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.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

I'd much rather have the kind of DM tools present for modifying monsters in the 3.5 MM than that 2014 dmg section for creating "monsters" that wotc didn't even use. The benefit is that they kept adding more options to the GM's toolboxfor tweaking monsters in power & theme over time rather than just more monsters

 

[Yaarel]

As far as I can tell, the phrase "rule zero" or "0", only shows up once in all of the D&D official products.

It shows up in the 3.0 Players Handbook, but not the 3.5 Players Handbook. The content is also in 3.5, but the phrase "rule zero" seems to have become instantly problematic, thus avoided subsequently.

In the Character Creation section in the 3.0 Players Handbook, there is an itemization of rules. The first rule is number zero.

"
[Rule] 0.
CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER

Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.

"

Properly, rule zero means the house rules and setting standards, with regard to what character options are available. (Anything unavailable would require working with the DM).

In other words, rule zero mainly happens during session zero at level 1. But at higher levels, more player options might become available, while filling in blankspots within the setting, or even sequeing into a different setting.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

And also rules that come up during the campaign that are a problem either with a particular set of circumstances or just in general and hasn't yet been used. The DM uses Rule 0 to fix that issue.

 

[Maxperson]

As far as I can tell, the phrase "rule zero" or "0", only shows up once in all of the D&D official products.

It shows up in the 3.0 Players Handbook, but not the 3.5 Players Handbook. The content is also in 3.5, but the phrase "rule zero" seems to have become instantly problematic, thus avoided subsequently.

In the Character Creation section in the 3.0 Players Handbook, there is an itemization of rules. The first rule is number zero.

"
[Rule] 0.
CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER

Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.

"

Properly, rule zero means the house rules and setting standards, with regard to what character options are available. (Anything unavailable would require working with the DM).

In other words, rule zero mainly happens during session zero at level 1. But at higher levels, more player options might become available, while filling in blankspots within the setting, or even sequeing into a different setting.

It shows up in every edition and also basic. Not by the name Rule 0, but with wording stating what Rule 0 covers. Rule 0 is the name we DMs and players gave that rule that 3e eventually put into play by the name already assigned to it.

 

[Yaarel]

And also rules that come up during the campaign that are a problem either with a particular set of circumstances or just in general and hasn't yet been used. The DM uses Rule 0 to fix that issue.

Rule zero (character option house rules) doesnt refer to refereeing problematic rules. Rules as written have the DM do this.

I think the "campaign standards" of rule zero can include variants of general rules that players will use. In a 2024 context, variants of the "Glossary" might constitute such standards.

In any case, all of these minutia are subsets of choosing a setting.

 

[Umbran]

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 say, use "dictator" or "absolute power".

Because anyone who wants to describe their play that way is indicating to me that they want their personal power to override social concerns at the table. I want to know that, so I can avoid it.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

Moderator.

 

[Maxperson]

I say, use "dictator" or "absolute power".

Because anyone who wants to describe their play that way is indicating to me that they want their personal power to override social concerns at the table. I want to know that, so I can avoid it.

The problem is that in these conversations I'm describing the level of power the game gives to the DM, not how I describe my play. People, despite my saying in these conversations and in other threads that I run my game very differently(with examples), want to ascribe those words to me as if I'm some power hungry madman DMing so I can put it to the players.

I need a different way to say it.

 

[pemerton]

No one is advocating the GM arbitrarily nullifying player action declarations for no reason or silly stuff like that.

Do I need to go back through the thread to quote everyone who has defended the GM decision-making I've described in relation to the Kobold interrogation?

You attempted an interrogation, you were upset because the interrogation didn't work. Sounds to me like you wanted to dictate to the DM how they should have the kobold respond.

<snip>

But if you don't want a game with clear built in assumptions about who is responsible for what in the manner of D&D, perhaps D&D isn't the game for you. You can do whatever you want in your home game of course, and more power to you because that's one of the strengths of the game. Just stop telling people who follow the default assumptions that we're terrible DMs.

I mean, this is just one of the latest examples, with a helping of "you're playing the wrong game" layered on top.

 

[pemerton]

It seems odd to me that either one of you are talking about the kobold "knowing more"

I'm just replying to a poster who asked me a question. I took "knowing more" to mean providing information beyond the answers to the questions we asked.