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.

 

[Oofta]

...

I don't know what your reasons are, or what this hypothetical player's reasons are. I don't whether they are good reasons or not. If no one can be persuaded, or if everyone is impervious to reason, or if no can agree to compromise based on some meta-reason (like "I want the game to keep going") then as far as those two people are concerned the game is over.

What happens to everyone else at the table will depend on further social circumstances and dynamics.

So your answer if the DM and player disagree on something as simple as the use of fast hands to cast a spell from a scroll as a bonus action is ... you don't know? You have no answer? Because the only other way I can read it is that the DM decides and, assuming the rest of the group is okay with the DM's rulings, the game goes on with the person who wouldn't accept the DM's ruling. Which is what I said.

In D&D they've established the rule that the DM decides for a reason. It doesn't come up often, but it has and honestly I think the game works better for it. Look at how interminable some of the discussions are on this forum. The thread on this topic is approaching 300 posts and, while I haven't bothered following it, it looks like the same sides arguing the same things. On something like this the only other option I see is something like what happens in committees with no leader. It's just the person who has the strongest personality and everybody just gives up to move things along. I'd rather have someone designated to make the final call, it's less stressful and takes less time. If the designated person (the DM in this case) makes enough rulings I don't like I'll find another game. Just like you left the game were you felt the GM wasn't running the kobold "properly".

 

[ezo]

The DM lacks "absolute" control, because the players can choose to go in a different direction.

Ultimately, it really is the players who control the narrative. To a meaningful degree, the DM is answering to the authority of the players.

The players can make choices, certainly! Some of these choices are in response to prompts made by the DM or other players, sometimes they are player-generated due to their own agenda, and many times the DM makes choices prompted by the players' decisions and statements. That is the way the game works. Back and forth. BOTH parties contribute to the narrative.

The DM has final say in matters pertaining to the game world in which the players play. The DM cannot control or dictate the actions, thoughts, etc. of the PCs -- those belong to the player. At worst, the DM can kill the PC -- but generally this should only happen due to the luck of the dice in combat, etc. The player can give control to the DM (if they can't make the game, etc.), but otherwise the DM controls the world, the players control the PCs.

The players do NOT control the game world. They influence it and act within it, but that's it. In a way, the "game world" is the DM's character.

Well I think it's very disrespectful of that GM to offer to GM a RPG, and then to sit down and try and tell us a boring story instead.

Hardly disrespectful---just not a DM that meets to your style.

It's like if someone offers you some pizza, but it turns out the pizza has toppings you don't like. Doesn't mean it is a bad pizza or the person offering it was being disrespectful.

Of course, if the DM knows you don't like that topping, it would be a bit strange, I'll admit it. But, hey, maybe they were just being friendly and giving you the chance to change your mind? Now, if you feel they were taunting you with a pizza they knew you wouldn't lie, that would be disrespectful.

If the DM "traps" the players, the story ends. The DM fails. The players control the narrative.

As I said above, both parties contribute to the narrative, ideally. However, the DM does have railroading at his disposal to push the narrative in the direction needed for the adventure, the "hook" and such. Worst case scenario, if the player decides the adventure, etc. isn't to their liking, they walk away.

If enough players walk away and the DM no longer has a game, there is no narrative. If the DM walks away, same thing. Very rarely do things come to that point. Frankly, IME I don't think I have ever seen this happen.

You're just making that up.

I don't recall how many sessions in we were when the events I described occurred. It was at least the second, and could have been the third or fourth.

TBF you did give that impression. I thought it was the first session as well.

You are correct that my first mistake was playing in this GM's game. Although that's not quite true, because the other players whom I met were worth meeting, and were good players in the game I started, and one of them is still a friend over 30 years later.

While I am correct, it is not for the reason you stated, but for the reason I did. Your mistake was reading the MM and believing you knew the DM's game world better than the DM. IT WAS NOT YOUR GAME WORLD, but theirs.

I did.

Well, someone did as you said you all left and started your own game. If it was you, ok.

That campaign that I started ran for about 9 years. At one point it had around 8 or 9 players, and was one of the more popular and well-regarded games in that particular university club. Some of the people who played in that game remain among my closest friends; and my current group is a direct descendant of that group, although none of them is an original player.

Such "bragging" does not help your case. You have no idea whatever became of the other DM, do you? Maybe he had a game which ran for 15 years with up to 20 players, blah blah blah. Maybe he ended up being the most popular and successful DM ever!?!

Many of us here have had long running games with lots of players, it really means nothing in this discussion and reeks of oneupmanship.

Part of what made my game popular is that it was known to have deep and rich fiction, and to not be a railroad.

Great. Again, same point as above. Lots of us have deep and rich fiction in our game worlds, etc.

FWIW, many players are very happy with railroad-style games. They just want to get on board and ride along for the adventure.

 

[Yaarel]

@ezo

The players play the heroes (including their bastions!), the DM plays the setting.

But the players control the narrative.

FWIW, many players are very happy with railroad-style games. They just want to get on board and ride along for the adventure.

That is the players choice.

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM "traps" the players, the story ends. The DM fails. The players control the narrative.

Yes, the DM can fail like that. The players don't control the narrative if the DM misuses his authority. If he doesn't, they still don't control the narrative. It's collaborative since they still need the DM to come up with stuff in the direction that they go in.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Remember when this was about the 6-8 encounter adventuring day proscription and not how special DMs are?

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, the DM can fail like that. The players don't control the narrative if the DM misuses his authority. If he doesn't, they still don't control the narrative. It's collaborative since they still need the DM to come up with stuff in the direction that they go in.

Yes, the story is collaborative. But the players are making the choices, and the DM is responding to the choices.

 

[ezo]

The players play the heroes (including their bastions!), the DM plays the setting.

Correct.

If the DM allows and uses bastions, that is, because guess what? Bastions are part of the setting.

Now, if the players want bastions and that DM doesn't want to run a game with them, the players can get a DM who is okay with bastions. For example, I am not adopting 2024 material--so, no bastions. If my players want to DM or find a DM who wants bastions, have at it.

But the players control the narrative.

Do you really not understand it is both the DM and the players together who write the narrative?

My players want to travel to city X by boat. As DM, a storm arises, and the boat has to take port at city Z.

How are the players controlling the narrative in that point? How is the DM? Do you see how they both have their influence and take turns in driving the narrative within the confines of the game world?

Yes, the story is collaborative. But the players are making the choices, and the DM is responding to the choices.

And the players are making choices based on the narratives the DM presents to them... Again, both ways.

Remember when this was about the 6-8 encounter adventuring day proscription and not how special DMs are?

Or how special the players are supposed to be?

 

[Mort]

I can tell you what they did wrong - they tried to GM a terrible, terrible game. I'm puzzled by this notion that players are duty-bound to humour GMs who run bad games.

Players are in no way duty bound to tolerate a GM who runs bad games. But there are no "in game" solutions to that.

That said, very few DMs start "good." I think back on my early DMing efforts and marvel how my players didn't get up flee. It's a learned skill, and like most skills takes practice to get good at.

Are you serious? I'm guessing everyone sitting at that table owned a copy of the AD&D Monster Manual, given that it came out in 1977, this game was in 1990, and (with the possible exception of one of us whom I never got to know as well) we had all been playing and GMing for years.

Which is the very reason the MM stats are merely suggestions. DMs have every right to tinker with them, heck the more modern versions of D&D have suggestions on how to do so.

Well, the GM I'm talking about lacked that power. I mean, they tried, but they failed!

What it really sounds like they lacked wasn't power, but charisma and/or a compelling game. If the game was fun, engaging and kept you guys interested - you guys would have cared less about the intelligence level of a kobold.

And again, we have some assertion of a duty on players to sit through terrible GM story-time.

I'm not sure anyone is actually arguing that!

I did. That campaign that I started ran for about 9 years. At one point it had around 8 or 9 players, and was one of the more popular and well-regarded games in that particular university club. Some of the people who played in that game remain among my closest friends; and my current group is a direct descendant of that group, although none of them is an original player.

Part of what made my game popular is that it was known to have deep and rich fiction, and to not be a railroad.

And that's great. From the examples you've posted previously, I'm certain you run a fun, engaging game that would be awesome to participate in.

But that doesn't change the fact, in standard D&D, the power dynamic between the DM and the Players is not remotely equal.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Or how special the players are supposed to be?

That's never once been considered in this trainwreck thread.

 

[ezo]

That's never once been considered in this trainwreck thread.

Funny, I seem to recall them... But, I don't feel like searching 800+ posts for them.

But, ok, you keep thinking that and have a good day.