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.

 

[Emerikol]

If the rules cannot save good players from a bad DM, how can they save good DMs from bad players?

I've noticed that a bad player can often be handled by a good DM. I mean there are limits to how bad the player can be but I've dealt with a few in my time.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

When I run campaigns where overland travel is dangerous and important I use the rule of only being able to long rest at a friendly settlement (or similar situation).

I think it fits with your analogy.

I go to work all day then I rest in the safety of my own bed.

If I go on a multi-day wilderness exploration I'm not going to be fully refreshed each day. The opposite will be true for me, I will be getting progressively more tired until returning home.

I kind of like that but wonder how it would play out in very remote regions. Short rests and hope for the best? Sure makes it more challenging.

What about big dungeons? Would you allow resting outside the dungeon at camp if creatures are not assailing them?

Not criticism, just thinking of how I might do it when it’s my turn to DM!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm going to make this very simple:

Did.

I.

Ever.

Say.

That?

No. But it is an illustration of my point that you can not be a jerk and also have the last word. I apologize if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would argue that in session that is exactly what I expect. I do not expect arguments about rulings at all. Now outside of the session, a player can make suggestions for anything. The DM has veto power.

And I become instantly suspicious when someone says, "You are not allowed to question anything I say, and at best you may make suggestions, which I have absolute and total veto power over."

That isn't someone approaching this in a manner consistent with them actually caring about what I want and think and feel. It is them laying down the law, hammering down "you WILL do EXACTLY what I say and nothing else," and maybe it's me becoming jaded, but I have no qualms now calling that out as kind of a jerk thing to do. A reasonable person is willing to listen to reasonable requests for discussion. An unreasonable request is already a problem on its face, and thus not worth wasting our time upon--as I've said, repeatedly, a bad-faith player is already a problem.

Why do you need rules to protect you, the presumptively good DM, from bad players, when so many are so eager to say that rules cannot protect good players from bad DMs?

The key here is the DM is working to make a great campaign.

You are presuming good faith on the DM's part. This entitles me to presume good faith on the players' parts. If I am not allowed to assume good faith on the players' parts, you are not allowed to presume good faith on the DM's part.

That is the only reasonable way we can conduct an actual conversation. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand that we look at DMs exclusively as being without any fault, and then turn around and say that we have to consider the full spectrum of possible player behavior.

Either we consider the full spectrum of all participants' behavior, DM and player alike, or we restrict ourselves to only those who are participating in good faith, DM and player alike.

This is not crazy. This is not some ridiculous, unfair demand. It is simply asking for a fair, unbiased discussion. I will not accept a discussion that is starting from such an actively biased point.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. But it is an illustration of my point that you can not be a jerk and also have the last word. I apologize if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth.

Okay. My rebuttal to your point, then, is that you are comparing unlike things that can coincidentally be described by the same term.

If I were to ask my (hypothetical) boyfriend where he wanted to eat, and he said either Arby's or Subway, and I said "Alright, let's go to Arby's." Who had the last word? Well, technically, me. I don't think you, or anyone else, would really consider this to be me in any way dominating or controlling or laying down the law or any other term that indicates that I somehow have absolute, final say on all matters relating to restaurant choice.

So: it is possible to have the final word without being a jerk. Sure. I have now also shown, I hope, that it is possible for "someone had the final word" to be a perfectly accurate description of a mutual-best-interest conversation.

So why is it so important that one person be invested, not just with a final word, but with an absolute, inarguable, "question me and be ejected" veto? Why all this additional stuff about players not even daring to peep about something during session? Why this need for "absolute power"? A term I will note that people in this very thread have openly and explicitly insisted upon despite my concerted efforts to sway them away.

That's what turns this into such a problem for me. Often, yes, someone gets "final say" in that...every conversation has a last word, or endpoint, or final claim, or whatever, and it gets spoken by one of the participants. That doesn't really mean anything. It's all the stuff around it.

Or, as was said to me earlier in the thread...

It's not what you say it's how you say it.

Though I would add a "just" in there: "It's not just what you say, it's how you say it."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've noticed that a bad player can often be handled by a good DM. I mean there are limits to how bad the player can be but I've dealt with a few in my time.

If that is so, do you not think it is then possible for a group of good players to deal with at least some bad DMs?

And if that is true, might it then actually be true that good rules could at least help to deal with some bad DMs, even if they don't fix everything?

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is nothing anyone can do to override anyone. It's not a legislature, or a court, or a committee governed by externally-imposed rules. It's a group of people jointly participating in a voluntary activity.

If I decide, for instance, that my PC's is wearing a green cap, there is nothing the GM can do to override that.

Can we use more realistic examples? I think I see your point, but the hyperbole is making it hard to take it seriously.

 

[Emerikol]

And I become instantly suspicious when someone says, "You are not allowed to question anything I say, and at best you may make suggestions, which I have absolute and total veto power over."

We just see it the exact opposite when it comes to DMing.

That isn't someone approaching this in a manner consistent with them actually caring about what I want and think and feel. It is them laying down the law, hammering down "you WILL do EXACTLY what I say and nothing else," and maybe it's me becoming jaded, but I have no qualms now calling that out as kind of a jerk thing to do. A reasonable person is willing to listen to reasonable requests for discussion. An unreasonable request is already a problem on its face, and thus not worth wasting our time upon--as I've said, repeatedly, a bad-faith player is already a problem.

I think a reasonable person is willing to listen to requests at a particular time and place. In the middle of a battle or even a play session is not a reasonable place.

Why do you need rules to protect you, the presumptively good DM, from bad players, when so many are so eager to say that rules cannot protect good players from bad DMs?

Because even if there were a thousand rules binding the DM, no DM would accept them. The DM is committed in a way the players are not. The DM if he is a good on has committed days of work preparing a campaign setting. He's laid out various assumptions for this particular campaign.

You are presuming good faith on the DM's part. This entitles me to presume good faith on the players' parts. If I am not allowed to assume good faith on the players' parts, you are not allowed to presume good faith on the DM's part.

That is the only reasonable way we can conduct an actual conversation. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand that we look at DMs exclusively as being without any fault, and then turn around and say that we have to consider the full spectrum of possible player behavior.

I don't demand that at all. I'm sure DMs can be at fault. I am saying that the DM has committed in a way that is not the like the players commitment. And the players have their own veto. If a DM vetos an idea the players can veto the game. But as I said above, no DM worth having is going to let a rule in a book dictate his campaign. For example if D&D 5e said all races must be included, I'd no more follow that rule than I would jump off a bridge. The little secret is..all rules are suggestion to the DM on how to run a consistent campaign. They are not etched in gold.

Either we consider the full spectrum of all participants' behavior, DM and player alike, or we restrict ourselves to only those who are participating in good faith, DM and player alike.

This is not crazy. This is not some ridiculous, unfair demand. It is simply asking for a fair, unbiased discussion. I will not accept a discussion that is starting from such an actively biased point.

I would argue when a DM is not acting in good faith to a degree you cannot tolerate then absolutely leave the game. There are DMs who can't get groups because they are jerks or killer DMs. If I were more available, I could run a group every night of the week exactly how I want to run it. Why? Because I put those hours in to make a really awesome campaign world and a lot of players appreciate that effort. Those that value that effort little will probably not be the types that fit my campaign for sure.

 

[clearstream]

You are just wrong here. Your character may be imagining he is wearing a red cap but if the DM does not say you are wearing a red cap then none of the world is going to react to you like you are wearing a red cap. But this already is beside the point. Someone with your view would be booted quickly and it wouldn't get to arguing about red caps. You hopefully would go find a DM to suit your fancy and the other players and myself will get on with playing D&D.

What counts as "wearing a red cap" in a TTRPG? Typically, participants picture it in their imagination. No matter what DM chooses to imagine, player can continue to picture that they are "wearing a red cap". Suppose there are three players and one DM, and the three players all share that picture, then the normal view is that the character is indeed "wearing a red cap".

Nothing DM chooses to picture can dislodge that, other than in their own imagination.

 

[Oofta]

And I become instantly suspicious when someone says, "You are not allowed to question anything I say, and at best you may make suggestions, which I have absolute and total veto power over."

That isn't someone approaching this in a manner consistent with them actually caring about what I want and think and feel. It is them laying down the law, hammering down "you WILL do EXACTLY what I say and nothing else," and maybe it's me becoming jaded, but I have no qualms now calling that out as kind of a jerk thing to do. A reasonable person is willing to listen to reasonable requests for discussion. An unreasonable request is already a problem on its face, and thus not worth wasting our time upon--as I've said, repeatedly, a bad-faith player is already a problem.

Why do you need rules to protect you, the presumptively good DM, from bad players, when so many are so eager to say that rules cannot protect good players from bad DMs?


You are presuming good faith on the DM's part. This entitles me to presume good faith on the players' parts. If I am not allowed to assume good faith on the players' parts, you are not allowed to presume good faith on the DM's part.

That is the only reasonable way we can conduct an actual conversation. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand that we look at DMs exclusively as being without any fault, and then turn around and say that we have to consider the full spectrum of possible player behavior.

Either we consider the full spectrum of all participants' behavior, DM and player alike, or we restrict ourselves to only those who are participating in good faith, DM and player alike.

This is not crazy. This is not some ridiculous, unfair demand. It is simply asking for a fair, unbiased discussion. I will not accept a discussion that is starting from such an actively biased point.

First, the DM making the final call does not mean you can't question a call. During a game I'm not going to have a long discussion so that we keep the game going, but we can talk about it after the game.

But there will be times when the DM says X, the player says Y and there is no middle ground. What do you envision happening? There's nothing to work out, there's no compromise. It's either X or Y.

In games I play, the DM has always made the final call on some things but it's always been pretty general. No evil PCs, no guns, general limitations on type of campaign the DM is comfortable running.

There have been times were there was a either or disagreement at the table but it's been extremely rare and it was years ago with a player that constantly pushed the boundaries. One day, when said problematic player was late, the other players thanked me for taking a firm stance.

There are bad DMs out there. DM making the final call or not has little to do with it.