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.

 

[pemerton]

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.

But it's clearly not - for instance, the people who are participating in the sharing of it are different.

RPGing is a social process of collectively creating and sharing a fiction together. RPGing is not just about content - if it were, we couldn't distinguish playing a RPG from reading a novel or watching a film.

 

[pemerton]

To be clear, most campaigns are single DM campaigns.

<snip>

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

I think you've referred to Gygax's game more than once. It had multiple GMs.

 

[clearstream]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It sounds like I haven't made my line of thought clear to you. You introduced an entity - the "campaign" - to the discussion, which I have contended is distinct from the played "game". That seems easy to see if it is right that properties of the campaign can include a "DMs record" which directly implies some fiction that could be incorporated into or excluded from more than one game session. You seem to want to create a distinction or compartmentalisation of a single DM from multiple. However, you've spoken of that single DM accepting fiction created by others - game designers who most likely are at times DMs. (And referenced Greyhawk... a multi-DM campaign as recounted in Peterson's histories.)

My general point is that "the campaign" does indeed seem to have standing separate from the game. Suppose one of those notes that "good DMs keep" is about grocer Jill living the town of Hookhill, and that this has not been shared with players nor has anything characters have done invoked or impinged upon it. Until it is shared in play, it exists only in whatever it is that amounts to the DM's "campaign" (about which I've advanced a theory.) TTRPG play relies upon imagining something in common to function. It's an experience, not an object.

Wording such as "the official one" admit that multiple takes are possible on what is imagined, and press for one take - the DM's - to hold special authority. Can you say why you do not see this preferencing as down to some set of established norms? Or are we now just debating mechanisms that enact and buttress them (which I doubt we have any meaningful disagreement on)?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

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

But that is because they assume that the GM could have had good reasons for running the kobold that way. And they might have.

If a player says "I open the door" and the GM says, "the door won't open, it seems to be locked," then that indeed thwarts what the player wanted to do. But there are plenty of good reasons why a door might be locked.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

I'm not sure there is other than the title of the gm/dm role and the way this whole tangent came up through the report of a player who decided that a captured kobold was acting too low intelligence for what the mm statblock says and not giving the expected level of information under interrogation given the statblock.


People in the thread are not saying that the GM has that authority out of some desire to disregard those social concerns. This whole tangent started because a player decided that a captured kobold was acting too low intelligence for what the mm statblock says and not giving the expected level of information under interrogation given the statblock.

Like the post 267 "moderator" example, sometimes power is not positive or negative but is still absolute within a group simply because nobody else in the group has that power. In d&d the GM is given that power exclusively by the rules and it is absolute simply because the majority of what the rules grant the gm is not given to the players at all. The players have the ability to react to that power and take actions in ways not normally available to the gm because the GM does not typically have a PC and the expectation for the NPCs/GMPCs tends to be different enough for that to remain true even when the gm has one in play.

Stigmatizing those authority carrying roles like moderator gm &dm with a new negatively charged term on it's own would be an example of attempting to leverage those social concerns that noted a couple posts up very much works out to someone claiming personal power not normally granted to their role at the table.

 

[clearstream]

Like the post 267 "moderator" example, sometimes power is not positive or negative but is still absolute within a group simply because nobody else in the group has that power. In d&d the GM is given that power exclusively by the rules and it is absolute simply because the majority of what the rules grant the gm is not given to the players at all.

D&D also spells out that DM can ignore those rules.

RULES ENABLE YOU AND YOUR PLAYERS TO HAVE fun at the table. The rules serve you, not vice versa. There are the rules of the game, and there are table rules for how the game is played. (DMG 235)​

​

If players say they would have more fun given a table rule that what they imagine about the world also counts, the above wording prioritises that over following any RAW that contradicts it.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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.

There is this idea in media that you can increase clicks or viewership by invoking emotions. It's why news coverage is overwhelmingly negative. Outrage sells. Negativity and other powerful emotions increase engagement. You can manipulate people with this pretty easily. You see this in pets, doesn't matter what you say, only how you say it. Humans aren't that different.

So your own passion and desire to express your point succinctly actually works against you here. You are using words that invoke an emotion, and it's normal to associate emotion with it's source. If someone makes you feel bad, you think of them as making you feel bad. Crazy idea right? Simple tone and word choice can do this without changing the content of what is said. Ever hear "You are lecturing me," in arguments between couples? That is a delivery issue and is rarely content driven. Most arguments are, the difference between "I understand" and "I hear you" when in a heated discussion is deceptively big.

You can get your message across and not get the reaction you describe by using neutral language in making the point. Such as the "DM being given creative control over the world and broad leeway within the rules." I'm stating the same thing, I'm just not engaging in hyperbole and dramatic language. Saying "the DM has a lot of leeway to bend the rules" will invoke a different response to "The DM has absolute power over the rules."

You can look at it another way. In a couple online ads for a D&D games you have two DMs running two games. Both have restrictions on their games as far as available races go. How they phrase that restriction has an impact. Saying races are banned is less appealing than listing the races that are allowed, as a simple example. Telling players, in the ad, that it's "your way or the highway" is going to garner a more negative reaction than saying "These restrictions are here for worldbuilding reasons and I'd like people to oblige."

Going further into the discussion at hand, you can address the players differently too. Instead of saying the "players have no power" you could say "the players power is social" Or comment that "Outside of the game everyone is equal." Both are better than saying "players have no power but to leave the game" or "DMs have ultimate power over the game." In the latter you just dodge the issue, and point out the positive for the other side. Players have immense power outside of the in-game actions. Focusing on the positives for the other side, while being neutral in your delivery will just cause less hostile reactions. It's similar to tone of voice, speaking loudly is often perceived as more hostile than speaking softly.

Avoiding words like "you" when talking about some belief, and instead not directing it at anyone, is useful as well. An example might be "There is a belief that DMs are broadly ruining games but that doesn't match the data" is much better than saying "You believe that all DMs are tyrants even though you know it's false." It lacks the confrontation and is more neutral in it's word choice. The response will be to the assertion that it doesnt match the data, not to your philosophy on DMing.

Instead of looking for a term, just explain what that term means in a neutral way and dont worry about the term itself. You dont have to describe the DMs power, you can talk about the role. Use your word choice to cultivate the type of response you want.

Hope that helps. It's really hard to explain through text.

EDIT: Another example is "Can I help?" versus "What's wrong?" The former will get better responses in most cases.

 

[tetrasodium]

D&D also spells out that DM can ignore those rules.

RULES ENABLE YOU AND YOUR PLAYERS TO HAVE fun at the table. The rules serve you, not vice versa. There are the rules of the game, and there are table rules for how the game is played. (DMG 235)​

​

I don't think anyone pointing out that the GM had the authority to make the call they made is at all in doubt about that stuff. Including it just before what follows feels like a bizarre flex trying to imply that the GM should hop to granting what follows. That might not have been your intent, but it's definitely odd to cite when the only posters doubting that seems to be the posters also saying that the GM does not have the authority to make a call like a dumb kobold not giving info .

If players say they would have more fun given a table rule that what they imagine about the world also counts, the above wording prioritises that over following any RAW that contradicts it.

Are you suggesting that the time to import fate style declarations into d&d is immediately after not getting the results a player wanted from a captive monster/NPC?

 

[Lanefan]

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

How about "The DM is God. Abide or die." - does that work?

..., the DM MUST work with the player to figure out ways to accommodate a character concept within the wider setting ...

Nope. If the character concept doesn't exist in the setting (e.g. my setting has no Dragonborn or anything remotely close), the only response from me will be a longer version of "Banned - try again".

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.

I design the world long before I have any idea who will end up playing in it, never mind what specific character ideas those players might have. Therefore, by the time any players get exposed to it the various setting conceits (e.g. no Dragonborn) are locked in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

What exactly does the phrase, addressed to the DM, "The rules aren't in charge of your game. You are in charge of your game" mean to you?