I posted about this last year as well, and I wanted to post about it again to reiterate the need. At least we're not still telling people "don't you trust your players, you jerk?" as was the trend back in 2017. The Cyber Monday sale is not enticing given the lack of sharing preferences and it sucks. I want to give you money and you won't prioritizing accommodation for something that is clearly holding back many large purchasers. Not a "nice to have" for people already using the service (likely for free) but something that many, many DMs have asked for since launch. We're the people buying all the content in soft and hard format - give me a release date so I can give you more $$$.
I feel just the same way. I skipped purchasing the Legendary Bundle in the Cyber Monday deal today with the only roadblock being the lack of content sharing control.
I posted about this last year as well, and I wanted to post about it again to reiterate the need. At least we're not still telling people "don't you trust your players, you jerk?" as was the trend back in 2017. The Cyber Monday sale is not enticing given the lack of sharing preferences and it sucks. I want to give you money and you won't prioritizing accommodation for something that is clearly holding back many large purchasers. Not a "nice to have" for people already using the service (likely for free) but something that many, many DMs have asked for since launch. We're the people buying all the content in soft and hard format - give me a release date so I can give you more $$$.
Is it really such a common problem that you can't just tell your players "hey, don't look at the adventures, that's gonna spoil things"? I'm not trying to be glib or flippant, it's just I've been using beyond since it came out and had the Legendary bundle a while and not had any kind of problems with content sharing across several groups. I just tell my players that if they look at content ahead of times, that's cheating.
I went ahead and bought the adventure, but I'm homebrewing quite a bit on top of the campaign as written. I will use it for some of the unique items they find as well as for my own table management. Ideally I would disable sharing of that particular source, though, so I agree with the ask and the need.
I've already purchased and my group has made characters. It wasn't until then (when I had players present to check) that I found out. I trust them enough, but if we were to invite anyone I wasn't sure of, I'd like the option.
Also a log of character sheet edits would be nice... But I'm guessing that's for another thread.
I posted about this last year as well, and I wanted to post about it again to reiterate the need. At least we're not still telling people "don't you trust your players, you jerk?" as was the trend back in 2017. The Cyber Monday sale is not enticing given the lack of sharing preferences and it sucks. I want to give you money and you won't prioritizing accommodation for something that is clearly holding back many large purchasers. Not a "nice to have" for people already using the service (likely for free) but something that many, many DMs have asked for since launch. We're the people buying all the content in soft and hard format - give me a release date so I can give you more $$$.
Is it really such a common problem that you can't just tell your players "hey, don't look at the adventures, that's gonna spoil things"? I'm not trying to be glib or flippant, it's just I've been using beyond since it came out and had the Legendary bundle a while and not had any kind of problems with content sharing across several groups. I just tell my players that if they look at content ahead of times, that's cheating.
You can just ask/tell/trust the players, but it's not just about the adventures, what if you want to block access to specific resource books etc? to ensure that specific things aren't used that could upset the setting and feeling you are trying to achieve.
Security on sharing would allow you to do this and remove the task of having to check every PC sheet for compliance, and removing workload from DMs is pretty much a huge plus for DnDBeyond.
I've been waiting for this too. Unfortunately, I suspect this feature isn't as straight forward as we think. For example, what if the player owns content that the DM excludes from the campaign? Does their data model allow for that? How granular do they want to make it? Do they follow the Individual Purchase Options model they use in the Marketplace (i.e. can the DM release all of the magic items for an adventure or release on an item-by-item basis?).
I simply want the ability to say I'm sharing or not sharing a book I purchased with my campaign. That would cover everything I was looking for within the post I made which started this conversation.
As it stands now, if I want to share any resources with my campaign I have to share everything. I want to share the Players Handbook, but not Tomb of Annihilation (which I'm currently running). If I were sitting at a table, it would be ridiculous to assume that I have to hand over everything I own for them to see my Players Handbook just because they are in my campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Writer, rambler, podcaster & RPG guy who devours comics & builds worlds for fun!
Podcast Co-Host / Co-Creator The Charlie Tonic Hour CharlieTonic.com
I suppose they are torn on how to implement it. Do they let owners pick and choose content to share at a 'book' level? Atomic level (individual purchase options)(Chapters)? Would sharing be different from campaign to campaign? User to user (e.g. I have a club - I might share more to the DM's than with the players)?
I suspect MOST of OUR concerns would be resolved if:
content was simply tagged as 'player' versus 'DM' and shared accordingly
For me it would be as simple as when you select "content sharing" in a campaign, there is two options:
Share all.
Share selective.
If you pick share selective, you are presented with a list of all purchased content, and you can check box next to it if you want to enable that piece of content to be shared. I trust my players, for the most part, but I just want the ability to take away the temptation to peek at the adventures.
I first posted here six months ago and in that time I have become very active on Roll20. I find it interesting that Roll20 has a similar issue, but not quite as severe. A Roll20 user can elect to share their purchased "Compendium" content which includes things like the PHB, Xanathar's, etc. as well as the various monster manuals (MM, Volo's, Mordenkainen's). Adventure modules, however, are notclassified as Compendium content so by default they are always excluded from sharing. So just like D&D Beyond, it is an all-or-nothing choice: share everything or nothing. But unlike D&D Beyond, the adventure modules are never shared regardless of what the user elects to do.
I'm not trying to make a point here, I simply found it interesting that another major D&D content provider is coping with the same issue and has decided to handle it in a slightly different (but not necessarily ideal) way.
If I had my druthers, I would divide all purchased content into three categories: (1) Rules compendiums; (2) Bestiaries (monster manuals); and, (3) Adventure modules. Then I would offer the user three check boxes to select which, if any, of the three content types they want to share. Not a perfect solution, maybe, but a huge improvement, I think, over the current all-or-nothing approach. If offered that choice, I would choose to share (1) but not (2) or (3) unless there was a really good reason to.
I don't think it's quite that easy. Most adventure modules add items, backgrounds, and feats which would then be inaccessible to players if it were all or nothing. It would have to be truly selective which is probably quite a bit of work. The only workaround would be to reproduce all of that content yourself in homebrew and share that which would... really stink. That would be a lot of extra work.
I've been bemoaning the lack of this functionality since May (when I first started to create campaigns and share content), and while it's not here yet, I did just finish watching the most recent Dev Update and, at the 57:15 mark, Adam said (roughly) the following:
"We've got content management that's upcoming, and, the first phase of this is whitelisting and blacklisting sources at the campaign level."
"And technically this one is "in progress," especially from a conceptualizing standpoint. I could have shown the mocks -- much more hi-fidelity mocks -- of the content management right now, because we actually have hi-fidelity mocks for that, and we're going to get into that right when we come back from holiday break."
I can't say I know exactly what that means, but it's good to hear this sounds like it's getting close.
This, sadly, will still be a while. In the latest Dev Update, at the 37.25 mark, Adam claims they're close to be ready for development, but their development teams are busy on current in-progress objectives (which I thought this was one of, but apparently isn't). :(
This is something I'm really looking forward to, as well. I would really like fine-grained control. For example, don't share anything from the adventure by default. But specifically toggle, say, a particular magic item to be shared when the PCs discover it.
At this point i would be happy with a very basic Share only rulebooks option. They already divide the compendium tab into rulebooks and adventures. I don’t code myself, but it seems strange that it would take so much effort to do this. Seems like low-hanging fruit.
At this point i would be happy with a very basic Share only rulebooks option. They already divide the compendium tab into rulebooks and adventures. I don’t code myself, but it seems strange that it would take so much effort to do this. Seems like low-hanging fruit.
My assumption is that that's a band-aid compared to what their planning, and they'd rather not do that it since it could just cause more bugs or display issues in the meantime, and they're giving it a bigger overhaul anyway. So, I have no doubt it'd be (relatively) easy to do, but there are probably good reasons to just wait until the whole thing is done.
At least we're not still telling people "don't you trust your players, you jerk?" as was the trend back in 2017.
Just because nobody is continuing to argue it, doesn't make the argument invalid. I would never game with anyone whom I didn't implicitly trust to not cheat. I honestly don't know why anyone else would.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel just the same way. I skipped purchasing the Legendary Bundle in the Cyber Monday deal today with the only roadblock being the lack of content sharing control.
Is it really such a common problem that you can't just tell your players "hey, don't look at the adventures, that's gonna spoil things"? I'm not trying to be glib or flippant, it's just I've been using beyond since it came out and had the Legendary bundle a while and not had any kind of problems with content sharing across several groups. I just tell my players that if they look at content ahead of times, that's cheating.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
I went ahead and bought the adventure, but I'm homebrewing quite a bit on top of the campaign as written. I will use it for some of the unique items they find as well as for my own table management. Ideally I would disable sharing of that particular source, though, so I agree with the ask and the need.
I've already purchased and my group has made characters. It wasn't until then (when I had players present to check) that I found out. I trust them enough, but if we were to invite anyone I wasn't sure of, I'd like the option.
Also a log of character sheet edits would be nice... But I'm guessing that's for another thread.
You can just ask/tell/trust the players, but it's not just about the adventures, what if you want to block access to specific resource books etc? to ensure that specific things aren't used that could upset the setting and feeling you are trying to achieve.
Security on sharing would allow you to do this and remove the task of having to check every PC sheet for compliance, and removing workload from DMs is pretty much a huge plus for DnDBeyond.
It also adds a lot of clutter for new players.
I've been waiting for this too. Unfortunately, I suspect this feature isn't as straight forward as we think. For example, what if the player owns content that the DM excludes from the campaign? Does their data model allow for that? How granular do they want to make it? Do they follow the Individual Purchase Options model they use in the Marketplace (i.e. can the DM release all of the magic items for an adventure or release on an item-by-item basis?).
I simply want the ability to say I'm sharing or not sharing a book I purchased with my campaign. That would cover everything I was looking for within the post I made which started this conversation.
As it stands now, if I want to share any resources with my campaign I have to share everything. I want to share the Players Handbook, but not Tomb of Annihilation (which I'm currently running). If I were sitting at a table, it would be ridiculous to assume that I have to hand over everything I own for them to see my Players Handbook just because they are in my campaign.
Writer, rambler, podcaster & RPG guy who devours comics & builds worlds for fun!
Podcast Co-Host / Co-Creator
The Charlie Tonic Hour
CharlieTonic.com
I suppose they are torn on how to implement it. Do they let owners pick and choose content to share at a 'book' level? Atomic level (individual purchase options)(Chapters)? Would sharing be different from campaign to campaign? User to user (e.g. I have a club - I might share more to the DM's than with the players)?
I suspect MOST of OUR concerns would be resolved if:
For me it would be as simple as when you select "content sharing" in a campaign, there is two options:
If you pick share selective, you are presented with a list of all purchased content, and you can check box next to it if you want to enable that piece of content to be shared. I trust my players, for the most part, but I just want the ability to take away the temptation to peek at the adventures.
I first posted here six months ago and in that time I have become very active on Roll20. I find it interesting that Roll20 has a similar issue, but not quite as severe. A Roll20 user can elect to share their purchased "Compendium" content which includes things like the PHB, Xanathar's, etc. as well as the various monster manuals (MM, Volo's, Mordenkainen's). Adventure modules, however, are not classified as Compendium content so by default they are always excluded from sharing. So just like D&D Beyond, it is an all-or-nothing choice: share everything or nothing. But unlike D&D Beyond, the adventure modules are never shared regardless of what the user elects to do.
I'm not trying to make a point here, I simply found it interesting that another major D&D content provider is coping with the same issue and has decided to handle it in a slightly different (but not necessarily ideal) way.
If I had my druthers, I would divide all purchased content into three categories: (1) Rules compendiums; (2) Bestiaries (monster manuals); and, (3) Adventure modules. Then I would offer the user three check boxes to select which, if any, of the three content types they want to share. Not a perfect solution, maybe, but a huge improvement, I think, over the current all-or-nothing approach. If offered that choice, I would choose to share (1) but not (2) or (3) unless there was a really good reason to.
I don't think it's quite that easy. Most adventure modules add items, backgrounds, and feats which would then be inaccessible to players if it were all or nothing. It would have to be truly selective which is probably quite a bit of work. The only workaround would be to reproduce all of that content yourself in homebrew and share that which would... really stink. That would be a lot of extra work.
Or create a second subscription account with Player-only stuff and share from there? Seems to come out to about $100 US + subscription cost ...
ref: https://flic.kr/p/2dqpjR8
I've been bemoaning the lack of this functionality since May (when I first started to create campaigns and share content), and while it's not here yet, I did just finish watching the most recent Dev Update and, at the 57:15 mark, Adam said (roughly) the following:
"We've got content management that's upcoming, and, the first phase of this is whitelisting and blacklisting sources at the campaign level."
"And technically this one is "in progress," especially from a conceptualizing standpoint. I could have shown the mocks -- much more hi-fidelity mocks -- of the content management right now, because we actually have hi-fidelity mocks for that, and we're going to get into that right when we come back from holiday break."
I can't say I know exactly what that means, but it's good to hear this sounds like it's getting close.
P.S. The Encounter Builder, which is what led off the 'short term' discussion (@45:41 mark) looks pretty cool. :)
This, sadly, will still be a while. In the latest Dev Update, at the 37.25 mark, Adam claims they're close to be ready for development, but their development teams are busy on current in-progress objectives (which I thought this was one of, but apparently isn't). :(
This is something I'm really looking forward to, as well. I would really like fine-grained control. For example, don't share anything from the adventure by default. But specifically toggle, say, a particular magic item to be shared when the PCs discover it.
At this point i would be happy with a very basic Share only rulebooks option. They already divide the compendium tab into rulebooks and adventures. I don’t code myself, but it seems strange that it would take so much effort to do this. Seems like low-hanging fruit.
My assumption is that that's a band-aid compared to what their planning, and they'd rather not do that it since it could just cause more bugs or display issues in the meantime, and they're giving it a bigger overhaul anyway. So, I have no doubt it'd be (relatively) easy to do, but there are probably good reasons to just wait until the whole thing is done.
Just because nobody is continuing to argue it, doesn't make the argument invalid. I would never game with anyone whom I didn't implicitly trust to not cheat. I honestly don't know why anyone else would.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.