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.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

I think all of these are fine setting choices.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I agree. I generally can find a way to make something work. But not always.

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

Nope! Not yet anyway. I expect the DMG will give DMs the ability to change rules, and if so, that guidance(it's not a rule) in the PHB can be changed by the DM.

 

[Emerikol]

5e never describes the job of a DM to exercise "absolute power" nor be a "dictator".

The job of the DM is to be the final arbiter on both rules adjudications and on what goes on in the campaign world. The goal of course is to make a game and world that is fun for the players. Thus a "benevolent dictator". It's a role. It's not intrinsic to you as a person. Players who do find a DM to be not benevolent are absolutely within their right to leave the game. I would and have.

 

[Emerikol]

@ezo

I had edited that post.

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

I agree with this point. The difference is that for a given campaign the DM exercises absolute power over that campaign. If he does so in a benevolent way then he will be a good DM. That doesn't mean always doing what the players want. Giving the players exactly what they think they want all the time is the surest way to ruination. But the DM is tasked with making the game fun of course. The two ideas, DM authority and a desire for a fun game, are not in conflict.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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'd say "curator" or "conductor" and "final say."

It is group effort, but the GM is the one who has to make sure that everything goes together as a cohesive whole. They also often have access to way more information than the players, some of which the players could not even in principle know, as it is supposed to be a secret and knowing it all would spoil the fun. Thus it must be the GM who has the final say, as they're the one who has the best grasp of the big picture.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

This is just not true for many campaigns. I would agree if the DM starts a brand new campaign but some DMs keep the same campaign and players and groups come and go. It's all in the same shared fiction. The actions of PCs could impact the actions of other PCs in other groups. Think shared world in an MMO vs a closed game where there is an "instance" for every group.

If players leave, the DM assuming he plays an ongoing campaign will absolutely carry that fiction forward.

 

[Emerikol]

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. That needn't be DMs. We had a long running institution for DragonQuest, inspired by the contents of Chapter 9 "Adventure" and the implications of the Adventurer's Guild and its eponymous Contract. A formal record of membership was kept, various laws governed the progress of player characters from game to game (with a constantly changing rota of DMs), and persons other than DMs took significant roles in detailing the game world. Members could be players in some sessions, DMs in others.

To be clear, most campaigns are single DM campaigns. In a situation where that is not true you absolutely need some sort of social contract that delineates how DMs can change fiction. I've never done a campaign with multiple DMs. Iove to DM and if no one else wants to DM I am always ready to go. I prefer it actually.

I believe that what you identify with the label "the campaign" is an institution. The authority you are supposing vested in the DM is vested in that institution, and it is players' tacit membership of it that leads them to agree with whoever is for the time being entrusted to contribute imagined world facts. You mention "gazeteer knowledge": it is common for DM and players to adopt a canon established by world designers. They accordingly go on to agree imagined facts such as that there exists the port of Hardby at the head of Woolly Bay. Probably you'd be prepared to concede that a group - DM and players - may decide that Hardby does not exist in their version of Greyhawk. Showing that even what is imagined for the institution of "the campaign" is subject to ongoing agreement.

You are coming up with a lot of language to deal with multiple DMs which is an edge case.

It's highly unlikely any DM will ever know everything about Greyhawk. In fact, it's an impossibility, seeing as imagined facts have no obvious bounds. There is no real Greyhawk to serve as a definitive anchor for them... to rule in that Hardby stands at the head of the Bay, while the City of Minarets locals know as Pantoufle does not exist. There are only various overlapping institutions that one may make oneself member of.

Many DMs could know everything there is to know about THEIR version of Greyhawk. What the DM knows is what is known. If he hasn't detailed out a city in some country then that knowledge doesn't exist and isn't part of the campaign.

My argument is not that the norm (DM world authority) is unmotivated - here you lay out two pragmatic motives; the convenience of an "official" record (one that everyone decides to agree is true), and the possible benefits of appointing someone to extraploate from what characters do - it is that said norm is not grounded ontologically. Nothing is true in play just because DM imagines it, it only becomes true given its acceptance by everyone at the table. But this has all been said before.

The record can be as simple as the DMs memory. Naturally I think most good DMs keep notes. Players don't have access to that record. They may keep their own records for their own purposes but the DMs record even if only memory is the official one FOR THAT CAMPAIGN. This may not be true in a multi-DM situation but it is true in a single DM situation.

What I was gesturing toward is that players needn't be limited to a slice. They can go as far as they want. DM is only one person at the table. Norms and institutions we've tacitly opted into may mean that in this time and place, we've granted DM control of colours of hats. Seeing as play is voluntary, we may always rescind it.

Again all of this discussion comes in in a multi-DM campaign which is not really something I'm that concerned about. You can limit my views of things to what I think a single DM campaign looks like.

 

[Emerikol]

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".

It's not. In it's raw clinical meaning it is a true description of facts. The DM is absolute master of the setting and the adjudication of what happens in the setting. We all think he should use that power for good.

A player may have ideas he wants to explore in that campaign and if the DM allows they can be explored. The DM could though not allow them. Let's not dive into the specifics because then we get into whether the DM is using his power for good or ill. The argument is the DM has the power. No one can play an elf in the campaign if the DM says no. It cannot be done. The players can revolt and start a NEW campaign with a NEW DM and play an elf. That will not change what happens in the original campaign.

 

[Yaarel]

I expect the DMG will give DMs the ability to change rules, and if so, that guidance(it's not a rule) in the PHB can be changed by the DM.

Of course the DMs Guide will give DMs the ability to change the official rules. That is part of creating a setting. It mostly happens during session zero.

Rule zero properly refers to overriding official rules, namely it is deciding setting content.

The refereeing of ambiguity or unfun, is part of the rules as written, not part of "rule zero".

 

[Emerikol]

Of course the DMs Guide will give DMs the ability to change the official rules. That is part of creating a setting. It mostly happens during session zero.

Rule zero properly refers to overriding official rules, namely it is deciding setting content.

The refereeing of ambiguity or unfun, is part of the rules as written, not part of "rule zero".

Agree to a degree but it also includes creation of new monsters, new spells, and new magic items. It also includes modifying monsters, items, spells, etc.. Some of that is done at session zero but some is not done until later.