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.

 

[Maxperson]

The concern is, the second claim is actually: "With absolute power, any given DM will abuse the game."

That's patently and objectively false. The overwhelming majority of DMs have in fact not abused the game despite having that power. It's unreasonable fear.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That saying applies to power over people(a mayor, a king, a corporate CEO, etc), which the DM does not have. It's not about power over a game. Using that saying here is quite simply a false application of it.

 

[Mort]

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.)

That is a whole other can of worms (metagaming: good, bad or neutral), and fire being needed to kill a troll is THE classic example.

If this topic takes off - you'll see a split. Some really do believe that the player should not use ANY non-character knowledge when interacting with the game. Using fire on a troll, when the characters have never interacted with or even seen a troll is bad form and should be discouraged.

Personally, I don't go by that at all. Players can go by whatever knowledge they like when interacting with the world. But if I'm DMing I have every right to subvert expectations. Sure the Troll might just be a standard troll, but it might also be infused by the elemental plane of fire and fire actually empowers it in some way, they need a completely different method to down it (Which I would, of course, make sure they have means of finding out, I'm not into gotcha DMing).

 

[pemerton]

My pushback is your certainty that honestly most of us are not doing it right or don't understand the basic intent of a D&D game.

I don't think there is a basic intent of a D&D game, since there have been multiple approaches to D&D going on since at least the latter part of the 1970s. I posted a bit about this in a thread ten years ago: DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher

For instance, the idea that a player would contribute elements of PC backstory, and hence have a say in setting creation, is something I came across in the mid-1980s (it is found in the 1982 Puffin book "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" which I think I first read in 1984).

Not to mention that Gygax, in his DMG, has the following (on p 93, under the heading "Territory Development by Player Characters"):

Assume that the player in question decides that he will set up a stronghold about 100 miles from a border town, choosing an area of wooded hills as the general site. He then asks you if there is a place where he can build a small concentric castle on a high bluff overlooking a river. Unless this is totally foreign to the area, you inform him that he can do so.​

That is the player authoring setting geography.

When I ran an AD&D OA game starting around 1986, I took it for granted that the players would play an important role in setting up details of their families, their martial arts masters, and the like.

So when you (and other posters) tell me that I am playing in a style that is radical or deviant, I can't agree. To me you seem to be taking the 2nd ed AD&D ethos and treating it as universal, rather than as just one particular approach.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

For me, "rule zero" always meant that players at their own table dont need to use the official settings or even the official rules. The game of D&D assumes that the players can homebrew their own setting and even homebrew their rules − and sometimes must to fill in blankspots.

So "rule zero" is something that everyone at the table agrees on, and mostly happens during session zero.

I was surprised to learn yesterday, that for some players, "rule zero" somehow meant "DM dictator".

I need to confirm if 5e never used the term "rule zero", whether 2014 or 2024. If so, it might be to downplay the latter connotation.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't know what you mean by "social contract" here. The only usage I'm familiar with in the context of RPGs comes from The Forge, where it means (roughly) the agreement to use a particular set of constraints, rules, processes and expectations in establishing the content of the shared fiction.

The same people who coined that terminology endorse the "Lumpley Principle", which asserts that social contract is prior to system - or in other words, that formal rules that proclaim that one party has authority can't actually do any work, if there is no agreement among participants. Which is exactly what I have been saying, and is why rules that purport to give one party absolute power in respect of the shared fiction are pointless.

And this is not just semantics - presenting it as semantics is, in effect, an attempt to put forward a particular type of play (namely, GM-driven railroading) as if it were normative or even exclusive. As soon as we have non-railroading play - that is, play where the players can actually make a meaningful difference to what happens next - then it has to be the case that the GM does not have unlimited power over the shared fiction; because it has to be the case that the players can do things or produce results that bind the GM. (Because if they can't, then only the GM can make a meaningful difference to what happens next, and we're back on the railroad.)

You are creating straw man here using the term railroading. Having the final say does not mean the DM has to exercise that final say 100% of the time. If a player says he goes north, most of the time his character will go north. So the player by his actions is impacting the campaign world. But in any given moment, when a dispute arises over what happened or is happening the DM is the final authority.

I didn't learn RPGing in the 2nd ed and 3E eras. I learned RPGing primarily from Moldvay Basic. Secondary sources, for me, were Classic Traveller and Gygax's AD&D books; and also early White Dwarf essays, especially from Lewis Pulsipher and Roger Musson. None of these deny that the GM is bound by rules and expectations, or assert that the GM has unlimited power to make up whatever they want whenever they want, so that all the players can do is prompt the GM to make decisions about what to include or not to include in the shared fiction.

I just don't know how you missed it. I'm from the same era. Yes to be a good DM you do need to be fair and provide a good setting where player decisions as actors make a difference. Absolutely. Use DM authority for good! Yes! The dispute is the existence of that authority and if you claim that era didn't support rule 0 thinking then you were blind to it but it was there.

These differences between GM-driven and other approaches aren't just semantic. I've encountered them, repeatedly, both in actual play experiences and in conversations about them.

In those days, different approaches officially didn't exist. I'm sure people did things differently as humans are humans. Nowadays they do exist and I'm glad for it. We should seek our own players for our play style as DMs. Why? Because a playstyle that enthuses us will make us better DMs.

My view is that GM-driven play is inherently fragile in a way that other approaches are not, because everything depends upon the GM having worthwhile stuff to say, and there is no turning to the players to produce their own worthwhile stuff. I also think that that fragility can be reduced by GMs recognising that their stuff will only become part of the shared fiction if the players accept it, and therefore taking note of what does or doesn't engage or enthuse their players, and factoring that into their decision-making about what sort of stuff to produce. A futile insistence that the GM's power to make up stuff is unlimited is not only empty - as the Lumpley Principle tells us - but distracts GM's attention from what they actually need to make a GM-driven game go, which is not an insistence on their power but rather ongoing success in engaging their players.

Those are not at odds. Use the power for good as I said above. And as a player I would not be engaged by your style of GMing. I'd be looking at my watch wondering how I can politely get out of there and not come back.

I read repeated stories on these boards about failed or unhappy play - a recent one was in this thread, with a GM poster lamenting the inanity of one of the players in his game having his PC Firebolt a random bird in the woods. There is a fruitful pathway to better play experiences for that poster, but insisting on the GM's absolute power over the fiction is not part of that pathway. Acknowledgement of the Lumpley Principle, and then the next step of thinking How can I create fiction that my players will experience as worthwhile, so that they don't feel obliged to entertain themselves by having their PCs Firebolt random birds, is part of that pathway.

Not being boring and not knowing your players is NOT a requirement for a rule 0 DM to operate.

I mean, even going back to the story I told about the Kobold interrogation that brought a game to an end. Insisting that that GM had absolute power, and that we as players were all obliged to go along with the GM's conception, contributes nothing to understanding (i) what happened , and (ii) how it might have been avoided, such that everyone at that table could have had a better time. Whereas recognising that shared fiction is, by definition, shared; and hence that uptake by the players matters; and hence that the real issue is not any supposed absolute power, but rather how to come up with stuff that is worthwhile, engaging and even (heavens forbid!) compelling - that actually helps identify a pathway to a solution. The first step on that path being recognising when the players are telling you that your stuff is terrible.

That is ultimately the divide. The fiction of the world is not shared. The activities of the PCs is how the PCs interact with the world but the fiction of the world is the DMs. As a player I absolutely want that. I'd be grinding my teeth with you willy nilly introducing fiction that was not the role of the player. I will admit I am not as good at finding good DMs as I am at finding players. I do DM more. So I have found myself in a few campaigns where I was glad when the session was over and I could leave the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not sure what he was getting at & don't want to guess with a ten foot pole but I think it has been a while since the words "rule zero" have been printed on pages of the actual rulebooks. Pretty sure it got an occasional mention in old dragon magazine stuff every so often but it has been a while since I remember reading the words "rule zero" or "rule 0" on the pages of a d&d book beside whatever text it did contain carrying similar concepts.

Overall it's kind of a shame because not having it by name makes it harder to find when the obscure footnote is needed

So it's semantics. Got it.

 

[pemerton]

the player is expressly referred to specific entries in the MM, but that is in no way permission or encouragement to read the entire thing and assume it is common knowledge.

Isn't it?

I mean, Moldvay Basic (which is what I started with) tells all participants to read the Monster chapter; it does not reserve it to the GM.

I also note the following remark in the Foreword to the MM:

One final note: as valuable as this volume is with its wealth of information, some DMs may wisely wish to forbid their players from referring to the MANUAL in the midst of an encounter, since it will be considerably more challenging to confront a monster without an instant rundown of its strengths and weaknesses - and besides, a D&D player’s true mettle (and knowledge) will be put to the test. And as even the most casual D&D player knows, that’s what this fascinating game is all about. . .

Read on, and enjoy!​

There is nothing there telling players not to read the book. In fact they are told to read on! The suggested limit is on consulting the MM during an encounter - in other words, players are expected to rely on their knowledge, as the quoted passage goes on to say.

This is before we get to the notion that a Dwarf or Gnome can speak the language of Kobolds, and that a Gnome gets +1 to hit against them, while having no familiarity with them.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't think there is a basic intent of a D&D game, since there have been multiple approaches to D&D going on since at least the latter part of the 1970s. I posted a bit about this in a thread ten years ago: DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher

For instance, the idea that a player would contribute elements of PC backstory, and hence have a say in setting creation, is something I came across in the mid-1980s (it is found in the 1982 Puffin book "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" which I think I first read in 1984).

And I tell my players to come up with abstract ideas for their background and then we meet and work on how it will fit into the campaign setting. If it doesn't fit then we change it but most of the time I can figure out how it fits.

Not to mention that Gygax, in his DMG, has the following (on p 93, under the heading "Territory Development by Player Characters"):

Assume that the player in question decides that he will set up a stronghold about 100 miles from a border town, choosing an area of wooded hills as the general site. He then asks you if there is a place where he can build a small concentric castle on a high bluff overlooking a river. Unless this is totally foreign to the area, you inform him that he can do so.​

That is the player authoring setting geography.

But its not. The land exists. He asked the DM if he could interact as his PC and build a castle in that land. The DM could have said no. None of that is the "shared" fiction you are talking about.

When I ran an AD&D OA game starting around 1986, I took it for granted that the players would play an important role in setting up details of their families, their martial arts masters, and the like.

So when you (and other posters) tell me that I am playing in a style that is radical or deviant, I can't agree. To me you seem to be taking the 2nd ed AD&D ethos and treating it as universal, rather than as just one particular approach.

Outside of a playing session, I've allowed players to propose something and as DM I either approved or disapproved. But inside a session that doesn't happen. Players don't go into a tavern and say "I will approach the hot blond wench at the bar". I'd say there is no hot blond wench. (Assuming there wasn't of course). I've already detailed that tavern out before the party arrives.

The DM is the gatekeeper to the campaign fiction. He creates 99% of it for sure. Player actions create some. Player suggestions can create some but in my game it would only be with approval and it would never be something as big as an entire nation.

 

[Maxperson]

Even if the PCs are scholars, kobolds might be unknown in the setting. That’s why the Monster Manual is a DM facing book. Players are not supposed to know the contents.

Hmm. They had multiple people who knew the kobold language, which is a strong indicator that kobolds aren't as rare as that. We don't know that the DM was acting in good faith. We don't know that he wasn't. What @pemerton has told us so far could go in either direction, but he was there and we weren't.

If he wasn't having a good time, he shouldn't stay, even if the DM IS acting in good faith. There was a time when I was invited by some guys I met at a game store to play in their game. I showed up to the game and quickly discovered they play a game filled with comedy and puns. Like Xanth level comedy and puns, but without a setting built around it. They were just a goofy group.

That's not the sort of game I enjoy, so at the end of the night I politely let them know that a comedy game wasn't for me and thanked them for the invite. It only took one game, run in good faith by the DM, for me to determine that the game wasn't for me and to bow out.

 

[Emerikol]

Here is a way to think of it.
1. The DM represents the physics and history of the universe. The DM created the universe and established the nature of that universe. The DM is also the sum total of all the NPCs and their actions in that universe.
2. Players represent one or more PCs in that universe. Those PCs make decisions based on their senses. That information comes to them through the DM.
3. The "rules" are how the universe appears to work in most circumstances. It is a magical world though and anything can happen. The "rules" though are like documentation and experimentation. The actual reality is the DMs calls.