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.

 

[pemerton]

There is no rule in D&D that allows players to challenge the DM’s fiction. RAW, the DM should ignore such a comment.

This is in my view absurd. It implies that a player is breaking the rules if they make any response to a GM's proposed fiction other than - what - just getting up and walking away? (Or is that breaking the rules too?)

It's a game of collective make-believe. Page 2 of the 5e Basic PDF sets it out like this:

Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​

But you're saying it's against the rules for a player to point out that something the GM is putting forward is neither exciting nor apt to be memorable nor leading to a good time.

As I said, that proposition I regard as absurd.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Absolute rule 0".

I mentioned in a post above that I cannot find the phrase "rule zero" in the official rules. Can you find it for me?

Heh, you might be playing D&D "wrong".

Are you saying that 5.5 has removed rule zero? Hard to claim without seeing the DMG, and hard to accept as the same edition of D&D if true.

 

[Emerikol]

This is in my view absurd. It implies that a player is breaking the rules if they make any response to a GM's proposed fiction other than - what - just getting up and walking away? (Or is that breaking the rules too?)

The shared fiction is created by the PCs engaging with the setting and getting feedback from the DM. The PCs are not making up the setting like the DM. They are responding to the setting and interacting with the setting. You are not in authorial mode as a D&D player character. That is not a D&D approach. You are in actor or pawn stance depending on edition.

It's a game of collective make-believe. Page 2 of the 5e Basic PDF sets it out like this:

Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​

But you're saying it's against the rules for a player to point out that something the GM is putting forward is neither exciting nor apt to be memorable nor leading to a good time.

If it's a setting detail? Absolutely it is against the rules. I'm shocked that you find this unusual. It's a close-mindedness. You are practically getting pummeled on this board concerning the subject. And on this board you are far less in a minority than you are in real life. I venture to say I could enter almost any game shop and get almost unanimous support for rule 0 all the time.

As I said, that proposition I regard as absurd.

Then D&D is absurd to you and why are you even here. When you can't admit your style of play is a relatively rare off shoot of traditional D&D how can we have a conversation. No one is denying you can play your way. You definitely shouldn't go into D&D games assuming your viewpoint. But DMs, this is a word of warning, such people do exist and putting in a campaign intro where this stuff is explained is very valuable to avoid later trouble.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Session zero existed as session zero long before the term appeared in any "official" D&D book, as far as I know.

 

[Emerikol]

Are you saying that 5.5 has removed rule zero? Hard to claim without seeing the DMG, and hard to accept as the same edition of D&D if true.

Agree. So far the rule is 5 for 5. But maybe it's not in 2024. It would fit my general impression that WOTC has gone off the deep end if so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When one plays at a table where everyone knows how to DM, or where some players are frequently consulting the Monster Manual to shapechange, one can assume monster lore is common knowledge within the setting.

If the DM wants to surprise the players, the DM needs to invent a new kind of monster, build it, and actually surprise the players.

I consider it good roleplaying not to, to the best of my ability, let my personal knowledge of D&D tropes and lore elements to affect the actions of my PCs.

 

[Yaarel]

I consider it good roleplaying not to, to the best of my ability, let my personal knowledge of D&D tropes and lore elements to affect the actions of my PCs.

Can you think of examples where player knowledge would really matter?

For example, does everyone at the table need to pretend they are surprised that a Troll requires fire to kill it?

That would feel off to me.

Plus, in a setting where people encounter Trolls, fire would definitely be part of the folklore.

Again, if the DM really wants to surprise the players, create a different kind of Troll. (Norwegian folklore is full of extremely different kinds of troll, if looking for inspiration.)

 

[Emerikol]

But there is no rule that says that anyone has to play, regardless of the fiction other participants put forward.

And it's obvious why there is no such rule. It couldn't work.

The GM can propose a setting. Other would-be participants can make proposals too. The game will progress when a consensus is reached.

Yes. We have kept saying the player does have the power to veto and leave the game. That is the players option. The DM has the authority in his campaign to define the setting and control the NPCs/Monsters. The player has the right to say what his character is trying to do and most of the time do it with some exceptions. (e.g. mind control, paralysis, etc..)

 

[Oofta]

Are you saying that 5.5 has removed rule zero? Hard to claim without seeing the DMG, and hard to accept as the same edition of D&D if true.

It's semantics. Technically they don't call it rule 0, but both the PHB and the DMG make it clear the DM makes the final call.

From the intro to the 2014 DMG as one example: "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

 

[Emerikol]

Can you think of examples where player knowledge would really matter?

For example, does everyone at the table need to pretend they are surprised that a Troll requires fire to kill it?

That would feel off to me.

Plus, in a setting where people encounter Trolls, fire would definitely be part of the folklore.

Again, if the DM really wants to surprise the character, create a different kind of Troll. (Norwegian folklore is full of extremely different kinds of troll, if looking for inspiration.)

It's not as big a deal when dealing with a common monster. When a PC uses knowledge that really is very rare and his PC would absolutely not know that is bad. And I agree in a situation where you know PCs have monster knowledge, you should mix things up but I don't have to warn them. If you use fire on troll and the fire heals the XYZ troll that is lesson learned. If you do this enough your players stop using metagame knowledge. (and yes perhaps a Troll isn't rare enough for the example but that is the idea).