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.

 

[Lanefan]

That seems fair to me, because that's definitely a player fail. If you see a combat spell being cast, you should assume that it has some sort of duration; I would have allowed for an Easy Arcana check (or relevant system-specific check) to get a rough sense (minutes, hours, days) of how long it would last.

I'm not sure now if the wall of force was caused by a spell or wild magic surge or device or what. All we knew was that it wasn't there, and then it was.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just don't care about how the sausage, or the world, is made. Is it coherent, logical and, most of all, fun to play? That's all that matters. They can have all the justification for decisions in the world and it may not be the game for me. In other cases they could have no reason at all and it can be a fun game.

How the sausage is made is, in contrast, a very high priority for enjoyment of the hobby for me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In monotheism, in some ways, the omniscient omnipotent God is powerless because of the necessity of human free will.

And, more importantly, God the Father is not the same kind of being as a human is. That is why an Incarnation was both necessary and fortuitous. Human failing made it required; His desire to fulfill His love for us made it worthwhile either way.

But frankly I'm not sure invoking deeply held religious beliefs is a wise move in this context @Paul Farquhar .

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The dichotomy is in my style of games which is at minimum traditional D&D.

That....doesn't make it better?

The dichotomy is still false unless you actually say why those are the only two options. You have not done so.

A good DM can get players for his or her campaign any time they want. It's not a struggle.

A good DM knows they have to not merely earn their players' trust once, but continuously. That player enthusiasm is the single most valuable currency they have, and profligate spending thereof is one of the worst errors they can make.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

How the sausage is made is, in contrast, a very high priority for enjoyment of the hobby for me.

Is this the making of the sausage yourself, or the watching of others make their sausage that entertains you? Innuendo aside, I think there's an interesting difference between the two. I actually really like hearing how others make their sausage.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So you've made a ruling. If you were DM and a player disagrees, what happens? Can you stop dodging what is a simple question?

I have not dodged it. I have shown, repeatedly, that it's not that simple. That's my point! You want to box me into a false situation.

"Have you stopped embezzling funds?" is a loaded question. I refuse to answer your loaded questions because they are loaded questions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is this the making of the sausage yourself, or the watching of others make their sausage that entertains you? Innuendo aside, I think there's an interesting difference between the two. I actually really like hearing how others make their sausage.

I enjoy both in different ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have not dodged it. I have shown, repeatedly, that it's not that simple. That's my point! You want to box me into a false situation.

"Have you stopped embezzling funds?" is a loaded question. I refuse to answer your loaded questions because they are loaded questions.

I think a fair number of folks here simply disagree with your position that it's not that simple.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. They will or won't regardless.

Then you are wrong. It is a scientific fact that different sets of rules and procedures do in fact encourage or discourage prosocial behavior. TTRPGs are no exception.

No. They will be sure of themselves or not regardless.

See above. People are, objectively and scientifically, emboldened to do worse things when they see things like people getting away with worse things and experiencing no consequences for it.

No. The game does not promote that at all. A person will be like that or not regardless. Someone who is like isn't going to cease being like that because of some rules telling him not to.

People are not inherently good or evil, but they are subject to temptation and to exemplars. Badly constructed rules actually do make more bad exemplars, which leads to more people choosing to follow in their footsteps. Nobody is born a bad DM. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise: and, more importantly, it's a moral claim far, far stronger (and more offensive) than any I have made here.

No, they SHOULD understand that people are people and some are going to be jerks regardless, but the vast majority will not be and will not abuse the game.

No one is a jerk no matter what. That's literally saying some people are just born jerks. It doesn't work that way.

I disagree.

Whether you disagree or not, the facts are what they are.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think a fair number of folks here simply disagree with your position that it's not that simple.

Then they should actually show that it must be that simple all the time, rather than pretending that it is, or coming up with easily defeated examples.