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.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

You are not wrong

Oh… well… then that player really should be looking for a game that is more in line with their desires. They’ll have more fun that way.

 

[ezo]

Man, this back and forth is so confusing!

Is the DM a player?
Can a player be a DM?
Monarchy or democracy?
English or Spanish?
Strawberry or Chocolate?
AD&D or d20?
Star Wars or Startrek?
Moutain or beach vacation?
Comedy or action movie?
Red wine or white?
5E 2014 or 2024?

So many, many questions and oh---so many choices!

 

[Yaarel]

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.

There seems serious systemic dysfunction if the impulse is continually "take a walk".

When religious groups become dysfunctional, ostracizing is how it happens.

group ≠ DM

 

[Doc_Klueless]

group ≠ DM

You keep saying that as if it is somehow profound. Yes, the group does not equal the DM. But the group does not also equal one player. It’s everyone at the table.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

When religious groups become dysfunctional, ostracizing is how it happens.

Stoning or burning at the stake is more trad.

Removal from the group is a preferable alternative for everyone.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Stoning or burning at the stake is more trad.

Removal from the group is a preferable alternative for everyone.

Pfft. Powderpuff DM! Stoning to good for ‘em, eh?!

 

[DinoInDisguise]

There's no guesswork involved; what's available to play is spelled out right there in the "blue book". As in, here's this game's list of available species: pick one.

Also, given that I'm the one designing the setting I'm also the one who gets to choose what goes in it. Personally, I've always thought Dragonborn (and before that, Half-Dragons) to be fine as monsters but stupid as playable PCs; ditto for various other species that should have stayed as non-PC-playable monsters. Therefore, no Dragonborn PCs, end of story.

Want to play a Dragonborn that badly? Find a different DM.

I think there is a lot more to this than a black and white, yes or no. I think reskinning is important and solves a lot of issues in regards to these issues. And largely makes the "but you shouldn't restrict races" argument a bit less compelling.

Some percentage of people, I'd argue a large majority, who ask to be a race are doing so for a reason that isn't connected to the lore of the race itself. Say a mechanical benefit or the feel of a mechanic the race has. It's only when its the race itself, and not it's components that it becomes an issue.

In your example it could be the fire breath of the dragonborn that a player is after. This is doable without allowing a dragonborn into the game. People on earth can use tricks, that dont use modern technology, to breath fire. Surely, in a world with magic, you could make that work.

If the other mechanics of the dragonborn make sense as well, all of a sudden you just reskin the race to an accepted one and happiness ensues. No one, likely, cares in that case that you are calling it a human, or made up fantasy race #437, because the player got what they wanted - a fire breath.

I think this is a really important "trick" in a DM's arsenal. And something players can suggest be explored. It solves the majority of player requests while leaving the DM's world largely as is. And it shows a willingness on both sides to respect the wishes of the other.

I believe this trick is why I simply never run into these issues with players.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I must be weird, but I always thought that joining a group was voluntary. I didn’t realize that some people are forced to join a D&D group.

Reminds me of the Mandatory Fun Days in the Army. :::shudder:::

 

[ezo]

I must be weird, but I always thought that joining a group was voluntary.

I'm gonna beat some others to the response you'll likely get:

"Being the DM is voluntary. Why can't the DM change to accomodate the player. The DM is not special and has no greater role than any player."

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I will usually let a player play just about any kind of character. But will always preface it with, “mmm, Ok. If you’re willing to live with the consequences.” Unless it really doesn’t fit in the world (Star Wars in Star Trek, Chocolate in Peanut butter, Ham on Rye… Where was I?)

What I’ve found is that most players of the “odd man out” really have no intentions of dealing with the consequences and will usually get huffy and quit or change to something more fitting for the game/world.

And it’s not always the world that reacts that way. Sometimes it’s the other PCs. Meh.