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.

 

[TiQuinn]

So if the DM abuses his authority as DM, what can the table do about it? I can't see anything at all as far as the game goes. They can't tell him no it doesn't happen. They can't decide something else happens instead. They can't open the books and show the DM that he can't do that, as the rules allow the DM to change the rules and make rulings that defy the rules.

The only recourse they have if they don't want to go along with it is to leave the game and go do something else. Play another game, find a new DM, or one of them can DM a new game of D&D.

Even if they do so, though, the DM can find other players and continue the game that they just left, with whatever the DM just ruled being how it happened in the game. So even leaving the game doesn't stop his ruling from happening.

Who would care in that case? Is the goal of running a game to have fun or is it to establish authority over a make-believe world? If it’s the latter, you don’t need players for that, you can write a novel. Not to mention, I can’t think of too many players willing to insert themselves into the scenario you presented.

If I’m a DM, and I lose my players by being a jerk, then the world and game that I’ve created don’t matter a bit.

 

[Maxperson]

Who would care in that case? Is the goal of running a game to have fun or is it to establish authority over a make-believe world? If it’s the latter, you don’t need players for that, you can write a novel. Not to mention, I can’t think of too many players willing to insert themselves into the scenario you presented.

This is beside the point. The discussion is about the rare bad DM and abusing authority. It's not about who cares.

If I’m a DM, and I lose my players by being a jerk, then the world and game that I’ve created don’t matter a bit.

Unless you're a real jerk who doesn't care about the players and just go gets more for your world.

Again, I don't run my game like that and want my players to have a lot of fun. I just understand that there really isn't anything the players can do if they do run into that really rare jerk of a DM other than leave the game.

 

[TiQuinn]

rare bad DM

They ain’t that rare.

 

[Maxperson]

They ain’t that rare.

Yes they are. Don't be fooled by the internet stories. People like to complain, not praise, so you find a lot more complaints on the internet than praises. And with the huge influx of players, it SEEMS like the rare bad DM is all over the place, when he isn't. Even a very, very small percentage of DMs seems like a lot. There aren't that many jerks running D&D games.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

From the art that you do, it seems a beautiful setting.

For my mythologically accurate Nordic section, I am protective too. But the solution in this case obvious. It is only a regional setting, where the rest of the planet has diverse regional settings. It is no problem for someone from elsewhere to be in the Nordesque lands, or viceversa.

I find this entire hypothetical odd. In my experience, with randoms off the internet, most players bend over backwards to accommodate my setting's restrictions. They seem generally excited to explore something that isn't generic fantasy setting number 62. They generally seem very interested in the lore and want to play within it's boundaries to get an immersive experience. They seem like great people to play with, and so I do.

So we often see the phrase "red flags" come up. Where we mention signs that maybe you should not play with a person of a specific role, DM or player. There are numerous of these red flags for DMs and players. It's really quite convenient how easy it can be to spot trouble before actually engaging in a game. And it's quite convenient how easy it is to choose another game, another player, when you notice these red flags.

But isn't it a red flag, if a DM is upfront with the restrictions and the player still demands a race that is not allowed? Shouldn't alarm bells be ringing in the DM's head? To me, they should. For me, as a DM, they would. And isn't it a sign when a game doesn't allow your desired race, that maybe, just maybe, you should pick another game? To me it is, and so I would.

So I fail to see when this hypothetical ever comes up. In my experience, players will come to me and ask how to make a character concept work, not come to me and demand a race. If it's the former, this isn't an issue, as 99% of those concepts are easy to accommodate with the allowed races. And if its the latter, maybe it's not a player I care to play with. Maybe that's a red flag.

So I wonder about the hypothetical. I wonder if it's not fully reliant on power trips and blissful ignorance. DMs and players alike, have no obligation or motive to play with those who don't share their vision, yet we have a hypothetical that assumes that they do. And that's weird.

But maybe I'm priviledged in that over my 8 years DMing for randoms, I've had very few bad experiences with DMs or players. Or maybe the hypothetical is just for discussion purposes and not meant as realistic, in which case carry on.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

“Duras!”

I actually had an orcish political murder mystery inspired by the situation in TNG: Reunion in my campaign. Orcs in my world have very klingonish sense of honour, so it worked well.

 

[Oofta]

Those who are skilled and reliable at DMing (such as you), are making a mistake to leap to the defense of someone who appears not DMing in good faith.

The incident was beyond a "screw up". It wasnt about a misunderstanding of the Intelligence ability stat, even tho this was the hook that incited the incident.

It was a one time incident. We don't know what the DM was thinking, or why he was playing the NPC that way. We don't know what the kobold's intelligence was because the stats in the MM are just the default and a guideline. What I do know is that a DM has every right to play an NPC any way they want, just like (in D&D games I play anyway) the DM can't tell me how to play my PC.

I'm also not defending the DM's choice. I'm saying that a one time incident is not enough for me to call someone a terrible railroading DM. It would be different is this was a part of an obvious pattern. It's not.

 

[TiQuinn]

Yes they are. Don't be fooled by the internet stories. People like to complain, not praise, so you find a lot more complaints on the internet than praises. And with the huge influx of players, it SEEMS like the rare bad DM is all over the place, when he isn't. Even a very, very small percentage of DMs seems like a lot. There aren't that many jerks running D&D games.

Okay that’s great except that I’m talking from experience at both conventions as well as trying to find local games. So I’m glad that your experience is better but that is not uniform nor is it simply an internet myth.

 

[ezo]

Those who are skilled and reliable at DMing (such as you), are making a mistake to leap to the defense of someone who appears not DMing in good faith.

I agree it would be a mistake IF that DMing appear to not be in good faith---but it does for myself (and others I believe) as so we defend his right to DM as he wishes. Doing so doesn't make them a bad DM by any means IMO.

The incident was beyond a "screw up". It wasnt about a misunderstanding of the Intelligence ability stat, even tho this was the hook that incited the incident.

I don't think it was a screw up, either. At best, it is a difference in what kobolds should act like within the game, but barring other information I am inclined to think that is the case--I've yet to seen any information to the contrary.

I did have a very intelligent kobold wizard as a villain recently, but that was a deliberate stereotype subversion.

Of course! The information in the MM is in general, anyway, and subject to the DM's narrative. I've had a Red Dragon breathing cold instead of fire (boy, that was a wake-up to the players!), but there was a reason for it.

 

[Oofta]

I see. I don't think the issue here was that it turns out some nobles aren't honourable. It is that the players have assumed for a good while that honour (or at least pretence of honour) is something the noble class in this setting care about, that is part of the decorum, part of how they portray themselves, and openly acting otherwise would be a faux pas at least. But then it turn out this was actually not the case at all. Now miscommunication misunderstandings happen, and sometimes it might be on the players for not paying attention, but if such fundamental thing about the culture the players presumably have interacted with for several sessions gets miscommunicated, it's probably on the GM.

I would say that unless the DM states out of game that all nobles are honorable any assumption of the moral character of any NPC the players encounter, noble or not, is on the players. There are plenty of times when public figures maintain a facade of honor and morality only to be revealed as corrupt an immoral. I don't blame the author of a work of fiction (or a DM's depiction of NPCs) if I assume that past experience guarantees future events.

As I've said before, I'd probably drop hints. But in my current campaign one of the NPCs the group has been interacted with on a regular basis turned out to be what we would consider a terrorist and a spy. They had multiple chances to find this out and didn't follow up on it. If I had a surprise reveal and said "Aha! Your father is really Thrad Redav, the right hand man of the evil Emporer!" that would be different. Well, it would be different if they had actually been raised by Thrad. If Thrad had never been part of their lives and was just being a sperm donor it would be okay I guess.

My only point is that the players do not control the narrative outside of what their PC's actions is the default assumption of D&D and always has been. Having a different preference is fine, changing how much control players have over that external narrative is up to the group. But don't call DMs terrible just because the game doesn't go to your liking.