Increase the number of compendium shared slots, or add a level or subscription for more?

Title says it all, there is a bug that can occur when you forget to share it with a game and they are leveling in the charactermancer, and I really don't understand the purpose of limiting it to 5 games anyways? Literally, it just causes a hassle of swapping games in and out. Maybe there is a purpose that I don't understand but I mean can we at least raise it to 10? or give an option to upgrade your subscription? Alternatively, can someone from roll20 explain why its limited to five max to begin with?

I'm not from Roll20, but the likely reason they limit it to five games is two-fold: 1.) licensing restrictions, 2.) promote sales.  Whatever the specifics regarding the contract between WotC and Roll20, I am sure one or more of the rules that governs the agreement requires that Roll20 prevents users from pirating material.  If one person could purchase all of the books and then share those books freely with all of their friends, then why would their friends purchase the books as well? This all boils down to the fact that both WotC and Roll20 want to sell as many copies of the books as possible to generate sales.  The five games/fifteen players metric that they came up with was likely a compromise.  Advertising that you can share your purchased books with five games and up to fifteen players is an attractive proposition to customers of Roll20, many who started from the position of "I already have the physical copies of these books, why would I buy them again?" All in all, I would agree with your suggestion that Roll20 should provide the ability for users to increase the number of games and players with who they can share their material.  I would guess though it would require users purchasing additional copies of each book to remain compliant with the agreement with Wotc.  For example, if purchasing the PHB once allows you to share it to five games and up to fifteen players, if you purchased a second copy of the PHB, you could share it to ten games and thirty players. -Adam

I've given this a +1 as it is something I would like them to look at.  For me if they could increase the number of games but decrease the players per game, or put in a maximum number of players total.  I have very few games that I have more than 8 people in, so 8 games with 9 players would work really well for me (but not for everyone I know), or even just putting a maximum of 70-75 people between an unlimited number of games would work.  Currently if I start to run another game I'm going to be at the point of having to turn of the sharing option in one game, so I can add another one in, and then remember to change back for each session.

As a workaround, you can switch sharing on and of pretty easy, so you can just take 5 seconds to do that. But it would be nice if the number of players per game could be expanded a bit more. It is said that Kevin Siembieda enjoyed groups of 10-20 players and with all the West Marches games out there....

> If one person could purchase all of the books and then share those books freely with all of their friends, then why would their friends purchase the books as well? This is literally how the game works.  The DM purchases a book with a magic item in it and gives that item to a player.

LockeZ said: > If one person could purchase all of the books and then share those books freely with all of their friends, then why would their friends purchase the books as well? This is literally how the game works.  The DM purchases a book with a magic item in it and gives that item to a player. If you're hoping for a response you're going to need to explain yourself better as I am not following what you're trying to say. -Adam

Adam Caramon said: LockeZ said: > If one person could purchase all of the books and then share those books freely with all of their friends, then why would their friends purchase the books as well? This is literally how the game works.  The DM purchases a book with a magic item in it and gives that item to a player. If you're hoping for a response you're going to need to explain yourself better as I am not following what you're trying to say. -Adam I'm pretty sure he posted just to tell us that if they allow us to share with everyone, no one would buy books. I considered responding to it, and decided it wasn't worth it.

think he meant that in non virtual table top, one guy buys the book and there is no limit on sharing

dwain K. said: think he meant that in non virtual table top, one guy buys the book and there is no limit on sharing Assuming that was the intended statement - the limit in a in-person setting is the physical book its self.  If you own one copy of a physical book, only one person can possess the book at a time.  If during an adventure a PC discovers a magical item, the DM doesn't give the player a copy of the DMG, but instead would write down the specifics from the DMG on a piece of paper and give that to the player.  That functionality can already be replicated in Roll20 by the creation of a handout (or using the drag-n-drop functionality to create the handout.) If the argument is that during a session all players can access the single book as needed, that functionality is also replicated in Roll20 (up to a maximum of 15 players.)  I've never heard of a campaign having 15+ concurrent players so I don't see how that would ever be an issue. In summary, a digital copy of a book purchased on Roll20 is accessible by more people than a physical book in 99.99% of cases.  If you are in the incredibly rare situation where you run a session with 16 or more players at the same time then yes, you are being limited.  But I don't see how the physical book comparison hold any leverage - I've run into issues with groups of five players where two of them want a specific book at the same time to look up a rule.  I can't imagine trying to share a single copy of a book with 16+ players around a table. -Adam

I've never heard of a campaign having 15+ concurrent players so I don't see how that would ever be an issue. I run a West Marches campaign, so I easily get to over 15 players in one game. However, I've never had more than eight players logged in at one time, so there is a use case for a game with a revolving cast of PCs. Personally, this bugs me less being limited in the number of games. I'm not quite at the limit there, but it's gotten close during special events, like Extra Life. I would 100% pay for a different tier to get more games / player slots.