I am about to start a campaign in which I am the DM. I would like to use DnD Beyond to manage my campaign, and allow my players to create characters using the content I purchase. I understand sharing my content in the campaign enables this, but I was wondering what is required from the player? Can they use a free account to access my content, or do they need a "Hero" subscription? I don't really want to make my players pay for anything because I want to use the online tool.
I know the conversation is going somewhere else, but I didn't want to create a new thread to ask my related question.
Someone needs a Master Tier subscription. Everyone else doesn't need anything.
Also, the one's on the free accounts need to have a character join a campaign from the Master Tier player/GM in order to see the new stuff afaik.
For the content sharing, the owner of the Master Tier can be a player as well. The DM (i.e. the creator of the campaign) does not need to have the Master Tier if a player has it.
Of course, the aforementioned player must enabled the content sharing.
Any new info on this over the last few months? This is my biggest question as well.
I haven't seen it worded like I would, though.
If, for instance, I bought the Curse of Strahd adventure, I would want my players to have access to the new backgrounds and things available to the players, but not to the adventure itself.
If you allow any of the content, it allows ALL the content, no matter what online book you purchase.
There is no limiting, or restricting. It is either ALL on or ALL off. And it matters not if it is a 'player' manual, 'DM' manual, or adventure.
It all is lumped under one heading. "Enable Content Sharing" or "Disable Content Sharing".
So I would recommend to wait, see post below (Quote from Matthias_V dated August 2017).... or buy, or do not. But realize, that pretty much only you are ever going to see the book, unless you are sitting with the player as they scroll through areas to ensure they 'are not tempted'.
I would love a feature that gave me control over which books I share within my campaign. I'm going to be starting a campaign soon and it's weird that I have to share the campaign book with them.
That's coming.
Any update on when?
I have an upcoming AL group that I wanted to give access through my Master Tier and the PHB, but I also have the ToA adventure, and there is no way I am sharing the content to both online books.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured, at least the way it works right now. My workaround for this will be to only unlock those parts of the books at the players should have access to, such as spells, new subclasses, and backgrounds. I'll have to keep the campaigns books in hardcover only.
I haven't seen this touched on, and I think I know the answer, but I wanted to be sure before myself and my players started purchasing.
If someone with a free account purchases official content (lets say Volo's Guide), and they are in a campaign with someone who is on the master tier, will Volo's Guide be shared with everyone in the campaign? I think the answer is no, since they themselves do not have the master tier, but wasn't sure.
We have the physical books, but are chipping in to buy the digital versions. I plan on getting the master tier, but was curious if I needed to buy all of the books, or if we could split them up.
I haven't seen this touched on, and I think I know the answer, but I wanted to be sure before myself and my players started purchasing.
If someone with a free account purchases official content (lets say Volo's Guide), and they are in a campaign with someone who is on the master tier, will Volo's Guide be shared with everyone in the campaign? I think the answer is no, since they themselves do not have the master tier, but wasn't sure.
We have the physical books, but are chipping in to buy the digital versions. I plan on getting the master tier, but was curious if I needed to buy all of the books, or if we could split them up.
Thanks for the help!
The answer to your question is yes. It is necessary only 1 Master Tier subscription to activate an "all-in" sharing. Everyone in that campaign, free accounts included, will be able to see and use all the content purchased by all the members of the campaign.
Yep its now May 2018 - any ideal if and when we can limit our sharing material? Like many others I have the bundle and I have not started the Adventures because I do not want the players to check out the scene before I let them. On a different note, I suspect there will be a representative for DnD Beyond at GEN-CON, someone in charge that we can bounce questions off of.
I see the problem with saying they cannot access the content prior to the campaign. What about just a setting, a check mark on a permissions page that says can use content from the book, but cannot read the book. What this would mean is that they have access to the Classes/Races/Items/Backgrounds/Spells and such, but cannot access the book to read so they could not see further than that, for instance, into any encounters that might be coming. Lets face it, if they want to cheat, and they cant click the read button on here, they're gonna look for a different source. This would however deter them from doing it the super easy way.
In the developer update, Badeye said that limiting the shared sources is on the short-term roadmap.
That is exciting and all, but reading through the many (many) threads requesting this feature, it seems this has been on their roadmap for at least nine months.
I love the tool, and have every intention of using it indefinitely, but progress it (e.g. content sharing, new character sheet, etc...) is painfully slow.
While the character sheet revamp is great, and understandably the feature or update most people are interested in and clamoring for, being able to blacklist purchased content is extremely important. (By the way, kudos to the team on how they're planning to manage this -- whitelisting everything by default, and allowing content owners the ability to pick and choose what content (e.g. adventures) they want to blacklist, or not share.)
I'm a little surprised the team didn't understand this to be the issue it is, or have it a lower priority, but good on them for re-prioritizing it.
Yes, the current character sheet is somewhat limited, but it is certainly functional. The current "all in" content sharing could almost be seen as a actual flaw in the application. Sure, the DM can just trust that their players won't abuse this, but what DM is going to want to run a group of players through a purchased adventure and be forced to fully share the details of that adventure with those very same players?
I think having the white/blacklisting of sources as a slightly lower priority than the revised character sheet is perfectly understandable and logic.
The character sheet is undoubtedly used by all users, while I personally would not really feel the need for the white/blacklisting feature, as I believe that anyone really interested in roleplaying would not go read the adventure beforehand (call me naive). I fully understand how it can be useful, and how there might be people demanding it, but it is a very subjective thing, I think.
For completeness: I am one of those who feel the current sheet is perfectly functional as it is, but it can most definitely be improved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I think having the white/blacklisting of sources as a slightly lower priority than the revised character sheet is perfectly understandable and logic.
That, actually, is exactly what I said.
While "all in" content sharing is closer to being a flaw, and perhaps more worthy of an issue to be addressed for that reason, I fully admit that the character sheet has to be their top project. This is not even something worth discussing/debating as it is a complete non-issue; the character sheet is coming out next, and everyone (myself included) is very excited about this.
So, the character sheet gets deployed, and resources are freed up to being working on other projects. Right? My surprise is, once that happens, that the content sharing issue, which has been known since at least August 2017), wasn't already considered a higher priority and needed to be reevaluated and have its priority bumped.
...I personally would not really feel the need for the white/blacklisting feature, as I believe that anyone really interested in roleplaying would not go read the adventure beforehand (call me naive).
With your permission, I'm calling you naive. ;) (I'm totally kidding, by the way.)
I know this isn't exactly what's happening, and there is a clunky solution for the problem (e.g. enable content sharing, allow the players to create their characters, disable content sharing, re-enable content sharing once the characters level up, repeat as necessary), but how the app/website is working is essentially the same thing as a DM picking an adventure to run for a group in a face-to-face game... and buying a copy of the module to hand out to each player before the game even begins. "Here, here is everything your character is going to be up against."
It doesn't make sense.
Will every player "cheat" and look ahead in the module while they're being run through it? No, I'd hope not. This would certainly be more difficult in a live, face-to-face game. However, in a play-by-post game, where there are lengthy delays between actions, there is ample opportunity for the player to take a quick peek at what's upcoming before deciding what their character is going to do next. Or to read the entire thing.
It's not right.
And, again, I will freely admit that not every player will do this, but that is not the point.
The point is, the DM should not be forced to share full details of the adventure they're running with the players they're running in it. It's that simple.
I think having the white/blacklisting of sources as a slightly lower priority than the revised character sheet is perfectly understandable and logic.
That, actually, is exactly what I said.
While "all in" content sharing is closer to being a flaw, and perhaps more worthy of an issue to be addressed for that reason, I fully admit that the character sheet has to be their top project. This is not even something worth discussing/debating as it is a complete non-issue; the character sheet is coming out next, and everyone (myself included) is very excited about this.
So, the character sheet gets deployed, and resources are freed up to being working on other projects. Right? My surprise is, once that happens, that the content sharing issue, which has been known since at least August 2017), wasn't already considered a higher priority and needed to be reevaluated and have its priority bumped.
...I personally would not really feel the need for the white/blacklisting feature, as I believe that anyone really interested in roleplaying would not go read the adventure beforehand (call me naive).
With your permission, I'm calling you naive. ;) (I'm totally kidding, by the way.)
I know this isn't exactly what's happening, and there is a clunky solution for the problem (e.g. enable content sharing, allow the players to create their characters, disable content sharing, re-enable content sharing once the characters level up, repeat as necessary), but how the app/website is working is essentially the same thing as a DM picking an adventure to run for a group in a face-to-face game... and buying a copy of the module to hand out to each player before the game even begins. "Here, here is everything your character is going to be up against."
It doesn't make sense.
Will every player "cheat" and look ahead in the module while they're being run through it? No, I'd hope not. This would certainly be more difficult in a live, face-to-face game. However, in a play-by-post game, where there are lengthy delays between actions, there is ample opportunity for the player to take a quick peek at what's upcoming before deciding what their character is going to do next. Or to read the entire thing.
It's not right.
And, again, I will freely admit that not every player will do this, but that is not the point.
The point is, the DM should not be forced to share full details of the adventure they're running with the players they're running in it. It's that simple.
Even if your players don't give in to the temptation to look up the answer to a particularly tough puzzle or the stat blocks for a big bad coming up they feel inadequate against, they still get tons of spoilers just using the search function. I can't remember off hand what I've searched for, but I've seen spoilers from ToA pop up for searching basic things a player would be searching for on at least two occasions.
Please don't necro threads that have been inactive for over a year
You can currently manage what compendium content users in your campaign can access (that they don't otherwise own) through the content management option within the campaign.
Any new info on this over the last few months? This is my biggest question as well.
I haven't seen it worded like I would, though.
If, for instance, I bought the Curse of Strahd adventure, I would want my players to have access to the new backgrounds and things available to the players, but not to the adventure itself.
Thanks.
@GrinningDwarf3.
If you allow any of the content, it allows ALL the content, no matter what online book you purchase.
There is no limiting, or restricting. It is either ALL on or ALL off. And it matters not if it is a 'player' manual, 'DM' manual, or adventure.
It all is lumped under one heading. "Enable Content Sharing" or "Disable Content Sharing".
So I would recommend to wait, see post below (Quote from Matthias_V dated August 2017).... or buy, or do not. But realize, that pretty much only you are ever going to see the book, unless you are sitting with the player as they scroll through areas to ensure they 'are not tempted'.
Hope that helps!
Cheers,
DM Veitch.
Any update on when?
I have an upcoming AL group that I wanted to give access through my Master Tier and the PHB, but I also have the ToA adventure, and there is no way I am sharing the content to both online books.
Thanks in advance!
DM Veitch.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured, at least the way it works right now. My workaround for this will be to only unlock those parts of the books at the players should have access to, such as spells, new subclasses, and backgrounds. I'll have to keep the campaigns books in hardcover only.
Not a problem. Thanks for the reply!
I haven't seen this touched on, and I think I know the answer, but I wanted to be sure before myself and my players started purchasing.
If someone with a free account purchases official content (lets say Volo's Guide), and they are in a campaign with someone who is on the master tier, will Volo's Guide be shared with everyone in the campaign? I think the answer is no, since they themselves do not have the master tier, but wasn't sure.
We have the physical books, but are chipping in to buy the digital versions. I plan on getting the master tier, but was curious if I needed to buy all of the books, or if we could split them up.
Thanks for the help!
Yep its now May 2018 - any ideal if and when we can limit our sharing material? Like many others I have the bundle and I have not started the Adventures because I do not want the players to check out the scene before I let them. On a different note, I suspect there will be a representative for DnD Beyond at GEN-CON, someone in charge that we can bounce questions off of.
"I...Drank...WHAT?!" - Socrates
In the developer update, Badeye said that limiting the shared sources is on the short-term roadmap.
Cryptic, but encouraging - thanks for the response
"I...Drank...WHAT?!" - Socrates
I see the problem with saying they cannot access the content prior to the campaign. What about just a setting, a check mark on a permissions page that says can use content from the book, but cannot read the book. What this would mean is that they have access to the Classes/Races/Items/Backgrounds/Spells and such, but cannot access the book to read so they could not see further than that, for instance, into any encounters that might be coming.
Lets face it, if they want to cheat, and they cant click the read button on here, they're gonna look for a different source. This would however deter them from doing it the super easy way.
we as the players should leave a certain amount of mystery to what we encounter so we can experience it and try to have fun along the way.
See this post from August of 2017.
I love the tool, and have every intention of using it indefinitely, but progress it (e.g. content sharing, new character sheet, etc...) is painfully slow.
Assumed this was the case..realizing now this is still unlimited. C'mon guys...
Watching the replay of the 'D&D Beyond Developer Update From Origins 2018' and was very happy to hear this subject being discussed, starting at the 10:26 mark.
While the character sheet revamp is great, and understandably the feature or update most people are interested in and clamoring for, being able to blacklist purchased content is extremely important. (By the way, kudos to the team on how they're planning to manage this -- whitelisting everything by default, and allowing content owners the ability to pick and choose what content (e.g. adventures) they want to blacklist, or not share.)
I'm a little surprised the team didn't understand this to be the issue it is, or have it a lower priority, but good on them for re-prioritizing it.
Yes, the current character sheet is somewhat limited, but it is certainly functional. The current "all in" content sharing could almost be seen as a actual flaw in the application. Sure, the DM can just trust that their players won't abuse this, but what DM is going to want to run a group of players through a purchased adventure and be forced to fully share the details of that adventure with those very same players?
I think having the white/blacklisting of sources as a slightly lower priority than the revised character sheet is perfectly understandable and logic.
The character sheet is undoubtedly used by all users, while I personally would not really feel the need for the white/blacklisting feature, as I believe that anyone really interested in roleplaying would not go read the adventure beforehand (call me naive).
I fully understand how it can be useful, and how there might be people demanding it, but it is a very subjective thing, I think.
For completeness: I am one of those who feel the current sheet is perfectly functional as it is, but it can most definitely be improved.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
That, actually, is exactly what I said.
While "all in" content sharing is closer to being a flaw, and perhaps more worthy of an issue to be addressed for that reason, I fully admit that the character sheet has to be their top project. This is not even something worth discussing/debating as it is a complete non-issue; the character sheet is coming out next, and everyone (myself included) is very excited about this.
So, the character sheet gets deployed, and resources are freed up to being working on other projects. Right? My surprise is, once that happens, that the content sharing issue, which has been known since at least August 2017), wasn't already considered a higher priority and needed to be reevaluated and have its priority bumped.
With your permission, I'm calling you naive. ;) (I'm totally kidding, by the way.)
I know this isn't exactly what's happening, and there is a clunky solution for the problem (e.g. enable content sharing, allow the players to create their characters, disable content sharing, re-enable content sharing once the characters level up, repeat as necessary), but how the app/website is working is essentially the same thing as a DM picking an adventure to run for a group in a face-to-face game... and buying a copy of the module to hand out to each player before the game even begins. "Here, here is everything your character is going to be up against."
It doesn't make sense.
Will every player "cheat" and look ahead in the module while they're being run through it? No, I'd hope not. This would certainly be more difficult in a live, face-to-face game. However, in a play-by-post game, where there are lengthy delays between actions, there is ample opportunity for the player to take a quick peek at what's upcoming before deciding what their character is going to do next. Or to read the entire thing.
It's not right.
And, again, I will freely admit that not every player will do this, but that is not the point.
The point is, the DM should not be forced to share full details of the adventure they're running with the players they're running in it. It's that simple.
Even if your players don't give in to the temptation to look up the answer to a particularly tough puzzle or the stat blocks for a big bad coming up they feel inadequate against, they still get tons of spoilers just using the search function. I can't remember off hand what I've searched for, but I've seen spoilers from ToA pop up for searching basic things a player would be searching for on at least two occasions.
HI ,
3 years have pass -- As any improvement been done on limiting access? It seems I cannot find the answer crawling the web.
Thanks
Please don't necro threads that have been inactive for over a year
You can currently manage what compendium content users in your campaign can access (that they don't otherwise own) through the content management option within the campaign.
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