Community Ownership Is Now Managed at the Community Level

Updates Announcements
1

Hi Creators,

Today, we’re updating how ownership works in Communities on Roblox. Community ownership will belong to the Community itself, not to the legacy rank 255 Owner role. Going forward, Owner will no longer be a roleset at all: it will only exist as a property of the Community.

This aligns the system with how ownership has always worked. The Owner roleset was never a standard role: it could only be held by one person, it had unique behavior, and creators didn’t manage it like other roles. Community owners will still automatically have all permissions, so a separate Owner roleset is no longer needed.

What’s Changing

Today, many Communities show the Owner role at rank 255 as if it were a standard configurable role. That creates confusion because ownership is unique and shouldn’t be assigned, removed, or managed like a regular role.

With this update:

  • The legacy Owner role will not be renamed, but will no longer have any permissions.
  • Rank 255 will no longer be a reserved rank value.
  • The legacy Owner role will behave like a regular managed role, meaning it can be adapted for your own use, repurposed, or deleted if you no longer need it.
  • The actual Community owner will still be shown as Owner through an ownership label next to their username.
  • Communities created on or after June 16, 2026 will no longer get a default Owner role at rank 255.

Where You’ll See the Difference

The Legacy Owner Role

The legacy Owner role at rank 255 will stay in your Roles list, but it will no longer have any special owner permissions. It will behave like a regular role, and you can reassign it, remove it, repurpose it, or delete it.

Until you change it, you’ll still see that role anywhere Community roles appear, including the Roles and Members pages in your Community settings, and across the public Community where role labels are shown.

The New Owner Label

A separate owner label will appear next to the Community owner’s username, independent of the role name.

You’ll see this label across all Community surfaces and in the settings pages, clearly indicating who owns the Community.

Screenshot 2026-06-17 at 10.21.50 AM
Screenshot 2026-06-17 at 10.21.50 AM1200×178 8.79 KB

## Resources

To identify the owner of a Community in Engine/Open Cloud, you can use these endpoint:

  • Engine: Use the GetGroupInfoAsync endpoint and check the “Owner” property.

  • Open Cloud: Use the GetGroup endpoint and check the “owner” property.

FAQs

Will my Community still have an owner, and will the owner keep the same abilities?

  • Yes. Every Community will still have an owner, and the owner will continue to have owner-level control. What is changing is how ownership is represented in the product: instead of appearing as a normal managed role, it will now be shown as a Community property.

What happens to the old Owner role / highest role?

  • Ownership itself will no longer be represented as a role. By default, the Community owner will still hold the legacy Role at rank 255, which will be their highest role in the roles list unless it is changed or removed. The old Owner role at rank 255 will be stripped of its permissions, and treated like a normal role that can be renamed, removed, or repurposed.

Will anything break for backward compatibility?

  • This change is designed to be mostly a UI and messaging update with minimal backend disruption and full backward compatibility for existing systems.

What will the default Rolesets be for Communities created after today?

  • For most Communities, the default rolesets will be the base Member roleset and the Guest roleset. However, those rolesets will not be managed roles - i.e. you cannot delete them or assign/unassign them to members.

Q: As the owner, do I need to be assigned a Community role if the legacy role is being deprecated?
A: No. As the owner of a Community created before 6/16, you will still hold the highest role at rank-255 and automatically have the base member role.

53 Likes
2

This topic was automatically opened after 11 minutes.

3

I feel like this is another one of those pointless updates that could create confusion during the development process.

A lot of older scripts and code are usually hardcoded to recognize rank (id) 255 as the group owner. If any role can now have that rank (id), older scripts could break if community owners don’t take proper precautions before assigning really high rank (ids) to their roles.

You also seem to forget that users want to be able to identify the owner quickly, which is done either by looking at the “By [name]” line under the community name or going through the members list and filtering by the highest role in the community. You are unnecessarily taking away one such way to identify the owner of a community.

I feel like this wasn’t thought through in the development department though. The latter is a visual concern, the former is a practical concern.

34 Likes
4

Seems unnecessary. How would we get the rank ID for 2 now?
Edit: nevermind, Rank 255 still exists.

I get this is for UI, but this still doesn’t feel right.

Plus, can you even change the Owner name? I liked mine showing “Founder” instead of “Owner”.

4 Likes
5

Is there any possibility we can get Communities to own other communities in the future?

Also, will the Owner still be shown under the community’s page?

image
image587×239 28.7 KB

7 Likes
6

This is not going away. I apologize if that was your takeaway from this post! The only thing changing is the “Owner” (you might have renamed it) role becoming ornamentally, it will now be the same as any other role. For existing groups we’ll convert it into a role with 1 member (you, the owner) and you can change it further from there.

6 Likes
7

this will only break if you use an old script for newer groups or older ones that change the owner role

2 Likes
8

We hear the feedback! This change is primarily to prepare for some upcoming simplifications and improvements to role/permission management. We’ll share more on that in about a month.

We understand there’s a shift here in how to check ownership. We need to make this change eventually – the old rank-based system for roles has some scaling limitations as we move further into multi-role assignment world and it’s holding back UX improvements on the front-end. (e.g. changing role ordering by number is not great, we want to make it drag-and-drop).

8 Likes
9

There can be a point, which is when you want to display multiple people owning a community instead of 1 above the other (ex: cofounders). It also allows for a separate owner, such as a holding account, to be the actual owner but display the owning accounts as at the top.

13 Likes
10

Yes, this was one of the considerations as well in terms of use case unlocks. That being said, the group page would still show “By [singular name]”, but I think it still improves upon that case a bit.

6 Likes
11

I’m still wondering about this too. It was on the roadmap for a time but it kept getting pushed back until it fell off the roadmap entirely. I still hope this can be implemented in some form!

1 Like
12

Since rank 255 will be able to be repurposed from owner status, maybe the max value for rank changes should be clamped at 254 to prevent people from accidentally shooting themselves in the foot when using outdated third party code. I’m not sure how likely this is to happen, but I can imagine someone accidentally giving randos privileged access ingame through an oversight while adjusting ranks, especially if its a team with different people handling both dev and community management.

4 Likes
13

Yeah, that one had some back-and-forth internally on the best way to implement.

The main use case we’re aware of for groups-owning-groups is that you have multiple sub-studios working on different games that you want to link together under a publisher. There’s also a use case where you want to show related groups that are part of same community, but the Allies feature should work for that latter one.

For the former use case, we are currently leaning towards that it’s better to have cross-group permission grants. E.g. you can give another group certain permissions to all/one of your group’s resources. This is not currently implemented yet and doesn’t have a clear roadmap date at the moment.

Similarly, we’re aware of a need to have specific “game profiles” or specific forums per game for a single publisher. This is something we’re thinking about but don’t have a good approach yet.

More feedback definitely welcome on how you think it should work or what problems you’re having specifically, either here or in dedicated feature requests!

5 Likes
14

That feature would have been tremendously helpful for Ro-Nations and other roleplay communities. Where you have the “main” Group and then sub-groups for things like police departments, military branches, media outlets, etc. Being able to consolidate everything under one umbrella. I don’t know why it got quietly removed from the roadmap. Clans have been requesting this since like 2011…

4 Likes
15

I think, something that could help, with having different studios working on games under the same publisher, would be allowing community owners to clone their community.

This would cost 100 robux, similar to creating a community, but basically allow users to clone one of their already owned communities. all ranks, permissions and everything the same, except the description, title & icon.

and speaking of all this community stuff, would be really HUGE, if developers were given the option to join over 100 communities

1 Like
16

My main use case is something along the lines of this. Not for Ro-Nations specifically, but for science-fiction communities like Pinewood Builders where there’s a main community that has multiple subgroups like the Pinewood Builders Security Team. Perhaps there could be a community “relationship” stronger than Allies if you don’t want communities to directly own another? Or instead of having a community as directly owning another, you could maintain a community owner while also being able to form a hierarchy of communities separately?

3 Likes
17

like when they increased the friend limit from 200 to 1,000! really looking forward to seeing an increased group join limit

1 Like
18

It would be interesting to see in the future a system where communities can be “owned” by a legal entity or business rather than being directly tied to a single user, and in general move towards a model where a business itself is the top-level entity of all its assets; communities, ad accounts, experiences, etc. This way ownership, asset permissions, and access can be assigned based on someone’s role in the organization. I think one clear example where this wins is in the case of the ad manager and billing, which is currently owned by the person running the campaign.

3 Likes
19

No it doesn’t. Nobody has ever said they were confused by this. You’re literally just blatantly making this up. If you want to make a change, just admit to it. But don’t boldly lie to us like this.

3 Likes
20

It really feels like most of the people in here complaining really do not understand what this update is, nothing is changing to existing groups and from now on the Owner role is just an optional role the same as every other role in a group

4 Likes