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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This applies to the DM too:



When the DM is being problematic and "believes they are entitled to take part in the game irrespective of anyone elses needs", it is called "rule zero".

They aren't. If there are not enough people interested in the game GM wants to run, there will be no game.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

According to the rules-as-written. Yes,there is an obligation. The DM is to apply (or modify) the rules for the purpose of making the game fun for the players.

Again, our difference is who is included under players. Players, for me, are the people at my table and only the people at my table, myself included. I do not have an obligation to anyone outside of those lucky few, nor am I obliged to let someone be a part of that group.

If you want to play a goblin, and I dont allow goblins, but you aren't a part of my group, I have no obligation to allow goblins. I have no obligation, moral of otherwise, to please you. If I am going to run a game for randoms, and some do not wish to follow the world building restrictions, I have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to choose to play with them. And if I'm not playing with them, I have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to ensure they are having fun.

I am a selfish jerk. I only play with people who I have fun playing with. Does that mean I'm a bad DM? Does the answer change if I only play with people who accept some preconditions?

I'd argue no to both. I'm not condoning being a jerk, I wouldn't say "my way or the highway" to someone. But I may politely decline to play with them in favor of someone who better fits the game I wish to run. And I think DMs should do that, as playing with like-minded players is a far better experience. And DMs should strive for the best experience for themselves and those lucky enough to play at their tables. Even if that means some on the internet call them tyrants.

 

[Yaarel]

If there are not enough people interested in the game GM wants to run, there will be no game.

Exactly! So, if other players are evidencing other interests, the DM does well to roll with it. (To the degree that it is fun for the DM too.)

Just like most players can get into more than one class, or species, most DMs can get into more than one setting.

 

[Yaarel]

Again, our difference is who is included under players. Players, for me, are the people at my table and only the people at my table, myself included. I do not have an obligation to anyone outside of those lucky few, nor am I obliged to let someone be a part of that group.

Yes, I would assume such is obvious. A DM only has obligation toward the players at ones own table.

 

[Scribe]

The DM has an obligation to make the game fun for each player.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This applies to the DM too:



When the DM is being problematic and "believes they are entitled to take part in the game irrespective of anyone elses needs", it is called "rule zero".

That’s a blatant misrepresentation, and I can’t believe you don’t know that.

Rule zero is that the DM sets up the parameters of the game, and the players chose to take part or not. It’s like the dealer choosing which poker variant to play next.

 

[Zardnaar]

If I'm booting a player I've already spoken to the other players, getting complaints about the other player or read the table.

If it's slightly off eg someones not a good fit they're more likely not to get invited back vs booted.

ATM it's a back to basics game. Very little is excluded but KISS is appreciated.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Yes, I would assume such is obvious. A DM only has obligation toward the players at ones own table.

I believe we did it. We did the impossible. We agreed. Congrats. Chocolate and wine for all. Now if only there was an achievement so I could get that sweet, sweet dopamine hit.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Exactly! So, if other players are evidencing other interests, the DM does well to roll with it. (To the degree that it is fun for the DM too.)

If there would not be enough players otherwise, then perhaps. But this rarely is an issue.

Just like most players can get into more than one class, or species, most DMs can get into more than one setting.

Indeed. But often when I have a premise idea, there are things I don't want to change about it. Like I would rather not do it at all than do a watered down version of it that I'd end up disliking. In a hypothetical situation where my pitch was so disliked that there would not be enough players, I would rather go back to the drawing board and try to come up with something completely different that I would find compelling. But this is not a thing that actually happens. If there are any difficulties in arranging games they're related to boring real world stuff like schedules, not people disliking campaign premises.

 

[Zardnaar]

If there would not be enough players otherwise, then perhaps. But this rarely is an issue.



Indeed. But often when I have a premise idea, there are things I don't want to change about it. Like I would rather not do it at all than to do a watered down version of it that I'd end up disliking. In a hypothetical situation where my pitch was so disliked that there would not be enough players, I would rather go back to the drawing board and try to come up with something completely else that I would find compelling. But this is not a thing that actually happens. If there are any difficulties in arranging games they're related to boring real world stuff like schedules, not people disliking campaign premises.

This. 3-5 options DMs happy with pick one. Want warforged pick Eberron. Most players don't know what Warforged are.