D&D Beyond executives explain why subscribers can't share Drops content

D&D Beyond executives claim that content sharing isn't enabled for their new Drops material because they want to make sure designers get paid. On Friday, D&D Beyond's executive producer Brian Perry and new head of Drops content Jay Jani answered questions on Reddit about D&D Beyond Drops, a new compendium of maps, images, and rules exclusive to D&D Beyond subscribers. Unsurprisingly, the biggest question on many users' minds were why Drops content wasn't sharable via the Master tier subscription like other material. In several posts, Perry stated that the reason was monetary in nature.

"We need to pay the great designers, artists, and developers working on D&D Beyond Drops," Perry said in a comment. "We also really think it's important to make the entire subscriber content library accessible to Hero Tier subscribers (as well as Master Tier). Not making Drops content eligible for content sharing was a necessary tradeoff to hit these goals."

However, given the amount of feedback among fans about making Drops content sharable among players, Perry said they were actively looking at alternative solutions. "With that said, I hear and really appreciate the feedback on being able to share Drops content with players in your group that don't have the disposable income for a Hero Tier subscription," Perry said. "The team is taking another look at the tradeoffs and considering other solutions."

 

[bedir than]

Has this ever been an issue for you? Because I'm every game I've been in, if the DM says no, it's no. For fifty years. I've asked my players, some of whom have played for decades, never an issue for them. I feel like ninety percent of the complaints about digital are theoretical.

I've run into the issue. It's not that the players intend to change the tone of campaign, but they see an ability or feature they love and since they aren't labeled they can't know "If it's in book Y don't use it" is being violated.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I've run into the issue. It's not that the players intend to change the tone of campaign, but they see an ability or feature they love and since they aren't labeled they can't know "If it's in book Y don't use it" is being violated.

Same. If there isn't a tag in the system to identify where each bit of content is coming from that's a bit of a shock but hopefully an issue that will be addressed in the work they're doing on the back end of DDB.

 

[bedir than]

Same. If there isn't a tag in the system to identify where each bit of content is coming from that's a bit of a shock but hopefully an issue that will be addressed in the work they're doing on the back end of DDB.

They have suggested they've found a way for the campaign-limited sharing to be part of the Character Builder and that will be in place before the full rebuild.
Like it's a small enough thing it isn't even on the roadmap

 

[Zaukrie]

I've run into the issue. It's not that the players intend to change the tone of campaign, but they see an ability or feature they love and since they aren't labeled they can't know "If it's in book Y don't use it" is being violated.

You've had a player say that they won't follow your rules? Or try to use it, and you then said no and what happened? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[bedir than]

You've had a player say that they won't follow your rules? Or try to use it, and you then said no and what happened? I'm genuinely curious.

No. They knew going in what was permitted and intended by the theme, but since the character builder doesn't show what features, etc are from what books it's very easy to overlook what's permitted for that theme.

Let's say Planescape doesn't fit my world. I say "don't use Planescape stuff." The character levels up, gets a feat. They like one of the Feats there and add it.
Or Dragonlance. Or Grim Hollow. Whatever. Maybe it's a spell. Maybe it's a subclass.

Anything I've shared (and anyone else has shared) in any campaign they are in is available in the character builder without a label as to where it came from.

 

[Zaukrie]

No. They knew going in what was permitted and intended by the theme, but since the character builder doesn't show what features, etc are from what books it's very easy to overlook what's permitted for that theme.

Let's say Planescape doesn't fit my world. I say "don't use Planescape stuff." The character levels up, gets a feat. They like one of the Feats there and add it.
Or Dragonlance. Or Grim Hollow. Whatever. Maybe it's a spell. Maybe it's a subclass.

Anything I've shared (and anyone else has shared) in any campaign they are in is available in the character builder without a label as to where it came from.

I guess I don't really see the issue? They change the character then, right?

I agree, a label would be good, but I guess I don't really see a big deal here. Ymmv, of course.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I guess I don't really see the issue? They change the character then, right?

I agree, a label would be good, but I guess I don't really see a big deal here. Ymmv, of course.

It means that, on top of everything else, the DM has to be policing the players' character sheets.

I have nine players in my Radiant Citadel campaign and, frankly, do not have time to be character sheet inspector along with everything else going on in my life.

 

[GreyLord]

See, my kindle could vanish tomorrow and it would have paid for itself many times over, along with all the benefits of saving space, convenience, helping the environment, etc. in fact, I lost my Kindle recently and had a new one at my door the next day. I had to pay for my foolishness, but I’m still WAY ahead. And it’s not like I’ve never lost or ruined a book before.

And if my Kindle library suddenly went away, I wouldn’t care. It’s a bunch of books I’ve already read. If there were any I desperately needed to raid again I would just buy them again. It’d still be cheaper than buying physical copies to begin with. And that’s assuming that, as older books, I can’t just get them from Kindle Unlimited.

I’m sorry you had a bad experience. Mine has been amazing. And DDB, which you have an awful lot of opinions about for something you’ve never used for a game you don’t play, has been even better value.

I use a Kindle, but I must say, you thoughts are very different than mine. I've had a kindle stolen, but never lost one on my own.

I've never lost a book (and take great care of them if I can) either. If I did, a book costs what...$10 for a paperback and $30 for a hardback?

The cheapest I can replace a Kindle is a little over $100 or 3X - $4X the cost of a book, and you lose ALL your books while you wait, whereas if I lose one book, it's one book and I have others i can read while getting another copy.

That said, there are books that are more easily available via the Kindle now (such as the Forgotten Realms Novels and many of the Dragonlance novels) than they are in hardcopy.

I have many books I would read over again and again.

Personally, I prefer to have hard copy rather than digital, but each has their own preference. Paper and hardcopy has been proven to stand the test of time for hundreds of years with some paper texts being over a hundred years themselves (in my very library!).

Meanwhile, it seems a lot of the digital information (much of it due to the greed of companies and the restrictions they place) has already been lost in less than 50. I don't think I'd put as much faith in digital's durability, but that said, more than likely I would be dead before either of them cease to be in regards to the materials D&D has released...at least in PDF form.

4e is a warning, however, to those who want their subscription based gaming to continue into perpetuity...in that...when the game changes...those subscriptions sometimes also change. In fact, there was an effort most recently to make it harder to utilize 2014 D&D materials on Beyond before an outcry and board review regarding that, so when the inevitable change occurs in the future with the D&D editions/printings...one may find that situation arises again.

It will be fine for those who constantly are on the bandwidth the the gang of new, but for those who prefer nostalgia or just playing with what they've been using for years it can be a severe thorn in their sides.

I can understand both sides, but I think catering to the new while trying to disregard the old can often be a mistake made in regards to sales and favorable opinion by a company. It's why 4e has the reputation it does among many and why 2014 5e made such an effort to win so many lost players back to the fold.

 

[Zaukrie]

It means that, on top of everything else, the DM has to be policing the players' character sheets, on top of everything else.

I have nine players in my Radiant Citadel campaign and, frankly, do not have time to be character sheet inspector on top of everything else going on in my life.

Good point. Not sure how that's fixable with books either, unless you ban a whole book.

The easiest way that I handle this, and it won't work for everyone, is I don't care what they pick. I'm the big scheme, a choice here and there doesn't really change much for the whole game. Again, won't work for everyone.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Good point. Not sure how that's fixable with books either, unless you ban a whole book.

I think that's what people want for the most part. No Strixhaven in this game or only Ravenloft, etc.

I have a Master subscription and everything I own is available in the character builder for my players, whether I want it there or not. (The click boxes currently available to narrow what's available aren't very granular and are a little ambiguous and require the players to really be up on what each type of content each book qualifies as.)

Once they improve that filter, which sounds like it might be soon, it won't be a problem. But it's definitely an issue at the moment for many tables.