Dungeons & Dragons Has Done Away With the Adventuring Day

Adventuring days are no more, at least not in the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide. The new 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide contains a streamlined guide to combat encounter planning, with a simplified set of instructions on how to build an appropriate encounter for any set of characters. The new rules are pretty basic - the DM determines an XP budget based on the difficulty level they're aiming for (with choices of low, moderate, or high, which is a change from the 2014 Dungeon Master's Guide) and the level of the characters in a party. They then spend that budget on creatures to actually craft the encounter. Missing from the 2024 encounter building is applying an encounter multiplier based on the number of creatures and the number of party members, although the book still warns that more creatures adds the potential for more complications as an encounter is playing out.

What's really interesting about the new encounter building rules in the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide is that there's no longer any mention of the "adventuring day," nor is there any recommendation about how many encounters players should have in between long rests. The 2014 Dungeon Master's Guide contained a recommendation that players should have 6 to 8 medium or hard encounters per adventuring day. The 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide instead opts to discuss encounter pace and how to balance player desire to take frequent Short Rests with ratcheting up tension within the adventure.

The 6-8 encounters per day guideline was always controversial and at least in my experience rarely followed even in official D&D adventures. The new 2024 encounter building guidelines are not only more streamlined, but they also seem to embrace a more common sense approach to DM prep and planning.

The 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide for Dungeons & Dragons will be released on November 12th.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Except that it absolutely did. Heavy armor was an XP penalty you could wear to increase survivability. That trade-off, right there, is a form of balance condsideration. When you operate within a paradigm of GP=XP, carry weight = XP penalty, and heavy armor has higher carry weight but better defense. Same with heavy weapons. They do more damage, but they also weigh more

As I said, you weren’t there. We made multiple trips to ferry gold out of the dungeon, and/or hired henchmen to carry it, so equipment weight wasn’t relevant to that. The reason equipment had weight was simulationist. Stuff has weight, and the weights listed were researched based on real world weights. It had nothing to do with “balance” which DID NOT EXIST.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As I said, you weren’t there. We made multiple trips to ferry gold out of the dungeon, and/or hired henchmen to carry it, so equipment weight wasn’t relevant to that. The reason equipment had weight was simulationist. Stuff has weight, and the weights listed were researched based on real world weights. It had nothing to do with “balance” which DID NOT EXIST.

I'm sorry, but "you weren't there, you can't possibly know" is simply ridiculous on its face. Again--why would monster hirelings instantly lose their darkvision? Because it's a blatantly gamist effort to preserve balance.

Your argument simply does not hold water. I don't care when you or I were born. The logic isn't there.

 

[pemerton]

No one is criticising Gygax’s design skills, but the concept of “balance” simply did not exist in the 70s and early 80s

I don't think this is quite right. Gygax refers to balance multiple times in in his DMG:

Preface
Limitations, checks, balances, and all the rest are placed into the system in order to assure that what is based thereon will be a superior campaign . . . (p 7)

Alignment
It is of utmost importance to keep rigid control of alignment behavior with respect to such characters as serve deities who will accept only certain alignments, those who are paladins, those with evil familiars, and so on. Part of the role they have accepted requires a set behavior mode, and its benefits are balanced by this. (p 24)

Matrix for Clerics Affecting Undead
. . . If for some reason you must have an exact progression, follow the columns for levels 1, 2, and 3, correcting to the right from there - and thus rather severely penalizing the clerics of upper levels, but by no means harming play balance. Column 4 will then read, top to bottom: T, 4,7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 20. Do not otherwise alter the table as it could prove to be a serious factor in balance - weakening or strengthening clerics too greatly. (p 76)

Saving Throw Modifiers:
DM Stipulations: You may assign modifiers to any saving throws as you see fit, always keeping in mind game balance. (p 81)

Experience
Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure. (p 84)

Economics
You may, of course, adjust any prices and costs as you see fit for your own milieu. Be careful to observe the effects of such changes on both play balance and player involvement. If any adverse effects are noted, it is better to return to the tried and true. It is fantastic and of heroic proportions so as to match its game vehicle. (p 90)

Monster Populations and Placement
Alter creatures freely, remembering balance. (p 91)

Placement of Monetary Treasure
In the event that generosity should overcome you, and you find that in a moment of weakness you actually allowed too much treasure to fall into the players' hands, there are steps which must be taken to rectify matters. The player characters themselves could become attractive to others seeking such gains. The local rulers will desire a share, prices will rise for services in demand from these now wealthy personages, etc. All this is not to actually penalize success. It is a logical abstraction of their actions, it stimulates them to adventure anew, and it also maintains the campaign in balance. These rules will see to it that experience levels are not gained too quickly as long as you do your part as DM! (p 92)

Placement of Magic Items
As the campaign grows and deeper dungeons are developed, you exercise the same care in placement of selected and balanced magic items. Of course, at lower levels of the dungeon you have more powerful single items or groupings of disparate items, but they are commensurate with the challenge and ability of participants. (p 93)

Non-standard Magic Items
The items must be such as to not unbalance the game. . . .

Never take a player’s word for any item. Do not allow its use in your campaign unless you know his or her DM and get a full explanation . . . This solves the problem of having a possible imbalance
brought into your carefully designed campaign.(p 118)

Magic Treasure
. . . most treasures will have magic potions, scrolls, armor and weapons. This is carefully planned so as to prevent imbalance in the game. Keep potent magic items rare. (Increase scarcity by destroying or stealing what is found!) (p 120)

Magic Items
. . . the MAGIC ITEMS table is weighted towards results which balance the game. (p 121)

Notes Regarding Artifacts and Relics
. . . any creation by you must be done so as to maintain the item in balance with the game as a whole . . . (p 156)

Underwater Random Monster Encounters
Number of creatures encountered should be appropriate to the strength of the encountering party. (p 179)​

These passages show that balance is seen by Gygax to be relevant in a variety of ways:

*PC class abilities and restrictions;

*Monster design and numbers;

*The award of XP;

*Placement of treasure, which relates both to XP (if its money) and to PC abilities (if its magic).​

I think these all cohere together pretty clearly.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think this is quite right. Gygax refers to balance multiple times in in his DMG

It’s clear from the quotes that what Gygax meant by balance was very different to how it is used these days.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Magic Items​

. . . the MAGIC ITEMS table is weighted towards results which balance the game. (p 121)​

This line is especially important to me specifically. Not that the others aren't, of course, but this one calls out a key point of my (rather lengthy...) post above: Balance does not mean equality. Sometimes, putting your thumb on the scale in order to make certain results likely and other results unlikely is balance, given the right context.

Underwater Random Monster Encounters​

Number of creatures encountered should be appropriate to the strength of the encountering party. (p 179)​

Isn't that an interesting line! If you presented this to someone without context, and asked them whether they thought it was from 1e or 4e, I'm pretty sure most folks would peg it as 4e. It would seem the "balanced encounter" is quite a bit older than most folks think!

These passages show that balance is seen by Gygax to be relevant in a variety of ways:

*PC class abilities and restrictions;​

​

*Monster design and numbers;​

​

*The award of XP;​

​

*Placement of treasure, which relates both to XP (if its money) and to PC abilities (if its magic).​

I think these all cohere together pretty clearly.

Agreed.

It’s clear from the quotes that what Gygax meant by balance was very different to how it is used these days.

Is it? The list above seems to correspond pretty closely to the things people use the term for today. PC class abilities and restrictions, monster design and the number of monsters encountered, rewarding XP, placement of treasure, the strength of magic items...

Today, we'd refer to things like "class design" and "martial/caster disparity" and "encounter building," but the modern vocabulary is mostly just a historical artifact, not a meaningful difference in what is being discussed.

What, exactly, on that list is alien to the modern viewer? What would you say the modern concept includes that this lacks? And remember--I'm on record going back years now that absolute perfection in balance, that identicalness or perfect equality etc. etc. are ridiculous strawmen.

 

[pemerton]

It’s clear from the quotes that what Gygax meant by balance was very different to how it is used these days.

Well, he was talking about balance in a player-driven game of dungeon exploration, with the "win condition" being successfully getting treasure out of the dungeon.

Whereas contemporary play is generally GM-driven, with the "win condition" being successfully completing the quest that the GM has set before the players. So of course balance is going to look different in its details

But I think it's wrong to say that Gygax didn't care about balance.

Isn't that an interesting line! If you presented this to someone without context, and asked them whether they thought it was from 1e or 4e, I'm pretty sure most folks would peg it as 4e. It would seem the "balanced encounter" is quite a bit older than most folks think!

Yes. I pointed this out in a thread about 8 years ago: Encounter balance in AD&D

The list above seems to correspond pretty closely to the things people use the term for today. PC class abilities and restrictions, monster design and the number of monsters encountered, rewarding XP, placement of treasure, the strength of magic items...

Today, we'd refer to things like "class design" and "martial/caster disparity" and "encounter building," but the modern vocabulary is mostly just a historical artifact, not a meaningful difference in what is being discussed.

I agree with this.

 

[Yaarel]

Gaining a level resets you to full hit points?

Typically, in my games the level up happens between sessions, as well as during downtime. Hence the refresh. Each adventure or adventure phase aims to have enough encounters to level up. But ultimately, the possibility of downtim depends on the story, its situation, and what players decide to do.

Even without that, if a long rest is (as is typical) assumed to mean an overnight sleep, that's a level every three in-game days.

Am I the only one who thinks that's crazy-stupid fast?

Yes, the 7 encounters per day was narratively absurd.

By switching to 2 Long Rests per Level, the 15 combats can take place whenever they make sense. Rarely across 2 or 3 days. They might add up across weeks, months, or even years. Whenever the story suggests a combat would happen.

 

[Maxperson]

Do we know that that's actually the case? I haven't heard if there still resting variants and if they give guidance for using such variants. We're only working with secondhand information.

No. That's why I said, " I think the alternative resting variants will still be in the DMG."

It doesn't make sense to me that they would remove those variants. Too many tables use them.

 

[Maxperson]

It’s clear from the quotes that what Gygax meant by balance was very different to how it is used these days.

Not really. It just wasn't as finely tuned as today or even in their thoughts that the tuning needed to be better than it was.

 

[Maxperson]

This line is especially important to me specifically. Not that the others aren't, of course, but this one calls out a key point of my (rather lengthy...) post above: Balance does not mean equality. Sometimes, putting your thumb on the scale in order to make certain results likely and other results unlikely is balance, given the right context.

I think what he was talking about there is that items that were less powerful tended to have a larger percentile chance of being rolled than the more powerful ones, which were often 1%.

Isn't that an interesting line! If you presented this to someone without context, and asked them whether they thought it was from 1e or 4e, I'm pretty sure most folks would peg it as 4e. It would seem the "balanced encounter" is quite a bit older than most folks think!

But only underwater!