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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ok, not even close if you had bothered to read the rest of the post. Thanks for wasting my time.

Then don't start with a needless false accusation!

 

[ezo]

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.

Sounds like you are saying your way is the way...

Then don't start with a needless false accusation!

Disengaging, remember?

Cheers.

 

[Lanefan]

Quite. If something is supposed to be strange and mysterious it can’t be a PC, because all the PCs are familiar to each other.

To the bolded: why must that be the case?

 

[Scribe]

group ≠ DM

If the other players are fine with one of the players playing a Warforged, the DM should make an effort to accommodate this. Really, make an effort anyway.

If the DM and other players, aka, the Group, determine that Warforged are not an option, and one player insists on playing one, the lone player is at fault for disrupting the Group, of which the DM is a part.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Players, plural.

Not player, individual; and there'll inevitably be times when the fun of one individual directly conflicts with the fun of another; be it the DM or another player. At that point someone has to make a decision. As DM, if it's player-v-DM I'll probably end up putting my foot down and if it's player-v-player I'll let them fight as long as it stays in-game.

 

[Lanefan]

But some of the discussions keep assuming that "the character concept is difficult" means, the player is disinvited.

If the player won't change said difficult character concept to better suit the game as proposed/presented then yes, out goes that player.

This is not normal. Nor healthy.

My game, my house, my rules. Seems normal and healthy enough to me. ::

 

[Lanefan]

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."

Fun can be a double-edged sword here.

The players might, for example, consider it great fun were the DM to decide to rule that all their characters' attacks henceforth did double damage, with no corresponding change to the opponents' defenses or hit points.

And yet in doing so the DM is removing the fun of being challenged and probably dooming the long-term future of his game because sooner or later the players will find that which once was fun is now deadly-dull and boring.

For the player:
"Ask yourself as you play, (1) “What would my character do?” ... (2) Avoid character choices that ruin the fun of the other players and the DM. Choose actions that delight you and your friends."

I inserted the numbers into that quote.

(1) and (2) IMO are in direct conflict; as sometimes being true to a character means having it do things that aren't much fun for anybody. Which means you have to choose between doing (1) and doing (2). The pressure these days is to choose (2), personally my choice (and the choice I want my players to make) is (1).

 

[Lanefan]

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!

The DM is a player who can also be a DM, but only in a Spanish monarchy while rolling chocolate d20s on a Tatooine beach in a comedy movie while drinking 2014-vintage red wine.

Wait - what was the question?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And in so doing give that PC a rather significant intrinsic power right from the start that nobody else has or can likely ever hope to have.

No thanks.

Same reason that I wouldn't allow a Vampire PC into my game when such was requested (and lobbied at length for) of me back in the 2000s.

IME most of the time when a player wants to play an oddball species it's for pure power reasons.

 

[Oofta]

group ≠ DM

If the other players are fine with one of the players playing a Warforged, the DM should make an effort to accommodate this. Really, make an effort anyway.

So if the DM feels like a Warforged simply doesn't feel like that species fits, f**** them? I said above if even 1 player doesn't want a Warforged in the campaign they get (secret) veto power. But the DM doesn't get that luxury? In addition, we allowed one exception, why not a second, third, maybe fourth and fifth? Suddenly we have a party of species that have never existed and have no tie into the campaign world.

The game has to work for the DM. If it doesn't they will never do as good a job as they could.