It looks like it has been an item requested for a while, but there have been higher priorities. Not that this isn’t important, I think they just have other things weighted more heavily on the fix schedule.
I'm resurrecting this thread, because its been over a year since the feedback thread was closed and we still don't have this functionality. I'd like to hear what the ETA is on this to be implemented. Adding this should not be a huge lift the the dev team, so I'm puzzled why this hasn't been added yet.
Adding this would take a single engineer a few days at most, so I don't see what the hold up is.
If only this was true! Unfortunately you have massively underestimated the complexity and scope of the changes required.
Every single data element (spells, monsters, races etc) is sourced to one (or more) source books, so the whole system has to flow through that and every component of the site has to check sharing before understanding what it is allowed to show.
Additionally, people will almost certainly want to vary what content is shared by campaign, such as disallowing SCAG in an Eberron game, but disallowing WGtE in a Forgotten Realms game.
The campaign management wish list thread has shaped much of how campaigns will be, but there was other work that needed to be prioritised and completed first.
I would love it, as would the product team, if D&D Beyond was far more advanced than it is now, had more of those features. I can't prove it to you, but whilst it seems at times like the development team are taking forever to deliver changes, they're working really hard to make this the best D&D digital reference & toolset.
I'm not saying, "It's fine - just deal with it" - I agree with you that it's something that is very much needed and in fact it needs to do more than what you're asking for, as the granular sharing model implemented will pave the way for other cool things in the future.
The whole team here at D&D Beyond want to make these changes, to deliver a better product, so all I am asking is for patience, as we'll get there and it will be awesome when we do. :)
I'm resurrecting this thread, because its been over a year since the feedback thread was closed and we still don't have this functionality. Its honestly ridiculous and I'd like to hear what the ETA is on this to be implemented, as I likely will not continue with my Master subscription until it is fixed. Adding this would take a single engineer a few days at most, so I don't see what the hold up is.
Yes, it has been a year and no, there is not a published ETA. When it is ready for implementation, it will be announced via forum post and/or developer stream. Unfortunately, there is a list of priorities and these items are being worked through as a planned process.
I certainly can understand if you feel that things should be done differently or at a different pace. I would have encouraged you to apply with Curse to do exactly that:
What is it you don't want them to see? How is your game being run?
Many DMs have worries about their players reading ahead in he adventure modules to metagame the plot or spoil surprises. It's completely understandable the desire to hide this content and only offer maps/information when you're ready for them to know. It has been a highly requested feature and will be addressed soon.
I can see where that might be a problem. You'd have to jump through extra hoops if your game was online, and/or have total faith in your players. If it's face to face, it's not so bad. Everybody can run off their own browser page or printed paper.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Adding this would take a single engineer a few days at most, so I don't see what the hold up is.
If only this was true! Unfortunately you have massively underestimated the complexity and scope of the changes required.
Every single data element (spells, monsters, races etc) is sourced to one (or more) source books, so the whole system has to flow through that and every component of the site has to check sharing before understanding what it is allowed to show.
Additionally, people will almost certainly want to vary what content is shared by campaign, such as disallowing SCAG in an Eberron game, but disallowing WGtE in a Forgotten Realms game.
The campaign management wish list thread has shaped much of how campaigns will be, but there was other work that needed to be prioritised and completed first.
I would love it, as would the product team, if D&D Beyond was far more advanced than it is now, had more of those features. I can't prove it to you, but whilst it seems at times like the development team are taking forever to deliver changes, they're working really hard to make this the best D&D digital reference & toolset.
I'm not saying, "It's fine - just deal with it" - I agree with you that it's something that is very much needed and in fact it needs to do more than what you're asking for, as the granular sharing model implemented will pave the way for other cool things in the future.
The whole team here at D&D Beyond want to make these changes, to deliver a better product, so all I am asking is for patience, as we'll get there and it will be awesome when we do. :)
Thank you for the detailed response. It is much appreciated. I see that your team is being very ambitious with the level of detail in what can and cannot be shared, so the time required to implement this makes sense. I think you should consider a simpler solution in the interim that just groups the content by book and let’s users share or not share the content by book. It’s not as elegant as your final vision, but would still satisfy the more basic needs that some users out there have.
i thought this was a feature now but I cannot find a way to manage which content the players can see.
I believe this is something on the backlog still.
Thanks. I could have sworn this was rolled out already.
The last I can see is that it made it here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/d-d-beyond-feedback/6393-campaign-management-features-wish-list
There was a rather fun thread on this: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/6881-selective-content-sharing#c1
It looks like it has been an item requested for a while, but there have been higher priorities. Not that this isn’t important, I think they just have other things weighted more heavily on the fix schedule.
I'm resurrecting this thread, because its been over a year since the feedback thread was closed and we still don't have this functionality. I'd like to hear what the ETA is on this to be implemented. Adding this should not be a huge lift the the dev team, so I'm puzzled why this hasn't been added yet.
If only this was true! Unfortunately you have massively underestimated the complexity and scope of the changes required.
Every single data element (spells, monsters, races etc) is sourced to one (or more) source books, so the whole system has to flow through that and every component of the site has to check sharing before understanding what it is allowed to show.
Additionally, people will almost certainly want to vary what content is shared by campaign, such as disallowing SCAG in an Eberron game, but disallowing WGtE in a Forgotten Realms game.
The campaign management wish list thread has shaped much of how campaigns will be, but there was other work that needed to be prioritised and completed first.
I would love it, as would the product team, if D&D Beyond was far more advanced than it is now, had more of those features. I can't prove it to you, but whilst it seems at times like the development team are taking forever to deliver changes, they're working really hard to make this the best D&D digital reference & toolset.
I'm not saying, "It's fine - just deal with it" - I agree with you that it's something that is very much needed and in fact it needs to do more than what you're asking for, as the granular sharing model implemented will pave the way for other cool things in the future.
The whole team here at D&D Beyond want to make these changes, to deliver a better product, so all I am asking is for patience, as we'll get there and it will be awesome when we do. :)
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Yes, it has been a year and no, there is not a published ETA. When it is ready for implementation, it will be announced via forum post and/or developer stream. Unfortunately, there is a list of priorities and these items are being worked through as a planned process.
I certainly can understand if you feel that things should be done differently or at a different pace. I would have encouraged you to apply with Curse to do exactly that:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/61-adventure-awaits-curse-is-hiring
What is it you don't want them to see? How is your game being run?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Many DMs have worries about their players reading ahead in he adventure modules to metagame the plot or spoil surprises. It's completely understandable the desire to hide this content and only offer maps/information when you're ready for them to know. It has been a highly requested feature and will be addressed soon.
I can see where that might be a problem. You'd have to jump through extra hoops if your game was online, and/or have total faith in your players. If it's face to face, it's not so bad. Everybody can run off their own browser page or printed paper.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Thank you for the detailed response. It is much appreciated. I see that your team is being very ambitious with the level of detail in what can and cannot be shared, so the time required to implement this makes sense. I think you should consider a simpler solution in the interim that just groups the content by book and let’s users share or not share the content by book. It’s not as elegant as your final vision, but would still satisfy the more basic needs that some users out there have.