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.

 

[Maxperson]

Rule zero makes no sense.

We're talking about a voluntary leisure activity. The participants can establish, among themselves, whatever rules they like. A commercial publisher like WotC offers to sell them a set of rules that present themselves as offering a fun time if followed. The purchasers of those rules can use them - or not - as they wish!

Not only is there no need to confer express permission on them to use them - or not - as they wish, but such a conferral is redundant, because it has no effect unless the published rules are adopted by a group - but then, as I said, there is no need to adopt those rules one doesn't want to use.

To the extent that rule zero tries to make the decision about rules adoption etc a unilateral matter for the GM it also makes no sense, as by definition no single member of a group can set the rules that govern a voluntary group activity. There needs to be consensus.

Right. Rule 0 is just official sanction to make those changes. Some people are very much rule followers and don't/won't step outside of those unless the rules themselves sanction it. My wife is like that. While we were dating, I would often walk in (gasp) the exit side of a grocery store when the exit was closer. She would walk the longer way to walk in the in side of the grocery store.

There are DMs and players who are like that as well. Rule 0 is there for them.

 

[Maxperson]

Rule zero has always been part of the game as far back as I can remember, but the problems was that it was paired up with other directives that were much more antagonistic in nature, and the pairing led to the abusive DM style.

Those other directives haven't been in the game since 1e or maybe 2e. 2e changed some stuff and I can't remember if those directives remained. The overwhelming number of D&D players today never played under those rules. Many started with 3e and most started with 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

Furthermore, isn't it the players' prerogative to play their PC? I mean, seriously, where does the GM - in the structure of a typical RPG - get the authority to unilaterally tell a player how their PC acts?

Mind Control spells usually. Other than some sort of written exception like that, the PCs are run by the players.

 

[Maxperson]

Whilst in theory it would be jarring if character suddenly started to act out of character for no reason, thus constituting a problem for a game, thus perhaps implying need for some sort of enforcement mechanism to ensure that this doesn't happen, at least in my experience this is not a genuine problem that actually occurs, so any solutions are completely hypothetical and ultimately unnecessary. During all the years of playing during my adult life, (I discount games played as kids, because kids) I can't recall this ever being an issue. Players tend to be pretty good at playing their characters consistently, at least at sufficient degree that it would not come across as jarring and destroy the suspension of disbelief at the table.

I've never seen this, either. A player who is playing his PC that way is disrupting the game, though, and the solution is for the DM to have a one on one conversation with the players outside of the game. If the player continues to be disruptive, then he is one of those rare problem players and should be removed from the game. At no point, though, should the DM be like, "Sorry, that's really out of character so your character doesn't do that."

 

[Maxperson]

Again, you are overlooking the critical distinction: The former is a paperjam-clearing tool that ensures smooth future operation. The latter is actually creating something new. The two are distinct things. One is not creating anything, just jiggling stuff enough to keep things moving. The other is actually declaring something new.

Using a plunger to unclog a toilet isn't changing the toilet in any way. It's just dealing with a temporary blockage. Redoing the plumbing because you want to add or remove a bidet from the toilet is a completely different thing.

That critical distinction is yours, not Rule 0's. Rule 0 is about making the game your own through modification, whether on the fly in the middle of a game when an issue pops up, or when making house rules.

The Origins of Rule Zero

The idea that a gamemaster has the discretion to alter or discard published rules was not an invention of role-playing games: it derived f...

playingattheworld.blogspot.com

 

[AK_Ambrian]

I suspect the “fun” was in getting a reaction from the DM. How old were these players?

And were your players actually happy with that?

The wizard seemed to be in his twenties, not sure of his exact age. The players didn't seem to mind that evil alignments were banned (if they did they didn't mention it to me).

I didn't react in a bad or upset way. I simply wanted to know why the characters wanted to do what they were doing. I was just confused. I mean you buy this expensive rulebook, you spend hours and hours learning the rules and spells and different class abilities, and this game allows you to simulate all kinds of epic adventures and you choose to just do random things for no discernable reason?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Furthermore, isn't it the players' prerogative to play their PC? I mean, seriously, where does the GM - in the structure of a typical RPG - get the authority to unilaterally tell a player how their PC acts?

Who said unilateral? It definitely would be worth a conversation if it otherwise makes no sense though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That critical distinction is yours, not Rule 0's. Rule 0 is about making the game your own through modification, whether on the fly in the middle of a game when an issue pops up, or when making house rules.

The Origins of Rule Zero

The idea that a gamemaster has the discretion to alter or discard published rules was not an invention of role-playing games: it derived f...

playingattheworld.blogspot.com

Personally, I argue the blog author has committed exactly the same conflation.

Because note what the reference they cited says: "JUST SO LONG AS EVERYONE KNOWS THAT'S WHAT YOUR PREFERENCE IS AHEAD OF TIME." (Capitals in original.)

The use of "Rule Zero" to smooth over issues is an entirely different beast from that. You don't give a ruling ahead of time when the rules run afoul because...if you knew it was going to happen, you'd fix it so no ruling was even required in the first place. The whole point of "rulings" is that they are made on the spot to address gaps, holes, or conflicts that impede the process of play; you can't let everyone know ahead of time.

The thing being cited here is the reminder of exactly what @pemerton described: that every game exists by participant consensus and no game can take that away from its participants. (No matter how much high school students love to insist that that is not true with their "you've lost the game" meme. Which I found deeply tiresome even as a freshman in HS.)

 

[ezo]

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.

To a point, certainly, but Rule Zero includes the fun the DM has, not just the players. If allowing 2024 materal, for example, makes the game less fun for the DM, the players need to consider that, too.

However, if there is a great disparity, then probably the DM/player isn't a good match when it comes to the game.

Rule Zero is about establishing the baseline for the game style that hopefully everyone can enjoy--and that means everyone--including the DM.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Who said unilateral? It definitely would be worth a conversation if it otherwise makes no sense though.

How does that square with the "what the DM says, goes"/"the DM is the final authority" thing?