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.

 

[dave2008]

No, that is you reading your agenda into it.

The group INCLUDES the DM. They are there to have fun, too, aren't they? According to you, it seems that they aren't if it is at the expense of the players' fun.

Also, please stop misquoting it:

"MAKING SURE THE RULES SERVE"-- RULES, RULES, RULES!!! See that?

The DM does not "serve" the players as you continue to enjoy claiming. Nothing about the narrative here (like the DM running the NPC kobold as dumb) or about the DM preferences not counting towards their fun as part of the group.


You have no evidence to support that conclusion at all.

If it meant that, it would have said... "making sure the rules serve the rest of the group's fun."

But, thankfully, it doesn't say that.

While I generally agree with your interpretation, you have to be aware of the power dynamic when looking at the phrase. I think it is really meant to let DMs know that need to consider the players fun too and not just be a slave to the rules. It is not excluding the DM from the group or the fun, but highlight that the DM has an oversized impact on the groups fun.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is no different from what the 2014 rules said, it's just phrased a bit differently. The goal of the game is obviously to have fun.

I'll let you know later this week how the 2024 DMG phrases it.

Except it doesn't mention the DM having fun. Just the players.

 

[ezo]

The DM needs to have fun too. But the responsibility of the DM is make sure the players are having fun.

Great!

But do you understand why, if as DM, I am putting in hours and hours of extra work to make the game fun for the players, I really don't want to deal with them having things that materially make the game less fun for me, such as evil PCs???

99% of the time, things work fine in my games. I often don't allow many "less common" races because they are not part of the fiction of the game world I've been developing (like others here) over decades of play. However, if a player really wants one, I'll bring it in as "coming from another world", etc. Such a thing is a minor inconvenience at worse for me.

But evil PCs is a place where I draw the line. I won't run a game with them, and won't even play in one. It JUST IS NOT FUN FOR ME!

In short, it is the groups' responsibility to make sure the group is having fun. Everyone. The DM and each and every player. This is why a toxic player can ruin a game as quickly as a toxic DM!

So, it is not just the responsibility of the DM to make sure the players are having fun. While you might not intent it, such statements are easily misconstrued to mean a one-sided relationship, which I don't believe in good faith is your point, either.

While I generally agree with your interpretation, you have to be aware of the power dynamic when looking at the phrase. I think it is really meant to let DMs know that need to consider the players fun too and not just be a slave to the rules. It is not excluding the DM from the group or the fun, but highlight that the DM has an oversized impact on the groups fun.

Certainly! Great power and great responsibility and all that is true, too.

But, that power dynamic is established at the will of the players. No DM can unilaterally enforce a rule if all the players have less fun because of it. The players have the final power of objection by leaving the game, and then the DM has nothing (for the time being anyway...).

Despite a lot of this way and that way in this (very) long thread, I truly hope everyone here understands that the underlying power dynamic of referee and players in a game depends on both the players AND a referee.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Don't worry... it doesn't actually say that (see my post 1160).

Glad to hear it was misquoted.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Except it doesn't mention the DM having fun. Just the players.

DM is a player

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is he a Dwarf or a Gnome learning the language of Kobolds? Who despite having learned that language was utterly ignorant of the nature and cognitive abilities of Kobolds?

Because that's what I was talking about.

I don't see a difference, tell the truth. No reason learning Kobold means you now have a working knowledge of kobold culture.

 

[Micah Sweet]

DM is a player

Not in that statement they aren't.

 

[ezo]

DM is a player

Not in the sense of defining the difference between "player" and "DM".

However, the point is the DM is certainly part of the group. That was .... well, slightly misused before.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But you've given no reason. This is just a stipulation by you, an arbitrary definition of "true campaign".

The reason is preference. Just like you have a preference you're advocating.

 

[Zardnaar]

Generally the DM has the authority here.

What edition or rules system to use.
What rules are in use.
Setting, theme, tone.
Often location. Where the game gets played
When the game gets played
Who gets to play.

You're an idiot if you don't ask what the players want at least in broad terms. You're the a hole if you join a game while not respecting any requirements the DM has advertised.

Example.

5E game suitable for beginners. Mature group ages mid 20-s mid 40's any age welcome. Maximum of 5 or 6 players. We will be using one of the starter sets Forgotten Realms. Players hand book or preconstructed characters your choice. 6pm at gamestore xyz. LGBTQ friendly. PG13+ with swearing.

More or less recent ad I placed. 7 responses, 1 ended up ghosting, one dropped out due to schedule change running two groups (was after 1-2).

Ad also mentioned Star Wars and board games. Star Wars RPG 0 responses, board games 1 (and D&D).

So got enough for a third group and board games on break nights or as desired.