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.

 

[ezo]

It cuts both ways.

Right.

Would you put up with it if your friend invited you to movie night, then knowing that you don't like violence and nudity, decided to play Naked Stabbathon VI and said you either watch it or kick rocks?

I'd leave and not bother coming to another movie night with them hosting. Lesson learned.

If a player wants to play an evil PC and learns I don't allow it, I would not expect them to show up to play and expect to play an evil PC... that would be rather foolish of them.

Suppose I show up to play in another DM's game. This DM knows I don't allow evil PCs and don't play in games with them. However, in session 0 the rest of the group decides to play evil PCs! That's cool. I'd stick around for that session as players made PCs, but I would inform the DM I'd be bowing out. They didn't know it would go this way, which is fine, and if the others want to play evil PCs for a change, that's fine, too. Just not my thing. When they are done with evil PCs and ready to move on, call me.

It's not about one person getting the last say, it's about the group working together and respecting each other--

I never said it was. You're saying stuff like this is supposed to be new to me???

Respect isn't an issue. I can respect someone even if they want to play an evil PC, it is a game after all. But they need to respect that if I am DMing they won't be playing an evil PC in a game I am running.

If playing an evil PC is that important to them, they can play one in a game someone else is DMing and I hope they enjoy it.

which you can't do while declaring someone at the table King of the Castle and Screw Those Other Plebs.

Sure you can when the people at the table declared one of them to be King of the Castle... The players are granting one of their own that authority over the game. And as a group they can all agree if they aren't happy with the DM to let someone else DM. The ousted DM can stay as a player, or do their own thing.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I certainly agree that context is important. But when someone can quote, and I am not joking, five different people all using the same concepts with the same general meanings in the same thread, I think we have a pretty good idea what the context is.

I think the issue is the inflammatory language not the actual intent of the posters. Saying "dictator DM" is strong language even when used in hyperbole. Just as saying that "DMs are tyrants" is inflammatory even if the greater idea is not.

People on this forum are far to smart for me to believe that they would actively promote bad behavior. They are all here because they love the hobby and want to discuss things related to it. I think quoting them to highlight only the buzz words misses the human side of the post. It takes someone's thought and transforms it into a sound bite meant to spark outrage.

I don't think such "gotchas" happen in an over the table discussion on the same topic. So I believe the context of each post does matter and the number of "buzz words" quoted likely doesn't. That all said, I did not reread every post quoted. So maybe a few really do believe in anti-social DM behavior being okay. In that case I disagree with them, but it doesn't change the need for context.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'd leave and not bother coming to another movie night with them hosting. Lesson learned.

See, there's the disconnect.

If a friend of mine pulled that I'd call them on it and if they're a good friend, they'd reconsider their social faux pas, then we'd all watch a movie we can agree on.

Us being a group of friends, the others would similarly notice and have my back on it.

There's a reason why in our group everyone has DMed while a few know they're not going to be given another chance until they regain trust.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The issue with any discussion on this topic is what we attribute the root cause to be.

I have been very outspoken on the epidemic of poor social skills in the TTRPG community as a whole. I believe that without proper social skills you will always have a hobby plagued by anti-social behavior - which is what tyrannical DMing, and many player issues, are.

There has been no meaningful difference in the teaching of social skills over time. Social skills are not static, they change with time and place. As we become more urbanized, urban manners become more relevant, for example. In rural places, where contact between people is uncommon and noteworthy and life moves at a slow pace, the kind and respectful thing to do is to engage with others, showing them that you value their intersection with your life. In urban places, where many are simply trying to survive the contact with SO, MANY, PEOPLE, and where services need to move at a mile a minute to get through the whole line fast enough, the kind and respectful thing to do is to keep to yourself, engage only as much as necessary when interacting with retail or customer service types, and generally letting people have whatever personal space they possibly can.

This is why I believe the correct answer is properly teaching DMs the social skills to manage a table and to play nicely in a group. Rules will always just be interpreted through the lens of a person's social priorities and will be ineffective if those priorities are misaligned with the developer's wishes. And if the player or DM lacks the above social skills that misalignment is likely assured.

And I'm saying that rules simply are useful for helping us address any of these issues. Yes, having good teaching is always a good thing. But it is not the only good thing. More arrows in our quiver is better than fewer. These arrows do not have zero impact, they really do actually help shape and change the behavior of real people!

In my opinion, we need significant community resources on social skills, not more rules.

We can do both things. One of them is something easily controlled by a group that we can lobby to and make requests of. The other can only be done by the community, which has to have the will to do it.

This has nothing to do with "not wanting to hear" what you're saying. Community norms and values absolutely 100% matter! But rules matter too. Neither of these solutions, nor their combination, can ever or will ever completely solve the problem. That's not possible. But both of them can contribute to a better situation than the one we're in now. And, frankly, if you think the community-standards side of things has been neglected, that's no reason not to also do other, distinct things that can help. If anything, it's a reason to diversify our efforts so that we aren't so dependent on just one thing.

I appreciate this. But I had a few minutes with a two year old telling me how much he loved his daddy. I am loving life.

That's good to hear.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the issue is the inflammatory language not the actual intent of the posters. Saying "dictator DM" is strong language even when used in hyperbole. Just as saying that "DMs are tyrants" is inflammatory even if the greater idea is not.

If that wasn't their intent, why did they use it repeatedly?

Like, if this had been one or two posters, one time, and they had even made an effort to disavow such a thing no matter how minimal, maybe I could see it! But they have not. Far from it. As noted, this is five different posters each presenting the idea in their own way. How can that possibly be "well they clearly MEANT it as something much more mild, they just all kept SAYING it in inflammatory language they themselves dislike and wish people wouldn't use." That's nonsense!

People on this forum are far to smart for me to believe that they would actively promote bad behavior.

Do you think it is possible for someone to passively promote bad behavior? Because that's exactly what I think this is.

They are all here because they love the hobby and want to discuss things related to it. I think quoting them to highlight only the buzz words misses the human side of the post. It takes someone's thought and transforms it into a sound bite meant to spark outrage.

I have no desire to spark outrage. My point, and the point of the person who collected those quotes, is that these are words used by people who SUPPORT this position. When numerous different people who support a position all describe it in similar ways, should we believe that each of them is simply misspeaking severely, or that every single one of them is somehow joking in exactly the same way without any hint of being humorous in text? Or should we just....take them at their word because they keep using those words?

I don't think such "gotchas" happen in an over the table discussion on the same topic.

I mean, in an over-the-table conversation, they would have literally straight-up said this to our faces, so....I'm not sure how that could possibly be better.

 

[pemerton]

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

I'm not advocating a preference. I'm proposing an account of what it is to play a RPG with others - namely, to work together to establish a shared fiction. From that I'm deriving some consequences, including the trivial one that a person can't have a shared fiction on their own.

If the shared fiction collapses, there is no the fiction that has some lingering metaphysical existence to then be imputed to the GM. Maybe the GM keeps some of their ideas and notes in mind and tries again - as per @Lanefan's example of using notes and the like - but those ideas and notes and the like are not themselves a shared fiction that is enduring. Until they figure in play in some meaningful fashion, they're just solitaire.

 

[pemerton]

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.

From my point of view, that doesn't actually tell me the main thing I need to know about the game, although it does permit me to infer it with a degree of confidence.

 

[pemerton]

Vincent Baker wrote this in a blog over 15 years ago:

The real cause and effect in a roleplaying game isn't in the fictional game world, it's at the table, in what the players and GM say and do.

If you want awesome stuff to happen in your game, you don't need rules to model the characters doing awesome things, you need rules to provoke the players to say awesome things. That's the real cause and effect at work: things happen because someone says they do. If you want cool things to happen, get someone to say something cool. . . .

If your rules model a character's doing cool things, and in so doing they get the players to say cool things, that's great. I have nothing against modeling the cool things characters do as such.

Just, if your rules model a character's doing cool things, but the player using them still says dull things, that's not so great. . . .

You want your rules to actually GET them to say cool things. Turning to them like "okay say something cool. Well? Well?" is a crappy way to go about that, it doesn't work.

No, what you have to do as designer is organize the game behind the scenes, like, so that what the players say without really thinking, what they say just naturally, are cool things. . . .

I'm talking about what I think is cool. I design games to get you to say things that I think are cool. So should you, if you design games.

My supposition is that you and your friends all agree with me about what's cool. If you don't, you won't pick up my games in the first place. (Which is fine. If you don't think is cool what I think is cool, you won't like my games, please don't bother.)

If you don't even agree with each other about what's cool, I've got absolutely nothing for you. Are you sure you should be playing games together in the first place?​

I think this is relevant to the current discussion in a couple of ways.

It emphasises that, if the goal is to have play that is awesome and cool ("exciting" and "memorable" in the language of the 5e D&D rules), then we want processes of play that naturally prompt people at the table do say cool, awesome, exciting and memorable thing. The issue upthread of the player whose PC Firebolted a random bird is an illustration of a failure in this respect. Rather than the set-up of the game prompting the player to say something cool, awesome, exciting and/or memorable, it prompted them to say something silly and annoying.

For me, a GM who insisted on "rule zero" in the hardcore/"absolute power" sense that some are advocating in this thread, would ring alarm bells: it's like they don't trust their chosen game system, or the other people they are playing with, to reliably produce cool, awesome, exciting and/or memorable stuff. To me it would imply that they think that only they can do that, and that the contributions of others are a potential threat which they need to reserve the power to shut down.

The second relevance comes out of Baker's final paragraph that I have quoted. Some posts in this thread seem to assume that it is fine, in RPGing, for the participants to have wildly different view about what is cool, awesome, exciting and/or memorable; and that it is the job of the GM to run over the top of that and impose their own view of the cool, awesome, exciting and memorable. To me, that seems to be a recipe for bad, unsatisfying play. As a RPGer, I play with people who, when the say stuff that they think is cool, awesome, exciting and/or memorable, are saying stuff that I also think is cool, awesome, exciting and/or memorable.

We won't always be moved by the same reasons - I can still remember the surprise at the table when one player's PC (in a 4e D&D game) ruthlessly killed some Hobgoblins as they surrendered, because they had been kidnapping children; and the surprise from that player years later in a Traveller session, when a different player had his PC ruthlessly blow up a civilian spacecraft and its commander and crew. (I started a thread about that one here.) But there's no doubt that these events were exciting, if also shocking, at the time, and remain memorable despite the passage of years.

I can't imagine playing with people who regularly propose fiction that I find dull or off-putting.

 

[pemerton]

Would your opinion be different had the GM decided that the Kobold you were interrogating a) happened to know far more than a typical Kobold might and b) was more than happy to spill this info to you?

Happy to spill info - yes, given that we were attempting an interrogation.

Happened to know more - that would depend very much on what this additional information was, and why the GM was introducing it.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

And I'm saying that rules simply are useful for helping us address any of these issues. Yes, having good teaching is always a good thing. But it is not the only good thing. More arrows in our quiver is better than fewer. These arrows do not have zero impact, they really do actually help shape and change the behavior of real people!

Our difference in opinion is whether the rules help. And to take that further, whether they help enough to be worth saddling the majority of the community, which does not have these issues, with the additional rules baggage.

I don't believe additional rules are worth that trade off. You, obviously, do. I don't know that bridging that gap is possible.

If that wasn't their intent, why did they use it repeatedly?

In short, emotions.

One of the reasons I duck out of conversations early is because emotions have a way with words. There was an instance over this summer where I said something I regret on this very forum. I used strong language and, even, directed some at another poster. I was wrong in my use of that language and pursued a casual debate a bit too vigorously to say the least. I let emotions influence the words I used. Micah Sweet acted amazingly and deescalated. And I'm sorry for my actions if they are reading this.

Here we have people pursuing a casual debate. Each side believes in their views strongly. And I reject the idea that either side is objectively wrong, morally bankrupt, or evil. The desired limits on DM power is a subjective topic and one with no victims. Both sides in the debate have shown their passion through some strong language. Both sides have engaged in comments that I view as inflammatory, including words like dictators and tyrants or phrases like "absolute power." Some in support of the DM's control and others as a way to argue against it. But both sides are arguing, from what I've read, in good faith and out of enjoyment of the game.

No one here is a comic book villain, and I think partial quotes, focused on buzz words, tend to paint people as just that. And in doing so, we risk demonizing those we disagree with, and making discussions harder and more impassioned over time. We should assume good faith and remember that emotions have a way with words.