I'm currently a DM for a campign that draws heavily on some of the adventures. As such I've shared all my content but blocked the relevant content.
Other that past 6 months 2 of my players have wanted to DM their own campaigns with me as a player; They asked if I could share content and as ive got a DM subscription and own all the books... I agreed.
I went into both of the new campaigns to control the content that i shared and have discovered that I can't control it. Frankly that seems a bit odd... its my content, that i purchased. I should be allowed to control what I share and with whom. It shouldnt be an all or nothing stance. So I'm very confused by the automated option to allow the DM, who in this instance dont own any content whatsoever, be incharge of whats being shared.
The slight problem I have now is that in the two campaigns I've shared with... stuff from my campaign is now turning up in compendium searches accidentally. So im at the point where im considering just unsharing my content with the other 2 cmapaigns, to maintain fidelty of my primary campaign.
The objective is to allow the DM, who might be running an adventure, to prevent players from accidentally (or intentionally) accessing the adventure and spoiling things.
And keep in mind that when content sharing is turned on content owned by any member of the campaign is shared, not just content owned by the person with the master tier. I do think, though, that it would be nice if those who own material could choose what of their content was shared.
I'm also well aware of how the function works. However as someone running the initial campaign and as the only person in my group that A) has a subscription and B) has bought any books. Then I do feel fundamentally what I choose to share, as the actual purchaser... should be down to me, and not those who dont own any of the content. If people want to access the content, then theyre free to purchase it.
I'm happy to have it two tiered: in that I choose initally what im happy to share and then the DM can choose from that what they want to have... but beyond that it literally makes no sense to block the people who pay for the content, from controlling what they wish to share.
If were using a real world parallel; if i bought all the books... it would be up to me what books to share with the other people at the table.
Like fundamentally it's content ive purchased, so really their is no logical foundation for me not having complete agency on what i wish to share and what I dont.
To comment on your real world example; sharing books in real life is a zero-sum game. I cannot borrow your book without you not losing access to it while I borrow it. Hence it being completely reasonable that you, as the owner of the book, would want to control what books you share and when. This parallel does not exist with digital books shared on D&D Beyond; you can share your book and still access it. You can share your books with up to 36 other people simultaneously with no negative impact on yourself. It's very much not a zero-sum setup.
Which leads me into a genuine question; what is to be gained by choosing to no share some of your books outside of wanting to prevent access that might spoil an adventure? What's the benefit or improved user experience that comes from being able to control what books you do and do not share from your collection if sharing them has no impact on your experience? Please believe me that I'm not trying to be snide or condescending, just genuinely curious. You say there's "no logical foundation" for not being able to have granular control of what content you share. I honestly can't see a reason to not share anything if you're in a campaign with content sharing enabled if there's no downside to you in doing so.
Actually, if others can use their subscriptions to allow content sharing of your content (like it is now) you can theoretically share with an infinite number of people simultaneously since that is the character limit for even a hero tier sub.
My point is that their is a downside; I know the people I'm playing with arent the type to purchase content. (thats totally fine, its not judgement). I'm also aware that every book can be found for free online... so if someone wanted to ruin an adventure for themselves they totally could.
However I've plotted my campaign and aventures quite far ahead... so I know which adventures (around my homebrew) might arise and where. I took care to turn off sharing of this content when we started, because i didnt want people, monsters, equipment and maps.... accidentally turnin up in my players searches and accidentally spoiling that content for people.
I've now entered into 2 other campaigns with the same people, but this time with different people as DM. I joined thinking "well ill just turn off the the same content and then that stops people accidentally stumbling over relevant adventure details in advance"; however now I cant.... because even though its the content that I've purchased, my ability to manage the finite sharing of that content has been handed over to two other people. (which just seems a tad odd, as its not actually their content to share)
Let me try an example... in my campaign that im currently running, no one has identify yet. My party found a magic whistle that theyve yet to identify and its been leading to some fun and games, with them trying to work out what it does... while theyre also worried it might do something to them. Thats all been fine, as due tot eh adventure not being shared the item wasnt being shared with the party in compendium searches... so it just wasnt coming up. In one of the other campaigns im now playing... the DM was researching magical items to give the bard a magical item that were kinda musical but not really an instrument, so he was idly researching whistles and other such things on dnd beyond.
I then get a whisper saying "errrr i think i know what the whistle in our campaign does." and i was like "yay you worked it out?!" and he was like "nah, i just found it accidentally... whoops."
I know the other campaign that another pal is running, that hes accidentally reviewed one of the future adventures in my campaign world... as he was looking for an adventure for his campaign and he didnt realise that adventure was somethign i had placed in my worlds, which means i now have to switch out that adventure so that its not ruined for him.
The ability for me to just share everything except the adventures I personally was using.... helps all of us in my wee group of friends and as its literally my purchased content; it makes sense that fundamentally the first level of "what gets shared" should rest with the content owner, who actually paid for said content. I totally get that my players could go buy the books themselves, but then frankly its down to themselves to safeguard being exposed to potential spoilers... but as it stands, im the one thats bought the content and I'm the one that should have the ability to safeguard my players from accidentally tripping over it. Also frankly its just odd to let someone who isnt a paying customer, have complete control over the granular share options of something that they didnt purchase.
To comment on your real world example; sharing books in real life is a zero-sum game. I cannot borrow your book without you not losing access to it while I borrow it. Hence it being completely reasonable that you, as the owner of the book, would want to control what books you share and when. This parallel does not exist with digital books shared on D&D Beyond; you can share your book and still access it. You can share your books with up to 36 other people simultaneously with no negative impact on yourself. It's very much not a zero-sum setup.
Which leads me into a genuine question; what is to be gained by choosing to no share some of your books outside of wanting to prevent access that might spoil an adventure? What's the benefit or improved user experience that comes from being able to control what books you do and do not share from your collection if sharing them has no impact on your experience? Please believe me that I'm not trying to be snide or condescending, just genuinely curious. You say there's "no logical foundation" for not being able to have granular control of what content you share. I honestly can't see a reason to not share anything if you're in a campaign with content sharing enabled if there's no downside to you in doing so.
This is such a non answer from a Moderator, it actually infuriates me.
The WHOLE point of the OP was that he did not want adventure modules he was using to be spoiled. Much like them, I also play in a small group of people. One DMs on one week, the other DMs on the next. When I add as a player, to another DMs campaign, the other players (who are ALSO players in my campaign) gain access to my adventure modules. Which can ultimately, as the OP said in a later comment, spoil certain aspects of the adventure.
This is a serious glitch on the part of DDB; as I should be able to limit what I share within campaigns I DM OR play in. It is not being greedy, and it is not over a concern of "zero-sum". It is about maintaining the curtain between the fantasy we are working to create and the mechanics behind it. Which is a foundation of Dungeons & Dragons to start with.
I mean, come on. Sure, you can ask your DM to "unshare" on your behalf. But if that DM is a bit of a meta-gamer; they may imminently take a peek while doing so.
This is such a non answer from a Moderator, it actually infuriates me.
[sic]
I mean, come on. Sure, you can ask your DM to "unshare" on your behalf. But if that DM is a bit of a meta-gamer; they may imminently take a peek while doing so.
This is certainly something that needs be fixed.
Two things:
Davedamon was not yet a Moderator at the time of that posting.
If you cannot trust the others in your group to not suck, why play with them?!?
This is such a non answer from a Moderator, it actually infuriates me.
[sic]
I mean, come on. Sure, you can ask your DM to "unshare" on your behalf. But if that DM is a bit of a meta-gamer; they may imminently take a peek while doing so.
This is certainly something that needs be fixed.
Two things:
Davedamon was not yet a Moderator at the time of that posting.
If you cannot trust the others in your group to not suck, why play with them?!?
1. Well regardless; still a non-answer. If not a moderator then, a moderator now, so previous posts will reflect. You could read from in the OP post what they were getting at. Limited sharing of resources that are important to your current on-going campaign. If Davedamon was or was not a moderator; it doesn't change the fact that the main point was missed.
2. Everyone will meta-game to a degree. It is not a case of "sucking" (again, a bit of an aspersion, if I do say; as I never said they sucked) rather more-so in the vein of what the OP DID get at. Items/creatures/details become available for the other DM to utilize and they stand a chance to stumble upon the thing that you may have used as a foundation of what you were working on. At that point, a piece of your mystery is gone.
There is little reason why you should not be able to manage your shared content; either as DM OR player. "Zero-sum" or not.
I'm running into this exact problem and am looking for workarounds. If I suspend my subscription, does that prevent my content from being shared even if content sharing is enabled by someone else? Or is all content shared even from people without active subs?
I'm about to buy an adventure module to run for my group, but I'm changing things around in such a way that they won't know what adventure they're in. I'm reluctant to buy it out of concern that it'll just suddenly appear in all the compendiums of my friends in existing campaigns. They're basically all DMs and will paw through any new material they find.
So it's either ruin the surprise or buy the module elsewhere, unless canceling my sub for now will do the trick.
I'm running into this exact problem and am looking for workarounds. If I suspend my subscription, does that prevent my content from being shared even if content sharing is enabled by someone else? Or is all content shared even from people without active subs?
I'm about to buy an adventure module to run for my group, but I'm changing things around in such a way that they won't know what adventure they're in. I'm reluctant to buy it out of concern that it'll just suddenly appear in all the compendiums of my friends in existing campaigns. They're basically all DMs and will paw through any new material they find.
So it's either ruin the surprise or buy the module elsewhere, unless canceling my sub for now will do the trick.
Thanks!
Canceling your subscription will not do the trick. When content sharing is turned on in a campaign, all content owned by anyone in the campaign is shared. The DM can turn off compendium access for specific books, but the DM themself still has compendium access, as do the "owner" of the source that has been turned off.
Honestly it still totally boggles my mind that anyone is arguing "you shouldnt have the right to control access to the stuff YOU buy". It's clearly an issue and once again i have players stumbling over content i really dont want them to stumble over.
This isnt my players being shitty... this is content appearing in the compendium that they have access to, BECAUSE of me.
If they wanted to ruin the adventure for themselves, thats up to them... but them accidentally stumbling over things is meaning im having to do alot of work to change stuff.
It's very annoying and people saying "ask the DM to turn it off" or "its not a zero sum game...", miss the simple point of I shouldnt bloody have to do any of those things. As its content that I've bought and i dont want to list all the adventures in advance to people, as its naff and kills the mystique of the narrative im building.
Just give those who bought the content, ownership of what to share.... its really by far the most obvious thing to do.
I couldn't agree more with everything you've posted here Atieno. This is also an issue I have with the way content sharing has been enabled on the site and has recently led me to the conclusion that until this is addressed I am better off not buying published adventure content that I intend to run via D&D Beyond. Thankfully the homebrew tools allow me to recreate the monsters and magic items from the adventure, which can be kept out of my homebrew collection to prevent sharing.
Which leads me into a genuine question; what is to be gained by choosing to no share some of your books outside of wanting to prevent access that might spoil an adventure? What's the benefit or improved user experience that comes from being able to control what books you do and do not share from your collection if sharing them has no impact on your experience?
If sharing content I have purchased leads to my players spoiling an adventure then that certainly has an impact on my experience, both at the table and of this product.
Hey there,
I'm currently a DM for a campign that draws heavily on some of the adventures. As such I've shared all my content but blocked the relevant content.
Other that past 6 months 2 of my players have wanted to DM their own campaigns with me as a player; They asked if I could share content and as ive got a DM subscription and own all the books... I agreed.
I went into both of the new campaigns to control the content that i shared and have discovered that I can't control it. Frankly that seems a bit odd... its my content, that i purchased. I should be allowed to control what I share and with whom. It shouldnt be an all or nothing stance. So I'm very confused by the automated option to allow the DM, who in this instance dont own any content whatsoever, be incharge of whats being shared.
The slight problem I have now is that in the two campaigns I've shared with... stuff from my campaign is now turning up in compendium searches accidentally. So im at the point where im considering just unsharing my content with the other 2 cmapaigns, to maintain fidelty of my primary campaign.
Is their anything in the line to help fix this?
The objective is to allow the DM, who might be running an adventure, to prevent players from accidentally (or intentionally) accessing the adventure and spoiling things.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
And keep in mind that when content sharing is turned on content owned by any member of the campaign is shared, not just content owned by the person with the master tier. I do think, though, that it would be nice if those who own material could choose what of their content was shared.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
dont't be greedy.
Polish wizard from Italy (Central Europe Time - GMT+1).
Im well aware of its purpose.
I'm also well aware of how the function works. However as someone running the initial campaign and as the only person in my group that A) has a subscription and B) has bought any books. Then I do feel fundamentally what I choose to share, as the actual purchaser... should be down to me, and not those who dont own any of the content. If people want to access the content, then theyre free to purchase it.
I'm happy to have it two tiered: in that I choose initally what im happy to share and then the DM can choose from that what they want to have... but beyond that it literally makes no sense to block the people who pay for the content, from controlling what they wish to share.
If were using a real world parallel; if i bought all the books... it would be up to me what books to share with the other people at the table.
Like fundamentally it's content ive purchased, so really their is no logical foundation for me not having complete agency on what i wish to share and what I dont.
To comment on your real world example; sharing books in real life is a zero-sum game. I cannot borrow your book without you not losing access to it while I borrow it. Hence it being completely reasonable that you, as the owner of the book, would want to control what books you share and when.
This parallel does not exist with digital books shared on D&D Beyond; you can share your book and still access it. You can share your books with up to 36 other people simultaneously with no negative impact on yourself. It's very much not a zero-sum setup.
Which leads me into a genuine question; what is to be gained by choosing to no share some of your books outside of wanting to prevent access that might spoil an adventure? What's the benefit or improved user experience that comes from being able to control what books you do and do not share from your collection if sharing them has no impact on your experience? Please believe me that I'm not trying to be snide or condescending, just genuinely curious. You say there's "no logical foundation" for not being able to have granular control of what content you share. I honestly can't see a reason to not share anything if you're in a campaign with content sharing enabled if there's no downside to you in doing so.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Actually, if others can use their subscriptions to allow content sharing of your content (like it is now) you can theoretically share with an infinite number of people simultaneously since that is the character limit for even a hero tier sub.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My point is that their is a downside; I know the people I'm playing with arent the type to purchase content. (thats totally fine, its not judgement). I'm also aware that every book can be found for free online... so if someone wanted to ruin an adventure for themselves they totally could.
However I've plotted my campaign and aventures quite far ahead... so I know which adventures (around my homebrew) might arise and where. I took care to turn off sharing of this content when we started, because i didnt want people, monsters, equipment and maps.... accidentally turnin up in my players searches and accidentally spoiling that content for people.
I've now entered into 2 other campaigns with the same people, but this time with different people as DM. I joined thinking "well ill just turn off the the same content and then that stops people accidentally stumbling over relevant adventure details in advance"; however now I cant.... because even though its the content that I've purchased, my ability to manage the finite sharing of that content has been handed over to two other people. (which just seems a tad odd, as its not actually their content to share)
Let me try an example... in my campaign that im currently running, no one has identify yet. My party found a magic whistle that theyve yet to identify and its been leading to some fun and games, with them trying to work out what it does... while theyre also worried it might do something to them. Thats all been fine, as due tot eh adventure not being shared the item wasnt being shared with the party in compendium searches... so it just wasnt coming up. In one of the other campaigns im now playing... the DM was researching magical items to give the bard a magical item that were kinda musical but not really an instrument, so he was idly researching whistles and other such things on dnd beyond.
I then get a whisper saying "errrr i think i know what the whistle in our campaign does." and i was like "yay you worked it out?!" and he was like "nah, i just found it accidentally... whoops."
I know the other campaign that another pal is running, that hes accidentally reviewed one of the future adventures in my campaign world... as he was looking for an adventure for his campaign and he didnt realise that adventure was somethign i had placed in my worlds, which means i now have to switch out that adventure so that its not ruined for him.
The ability for me to just share everything except the adventures I personally was using.... helps all of us in my wee group of friends and as its literally my purchased content; it makes sense that fundamentally the first level of "what gets shared" should rest with the content owner, who actually paid for said content. I totally get that my players could go buy the books themselves, but then frankly its down to themselves to safeguard being exposed to potential spoilers... but as it stands, im the one thats bought the content and I'm the one that should have the ability to safeguard my players from accidentally tripping over it. Also frankly its just odd to let someone who isnt a paying customer, have complete control over the granular share options of something that they didnt purchase.
Just ask the DM to block it for you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I thought of that... but listing the adventures all in advance to him, feels anticlimatic. :(
This is such a non answer from a Moderator, it actually infuriates me.
The WHOLE point of the OP was that he did not want adventure modules he was using to be spoiled. Much like them, I also play in a small group of people. One DMs on one week, the other DMs on the next. When I add as a player, to another DMs campaign, the other players (who are ALSO players in my campaign) gain access to my adventure modules. Which can ultimately, as the OP said in a later comment, spoil certain aspects of the adventure.
This is a serious glitch on the part of DDB; as I should be able to limit what I share within campaigns I DM OR play in. It is not being greedy, and it is not over a concern of "zero-sum". It is about maintaining the curtain between the fantasy we are working to create and the mechanics behind it. Which is a foundation of Dungeons & Dragons to start with.
I mean, come on. Sure, you can ask your DM to "unshare" on your behalf. But if that DM is a bit of a meta-gamer; they may imminently take a peek while doing so.
This is certainly something that needs be fixed.
Two things:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
1. Well regardless; still a non-answer. If not a moderator then, a moderator now, so previous posts will reflect. You could read from in the OP post what they were getting at. Limited sharing of resources that are important to your current on-going campaign. If Davedamon was or was not a moderator; it doesn't change the fact that the main point was missed.
2. Everyone will meta-game to a degree. It is not a case of "sucking" (again, a bit of an aspersion, if I do say; as I never said they sucked) rather more-so in the vein of what the OP DID get at. Items/creatures/details become available for the other DM to utilize and they stand a chance to stumble upon the thing that you may have used as a foundation of what you were working on. At that point, a piece of your mystery is gone.
There is little reason why you should not be able to manage your shared content; either as DM OR player. "Zero-sum" or not.
I'm running into this exact problem and am looking for workarounds. If I suspend my subscription, does that prevent my content from being shared even if content sharing is enabled by someone else? Or is all content shared even from people without active subs?
I'm about to buy an adventure module to run for my group, but I'm changing things around in such a way that they won't know what adventure they're in. I'm reluctant to buy it out of concern that it'll just suddenly appear in all the compendiums of my friends in existing campaigns. They're basically all DMs and will paw through any new material they find.
So it's either ruin the surprise or buy the module elsewhere, unless canceling my sub for now will do the trick.
Thanks!
Canceling your subscription will not do the trick. When content sharing is turned on in a campaign, all content owned by anyone in the campaign is shared. The DM can turn off compendium access for specific books, but the DM themself still has compendium access, as do the "owner" of the source that has been turned off.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
Ok, thanks for the concise answer. I'll go ahead and get the module elsewhere.
Honestly it still totally boggles my mind that anyone is arguing "you shouldnt have the right to control access to the stuff YOU buy". It's clearly an issue and once again i have players stumbling over content i really dont want them to stumble over.
This isnt my players being shitty... this is content appearing in the compendium that they have access to, BECAUSE of me.
If they wanted to ruin the adventure for themselves, thats up to them... but them accidentally stumbling over things is meaning im having to do alot of work to change stuff.
It's very annoying and people saying "ask the DM to turn it off" or "its not a zero sum game...", miss the simple point of I shouldnt bloody have to do any of those things. As its content that I've bought and i dont want to list all the adventures in advance to people, as its naff and kills the mystique of the narrative im building.
Just give those who bought the content, ownership of what to share.... its really by far the most obvious thing to do.
I couldn't agree more with everything you've posted here Atieno. This is also an issue I have with the way content sharing has been enabled on the site and has recently led me to the conclusion that until this is addressed I am better off not buying published adventure content that I intend to run via D&D Beyond. Thankfully the homebrew tools allow me to recreate the monsters and magic items from the adventure, which can be kept out of my homebrew collection to prevent sharing.
If sharing content I have purchased leads to my players spoiling an adventure then that certainly has an impact on my experience, both at the table and of this product.
i can't figure out how to turn on content sharing........ smh
Do you have a Master Tier Subscription?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting