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]

Sticking to one map-and-key is not "self-imposed" any more than (say) not lying about answers in a game of 20 questions or I Spy With My Little Eye is self-imposed.

A GM changing their notes, in map-and-key play, is like a player changing their equipment list when no one is looking. The fact that it can be done without being caught doesn't make it a permissible move in the game.

I mean, yes, sometimes not cheating requires a degree of self-restraint, but that doesn't mean that a game participant has "absolute power".

Where do these rules come from? I don't think they're in 5e. Yeah, I tend to stick to my pre-planned stuff most part, but this is completely by my choice. And sometimes I realise something I should have thought earlier, but didn't, and I need to change some detail. Rarely, but it happens; I know this this is shocking, but no one is perfect, not even me.

And especially when it comes to things not planned for the session at hand, but more preliminary ideas for more distant stuff, the line between "a note" and "a vague sketch of an idea" becomes increasingly blurry.

This is a different kettle of fish. If I'm sitting down for GM storytime, I expect the GM at least to have the decency to tell me. And then to at least try and make the storytime an interesting one.

The simple practical reason why this happens is that the GM cannot pre-plan everything, so even if they would always religiously stick to their pre-planned stuff, there will be times when they simply don't have something pre-planned, and thus need to make it up. This is why "GM can only use pre-planned content." cannot actually work as rule in a normal RPG, thus I don't think any GM can promise you that.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I loathe reskinning.

The mechanics should be tied to representing things in the story.

Otherwise the game loses a lot of appeal for me. It's a really clunky and long strategy game so I only care about the mechanics as they represent ideas. If the mechanics could be anything then they don't mean anything.

I really don't like re-skinning. To me it puts the artifice of the game in the forefront of everyone's consciousness. I'd rather take the time and effort to make bespoke rules widgets.

Yeah, same. For Artra I rewrote the species rules and made bespoke rules for the species, even those that actually exist in other settings such as orcs. I think the humans were not significantly changed though.

I am surprised at the lack of love for reskinning. But I completely understand people's reasoning.

Although, I want to call out Micah. It's been weeks since we've disagreed, so I feel a bit betrayed. I thought we were friends.

 

[ezo]

Yet this thread is full of posts arguing that I and my fellow players were wrong (overly hasty, disproportionate, etc) in leaving a game.

Can you cite a single post of anyone who actually said you were WRONG for leaving?? I don't recall any, but I could be wrong! No one should say you were wrong for choosing to leave (FWIW, this is at least the second, if not third, time I've addressed this...)

What people disagree with was you saying this was a terrible DM (it doesn't sound like one to me so I disagree with that), that you left early, and so forth.

But that doesn't mean any of us are saying you didn't have the right to leave if (for whatever reason) you wanted to. If anyone IS saying that, they are wrong.

There's a difference IMO, but you might not see that.

This thread is why we need a better DMG.

The more players trying their hand at DMing, the less perceived market power held by DMs that wish to place their preferences and fun ahead of their group's. It would also help new DMs learn to DM without being influenced by such.

While I am all for other players learning to DM, I don't think your "one true wayism" works either because it doesn't.

The DM is part of the group. The DM, even placing his (or hers) preferences on the same level as every one else, should NOT be compelled or coerced into running a game they won't enjoy running. Likewise, no player should be making a request that is determental to the fun of the DM.

If a DM and player are at odds, either the group needs to elect a new DM who won't take issue with the player's demands, or failing that (and the group decides the current DM remains) the player concedes or doesn't play.

As I've stated IMO evil PCs is a the best example I have. I will NOT run a game with an evil PC, nor play in one. That is my choice based on what makes the game fun for me to run or play. If the rest of the group wanted to allow evil PCs, I would respectfully bow out after session 0 and have no hard feelings on the issue. There is no concession or middle ground on this for me, and I will inform the group to let me know when the "campaign" is over and I'll happily come back later.

If the group decides I am DMing, they all know this and accept it, and I will DM (with a few other reservations I noted upthread). The players have agreed to my rules for running a game. I have that authority because they have conceded it to me.

Of course, they can also take it away. Perhaps they agree no evil PCs, but one or two players after a while really want to play evil PCs. We can take a break from me DMing and someone else can run something for a while or they can look for another game. I'm good with either.

 

[Yaarel]

Ending the friendship is the better option. Because elves.
/end sarcasm


The "rule zero" impulse to make players "take a walk" is unhealthy when dealing with friends. To jeopardize a friendship because of nerd rage about some imaginary "absolute power" over a fantasy setting, is self-destructive.

Friends accommodate each other. It is a reciprocity.

 

[Oofta]

Yet this thread is full of posts arguing that I and my fellow players were wrong (overly hasty, disproportionate, etc) in leaving a game. And full of posts defending, as entirely justified, an episode of GMing about which their primary bit of information is that the one participant in it they have heard from has said it was terrible.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "easily", given this apparently very strong norm that players have a duty to sit through even terrible GMing.

People aren't saying you were wrong to leave that I know of. Some are saying that they wouldn't have left because of this single instance. I would have talked to the DM about it, given feedback and depending on response may or may not have given them a second chance. But that's just me, if you want to leave a game, leave.

Calling someone a terrible railroading DM because of a one time incident where they didn't run a Kobold to your liking is the issue. It clearly implies that you felt entitled to get something because your plan succeeded and that you were upset because as a player you were not fully in control of the outcome. Without additional information, I don't know if the DM was railroading or not, there's no way of telling whether or not they were a terrible DM or just a DM that ran a single encounter in a way you didn't care for.

Then you double down on this idea that D&D should be something that has never been an assumption for the game. That the DM is somehow wrong to improvise a locked door, that somehow having detailed plans ahead of time is a requirement for a good game. I disagree. I run a very open sand-box campaign. I know who's who and what's happening but details on whether a door is locked? I don't map out the entire city, I have no idea what direction the PCs are going to take. Furthermore they don't get to tell me if a door should be locked or how cooperative a captive should be. Give me that much respect that I am just trying to make the world as consistent and believable as I can and I won't tell you how to run your PC.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ending the friendship is the better option. Because elves.
/end sarcasm

The "rule zero" impulse to make players "take a walk" is unhealthy when dealing with friends. To jeopardize a friendship because of nerd rage about a "absolute power" over a fantasy setting, is self-destructive.

No one is raging, except perhaps you. As far as I know, no one is jeopardising friendships either. Most people understand that people can be friends and not do everything together, and that different people have different tastes and preferences that do not always meet. If anything, it probably is not good for the health of the relationship for friends with wildly differing tastes to play together and thus constantly get on each other's nerves!

 

[Scribe]

To jeopardize a friendship because of nerd rage about a "absolute power" over a fantasy setting, is self-destructive.

Agreed, people demanding that the majority bend to their individual whims is self-destructive.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

My friends wanted to play FATE. I have NO fun playing FATE. None. The mechanics of FATE actively work to the detriment of my fun. So, did I say we had to play something else or change FATE so it was more palatable for me?

No, I did not. Instead, I told them that I’d be happy to host the game. I did. I spent the time playing host, cooking nifty dishes from my D&D cookbooks and generally just hanging and watching videos on my iPad on my couch with my earbuds in.

I enjoyed their enjoyment. They enjoyed my hospitality.

When the campaign wrapped up (We only run 10-12 session campaigns with a beginning, middle and end), I proposed running Blade Runner and been having fun with that.

In short, I was the odd man out so I sat out the campaign. We remained friends because… uhm… we’re friends.

 

[Yaarel]

Agreed, people demanding that the majority bend to their individual whims is self-destructive.

As long as "demanding individual whim" clearly applies to the DM as well, we agree.

 

[Scribe]

In short, I was the odd man out so I sat out the campaign. We remained friends because… uhm… we’re friends.

Wild concept, taking individual responsibility for ones actions instead of demanding others accommodate you at their expense.