As a DM with Master Tier Sub and many sourcebooks, I'm so disappointed to just find out that I'm limited to 5 campaigns for content sharing. I am setting up to run 4 weekly campaigns. I also run one-shots/limited-run-shots for new possible players and to mix it up for my diehard committed players. I mainly buy the sourcebooks as digital books specifically to provide my players more fun playable options.
Is this content sharing limit of 5 campaigns new?
Is there ANY work-around to this limit, or way to increase it to say, 9 or 10?
Will toggling content sharing on and off mess up my players' character builds?
Why not give DMs (who are already DnD's best unpaid marketing team) more opportunities to share the gameplay, under the very cultivated and secure setting that is this website and specific campaign groups??We are already committing to and locked into this platform for gameplay.
If this limit is set up to avoid free open-access sharing of sourcebooks and adventure module content to people not buying the books, maybe add the ability for DMs to share Character build options without limit, and limit access to the adventures and sourcebook literature? We can already purchase parts of a book (specific races and monsters), so sharing limited parts of content with a campaign seems feasible.
EDIT: In hindsight, I wish I had come across with a more positive strength-based topic title. Calling something short-sighted, without really reading up on the history of it, is not OK. I absolutely recognize that this is a business, and I do not fault DDB for limiting access to their digital products.
If you posted a reply already, I really sincerely appreciate you taking the time and effort to bring me up to speed on the history and nuances of digital DMing. I am very excited and glad to be a part of this gaming community
Check your campaigns see if you have a player that has a master account if so see if 6hey can turn on content sharing then that campaign can use their account to share and your books.
It used to be limited to three campaigns, the 5 was given to DMs because of the increase in online gaming via Covid, and fortunately it seems it'll be here to stay (though I don't know if there's an official declaration of that).
Giving 55 players access to one player's content is pretty generous from a business standpoint, and DnD Beyond is a business.
Are you running 4 campaigns with 12 players each? You can consolidate them. I think under the 5 campaign limit, you could actually fit at least 9 or 10 real campaigns within your array of D&D Beyond campaigns.
This is not an infrequent question, but it doesn't seem like we can expect more generous terms from DDB than what we already got.
If you had unlimited campaigns, you could easily buy one Legendary Bundle and then for $6 a month, share that content with 100 people. For an initial outlay of $9 plus a yearly bill of $0.72 each, they get nearly a thousand dollars of content and DDB loses $100k.
Seems a little one sided, does it not?
For comparison, under current rules, you're limited to 60 players with an initial outlay of $15 and a yearly bill of $1.20 each, and DDB loses $60k. It's still pretty generous. It should be noted that the vast majority of people do not run 6 campaigns simultaneously. In fact, I'm not sure there are a significant number of people who do if you exclude those who are doing it to earn money.
If I was in the situation where I was running 6 campaigns, I'd consider doing it honestly and get a second account with the content and sub. Assuming there are 5 of you per campaign plus DM, then that's 31 people. Get the PHB, XGtE, TCoE, MotM and whatever adventure you're getting. $150, but $300 because you want two accounts. We'll assume that your contribution is DMing, that's $10 initial outlay plus $0.40 per month per person, and they get access to 4 sourcebooks plus the adventure.
That's still a really good deal and your conscience is clean.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
While the number of people you can share with is high for sure, and probably shouldn't increase for business purposes, it seems a little awkward that you need to squeeze characters form potentially multiple campaigns into the same ddb campaign.
If you like to maintain an overview and quickly look up a sheet during sessions, it might be nicer and cleaner to be able to have e.g. 8 campaign with a cap of 8 people per campaign rather than 5 campaigns with up to 12 people (I don't know about you - but I really wouldn't want to run a 12 person campaign! 7 was enough for me for a while :) )
Alternatively, if it was possible to simple set a player cap on content sharing, and then create campaigns that contains up to that cap, you could accommodate different play styles and group sizes.
I know development takes time, but number of campaigns seems like an odd place to put in the limit rather than on the player level - to me at least.
To be honest, the number of campaigns is what concerns DDB. The idea isn't "share your content with up to 60 players", it's "share your content with your party so everyone is on the same page".
Campaigns are set to twelve because you can have particularly large parties and it's all but unworkable to have a party split across campaigns. Much more than twelve...I highly doubt there are many parties genuinely larger than that for reasons already discussed in the thread.
It's 5 campaigns because that's a reasonable number. That's already 20 hours of D&D. You are at the point where it's reasonable to ask that you use two accounts - it works out about $10 per head.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Following up on expanded sharing, I know I've seen special considerations for things like school DnD clubs in the past. Not sure where to look up info to see if your situation would be eligible for something like that.
@MidnightPlat, I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I am definitely not running large groups, except for one after school group of 9, but that’ll be offline. If I can figure out how to consolidate, that could leave me a room for dedicating one or two DDB campaigns for my limited run, and/or one shots. Ultimately, I just wanna be able to “yes, and” any player who wants to build crazy unique PC builds within DDB for my games. (I don’t even share my adventure modules, because I get nervous that somebody might read ahead🤪)
With the idea of consolidating my 2 of my weekly campaigns (with less than 12 combined) under 1 DDB campaign, will that probably involve toggling characters on and off each session when trying to build encounters?
You seem to have read up on this, or have had similar experiences. Any insight into hurdles I might come across combining 2 campaigns under 1 DDB campaign?
In hindsight, I wish I had come across with a more positive strength-based topic title. Calling something short-sighted, without really reading up on the history of it, is not OK.
I absolutely recognize that this is a business, and I do not fault DDB for limiting access to their digital products. As a newer DM, I guess I’m coming out this from a place of considering what it would be like if I had all physical versions, and sat down with players. I wouldn’t expect them to buy the books. If I have the books, I would get excited to help them build the unique characters that I have access to.
Also, I am not a professional DM. I do not charge any of my players anything, except session snacks(they bring snacks for sharing). I am very much trying to introduce this amazing game to as many new people as possible. While in the far future, I might figure out ways to fund the games. For now, the game can be intimidating enough to new people that I am hesitant to try to charge people who may just want to try and see if they like it. I also play with a lot of people who do not have disposable income.
If you posted a reply already, I really sincerely appreciate you taking the time and effort to bring me up to speed on the history and nuances of digital DMing. I am very excited and glad to be a part of this gaming community
Just going to note that the DM doesn't have to be the one who gets the Master Tier Sub.
You could enable it on 5 campaigns.
Then a friend could enable it on another 5, even if you were the DM of those. So that's 10 campaigns for $12 a month ($6 by you, $6 from the friend).
Your 5 campaigns has a limit of 11 other players, including you. So that's 55 more people you get to share with. The average party size is 5, so that's essentially 11 games in a month. That's a lot.
Now remember that you, as DM, could just go in and add the premium stuff to a character sheet and it'll stay on there until removed - no sharing needed. They just want to add a subclass that not free? Go in and add it. Now they can be that subclass even as they level up to 20, with no sharing of any kind necessary.
Also note, you can enable and disable the content sharing as you want. So set up a rota so your players know which ones are enabled and when, and they know when they can edit their characters with shared freebies included. So even if you had 12 campaigns - you can enable sharing on the 5 most relevant, switching as needed.
It wouldn't even be hard to use the sharing system to share with over 100 people, if you really wanted.
The limits are more than fair and beyond generous (pun shamelessly intended).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
[…]Now remember that you, as DM, could just go in and add the premium stuff to a character sheet and it'll stay on there until removed - no sharing needed. They just want to add a subclass that not free? Go in and add it. Now they can be that subclass even as they level up to 20, with no sharing of any kind necessary.[…]
Just a note of.clarification on this - if I'm not mistaken, each time the premium subclass offers something new, the player will have to have the content shared again in order to gain that feature.
So for example, Bob picks the Drakewarden subclass for his Ranger from your Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. You disable content sharing again. When Bob's Ranger levels up to L7, you'll need to turn content sharing back on again so he can obtain the Bond of Fang and Scale subclass feature. Once that is done, the content sharing can be turned off again.
That's my understanding, anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
[…]Now remember that you, as DM, could just go in and add the premium stuff to a character sheet and it'll stay on there until removed - no sharing needed. They just want to add a subclass that not free? Go in and add it. Now they can be that subclass even as they level up to 20, with no sharing of any kind necessary.[…]
Just a note of.clarification on this - if I'm not mistaken, each time the premium subclass offers something new, the player will have to have the content shared again in order to gain that feature.
So for example, Bob picks the Drakewarden subclass for his Ranger from your Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. You disable content sharing again. When Bob's Ranger levels up to L7, you'll need to turn content sharing back on again so he can obtain the Bond of Fang and Scale subclass feature. Once that is done, the content sharing can be turned off again.
That's my understanding, anyway.
I recall that differently. So I did a test. Made campaign, did not enable sharing, made a level 3 drakewarden, copied join link. Signed into D&D Beyond in a different browser in my test account, which is not in any campaigns with sharing enabled, used join link, claimed the drakewarden and levelled it to 20. All subclass features were enabled and applied to character sheet.
So, bad news: You're wrong. Sorry. Good news: it's now easier to share stuff than you thought. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Fair enough, people were saying that's how it worked in other threads, I'm glad we're wrong about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Now remember that you, as DM, could just go in and add the premium stuff to a character sheet and it'll stay on there until removed - no sharing needed. They just want to add a subclass that not free? Go in and add it. Now they can be that subclass even as they level up to 20, with no sharing…
That will probably solve any of the problems I’ve been looking at with sharing character builds that I have purchased with my players in mind. Like I mentioned, I mainly by digital source books so that I have a huge variety of character ancestry, classes, and sub classes for them to choose from.
edit: Also, you all can see how much a noob I am in forums. No idea how to quote reply yet. XD
Would it be too much to ask if the 5/12 ratio could be flexible... so 10/6 for those of us that run more than 5 campaigns a week?
I will never have more than six players in one game and would love the option to have more than five tables with less players and still keep it at 60 sharable seats. No change in business model and I expose more new players to the game who become potential consumers/upgraders. Right now I have seven games as a DM and would like to be able to "host" all of them, should the player sharing content on two tables have to leave. If he leaves, two full tables end or go hard vanilla.
I read your edit and yeah, while I was disappointed at first, I learned to let it go. After all, I only got all these books because I wanted people who couldn’t afford them to be able to use it. Charity has its limits. In any case, deactivating content sharing doesn’t remove their “builds”
Yeah. At the very least there should be an option to pay for more and get more than five. I have players from two campaigns in one campaign...so that's another work around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a DM with Master Tier Sub and many sourcebooks, I'm so disappointed to just find out that I'm limited to 5 campaigns for content sharing. I am setting up to run 4 weekly campaigns. I also run one-shots/limited-run-shots for new possible players and to mix it up for my diehard committed players. I mainly buy the sourcebooks as digital books specifically to provide my players more fun playable options.
Is this content sharing limit of 5 campaigns new?
Is there ANY work-around to this limit, or way to increase it to say, 9 or 10?
Will toggling content sharing on and off mess up my players' character builds?
Why not give DMs (who are already DnD's best unpaid marketing team) more opportunities to share the gameplay, under the very cultivated and secure setting that is this website and specific campaign groups??We are already committing to and locked into this platform for gameplay.
If this limit is set up to avoid free open-access sharing of sourcebooks and adventure module content to people not buying the books, maybe add the ability for DMs to share Character build options without limit, and limit access to the adventures and sourcebook literature? We can already purchase parts of a book (specific races and monsters), so sharing limited parts of content with a campaign seems feasible.
EDIT: In hindsight, I wish I had come across with a more positive strength-based topic title. Calling something short-sighted, without really reading up on the history of it, is not OK. I absolutely recognize that this is a business, and I do not fault DDB for limiting access to their digital products.
If you posted a reply already, I really sincerely appreciate you taking the time and effort to bring me up to speed on the history and nuances of digital DMing. I am very excited and glad to be a part of this gaming community
Check your campaigns see if you have a player that has a master account if so see if 6hey can turn on content sharing then that campaign can use their account to share and your books.
Thank you for this workaround idea! I am pretty none of them do, but I will keep this in mind, if they fully sub the master tier.
It used to be limited to three campaigns, the 5 was given to DMs because of the increase in online gaming via Covid, and fortunately it seems it'll be here to stay (though I don't know if there's an official declaration of that).
Giving 55 players access to one player's content is pretty generous from a business standpoint, and DnD Beyond is a business.
Are you running 4 campaigns with 12 players each? You can consolidate them. I think under the 5 campaign limit, you could actually fit at least 9 or 10 real campaigns within your array of D&D Beyond campaigns.
This is not an infrequent question, but it doesn't seem like we can expect more generous terms from DDB than what we already got.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If you had unlimited campaigns, you could easily buy one Legendary Bundle and then for $6 a month, share that content with 100 people. For an initial outlay of $9 plus a yearly bill of $0.72 each, they get nearly a thousand dollars of content and DDB loses $100k.
Seems a little one sided, does it not?
For comparison, under current rules, you're limited to 60 players with an initial outlay of $15 and a yearly bill of $1.20 each, and DDB loses $60k. It's still pretty generous. It should be noted that the vast majority of people do not run 6 campaigns simultaneously. In fact, I'm not sure there are a significant number of people who do if you exclude those who are doing it to earn money.
If I was in the situation where I was running 6 campaigns, I'd consider doing it honestly and get a second account with the content and sub. Assuming there are 5 of you per campaign plus DM, then that's 31 people. Get the PHB, XGtE, TCoE, MotM and whatever adventure you're getting. $150, but $300 because you want two accounts. We'll assume that your contribution is DMing, that's $10 initial outlay plus $0.40 per month per person, and they get access to 4 sourcebooks plus the adventure.
That's still a really good deal and your conscience is clean.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
While the number of people you can share with is high for sure, and probably shouldn't increase for business purposes, it seems a little awkward that you need to squeeze characters form potentially multiple campaigns into the same ddb campaign.
If you like to maintain an overview and quickly look up a sheet during sessions, it might be nicer and cleaner to be able to have e.g. 8 campaign with a cap of 8 people per campaign rather than 5 campaigns with up to 12 people (I don't know about you - but I really wouldn't want to run a 12 person campaign! 7 was enough for me for a while :) )
Alternatively, if it was possible to simple set a player cap on content sharing, and then create campaigns that contains up to that cap, you could accommodate different play styles and group sizes.
I know development takes time, but number of campaigns seems like an odd place to put in the limit rather than on the player level - to me at least.
To be honest, the number of campaigns is what concerns DDB. The idea isn't "share your content with up to 60 players", it's "share your content with your party so everyone is on the same page".
Campaigns are set to twelve because you can have particularly large parties and it's all but unworkable to have a party split across campaigns. Much more than twelve...I highly doubt there are many parties genuinely larger than that for reasons already discussed in the thread.
It's 5 campaigns because that's a reasonable number. That's already 20 hours of D&D. You are at the point where it's reasonable to ask that you use two accounts - it works out about $10 per head.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Following up on expanded sharing, I know I've seen special considerations for things like school DnD clubs in the past. Not sure where to look up info to see if your situation would be eligible for something like that.
@MidnightPlat, I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I am definitely not running large groups, except for one after school group of 9, but that’ll be offline. If I can figure out how to consolidate, that could leave me a room for dedicating one or two DDB campaigns for my limited run, and/or one shots. Ultimately, I just wanna be able to “yes, and” any player who wants to build crazy unique PC builds within DDB for my games. (I don’t even share my adventure modules, because I get nervous that somebody might read ahead🤪)
With the idea of consolidating my 2 of my weekly campaigns (with less than 12 combined) under 1 DDB campaign, will that probably involve toggling characters on and off each session when trying to build encounters?
You seem to have read up on this, or have had similar experiences. Any insight into hurdles I might come across combining 2 campaigns under 1 DDB campaign?
Again, thanks for helping me with problem-solving
In hindsight, I wish I had come across with a more positive strength-based topic title. Calling something short-sighted, without really reading up on the history of it, is not OK.
I absolutely recognize that this is a business, and I do not fault DDB for limiting access to their digital products. As a newer DM, I guess I’m coming out this from a place of considering what it would be like if I had all physical versions, and sat down with players. I wouldn’t expect them to buy the books. If I have the books, I would get excited to help them build the unique characters that I have access to.
Also, I am not a professional DM. I do not charge any of my players anything, except session snacks(they bring snacks for sharing). I am very much trying to introduce this amazing game to as many new people as possible. While in the far future, I might figure out ways to fund the games. For now, the game can be intimidating enough to new people that I am hesitant to try to charge people who may just want to try and see if they like it. I also play with a lot of people who do not have disposable income.
If you posted a reply already, I really sincerely appreciate you taking the time and effort to bring me up to speed on the history and nuances of digital DMing. I am very excited and glad to be a part of this gaming community
Just going to note that the DM doesn't have to be the one who gets the Master Tier Sub.
You could enable it on 5 campaigns.
Then a friend could enable it on another 5, even if you were the DM of those. So that's 10 campaigns for $12 a month ($6 by you, $6 from the friend).
Your 5 campaigns has a limit of 11 other players, including you. So that's 55 more people you get to share with. The average party size is 5, so that's essentially 11 games in a month. That's a lot.
Now remember that you, as DM, could just go in and add the premium stuff to a character sheet and it'll stay on there until removed - no sharing needed. They just want to add a subclass that not free? Go in and add it. Now they can be that subclass even as they level up to 20, with no sharing of any kind necessary.
Also note, you can enable and disable the content sharing as you want. So set up a rota so your players know which ones are enabled and when, and they know when they can edit their characters with shared freebies included. So even if you had 12 campaigns - you can enable sharing on the 5 most relevant, switching as needed.
It wouldn't even be hard to use the sharing system to share with over 100 people, if you really wanted.
The limits are more than fair and beyond generous (pun shamelessly intended).
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Just a note of.clarification on this - if I'm not mistaken, each time the premium subclass offers something new, the player will have to have the content shared again in order to gain that feature.
So for example, Bob picks the Drakewarden subclass for his Ranger from your Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. You disable content sharing again. When Bob's Ranger levels up to L7, you'll need to turn content sharing back on again so he can obtain the Bond of Fang and Scale subclass feature. Once that is done, the content sharing can be turned off again.
That's my understanding, anyway.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I recall that differently. So I did a test. Made campaign, did not enable sharing, made a level 3 drakewarden, copied join link. Signed into D&D Beyond in a different browser in my test account, which is not in any campaigns with sharing enabled, used join link, claimed the drakewarden and levelled it to 20. All subclass features were enabled and applied to character sheet.
So, bad news: You're wrong. Sorry. Good news: it's now easier to share stuff than you thought. :)
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Fair enough, people were saying that's how it worked in other threads, I'm glad we're wrong about it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Thanks for this! I had no idea I could do that!!
That will probably solve any of the problems I’ve been looking at with sharing character builds that I have purchased with my players in mind. Like I mentioned, I mainly by digital source books so that I have a huge variety of character ancestry, classes, and sub classes for them to choose from.
edit: Also, you all can see how much a noob I am in forums. No idea how to quote reply yet. XD
All of your help and research has gone above and DnDBEYOND! Thank you sincerely.
Would it be too much to ask if the 5/12 ratio could be flexible... so 10/6 for those of us that run more than 5 campaigns a week?
I will never have more than six players in one game and would love the option to have more than five tables with less players and still keep it at 60 sharable seats. No change in business model and I expose more new players to the game who become potential consumers/upgraders. Right now I have seven games as a DM and would like to be able to "host" all of them, should the player sharing content on two tables have to leave. If he leaves, two full tables end or go hard vanilla.
Analog Storyteller in a Digital Age
I read your edit and yeah, while I was disappointed at first, I learned to let it go. After all, I only got all these books because I wanted people who couldn’t afford them to be able to use it. Charity has its limits. In any case, deactivating content sharing doesn’t remove their “builds”
Yeah. At the very least there should be an option to pay for more and get more than five. I have players from two campaigns in one campaign...so that's another work around.