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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't.

Yes, you do. You, very specifically, have repeatedly and explicitly insisted that it is "absolute" power. I did my damnedest to try to convince you otherwise. You flatly refused, every single time.

You are the person I refer to when I say that there are people on this board who insist upon "absolute power"--on that specific, exact phrase--no matter how much I tried to dissuade you.

I don't think I've ever said the absolute authority is part of being a good DM. Being a good DM is apart from that.

You have made it very clear that you think it is necessary for being a DM at all, and thus must also be necessary for being a good one.

My view on the "enabling" argument is 1) simply playing any game enables bad human behavior, because humans are humans, 2) you cannot legislate away someone being a jerk, no change to the rules will prevent abuse, 3) because of number 2, there's no point in removing a helpful tool from the DM's toolbox, because the removal will only hurt the responsible DMs. The rare bad ones are going to be abusive regardless of what the rules say.

Then how can the DM legislate away bad player behavior? It's not like they can mind control folks.

Again: Why do you need rules to protect you from bad players (the "the rules give the DM absolute power" argument), but reject the idea that any possible rule could ever even remotely help with dealing with bad DMs?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not sure what’s the point of all these stories of bizarre hypothetical dysfunctional games that do not actually happen…

 

[Maxperson]

If you never use it at all, why is it so important that you insist upon it?

In 41 years of DMing I've used it maybe 3-4 times. Less than the fingers upon one hand. It is occasionally useful to have and use.

 

[Emerikol]

But I do mention it, and the other players (in my thought experiment) agree with me. The challenge presented is how to show that what DM pictures is any more real than what players do?

The DM sets what is true in the campaign world in my games. If I had a bunch of players pulling this sort of thing, they'd be out looking for another DM. I can't imagine with my reputation and my efforts to prevent such players from being in my games that it would happen.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not sure what’s the point of all these stories of bizarre hypothetical dysfunctional games that do not actually happen…

I mean, I have--consistently, in every thread of this type since forever--specifically WANTED to talk about both DMs participating in good faith and players participating in good faith.

Every single time, I'm met with, "But what if one of the players is a jerk about something???"

I'd really, really rather talk about ANYTHING else. I'd really, really prefer to talk about DMs that genuinely do care and players who genuinely do care.

I'm not the one constantly predicating my argument on the idea that DMs must protect their precious worlds from horrible players.

 

[Emerikol]

Yes, you do. You, very specifically, have repeatedly and explicitly insisted that it is "absolute" power. I did my damnedest to try to convince you otherwise. You flatly refused, every single time.

Inside a given campaign it is absolute.

You are the person I refer to when I say that there are people on this board who insist upon "absolute power"--on that specific, exact phrase--no matter how much I tried to dissuade you.

I am comfortable with it INSIDE the campaign.

You have made it very clear that you think it is necessary for being a DM at all, and thus must also be necessary for being a good one.

I think for the style of campaign I like to DM and play in, this is true. I think my playstyle with a wishy washy DM usually results in disaster. I won't though say there are not other styles of games out there that can work for people. I'm only addressing the type of games I run.

Then how can the DM legislate away bad player behavior? It's not like they can mind control folks.

They could just boot the player if it got bad enough.

Again: Why do you need rules to protect you from bad players (the "the rules give the DM absolute power" argument), but reject the idea that any possible rule could ever even remotely help with dealing with bad DMs?

I don't need that rule. It is an implicit rule and no rulebook can ever take that away. Even if some edition of D&D would make a rule outlawing DM supremacy (I'd argue they should also outlaw the name of the game at that point as well), I would still exercise it. I offer a type of campaign. Players can take it or leave it. I have all the players I want when I run a game. In fact I almost always have to turn away otherwise good players because the group is just too big.

I run very much a Gygaxian style game. Though I perhaps take it a tiny bit more seriously in certain aspects. I don't do a Dungeonland adventure for example. EGG had plenty of players who loved what he offered. Same for me. I don't see why I should play a less fulfilling game given the circumstances.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, you do. You, very specifically, have repeatedly and explicitly insisted that it is "absolute" power. I did my damnedest to try to convince you otherwise. You flatly refused, every single time.

I have insisted(correctly) that I have it because they have given it to me. I do. When you DM you do as well. You cannot convince me otherwise, because I'm not going to put on blinders to reality. As soon as WotC changes the authority that both they and TSR have given to DMs, we can have a different conversation about this.

You have made it very clear that you think it is necessary for being a DM at all, and thus must also be necessary for being a good one.

I'm not sure how DMing by committee would work, but the tool doesn't make you a good or bad DM. Other factors do.

A hammer is a tool. You can use it to make great houses. You can use it to make good houses. You can use it to make mediocre houses. You can use it to make poor houses. And you can use it to make really bad houses. The hammer doesn't make you a good builder or a bad builder. It's just a tool. And it should not be taken away from builders just because you have some crappy construction workers or a few construction workers assault coworkers with hammers.

The authority granted by the game doesn't make you a good or bad DM. It's just a tool like the hammer.

Then how can the DM legislate away bad player behavior? It's not like they can mind control folks.

You can't and I've never said that you can. I've said it before and I'll say it again now. If you have a problem player you talk to him outside of the game and if he continues to be a problem, you kick him out of the game. The tool isn't there to bash players over the head any more than a hammer is for that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, I have--consistently, in every thread of this type since forever--specifically WANTED to talk about both DMs participating in good faith and players participating in good faith.

Every single time, I'm met with, "But what if one of the players is a jerk about something???"

I'd really, really rather talk about ANYTHING else. I'd really, really prefer to talk about DMs that genuinely do care and players who genuinely do care.

I'm not the one constantly predicating my argument on the idea that DMs must protect their precious worlds from horrible players.

I don’t think it needs to be anyone being a jerk. It is good if the things remains coherent and consistent, thus it is beneficial to have a conductor, someone who is avare of the big picture and has the final say. In typical D&D this is the GM’s role.

 

[clearstream]

No. The DM's view is the physics of the world. What he is imagining is reality in that campaign world.

To restate my point, here you are defining "reality" as what one person imagines. What happens when others at the table choose to imagine something different? There's really nothing DM can do to force it.

They could do that but the results would be eventually that they could not prosper having views that are not in accord with reality.

What happens should the players just go on as they have? Perhaps nominating one of their number to take over as DM. Their views become "reality"? I believe all one can really show is DM may have a loud voice on some matters.

Well, the use of the term "shared fiction" is telling. I don't describe my game as shared fiction. Players don't introduce things about the campaign world into the setting just because the DM hasn't yet described them. That style of play exists and for some it is fun. It isn't really traditional D&D though. Now, I agree that the Players actions/reactions and the DM's update of what they are experiencing in the world is a sort of shared fiction I agree. The term is loaded nowadays though and I don't use it. It's a far more narrativist term so I just don't associate it with my games at all.

Yes, that was intentional, and I am not referring to narrativist games here. The model you describe conflates "the game" with DM. Under that model it can seem justified to say that X is not part of the game unless X is accepted by the DM. I am pointing out that not only is that not the the only model, it's not the model for non-narrativist games such as those played in Adventurers' League that can live on past any given DM. If anything, it is the game designers and players in that case that persist "the game".

Going further, I would say that it's trivially shown that the "DM = Game" model is false, by asking how "the game" goes where there is only the DM and no players? Seeing as we are not talking about solo-play, we're really only debating matters of degree.

 

[Maxperson]

Still doesn't answer my point re flight coming online into the game anyway (5th level for the Fly spell, 2nd level for Druid shapeshift, etc.) so soon that it really makes no difference.

There's actually major differences. Druids can't turn into a flying creature until 8th level and you can't cast spells while shapeshifted. That's a pretty major difference than flight at will at 1st level with no casting limitations. The 3rd level spell costs an important spell slot, is limited in duration, and is concentration so you could lose the spell the round you cast it. that is also a pretty major difference.