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.

 

[Oofta]

I thought you were done having a conversation on this topic with me?

It was a comment on the social aspects of the game, not who makes the decision. But you're right I shouldn't have bothered and don't really care if you respond. It was more just "thoughts before I had finished my morning tea".

 

[Maxperson]

If you think having power over a game someone is playing in isn't in any way power over those people, you have a very odd idea of what "power" means. Just ask anyone playing a sport. That's also a game.

100% it is not. I have no power to make them stay, do what I want, or have them think what I want them to.

And I have personally walked out of sports games because of coaches yelling at me over something. They had no authority to stop me. They could keep me from playing the game, but they had no power to make me do anything I didn't want to.

Perhaps the fact that you cannot find such a term should be a warning sign to you that there isn't one? That such a thing isn't a distinction in the first place?

Then we are stuck with the imprecise terms "absolute power" and "Benevolent Dictator." Which of course are still not accurate, so you shouldn't be treating them as gospel.

I would stop "taking them out of context"--which apparently now includes full post quotes, because I've done that in this very thread--if people would stop insisting on the terms extremely strongly when I push against them. Because that's happened. Many times now. I gave up asking for people to relent, because they explicitly and persistently refused to do so. You, specifically, were one of those people.

Because, for the umpteenth time, the GAME RULES give DMs that authority over the game. You need to persuade WotC to change things before that will stop. It's not me you need to argue against. It's WotC.

 

[Oofta]

Because that's what we evil powerthirst DMs feed our dragons before siccing them on the PCs.

View attachment 384046

This probably belongs in the memes thread ... but it applies

 

[Yaarel]

No. Just no. The whole "dictator" and "absolute power" is just because we don't really have another way to describe it. No matter how much you might argue this, we have no power over the players, so there is no dictatorial or absolute power involved. We only have power over the game, which makes us neither a dictator nor gives us absolute power in actuality.

Using the terminology of "dictator" and "absolute power" is deeply unhelpful, and incorrect.

To say as if a DM has "absolute power" over the setting concept, is identical to saying the player has "absolute power" over the character concept.

Ultimately both claims are untrue.

A player MUST work with the DM to coordinate certain aspects of the character concept with places and communities within the setting. Reciprocally, the DM MUST work with the player to figure out ways to accommodate a character concept within the wider setting − and to ensure the player has fun with the character concept that the player invests in.

Any claim of "absolute power" is a profound error.

D&D is a mutually "cooperative game" whose highest priority is "fun".

 

[Yaarel]

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???

I DM. And I am a "world builder". I understand what you are saying, and sympathize with what your concerns are.

At the same time, part of world building is creating places where the character concepts of the players make sense. This back-and-forth exchange of ideas, is art, and makes the setting beautiful.

Most of the time, players go with the flow and are happy to work with whatever the DM offers. But every once in a while, a player really cares about something specific, and at this point, the DM needs to care about what the player cares about.

 

[Maxperson]

Using the terminology of "dictator" and "absolute power" is deeply unhelpful, and incorrect.

Then what is a good term to use to indicate complete authority over the game, yet isn't "dictator" or "absolute power?" I'd love to hear it.

A player MUST work with the DM to coordinate certain aspects of the character concept with places and communities within the setting. Reciprocally, the DM MUST work with the player to figure out ways to accommodate a character concept within the wider setting − and to ensure the player has fun with the character concept that the player invests in.

Well, no. The DM SHOULD work with the player to figure out a way(if possible, and it isn't always) to accommodate a character concept, but he doesn't have to. The rules(which the DM has the authority to change anyway) don't require that. A player does have to work with the DM to make sure the PC fits into the campaign setting, though.

D&D is a mutually "cooperative game" whose highest priority is "fun".

This I agree with. Hence the "should" above.

 

[Yaarel]

Then what is a good term to use to indicate complete authority over the game, yet isn't "dictator" or "absolute power?" I'd love to hear it.

I think terms like "responsibility", "autonomy", even "authority" are ok. But isolation from each other or absoluteness over each other are both impossible in a D&D game.

The DM SHOULD work with the player to figure out a way(if possible, and it isn't always) to accommodate a character concept, but he doesn't have to. The rules(which the DM has the authority to change anyway) don't require that. A player does have to work with the DM to make sure the PC fits into the campaign setting, though.

It is rare but there are times when certain needs for a setting and certain needs for a character are mutually exclusive.

However, I am talking about a situation during session zero, where all of the players have already decided to explore one of the settings that the DM is offering to the group. So, the rest is ironing out the details of the character concepts.

This I agree with. Hence the "should" above.

Heh. Since "fun" is literally a rules-as-written in 2024, this "should" is a "must".

 

[Yaarel]

As we expand on this, it feels like we're identifying the campaign as an institution rather than a game. So there may be members of the institution granted authority over references that are assumed to be incorporated into games played within its bounds.

I guess I tend to think of D&D as an "institution", including all of the D&D traditions across all editions, with founders Arneson and Gygax, and so on. We are all members of this institution, and WotC and indies are too.

 

[tetrasodium]

Then what is a good term to use to indicate complete authority over the game, yet isn't "dictator" or "absolute power?" I'd love to hear it.

Those are granted by terms like DM or GM. Those abbreviations expand out to Dungeon Master and Game Master. Sometimes you will see games use terms like judge narrator and so on. In nearly all cases the game grants the individual taking on that role absolute authority with very few restrictions by virtue of the role and only need to be argued about like this when a player is trying to take that authority for themselves to do things like.... Well..... Lets use your recent post below as a starting point

It seems odd to me that either one of you are talking about the kobold "knowing more" when no one, even you, knows what it knew in the first place. Assuming the DM didn't tell you outside of the game what the kobold knew.

This is going to get back to the discussion of authority inherent in those titles and players seizing it You are correct that neither knows at this point, but one can assume the possibility that it could hypothetically have known more to engage in discussion with a player who did make that assumption at the table when it occurred. By making that reasonable assume that it was possible that the kobold could have hypothetically known more those posters can do things like point out ways that a reasonable gm could have done exactly what was done.

On the other side of that coin you get back to players questioning the authority inherent in those gameplay roles above in order to seize that authority for themselves to benefit their character. It's absolutely reasonable to assume that a captured creature could hypothetically know more than it is telling, but when a roll under skill check style thing§ fails to immediately produce the desired results the game rules generally leave little room for the characters to immediately get that info some players will take the next step of questioning the authority of those titles to produce the desired results immediately by bullying the GM into proving that they as GM had the right to make the relevant world elements (ie the kobold) behave as they did. That over the table objection is an especially powerful tool because it can produce immediate results without needing to risk the PCs doing the legwork for things like a low level dungeon that might lead to the monster/cultists/etc they report to or becoming known to those big bads should the party later encounter them in a situation that no longer needs to be on neutral footing for the PCs alone.

The beauty(or horror) of using this sort of objection to seize power from the GM is that the player invoking it can go around politiking with the other players immediately or between sessions to gain further leverage needed to force the desired answers and there isn't much that the GM can do other than booting the player who demonstrated that new path to any players that never considered it till now. If the GM is regularly booting players it can look bad for them, but every time a player engages in this style of objection to force information from the GM it can raise the bar needed for the GM to shut it down.

§ or similar system specific mechanic

 

[ezo]

I DM. And I am a "world builder". I understand what you are saying, and sympathize with what your concerns are.

Great. I am glad you understand. I am not expecting you to agree with me, but that's fine, too.

At the same time, part of world building is creating places where the character concepts of the players make sense. This back-and-forth exchange of ideas, is art, and makes the setting beautiful.

Most of the time, players go with the flow and are happy to work with whatever the DM offers. But every once in a while, a player really cares about something specific, and at this point, the DM needs to care about what the player cares about.

Well, I do care, which is why I most often allow players do have things that otherwise aren't normally part of my game.

I can count on one hand the number of things that for me are inviolate:

1. No Evil PCs. And if you start playing your PC as evil, you'll get some warnings, but if you continue to break this rule one of a few different things will happen: a) the PC becomes an NPC, b) the PC will die, c) the player can leave the game (and I will do either a) or b) anyway after they are gone).

2. No Extreme Violence, Offensive Actions/ Narrations, or Excessive Profanity. It is one thing to celebrate a critical strike and celebrate it with a bit of additional gore or whatever, but any sort of habitual occurance is a no-no. Also, although horrible acts occured and still do IRL, they aren't "fun" for me or others IME, so also a no-no. I'm happy to give people warnings if I think things are going to far and/or too often, but failure to listen and act accordingly will get you booted.

3. No Artificers. I hate the class, I think it is extremely stupid and not part of D&D to me. I won't allow them in my games. Period. I allowed one once, big mistake, totally OP IMO and not worth inclusion in the game.

4. No Guns. Yes, I know of their origins and the timeframe IRL, but it doesn't fit in my game world nor makes for appropriate fantasy IMO.

5. Limited Extended Source Material. Anything past Xanathar's is often power creep IMO and when I've tried things IME as well. I rarely allow 3PP material, spells, or whatever and ban most things from Tasha's onward.

That's pretty much as far as hard-and-fast preferences go when I DM or even when I play. Yes, I mean I will not play with a group that has any of the above as well. It ruins the experience for me and I'd rather not waste my time or theirs.

Finally, this one I bend on often enough, but I don't have a blanket "anything goes" policy, so I've included it:

A. Limited Races. PHB races are fine. Most of them are in my game world, even if very rare or seldom encountered. Races beyond those are limited and like #5 handed on a case-by-case basis, but in general the less magical the better IMO. Most of the time, it isn't a big deal, but I want players to clear any of these races with me first.

Off-hand I think just about anything else is ok, especially on an "as-wanted" basis.

All-in-all, it means my games aren't for everyone and I know many players would have more fun in a different style of game. Similarly, I've left plenty of groups myself, sometimes even in the middle of a session (often violating #2).

So, let me ask you this: is there nothing you won't allow in your game if a player wants it?

EDIT: I should stipulate that for a one-shot, etc. I am playing in I am ok with #3, #4, and #5. I won't allow them even in a one-shot I am running as DM, but if another DM runs the game I can roll with these as a player on a limited basis.