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.

 

[Yaarel]

The power is over the setting. And while within a broad paradigm laid out by the DM, the players are free to make characters. If the DM says "no elves" for example then the setting has no elves and players can't choose elves.

Here we agree. The DM can absolutely say, Elves dont exist in this setting, or Halflings, or Humans or whatever.

Establishing a setting is part of the "session zero" (an official 5e term). A setting choice requires some negotiation because everyone at the table needs to buy into it.

If one player has their heart set on playing an Elf, there are ways to make it work in any setting. The Elf can be reflavor in a way to match the setting themes and tropes. The Elf might be from some peripheral setting in "a land, far, far away". The Elf might be a unique anomaly, where the setting interacts with the Elf sensically. There are also other solution. It is a negotiation between the player and the DM.

 

[tetrasodium]

The point is, the assumption that D&D requires a "DM tyrant" is false.

I couldn't find a definition of trust or tyrant that references the other & the wikipedia page for tyrant likewise for its most relevant looking page for trust is the same.

The problem is most likely one that lies with wildly unreasonable & likely toxic player expectations if a player at the table holds views that view the mark the DM as a "tyrant" for showing up with a good faith expectation of being trusted by their players

 

[Emerikol]

Here we agree. The DM can absolutely say, Elves dont exist in this setting, or Halflings, or Humans or whatever.

Establishing a setting is part of the "session zero" (an official 5e term). A setting choice requires some negotiation because everyone at the table needs to buy into it.

If one player has their heart set on playing an Elf, there are ways to make it work in any setting. The Elf can be reflavor in a way to match the setting themes and tropes. The Elf might be from some peripheral setting in "a land, far, far away". The Elf might be a unique anomaly, where the setting interacts with the Elf sensically. There are also other solution. It is a negotiation between the player and the DM.

There can be some discussion but ultimately the DM has the final vote.

 

[Yaarel]

I gave a clear example. What happens with the thief using fast hands to cast a spell off a scroll with a bonus action that normally takes an action. The DM says no, the player says yes. There is no "negotiation", it either works or it doesn't.

This really shouldn't be hard to answer, and yes, questions like this do come up now and then in games I've played.

Ok. Here we probably agree.

When it comes to ambiguous rules mechanics. The DM referees what happens during the game session. If it is important, everyone can research and negotiate it between sessions.

This actually happens alot. Rather than bog down the game, I or an other DM says something like, "Ok, for now, we will do this, but we look into the rules more carefully later".

 

[Yaarel]

There can be some discussion but ultimately the DM has the final vote.

The DM has the "final vote on the setting" ... only in the sense that any player needs a character that they actually want to play. The DM needs a setting that the DM wants to play.

The situation is similar to five players at the table all insisting they want to play a Shadow Monk. They need to hash out if that is going to work or not.

Its the same situation where the desire for a setting and the desire for a character concept are awkward together. The DM and the player need to hash it out.

 

[Emerikol]

The point is, the assumption that D&D requires a "DM tyrant" is false.

A benevolent dictator would be more appropriate. And why is the DM benevolent? Because he wants a fun game which is why he plays games.

 

[Yaarel]

A benevolent dictator would be more appropriate. And why is the DM benevolent? Because he wants a fun game which is why he plays games.

In history ...

dictator causes wars

The assumption that D&D requires a "DM dictator" is wrongminded, and ultimately unhelpful.

 

[Emerikol]

The DM has the "final vote on the setting" ... only in the sense that any player needs a character that they actually want to play.

It situation is similar to five players at the table insisting they all want to play a Shadow Monk. They need to hash out if that is going to work or not.

Same situation where the desire for a setting and a desire for a character are awkward. The DM and the player need to hash it out.

We make extreme examples (e.g. red hats) to illustrate the point and not to represent typical reality. But once a DM has set out what exists in his campaign, the player can pick a class or find another campaign or try to lobby the DM for an exception. As a player, I'd choose one of the first two options. The DM has a reason for his flavor and I'm not going to disrupt that reason. If that flavor is something I find interesting I will join the campaign.

 

[pemerton]

if you wanted to know how smart those kobolds were the option to make a knowledge check was right there

What rule of AD&D are you referring to here? (There is no concept of a "knowledge check", at least as we were familiar with the rulebooks in 1990).

rather than metagaming with the monster manual.

How is it metagaming? The MM records information about creatures, which we as players were familiar with, and which we then treated as the knowledge that our PCs had. That's not metagaming. I mean, it's like saying that it is metagaming for the player of the MU to rely on the Players Handbook for knowledge of what spells do.

 

[pemerton]

Even if the PCs are scholars, kobolds might be unknown in the setting.

They're probably not unknown if they're invading the town and we (that is, the PCs) are fighting and capturing them.