying to make the tool set offered here less flexible to fit each group trying to use it.
It comes down to this; If things stay as they currently are, you have "a bunch of workarounds" (that are, objectively, easy and intuitive to use - and again, likely to be employed already because they help the person searching find what they are searching for more expediently). If things end up as I the compromise I supported, you have an easy to click thing that each player can click for themselves or leave un-clicked as they see fit, and I don't have anything to complain about. But if things end up as originally proposed in the thread, suddenly you get what you wanted, and I get problems - big, not solved by clicking something or reading information in the order displayed, long-term and collective gamer-consciousness pervading problems.
But hey, I'm just a DM that wishes he could sit down at some other DM's table and not be treated like some kind of cheater, which only happens in the first place because of the attitude that player's shouldn't actually know the game's actual rules because a lot of them are in "DM only" books... So my problems aren't as important, right?
The owner of the Master Tier can enable the share of purchased content just for the time necessary to let the players create their characters. Then the sharing can be disabled. This way the players have the characters they wanted (created with the purchased options), but they can no longer "check" the adventure modules.
I know it is not the optimal, definitive solution, but it can work for some.
So you don't want a feature created because it will impact the mentality of people you don't play with? That doesn't make any sense other than "everyone should play my way and have my view".
You keep telling is us "don't play with people who want to cheat" I can simply just counter and say "play with people who don't believe looking up what happens in an adventure before playing it is cheating" and the argument will never end.
I get voicing your opinion and listing your concerns but at this point what more are we adding to the conversation at this point? It's becoming as redundant as the arguments about pricing -- I think one thing, you think another, and clearly neither of us is going to budge. I just cannot understand why someone is so against an optional feature that they can choose not to use.
Also "workarounds" are not fixes, they are ways to go around a known problem. We are asking for the fix so our players don't have to do a workaround. Having several workarounds should not be seen as a solution.
Adding the filter doesn't impact you or your group.[/quote]
Yes it does. Just as much as not having a filter that the content owner, rather than the content viewer, sets impacts the people asking for it and those people's groups.
No it does not. If your group chooses to share all of the books, there's is literally no difference from what you have today.
We already have a content filter for searching. It is insufficient for what myself and others are asking for.
You are essentially saying that your way to have fun is good enough for everyone so we should just do it your way.
That is false. I presented my reasons for objecting to the originally proposed filter mechanism, and also my support of a secondary proposal that seemed to me to solve the initially stated problem (players inadvertently accessing information they don't want to have) without also doing the two things I was specifically stating objections to (1. Lend credence to the idea that one is either a player or a DM and never both because to DM is to know things a player "shouldn't"; 2. Treat all players as though they cannot be trusted to police their own information intake, even while insisting it isn't a matter of trust leading to asking for a filter).
You've offered no solution that has solved the issue, and you've repeatedly said that the thing we are asking for would impact the way you can use D&D Beyond, which is also not true.
The solution I presented does allow people to be both DM and players by having a "logged in as". When you are a player in a campaign, see only the content that is enabled/shared for that campaign. When you want to see everything you have, pick your main account. If you have a Battle.NET/World of Warcraft, this would be similar in how you can select which character you are posting as.
This would also be helpful for the PbP feature here as well as people would be seeing the character for that specific campaign and not your general account user.
Lastly, you seem to be the only one concerned about "cheating players". Everyone single person that wants this feature has wanted for these two reasons:
Avoid accidental exposure to the content and run into spoilers
Want to dictate which content they shared for controlling access to what the players can draw from for character creation and leveling
What I have been met with, however, is outright dismissal of my opinion as if I'm not equally entitled to weigh-in on the issue as those that don't agree with me, and a solidly stubborn attitude that doesn't seem willing to accept any outcome as 'good enough' unless it is the precise outcome originally asked for. With false pretense that I'm trying to make the tool set offered here less flexible to fit each group trying to use it.
People have dismissed your opinion because it doesn't actually solve any of the problems we want solved, but you keep arguing that our solution would somehow impact you personally, which is just completely false. Your group can choose to share everything and literally nothing changes for you.
So yes, you are arguing against making the tool less flexible.
It comes down to this; If things stay as they currently are, you have "a bunch of workarounds" (that are, objectively, easy and intuitive to use - and again, likely to be employed already because they help the person searching find what they are searching for more expediently). If things end up as I the compromise I supported, you have an easy to click thing that each player can click for themselves or leave un-clicked as they see fit, and I don't have anything to complain about. But if things end up as originally proposed in the thread, suddenly you get what you wanted, and I get problems - big, not solved by clicking something or reading information in the order displayed, long-term and collective gamer-consciousness pervading problems.
Objectively means "provably true". We've already demonstrated how your workarounds are not intuitive, not easy to use, require additional work for every single search, and disallows the use of one of the frequently requested features: search everything.
And again, your compromise already exists today. I can go to the advanced filters and click on every source to filter by. Your compromise is essentially: leave the product as it is, it's fine.
My solution is exactly how sharing works today, in the real world, with physical books: the book owner gets to decide if they want to share it with you or not. You're not entitled to come to my table and use any of my books without asking me first. If, as a group, you all decide to share all of the books at the table - then cool, you get the experience of how D&D Beyond works today.
But hey, I'm just a DM that wishes he could sit down at some other DM's table and not be treated like some kind of cheater, which only happens in the first place because of the attitude that player's shouldn't actually know the game's actual rules because a lot of them are in "DM only" books... So my problems aren't as important, right?
Again, you're the one focused on the "cheating" aspect - no one else is that wants this feature. If you own the book, you can read it. If you don't own it, you can't.
At this point, I cannot see how "your problem" is your dislike for the idea that the campaign manager can dictate which content is shared from their account with players that joined the campaign. So yes, your problem is the antithesis of what people are asking for: fined grain control of what content is shared and not shared with the group.
If you use any VTT, this is how it works today. You don't have access to the story content until it's been revealed.
The owner of the Master Tier can enable the share of purchased content just for the time necessary to let the players create their characters. Then the sharing can be disabled. This way the players have the characters they wanted (created with the purchased options), but they can no longer "check" the adventure modules.
I know it is not the optimal, definitive solution, but it can work for some.
Filcat, that solves some of the issues, but there is still a chance for abuse. DMB was sold to a lot of people as a way to license content as a group, giving one person the power to lock out some of the content from others, whom may have paid, could be frustrating.
I do realize that the controlling account in these instances could just kick everyone from the campaigns anyways and be done with it, so I suppose it could be abused either way you look at it.
My head hurts... back to fun stuff like making characters
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
I think the problem here is that D&D Beyond are trying to merge two distinct features into one. One feature is content sharing, the other is campaign management. These two features don't quite align. For sharing content with my gaming group I can create a 'fake' campaign, tick on sharing, and we all have everything. But for my campaign, what I want to do is reveal content as I go and that's not currently possible as far as I can tell.
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???
The problem comes in trying to create a system that works for everyone and that limits abuse. If they create a system where one person can block out some of the content that another person has paid for, then there is a real problem there. You seem to only want to look at these options from your perspective or the perspective of your table or my table. But every table is different. Options should exist, but the question is what options will limit abuse as well as fall within the spirit of the system that was sold to people.
I completely agree that within a campaign, content limitation needs to be a thing. I was just coming back to say just that. Players looking through magic items on their sheet might run across an item from the campaign, and poof now they know stuff they shouldn't, or at least know there may be this special item hiding somewhere. Within a campaign it needs to be limited, absolutely.
Outside of that, a voluntary limitation would be nice. Something a player can turn on themselves. The same as deciding not to buy a book (or read it if they already own it).
Maybe they need to add two DM tiers, one for DMs like you who pay for everything themselves and one for groups like mine who share the costs. Each having different options.
In the end, they will make the decisions in what is right for them, and you are right it won't affect me at all because I have no problems with my players in that way, however I don't ever like to see people being taken advantage of, and the potential exists in a system where the DM can block content that a player paid for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
So you don't want a feature created because it will impact the mentality of people you don't play with? That doesn't make any sense other than "everyone should play my way and have my view".[/quote]
You are confused. I said I don't want a feature because it will impact the mentality of people I will eventually play with. That's entirely different from your characterization of my statement.
You may have a once-and-forever group, but mine over the years have always lost players here and gained players there, not to mention all the times I've added an entire second or even third group of people to play games with.
You keep telling is us "don't play with people who want to cheat" I can simply just counter and say "play with people who don't believe looking up what happens in an adventure before playing it is cheating" and the argument will never end.
Again, you have gotten confused. What I said was actually "If you aren't playing with people who want to cheat - which you said as much as that you aren't when you said your requested feature isn't about not trusting your players, the thing you are asking for as a 'solution' to your problem isn't as good of a fit as a similar option that a person engages for them self would be since the former causes/perpetuates problems for me but the later doesn't."
And you are further confused if you think at any point I said anything even remotely like that I play with people who don't believe looking up what happens in an adventure before playing it is cheating.
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???
The problem comes in trying to create a system that works for everyone and that limits abuse. If they create a system where one person can block out some of the content that another person has paid for, then there is a real problem there. You seem to only want to look at these options from your perspective or the perspective of your table or my table. But every table is different. Options should exist, but the question is what options will limit abuse as well as fall within the spirit of the system that was sold to people.
I completely agree that within a campaign, content limitation needs to be a thing. I was just coming back to say just that. Players looking through magic items on their sheet might run across an item from the campaign, and poof now they know stuff they shouldn't, or at least know there may be this special item hiding somewhere. Within a campaign it needs to be limited, absolutely.
Outside of that, a voluntary limitation would be nice. Something a player can turn on themselves. The same as deciding not to buy a book (or read it if they already own it).
Maybe they need to add two DM tiers, one for DMs like you who pay for everything themselves and one for groups like mine who share the costs. Each having different options.
In the end, they will make the decisions in what is right for them, and you are right it won't affect me at all because I have no problems with my players in that way, however I don't ever like to see people being taken advantage of, and the potential exists in a system where the DM can block content that a player paid for.
I will admit that the idea of someone being maliciously locked out from content they'd shared the cost of was something I'd never really considered, both because I'm likely going to be covering most if not all the costs, and also because the people I play with are close friends. But I can see that circumstances change and friendships can become strained, so a solution for your issues will need to be looked into, certainly. I suppose as we're considering work arounds could the cost be shared by people buying whole books each which are then shared within the campaign? Then, if things go awry, if people leave your group they can at least take what they've paid for with them?
Again, you're the one focused on the "cheating" aspect
I'm really not, which is why all of my offerings of solutions to the issue are ones that don't even pretend to prevent cheating.
The only mentioning of cheating that I've made is in my statements that it appears to me that the feature being asked for is intended to stop cheating (both the real cheating of reading an adventure you are going to play through, and the not-cheating-but-often-viewed-as-cheating-because-of-the-"this is DM only info because it's not in a book that says 'player' on the cover"-mentality of happening to know details about the game found in books like the Dungeon Master's Guide or Monster Manual), which isn't going to work because cheaters will cheat, so it shouldn't be the only acceptable solution for people that are insisting they are only worried about honest players unintentionally learning things.
But at this point, I have to say that I'm probably just going to give up on having my side of this discussion be actually understood because it seems unlikely that I'm going to be any less mis-read and mis-represented going forward than I have been up to this point.
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???
The problem comes in trying to create a system that works for everyone and that limits abuse. If they create a system where one person can block out some of the content that another person has paid for, then there is a real problem there. You seem to only want to look at these options from your perspective or the perspective of your table or my table. But every table is different. Options should exist, but the question is what options will limit abuse as well as fall within the spirit of the system that was sold to people.
I completely agree that within a campaign, content limitation needs to be a thing. I was just coming back to say just that. Players looking through magic items on their sheet might run across an item from the campaign, and poof now they know stuff they shouldn't, or at least know there may be this special item hiding somewhere. Within a campaign it needs to be limited, absolutely.
Outside of that, a voluntary limitation would be nice. Something a player can turn on themselves. The same as deciding not to buy a book (or read it if they already own it).
Maybe they need to add two DM tiers, one for DMs like you who pay for everything themselves and one for groups like mine who share the costs. Each having different options.
In the end, they will make the decisions in what is right for them, and you are right it won't affect me at all because I have no problems with my players in that way, however I don't ever like to see people being taken advantage of, and the potential exists in a system where the DM can block content that a player paid for.
I will admit that the idea of someone being maliciously locked out from content they'd shared the cost of was something I'd never really considered, both because I'm likely going to be covering most if not all the costs, and also because the people I play with are close friends. But I can see that circumstances change and friendships can become strained, so a solution for your issues will need to be looked into, certainly. I suppose as we're considering work arounds could the cost be shared by people buying whole books each which are then shared within the campaign? Then, if things go awry, if people leave your group they can at least take what they've paid for with them?
i think the option should be there and group that split cost etc.. can sit and decide what they want to do ... as they did when they decide to split cost... that being said that doesnt limit anyone to use the restriction option they could be there and you dont use it that will hurt anyone .. and those who need it will use it ... and if the point of some people its dm will block them if they split cost and they are not happy with that then talk to him its between him and you ... cant private everyone from an option because your dm disrespect you
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???
The problem comes in trying to create a system that works for everyone and that limits abuse. If they create a system where one person can block out some of the content that another person has paid for, then there is a real problem there. You seem to only want to look at these options from your perspective or the perspective of your table or my table. But every table is different. Options should exist, but the question is what options will limit abuse as well as fall within the spirit of the system that was sold to people.
I completely agree that within a campaign, content limitation needs to be a thing. I was just coming back to say just that. Players looking through magic items on their sheet might run across an item from the campaign, and poof now they know stuff they shouldn't, or at least know there may be this special item hiding somewhere. Within a campaign it needs to be limited, absolutely.
Outside of that, a voluntary limitation would be nice. Something a player can turn on themselves. The same as deciding not to buy a book (or read it if they already own it).
Maybe they need to add two DM tiers, one for DMs like you who pay for everything themselves and one for groups like mine who share the costs. Each having different options.
In the end, they will make the decisions in what is right for them, and you are right it won't affect me at all because I have no problems with my players in that way, however I don't ever like to see people being taken advantage of, and the potential exists in a system where the DM can block content that a player paid for.
I will admit that the idea of someone being maliciously locked out from content they'd shared the cost of was something I'd never really considered, both because I'm likely going to be covering most if not all the costs, and also because the people I play with are close friends. But I can see that circumstances change and friendships can become strained, so a solution for your issues will need to be looked into, certainly. I suppose as we're considering work arounds could the cost be shared by people buying whole books each which are then shared within the campaign? Then, if things go awry, if people leave your group they can at least take what they've paid for with them?
This is the solution I have been pouring over in my head. Yes you lose out on the legendary bundle discounts, however you gain that security that even with one bad apple, the rest of the group could easily come together and subscribe to keep things going. Good thought!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
Can't say I'm too interested in the philosophy of my request or its impact on general expectations regarding sharing content.
It comes down to this: most other content providers that allow a GM to share content with players offers some level of granular reveals.
The ability to support GMs making granular reveals will become increasingly important as they try to build support for campaign-management features.
I bought all the core materials, Volos, and Curse of Strahd. As soon as I realized that I had not option to select what not to share with players, I turned off all sharing. This makes the subscription I bought very low value to me and I doubt I'll renew when it is up unless they offer something more useful than lack of advertising on content that I purchased. I don't think that allowing granular content revieal will affect those who want to share everything, so long as it is easy to share everything. They stand to lose more existing and potential subscribers by not offering granular reveal than they do by offering it.
Ultimately, the market will sort this all out.
I thought we were discussing players that don't want to inadvertently learn something that would spoil their own fun - by suggesting a player is going to ask to see the adventure, you are describing a situation in which a player is actively trying to spoil their own fun. I won't join you in pretending those are the same thing.
Or, to phrase that differently: No, we all sit down to the table to play and the player doesn't ever ask to see Storm King's Thunder because it's an adventure they intend to play and they don't want spoilers.
And to put that into D&D Beyond terms: The player searches for some key word and starts looking at results, and when they notice that a result says "Compendium->Adventures->Storm King's Thunder" they elect not to read any further part of that search result.
If you aren't playing with folks that are going to read the adventure, then you don't actually need anything more than is already present. They will see that a search result is from an adventure and they will not read it. Just like they could see that a real life book is an adventure and then not read it. Also, you are creating a strawman to argue against by suggesting that my disagreement with you means I want to play with folks that read adventures - I do not, but I trust my players don't want to read adventures, so I don't feel any special thing needs to be done to prevent them from doing so.@AaronOfBarbaria, look, multiple people have said they would like the filter. Adding the filter doesn't impact you or your group. You are essentially saying that your way to have fun is good enough for everyone so we should just do it your way.
Every single counter example you provide has limitations, or simply increases the time and effort to look up something.
I'd like to see D&D Beyond be flexible enough to allow different types of groups to play effectively and not need a bunch of workarounds. Flexibility means options so that people can decide what is best for them and their group.
I say, share everything, and if you cant trust your players to cheat.. don't play with them. :)
Plus, everyone meta-games anyway LOL...
Yes it does. Just as much as not having a filter that the content owner, rather than the content viewer, sets impacts the people asking for it and those people's groups.
That is false. I presented my reasons for objecting to the originally proposed filter mechanism, and also my support of a secondary proposal that seemed to me to solve the initially stated problem (players inadvertently accessing information they don't want to have) without also doing the two things I was specifically stating objections to (1. Lend credence to the idea that one is either a player or a DM and never both because to DM is to know things a player "shouldn't"; 2. Treat all players as though they cannot be trusted to police their own information intake, even while insisting it isn't a matter of trust leading to asking for a filter).So no, I'm not essentially saying that my way is good enough for everyone - I'm compromising by trying to find a solution that solves a problem I don't experience but other people apparently do, without that solution actively causing or perpetuating problems I will/do experience.
What I have been met with, however, is outright dismissal of my opinion as if I'm not equally entitled to weigh-in on the issue as those that don't agree with me, and a solidly stubborn attitude that doesn't seem willing to accept any outcome as 'good enough' unless it is the precise outcome originally asked for. With false pretense that I'm trying to make the tool set offered here less flexible to fit each group trying to use it.
It comes down to this; If things stay as they currently are, you have "a bunch of workarounds" (that are, objectively, easy and intuitive to use - and again, likely to be employed already because they help the person searching find what they are searching for more expediently). If things end up as I the compromise I supported, you have an easy to click thing that each player can click for themselves or leave un-clicked as they see fit, and I don't have anything to complain about. But if things end up as originally proposed in the thread, suddenly you get what you wanted, and I get problems - big, not solved by clicking something or reading information in the order displayed, long-term and collective gamer-consciousness pervading problems.
But hey, I'm just a DM that wishes he could sit down at some other DM's table and not be treated like some kind of cheater, which only happens in the first place because of the attitude that player's shouldn't actually know the game's actual rules because a lot of them are in "DM only" books... So my problems aren't as important, right?
Just want to point out a trick worth testing:
The owner of the Master Tier can enable the share of purchased content just for the time necessary to let the players create their characters. Then the sharing can be disabled. This way the players have the characters they wanted (created with the purchased options), but they can no longer "check" the adventure modules.
I know it is not the optimal, definitive solution, but it can work for some.
So you don't want a feature created because it will impact the mentality of people you don't play with? That doesn't make any sense other than "everyone should play my way and have my view".
You keep telling is us "don't play with people who want to cheat" I can simply just counter and say "play with people who don't believe looking up what happens in an adventure before playing it is cheating" and the argument will never end.
I get voicing your opinion and listing your concerns but at this point what more are we adding to the conversation at this point? It's becoming as redundant as the arguments about pricing -- I think one thing, you think another, and clearly neither of us is going to budge. I just cannot understand why someone is so against an optional feature that they can choose not to use.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Also "workarounds" are not fixes, they are ways to go around a known problem. We are asking for the fix so our players don't have to do a workaround. Having several workarounds should not be seen as a solution.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
No it does not. If your group chooses to share all of the books, there's is literally no difference from what you have today.
We already have a content filter for searching. It is insufficient for what myself and others are asking for.
You've offered no solution that has solved the issue, and you've repeatedly said that the thing we are asking for would impact the way you can use D&D Beyond, which is also not true.
The solution I presented does allow people to be both DM and players by having a "logged in as". When you are a player in a campaign, see only the content that is enabled/shared for that campaign. When you want to see everything you have, pick your main account. If you have a Battle.NET/World of Warcraft, this would be similar in how you can select which character you are posting as.
This would also be helpful for the PbP feature here as well as people would be seeing the character for that specific campaign and not your general account user.
Lastly, you seem to be the only one concerned about "cheating players". Everyone single person that wants this feature has wanted for these two reasons:
People have dismissed your opinion because it doesn't actually solve any of the problems we want solved, but you keep arguing that our solution would somehow impact you personally, which is just completely false. Your group can choose to share everything and literally nothing changes for you.
So yes, you are arguing against making the tool less flexible.
Objectively means "provably true". We've already demonstrated how your workarounds are not intuitive, not easy to use, require additional work for every single search, and disallows the use of one of the frequently requested features: search everything.
And again, your compromise already exists today. I can go to the advanced filters and click on every source to filter by. Your compromise is essentially: leave the product as it is, it's fine.
My solution is exactly how sharing works today, in the real world, with physical books: the book owner gets to decide if they want to share it with you or not. You're not entitled to come to my table and use any of my books without asking me first. If, as a group, you all decide to share all of the books at the table - then cool, you get the experience of how D&D Beyond works today.
I do realize that the controlling account in these instances could just kick everyone from the campaigns anyways and be done with it, so I suppose it could be abused either way you look at it.
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
I think the problem here is that D&D Beyond are trying to merge two distinct features into one. One feature is content sharing, the other is campaign management. These two features don't quite align. For sharing content with my gaming group I can create a 'fake' campaign, tick on sharing, and we all have everything. But for my campaign, what I want to do is reveal content as I go and that's not currently possible as far as I can tell.
I completely agree that within a campaign, content limitation needs to be a thing. I was just coming back to say just that. Players looking through magic items on their sheet might run across an item from the campaign, and poof now they know stuff they shouldn't, or at least know there may be this special item hiding somewhere. Within a campaign it needs to be limited, absolutely.
Outside of that, a voluntary limitation would be nice. Something a player can turn on themselves. The same as deciding not to buy a book (or read it if they already own it).
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
You are confused. I said I don't want a feature because it will impact the mentality of people I will eventually play with. That's entirely different from your characterization of my statement.
You may have a once-and-forever group, but mine over the years have always lost players here and gained players there, not to mention all the times I've added an entire second or even third group of people to play games with.
Again, you have gotten confused. What I said was actually "If you aren't playing with people who want to cheat - which you said as much as that you aren't when you said your requested feature isn't about not trusting your players, the thing you are asking for as a 'solution' to your problem isn't as good of a fit as a similar option that a person engages for them self would be since the former causes/perpetuates problems for me but the later doesn't."I'm really not, which is why all of my offerings of solutions to the issue are ones that don't even pretend to prevent cheating.
The only mentioning of cheating that I've made is in my statements that it appears to me that the feature being asked for is intended to stop cheating (both the real cheating of reading an adventure you are going to play through, and the not-cheating-but-often-viewed-as-cheating-because-of-the-"this is DM only info because it's not in a book that says 'player' on the cover"-mentality of happening to know details about the game found in books like the Dungeon Master's Guide or Monster Manual), which isn't going to work because cheaters will cheat, so it shouldn't be the only acceptable solution for people that are insisting they are only worried about honest players unintentionally learning things.
But at this point, I have to say that I'm probably just going to give up on having my side of this discussion be actually understood because it seems unlikely that I'm going to be any less mis-read and mis-represented going forward than I have been up to this point.
Just a quick reminder for the community:
Please, try to keep the forum civil, without personal attacks or non-constructive posts. All the opinions are important and must be respected.
The most memorable stories always begin with failure.
I think this thread needs a group hug everyone! :o)
its about time a dev come in and give their opinion on this