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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Mod Note:

This, plus the various subsequent riffs on it, needlessly brings religion into the discussion.

Because let’s be honest with ourselves: ostracism isn’t the exclusive purview of religions, it’s potentially part of ANY social group’s dynamics. Exhibit 1: “mean girls”.

So let’s let that die and not resurrect it.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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

Maybe I'm naive. But I have a theory. And I'm using your post as an example.

I think the premise is normal. I think most DMs, and even players, value their fun over that of others to some extent. Human nature kind of dictates that. It's why most prefer their turn in combat to that of the other players.

But the phrasing here is harsh. And, maybe I'm wrong, but I think most have some give, including you. Most will talk through a problem to find a solution, at least to some extent. Compromises aren't always present, but I feel most, players and DMs, will give it a whirl.

I wonder if a lot of the, what I'd call, mischaracterizations that we see in this thread are because the language used doesn't always reflect the opinion present.

We see this on the other side of the argument as well. Where any DM turning away a player, for a choice, has been characterized as bad. But I don't think that's the actual case being presented here. I think that's a byproduct of the language used.

I wonder if everyone is in a similar place. Arguing from a similar point of view. And the difference is not on what is actually acceptable but on the perception of what the other side thinks is acceptable.

If I thought half the people in this thread refused to entertain player ideas, and told every one to "bug off," I'd be pretty upset at that stance. If I thought half the people in this thread thought DMs had to submit to every wish and whim of any player they are approached by, I'd be very much opposed to that idea. But I don't believe either of those are accurate.

I think everyone agrees DMs should be willing to talk about ideas and compromise where it causes no harm to them or the game. And I think everyone agrees that DMs don't have to play with the obnoxious and self-righteous, or accept anything unreasonable.

But it seems no one is saying either of those things, and instead retreating to more harsh language. Arguing the black and white, and ignoring the gray where we, probably, all agree.

So my theory is that everyone in this thread would handle a player asking about a "banned" race very similarly. One might even have trouble telling which side they argued on. But thats just my theory, because that's my experience with the TTRPG community over the last 9 years I've been a part of it. And it's my experience on ENWorld in my 5 months here.

My theory could be wrong, and y'all believe what your words portray, but if that's the case I disagree with every one here. So there.

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.

I share your sentiment in cases where it's obviously just power gaming. I have seen it not be, however.

I will say it again, never knew reskinning was controversial.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Have you SEEN my character brainstorming threads?

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Reason I would say no is because my 5E group is beginner friendly. More or less PHB only with some exceptions from curated list. Mostly BG3 races.

Idea is keep it simple. They all chose FR not Eberron. The power gamers got told to tone things down as well.

Any player joining pretty much has to meet that group dynamic. I've got a great group. It's there 1st campaign. Majority of players have not played any ttrpg at all.

If you want a warforged that bad advocate for Eberron next campaign. I've got 6 Eberron adventures at my feet.

We're 4 sessions in things are going great.

Extra stuffs not banned because I'm a tyrant it's banned to keep it simple.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't believe you.

Mod Note:

Let’s not venture into amateur mind reader/lie detector territory, please.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Ending the RPGing aspect of a friendship, while maintaining other aspects of said friendship, is IMO a perfectly valid option when one's gaming styles clash to that extent..

 

[ezo]

Ending the RPGing aspect of a friendship, while maintaining other aspects of said friendship, is IMO a perfectly valid option when one's gaming styles clash to that extent..

Yep. Been there, done that. Still friends, just don't RPG together.

 

[Lanefan]

As per the actual topic of this thread, the basic building block of DMing, building an encounter, is currently indecipherable chaos thanks to the adventuring day and CR being a crapshoot at absolute best. I think that's the biggest obstacle to the minting of new DMs as well as the feeling of entitlement by those who managed to weather being hurled through that wall of brambles.

And that hasn't changed much since 1974.

What has changed is people's growing unwillingness to accept simple trial and error as the default DM training mechanism, even though it's still (and probably always will be) the best and most effective such mechanism.

 

[Maxperson]

DnDBeyond

ANIMATED ARMOR

Any setting with golems, animated statues, or animated armor, can sensically integrate a Warforged character, especially if unique or rare.

I don't have warforged in my game as a race, but over the years I have had 3 in my game.

One was built by a long dead race and discovered on a dig. One was an accidental creation by a wizard trying to cut corners when making a golem, and the last was built by a Zakharan artificer as 1 of 100 and used against his enemies until he discovered that they were sentient. Then he released the few that still remained functional.

The idea of a sentient "golem" is very much in line with fantasy settings. I just can't see them as existing in large enough numbers to be considered a race.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, the reference to "houserule character options" continues on, even now in 2024.

However the buzzword "rule zero" was swatted, pretty much immediately. It immediately became problematic. People were repurposing the buzzword in toxic ways.

Given the vehemence in this thread and others I've seen here, the problem isn't the name. The problem is that a few people have had the bad luck to run into multiple bad DMs and have been burned by jerks.

Those jerks would have acted that way no matter what system they were running and what the rules said.

The problem is a people problem, not a rule or name problem.