Campaign Inquiry - Assigning GM?
 

Hello,

I am currently debating between renewing my subscription as is, or potentially upgrading to the Patron level.

My question is if I am able to assign a GM to the campaign that I share my content too? I typically do not run the games for my group, so I ask if I could create the campaign to share my purchased content to the group members (mainly for generation of characters//verifying rulesets), and also specify a GM user if they chose to use campaign manager side of things.

Thanks!

Not at the present time. That's definitely on the punch list, but it's not something we're targeting within the next month, at least.

This... I would LOVE this... :D

Yeah, it's something I'd want for MY gaming group (for obvious reasons). :)

My group is in the same boat. We're using the Campaign Theater for the group license model, but the GM tools will likely sit idle until I can transfer GM to the actual GM.

+1 for ability to assign GM to someone other than the Patron owner. This would allow our group to pitch in for the books on one account and have up to 4 campaigns going with different GMs. This is the same as if a group collectively purchased a copy of the physical books and passed them around the table.

This is what is keeping me away still. Have been waiting for the group licencing to appear, but still not quite there. At the moment, I have 1 player who has purchased every Paizo package, but he doesn't run games, I do.

Plus we worked out that it it would still cost us quite a bit for each player if we want to share the costs (including all the necessary subscriptions) compared to what we have paid for D&D Beyond shared content.

I am actually on the other side of the argument, I would like less campaign theatre.

This largely boils down to the other guys offering "free" accounts with more access than we do. I put the "free" in quotes, because those free accounts are NOT truly free with D&D Beyond. They are paid for by having to deal with an abundance of ads, and those ads are paid for by the companies behind those ads. Ads that are consuming valuable screen real estate and creating a bunch of visual distraction in the middle of your game. All those ads are possible due to Twitch's massive ad-focused infrastructure that's designed for exactly that purpose. We don't have that option, and I'd resist going there even if it was available. As an alternative, we introduced the low-cost Apprentice level to cover the costs of supporting those accounts. It's barely more than a dollar a month, which is probably a lot less than Twitch is bringing in from all those ads, and it's also probably a whole lot less annoying for our users.

You do know that DnDBeyond is not owned by Twitch any more, don't you? Using DnDBeyond with my free account (and some bought content) doesn't impede my gaming fun with ads in any way. And: Whatever they make from those few page impressions we do on a regular game night does not pay for anything at all. One doesn't make that much money from ads anymore...

I think the thing is: They have the bigger game. They have a number of customers some order of magnitude above PF2, SF and SR5 (? sorry, don't even remember ... is it 5 or 6 already?). They don't seem to have the problem, that "only player facing content" has a big enough sales figure attached to it, that it matters. Is this the reason that the Adventure Paths for PF2 aren't updated as regularly? Don't they sell enough?