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.

 

[Scribe]

There are D&D rules that prioritize fun, and they are reciprocal. Examples.

For the DM:
"Adjudicate the Rules. You oversee how the group uses the game’s rules, making sure the rules serve the group’s fun."

For the player:
"Ask yourself as you play, “What would my character do?” ... Avoid character choices that ruin the fun of the other players and the DM. Choose actions that delight you and your friends."

Yes, the groups fun.

Not some 'tyranny of the minority' singular players fun.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, the groups fun.

Not some 'tyranny of the minority' singular players fun.

group ≠ DM

The DM has an obligation to apply rules and even modify rules to make sure players are having fun. This includes character options that the players find fun.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

"

group ≠ DM

But it does include the DM.

 

[abirdcall]

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.

Yeah, me too.

I had a player show interest in my game but I didn't like his character concept so I told him it wouldn't be a good fit.

It was just a bit too gimmicky and a bit too mean spirited for me.

I think the character was a travelling musician who had a lot of children throughout the land and then somehow all the cities forced him to pay child support for those children and his conflict was coming up with the money.

It didn't fit the narrative of the world, it forecasted a style of play that was not likely to fit in our group, and the character was a scumbag and that's just not fun for me.

His response was to tell me that the concept was quite tame and he could have gone a lot more wild. I have no doubt of that, but that still isn't going to fit with me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

group ≠ DM

The DM has an obligation to apply rules and even modify rules to make sure players are having fun. This includes character options that the players find fun.

I didn't see that in your citation.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"

But it does include the DM.

Not whent he DM is being put head and shoulders above the others in importance and power.

 

[Yaarel]

Not whent he DM is being put head and shoulders above the others in importance and power.

Yup.

The DM is one among the group. Not one above the group.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Not when the DM is being put head and shoulders above the others in importance and power.

Maybe I’m messing up the hypothetical. I’m running on about 3 hours of sleep. But I thought this was about a player joining a group and then wanting to play something that wasn’t a part of the original set up.

 

[Scribe]

group ≠ DM

Correct

Group != DM

DM being PART of the Group.

The Player who needs to be accommodated outside of the concerns of the rest of the group? That guy can take his selfish self for a walk.

 

[tetrasodium]

Maybe I’m messing up the hypothetical. I’m running on about 3 hours of sleep. But I thought this was about a player joining a group and then wanting to play something that wasn’t a part of the original set up.

You are not wrong