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.

 

[ezo]

Sone things can be compromised on others cant be.
Eg DM says I'm running 5E, at this location and at this time and I'm running XYZ. You can ask but I wouldn't expect a compromise on that. Running XYZ maybe.

If there's a massive list of requirements it's probably a red flag.

IME compromise is easy enough 90% of the time, but when there is no compromise it is usually because there is a difference in playstyles that just don't mix.

For example, years ago I was in a game with a player who wanted to be an evil PC. The DM just doesn't run games with evil PCs--period. The player was with the group for over 2 years and seemed happy enough with chaotic and neutral PCs, all "non-good" alignments. But if finally got to the point the group (and the DM) realized the played just wasn't getting what he really wanted out of the game and so the DM said it was probably best for everyone concerned if the player moved on to another game. Since the rest of us didn't really feel the "evil vibe", it was unfortunate but really the best for the group.

Go on putting words in my mouth. I'll make some popcorn.

Or you could answer the post? Because for everything you do write, that is what it seems like.

I mean, have you ever written it could be the player's fault that there can't be a compromise? Or that the DM should be allowed to have their way instead of the player?

If you have, I'm wrong and I'll admit it, but frankly speaking I don't recall you ever (not once) taking that stance. Of course, I'm sure I haven't read every single post you've ever written---so, like I said, I could be wrong...

 

[Distracted DM]

I think that you might be give them too much credit and can explain why. Saying that it's "some players" suggests that it's a smaller minority, ime it's closer to a plurality. Beyond that there is the very real problem that comes in the fact that the other players have very little reason to say anything other than "sure" if even a single player wants to rest after every fight or so because it's almost always a win/win improvement for them to just go along as a rubber stamp rather than standing up to that player to be the bad guy saying no in order to force them into continuing without the rest.

I think you're saying that ?most players? many players? won't object to someone requesting that they camp out for the rest of the day and night after one encounter? Do I understand that right? Even if doing so would doom the party? I can understand the social aspect of people not wanting to rock the boat, but I've almost always had more than one player invested enough that if resting would doom (or inconvenience) the party, they'd speak up.

I guess we've just had different experiences and run different games for different folks! BUT that does bring up the whole idea of party roles from earlier editions and other games, like Dolemwood's Caller, Chronicler, Mapper, and Quartermaster. The Caller would be the one to decide "ok we're gonna take a rest," but the Caller would have been elected in the first place.

Agree with all of this and this is my experience DMing as well. And none of that requires a WotC defined Adventuring Day with a set number of encounters to achieve, hence the change in the discussion to pacing. The pace will change based on a lot of factors. The only downside is that a DM might plan too many encounters for a single rest, but that is just as possible if you follow any guideline and the party happens to have bad luck.

I do think a numerical guideline is helpful so new GMs don't have to figure it out by winging it, like "an average level 6 party of 4 PCs should be able to handle a total of 22 CR worth of enemies, per long rest as long as you don't use CR12+," but I get your point

 

[Vaalingrade]

Or you could answer the post?

What even is there to answer to 'lol, you always blame the DM' aside from ignoring the bait?

 

[Zardnaar]

IME compromise is easy enough 90% of the time, but when there is no compromise it is usually because there is a difference in playstyles that just don't mix.

For example, years ago I was in a game with a player who wanted to be an evil PC. The DM just doesn't run games with evil PCs--period. The player was with the group for over 2 years and seemed happy enough with chaotic and neutral PCs, all "non-good" alignments. But if finally got to the point the group (and the DM) realized the played just wasn't getting what he really wanted out of the game and so the DM said it was probably best for everyone concerned if the player moved on to another game. Since the rest of us didn't really feel the "evil vibe", it was unfortunate but really the best for the group.


Or you could answer the post? Because for everything you do write, that is what it seems like.

I mean, have you ever written it could be the player's fault that there can't be a compromise? Or that the DM should be allowed to have their way instead of the player?

If you have, I'm wrong and I'll admit it, but frankly speaking I don't recall you ever (not once) taking that stance. Of course, I'm sure I haven't read every single post you've ever written---so, like I said, I could be wrong...

Yeah no evil is fair enough. Not hard banned in my groups. I've played 1 evil PC modeled after the mob. Basically could function in the group all players were friends. He was more ends justify the means vs psychopath.

 

[ezo]

What even is there to answer to 'lol, you always blame the DM' aside from ignoring the bait?

Still waiting for you to prove me wrong..?

Anyway, you could have answered:

"No, it doesn't mean it has to be the DM's fault when there is no compromise. Sometimes a player wants what they want and are unwilling to compromise. It doesn't always have to be the DM."

Or... maybe you could have answered:

"Yes, the DM should be willing to compromise their own degree of fun and enjoyment in running the game to ensure their players have as much fun as possible. It is part of their responsibility when they accept the mantle of DM."

Or even something different.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, I'm not going to engage with this.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Yeah, I'm not going to engage with this.

Am I going to assume you're not going to engage with my points either?

 

[pemerton]

Session 0 I point out that actions have consequences. If you go round killing things randomly don't be to surprised if it happens to you.

If I was a player, all I would get from "actions have consequences" is that the GM might retroactively impose stakes, depending on their opinion about my declared action.

If the DM frames the scenarios properly, none of the resting scenarios should be retroactive. The players should know the stakes and the likely consequence of their decisions.

The empty treasure room? The players should absolutely know others are gunning for the treasure. They should know delay, especially a long delay could make them lag behind.

The monsters swarming? The DM needs to make the situation (enemy territory with lots of baddies) fully clear.

It should not be a gotcha on the players. I've always found clear stakes make for much happier/more involved players.

We're agreed on that last sentence. I suspect that we might draw the boundary around clear stakes in slightly different places. Though it's hard to be sure in the context of purely abstract discussion. I do agree that the stakes can be established by, and emergent from, the trajectory of play without necessarily being fully and expressly stated.

 

[Zardnaar]

If I was a player, all I would get from "actions have consequences" is that the GM might retroactively impose stakes, depending on their opinion about my declared action.

We're agreed on that last sentence. I suspect that we might draw the boundary around clear stakes in slightly different places. Though it's hard to be sure in the context of purely abstract discussion. I do agree that the stakes can be established by, and emergent from, the trajectory of play without necessarily being fully and expressly stated.

I would make it clear if you're randomly killing things or stealing for example and you get caught NPCs at the very least would react.

Do you walk down the street shooting cats, dogs, pigeons or punching people IRL?

D&D forests tend to have Elves, Druids, Fae and Treants in them.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think you're saying that ?most players? many players? won't object to someone requesting that they camp out for the rest of the day and night after one encounter? Do I understand that right? Even if doing so would doom the party? I can understand the social aspect of people not wanting to rock the boat, but I've almost always had more than one player invested enough that if resting would doom (or inconvenience) the party, they'd speak up.

Depends on the edition. Earlier editions very much had self interest reasons for players to push back when some minority of the table wants to nova loop 5mwd but 5e removed basically every hook that the other players could hang those self interest reasons ranging from expected magic item churn fueled by found treasure and gold all the way to ticking buffs and such. When all of the monsters are tuned to expect starting gear and deliberately unoptimized PCs it's hard for the party to say no and there isn't much consequence of value that unhappy NPCs can carry since the PCs don't need anything but another adventure.