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.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

The issue is how many times that player is the DM and they are encourage the harangue and browbeat the others with Rule 0 until they get their way.

Ever heard of saying "with great power comes great responsibility"? Because it feels to me you want to take power away from the GM and give the players, but let the GM keep the responsibility

 

[ezo]

The issue is how many times that player is the DM and they are encourage the harangue and browbeat the others with Rule 0 until they get their way.

Same rule applies. If the DM is "that player" then the DM can move on. It is only if the others give in instead of walking away that the DM feels vidicated in their behavior and will continue to do it. DM's can be kicked out of a game just as easily as any other player.

So, if the rest of the group feels that way, one of them can volunteer to DM and move on without the toxic former DM.

If none of them want to DM, find another DM or hey, give in and play... their choice.

Not an "issue" at all IME.

 

[ezo]

Ever heard of saying "with great power comes great responsibility"? Because it feels to me you want to take power away from the GM and give the players, but let the GM keep the responsibility

No, it seems more he (?) wants to ignore the DM's preferences and enjoyment for the sake of the players'. The DM should just still there and suffer in silence and let the players do whatever they want and play however they want because that is what is "fun" for them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Too often, the DM is prioritized over the whole rest of the group though.

So you think the DM should have to run a game the other players enjoy, even if they don't?

Like I said, no one is going to have fun at a game run by a DM who isn't enjoying it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just because volunteered to do a job doesn't mean they deserve to be put above everyone else participating.

If one can't have fun DMing without prioritizing themselves, they should let someone who doesn't need that run instead.

Define, "prioritizing themselves". Is the player's fun supposed to be more important? Or are we assuming the DM shouldn't want anything beyond making their players happy?

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, it seems more he (?) wants to ignore the DM's preferences and enjoyment for the sake of the players'. The DM should just still there and suffer in silence and let the players do whatever they want and play however they want because that is what is "fun" for them.

No, he wants the DM to respect the other players' desires and come to a compromise rather than leaning on Rule 0 to get everything they want.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ever heard of saying "with great power comes great responsibility"? Because it feels to me you want to take power away from the GM and give the players, but let the GM keep the responsibility

That saying has NEVER meant that people gain power by taking on responsibility.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

No, he wants the DM to respect the other players' desires and come to a compromise rather than leaning on Rule 0 to get everything they want.

If you have a DM like that, leave the table and find a better one. This is kind of stuff that shpuld be adressed during session zero

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yup you post at AitAH or a D&D sub reddit they'll point blank tell you to boot the player or leave if it's the DM being the jerk. Or anywhere else.

Sometimes no one's the jerk incompatible playstyles (roll vs role play).

10 years I've booted 4 players. 3 went out at once they got booted from 2 more games no D&D for them. Other ones banned from several stores. Chaos Monkey/fish malk and outright toxic.

One recently didn't get invited back his friend will likely join him once game wraps.

What's AitAH?

 

[Not a Decepticon]

That saying has NEVER meant that people gain power by taking on responsibility.

And I did not said that, I have said you want to transfer power from GM to players, but I didn't hear a word about you wanting to also transer the responsibility.