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.

 

[Lanefan]

For what it's worth, I don't see the GM's role as an entertainer, when I GM.

I mean, I hope that the players enjoy the stuff that I say and do. But it's reciprocal - I enjoy the stuff that they say and do, in the play of their PCs.

And in that much, everyone at the table is an entertainer.

Whose judgement as to what makes sense is pre-eminent?

If a player chooses to have their PC do <this thing>, then it turns out that <whatever this thing is> is something that is part of the game world, and an expression of the PC's character. It's the GM's job to roll with that, just as it is the player's job to roll with the stuff that the GM presents.

I agree it's the GM's job to roll with what the players have their characters (try to) do; but also agree with @AK_Ambrian that what those characters (try to) do should at least make some sense a) within the game world and the fiction therein and b) with the character itself as previously established in play.

An over-the-top example that violates a): it has already been established that (for whatever reason) Xorn simply do not exist in that game's setting and have never been heard of there, yet a player has a character try to polymoph into one anyway.

An example that perhaps violates b): a character that has always been very cautious suddenly turns into Leroy Jenkins for no obvious (or even non-obvious) in-game reason.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Here's where I'm going to depart from agreeing with you. I've been using Rule 0 to house rule the game since

I disagree with this assertion.

Choosing to house-rule is not the same as using Rule Zero.

That is the point we actually disagree on.

 

[pemerton]

I agree it's the GM's job to roll with what the players have their characters (try to) do; but also agree with @AK_Ambrian that what those characters (try to) do should at least make some sense a) within the game world and the fiction therein and b) with the character itself as previously established in play.

An over-the-top example that violates a): it has already been established that (for whatever reason) Xorn simply do not exist in that game's setting and have never been heard of there, yet a player has a character try to polymoph into one anyway.

An example that perhaps violates b): a character that has always been very cautious suddenly turns into Leroy Jenkins for no obvious (or even non-obvious) in-game reason.

So, in a post that you made 10 or 15 minutes after this one, you said that:

You say this as an example of an objective comparison and yet saying it's "an improvement" is still subjective; in that not every would necessarily agree with that viewpoint.

That is, in this near-contemporaneous post, you seem to treat it as sufficient to show that something is subjective that not everyone would necessarily agree.

So let's apply that standard to consistency of character and of setting. Do you think there is scope for disagreement - even reasonable disagreement - over what events are consistent with what past events?

Assuming that you accept that this is so, then you seem to be saying that the GM is licensed to impose their own subjective opinion as to what is consistent onto the player.

If you think there is something going on, in this sort of case, other than the GM imposing their own subjective opinion, then I'm curious as to what that is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When I DM, I don't want the players to "tell my story". They have agency over their characters. But the player characters should be making choices that make sense in the game world that the characters are inhabiting. And choices that are consistent with who they have said their characters are.

We should be careful about both an over-commitment to consistency and the abuse of consistency.

That is: over-commitment to consistency means characters cannot grow or change. Growth requires that you become inconsistent with your past self. Character development is necessarily the breaking of at least one pattern in order to do something else. A new pattern may or may not form thereafter.

Abuse of consistency has several forms. The most prominent is "that's what my character would do," meaning, the petulant excuse for being an annoying little $#!% to the other players. But there are others. "It's in my backstory" is another, where someone exploits their voluminous (and likely unread) backstory for undue benefit.

Point being: we need to take care with "consistency." It is easy to mistake it for being an unalloyed good...which it absolutely is not. Consistency has many virtues, and in many situations, it is broadly preferable to maintain or increase consistency rather than reduce it. But it is not universally preferable to maintain or increase it.

(Emphasis added) "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Emerson, Self-Reliance.

 

[Yaarel]

Choosing to house-rule is not the same as using Rule Zero.

What do you see as the difference between a "houserule" and "rule zero", exactly?

There are blurry areas. For example, when the DM invents new backgrounds and spells for players to use, I consider that rules-as-written, rather than a houserule. Relatedly, employing the rules of a setting of ones choice is rules-as-written, even where different settings have different rules.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What do you see as the difference between a "houserule" and "rule zero", exactly?

There are blurry areas. For example, when the DM invents new backgrounds and spells for players to use, I consider that rules-as-written, rather than a houserule. Relatedly, employing the rules of a setting of ones choice is rules-as-written, even where different settings have different rules.

It is the difference between a judge ruling narrowly on precedent for one particular case, and a legislator passing a local law which diverges from regional or state law in a jurisdiction or situation where the local law supersedes general law.

The former is not denying the validity of the law, but rather, saying that there's clearly an issue, and thus we must find a way to make the situation make sense. The latter is actually creating new law which replaces or supersedes existing law.

Or, if you prefer to use the currently hip lingo: "Rule Zero" is rulings. House rules are, as the name implies, rules.

Homebrew is a subset of house rules. That doesn't mean they're somehow in conflict with the game. As you say, that's an explicit area where the players and DM are told to think about drafting their own content within the limits set. There, the true rules are the limits, not the actual backgrounds themselves. I personally do not consider it even "homebrew" to create a new background within the limits of the existing rules. That's just...using the actual rules as they're actually written, just with custom content. It would be like saying that giving your character a name is homebrew.

I don't see any actual grey area here at all. Even if there were...it would be a grey area about whether or not creating a custom background is house-ruling. Such things absolutely would not be "Rule Zero" under either circumstance.

 

[Yaarel]

It is the difference between a judge ruling narrowly on precedent for one particular case, and a legislator passing a local law which diverges from regional or state law in a jurisdiction or situation where the local law supersedes general law.

The former is not denying the validity of the law, but rather, saying that there's clearly an issue, and thus we must find a way to make the situation make sense. The latter is actually creating new law which replaces or supersedes existing law.

Or, if you prefer to use the currently hip lingo: "Rule Zero" is rulings. House rules are, as the name implies, rules.

Homebrew is a subset of house rules. That doesn't mean they're somehow in conflict with the game. As you say, that's an explicit area where the players and DM are told to think about drafting their own content within the limits set. There, the true rules are the limits, not the actual backgrounds themselves. I personally do not consider it even "homebrew" to create a new background within the limits of the existing rules. That's just...using the actual rules as they're actually written, just with custom content. It would be like saying that giving your character a name is homebrew.

I don't see any actual grey area here at all. Even if there were...it would be a grey area about whether or not creating a custom background is house-ruling. Such things absolutely would not be "Rule Zero" under either circumstance.

I am understanding what you are saying as follows:

• Houserules utilize the 5e game engine
• Rule Zero overrides the 5e game engine

Is that how you see it?

 

[Distracted DM]

Yes, it's still important that the DM pace things out, but that will vary by group and situation by their risk/reward calculation. For example, in BG3, my wife likes to long rest after just about every encounter that she can rest after, whereas I like to push it as far as I can between long rests even if I have to run away from a too tough fight at the end. There is no one rule that works because it's ultimately up to PCs. Even in your 1 encounter day, the PCs could likely force a fight if they really wanted to or just have some creative fun with their remaining resources.

All that said, we have a very similar way of building an adventure I think. I love having 'bonus' or 'side' quests that force the players to choose between having a higher chance to complete their current objective and going after a reward that while great on its own could cost them the chance at their main target. I also will 'overpack' an adventure with encounters with the idea that the PCs will be able to get past some of them w/o combat or otherwise expending resources and that without doing so, it will be very difficult for them to achieve their prime objective.

You're comparing a game of tabletop DnD to BG3? The GM really sets the pace of DnD.. BG3 doesn't have have a GM.
Say you're running Red Hand of Doom. If the party tries to rest after every encounter, they're going to fail to save... Pretty much everything. They'll probably die as soon as the army gets moving.

Even if you're not running with a doomsday clock, a world of DnD isn't a video game.. it's living around you. There are a few quests in act1 that you'll get bad results from if you rest too often, but those stop after act1 afaik (for some reason). But if the party tries to rest after every encounter in a game of DnD, there are so many tools in the GM's toolbox, including but not limited to communicating with your players, to help ensure that they're not trying to long rest after every fight.

If I misunderstood I apologize, but I'm surprised to see someone make a direct comparison like that between BG3 and an actual DnD game.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree with this assertion.

Choosing to house-rule is not the same as using Rule Zero.

That is the point we actually disagree on.

Rule 0 is the rule that lets you override, add, subtract or create new rules for the game. That's it's purpose. House ruling falls under that purpose.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Man, if Rule 0 was ever just left at modifying the game instead of elevating the DM to Daddy Who Always Needs To Have Their Way, that'd be great.