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.

 

[clearstream]

This is also why I don't use the wandering monster tables as written but even deep in a wilderness area where theoretically a dragon could be, at maybe a mid level characters, my group would hide and avoid the dragon.

Extending this scenario to parallel that of the kobold, the DM tells you that the dragon finds you. It's that kind of a dragon.

It's interesting in this case to reflect on what a possible dice roll (e.g. ability check) does: it can assign a probability to what players imagine being authoritative (hiding). RAW leaves it to DM to call for a check, and if so allows them to set any DC they like. Thus, DM can tell you that what you imagine (hiding) is mistaken... you are not hidden and do not avoid the dragon.

 

[Oofta]

In government structures, a democracy is different from a dictatorship. They work differently. One has elections, and checks and balances.

Likewise in D&D, the old school assigns and organizes social power in a way that the new school is still in the process of correcting for.

It is a structural problem, and rules design challenge.


Bad faith is something extraneous, and applies anywhere there are humans, including among DMs and players. Hopefully, most D&D gamers find bad faith to be minimal and rare.


The critique of the socalled "absolute power" DM, is akin to designing a microcosmic government, a healthy one. Compare how the founding of the US involved careful design for how to assign power, in order to transition away from dictatorship and toward an enduring democracy. It was a kind of game design challenge.

I don't see anything in the basic assumptions as laid out in the rules have changed much unless you include some of Gygax's adversarial DMing advice that popped up here and there decades ago. Take the 2024 PHB play cycle for example:

1. The Dungeon Master Describes a Scene.
2. The Players Describe What Their Characters Do.
3. The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions.

Seems pretty straightforward. The players are in control of their PCs, the DM is in control of everything else. Obviously there's general advice on keeping other players in mind and whatnot, but that holds true for both player and DM.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the core power structure, and it hasn't changed. There have been and always will be bad or abrasive players and DMs as well as players and DMs that I would rather not play with because of their approach to the game. Rules don't really change much for how well people play with others, a jerk will be a jerk unless there's some external power that can stop the jerk. Words on a page are not enough and never have been.

As far as political structures and how they work or do not, that's not a topic for this forum.

 

[tetrasodium]

The sidebars that you highlighted? The ones that say "Talk it out"?
Just like my post did?

You can't (generally) play a FR Drow in Eberron. But you could play an Eberron Drow: there is two-way travel between Stormreach and Khorvaire. Perhaps the player would want to play an Umbragen? Or as you talk it through with the player, they may realise that one of the other cultures would fit the concept that they want to play better: Perhaps a Tairnadal elf?
It is rather rare IME that a player has such a specific and inflexible concept in mind that there is no compromise possible.

Did you not finish reading the post you quoted? It was about why it's important for the player to do the lifting of adapting to & carrying that discussion rather than it being something for the GM to be the one actively doing the lifting on as 2014 & your earlier response to lanefan suggests. The drow example was raised because it converts the table specific "no dragonborn" point Lanefan was discussing when you quoted him to an official setting based example where the GM has very good quantifiable reasons to just give a hard no in order to avoid the kinds of problems I discussed in the post you quoted. No, I still won't allow a player to use that kind of justification to play a "drow" in my eberron games & I wouldn't allow it in order to avoid the problems you quoted. The player needs to help themselves in this kind of situation, That is not something the GM can accomplish for them

That's the point of talking with the player. Humanoid dragons (and Lizardfolk, Kobolds etc) may not be sentient races available for play in the setting, but there are other things about Dragonborn that the player might have wanted to express in their character, and those might have places in your setting.

Without talking to the player, you're never going to know that, and be able to help guide them to a character that does work.
"Banned. Try again" closes discussion rather than encourages it.

The player can talk to the GM, but nothing you have said even acknowledges the reasons why drow is not allowed in my eberron games (or presumably lanefan's lizardman example).

Not only have you not addressed the reason why the player needs to carry the discussion & be the one adapting, you've not even acknowledged the reasons for why or attempted to offer a hypothetical that addresses those concerns standing in the way of the drow/lizardman. If anything, you've demonstrated that it's common for a player to flatly ignore the reasons behind the GM saying "no because x" & simply continue with the original request rather than taking responsibility for adapting in any way to fit the world.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In government structures, a democracy is different from a dictatorship. They work differently. One has elections, and checks and balances.

Not so much as you might think. A bad PM gets (metaphorically) stabbed in the back by his own party, a bad king gets a poker stuck up his backside.

 

[clearstream]

I don't see anything in the basic assumptions as laid out in the rules have changed much unless you include some of Gygax's adversarial DMing advice that popped up here and there decades ago. Take the 2024 PHB play cycle for example:

1. The Dungeon Master Describes a Scene.
2. The Players Describe What Their Characters Do.
3. The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions.

Seems pretty straightforward. The players are in control of their PCs, the DM is in control of everything else. Obviously there's general advice on keeping other players in mind and whatnot, but that holds true for both player and DM.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the core power structure, and it hasn't changed. There have been and always will be bad or abrasive players and DMs as well as players and DMs that I would rather not play with because of their approach to the game. Rules don't really change much for how well people play with others, a jerk will be a jerk unless there's some external power that can stop the jerk. Words on a page are not enough and never have been.

As far as political structures and how they work or do not, that's not a topic for this forum.

Bastions seem like an exception to this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Bastions seem like an exception to this.

Bastions as the odd exception they are are very controversial around here.

 

[Oofta]

Bastions seem like an exception to this.

They are still, as far as I can tell, an optional feature of the game [edit: since they show up in the DMG and not the PHB]. We won't know more until we have the DMG. I've always given my players a fair amount of leeway on how they spend their downtime, even if I do retain editorial control so their actions still fit in the overall campaign.

I don't see bastions as anything more than an enhancement and structure for downtime activities. I assume there's still going to be overall DM control.

 

[abirdcall]

I don't see anything in the basic assumptions as laid out in the rules have changed much unless you include some of Gygax's adversarial DMing advice that popped up here and there decades ago. Take the 2024 PHB play cycle for example:

1. The Dungeon Master Describes a Scene.
2. The Players Describe What Their Characters Do.
3. The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions.

Seems pretty straightforward. The players are in control of their PCs, the DM is in control of everything else. Obviously there's general advice on keeping other players in mind and whatnot, but that holds true for both player and DM.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the core power structure, and it hasn't changed. There have been and always will be bad or abrasive players and DMs as well as players and DMs that I would rather not play with because of their approach to the game. Rules don't really change much for how well people play with others, a jerk will be a jerk unless there's some external power that can stop the jerk. Words on a page are not enough and never have been.

As far as political structures and how they work or do not, that's not a topic for this forum.

Yeah. The main thing that stuck out to me in 2024 is the blurb about role playing your character and how it is important to keep the fun of the entire table in mind.

This is also part of the heroic inspiration mechanic.

The key is that it advises players to consider the fun of everyone at the table. As I remember previous advice focused more on just player and DM interaction and as much on suggesting that part of a player's expectation is to also make it fun for everyone else.

That is important for me as DM because I tell players in session 0 that I'm not being paid and it isn't my job to entertain you. We are all here to entertain each other.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They are still, as far as I can tell, an optional feature of the game [edit: since they show up in the DMG and not the PHB]. We won't know more until we have the DMG. I've always given my players a fair amount of leeway on how they spend their downtime, even if I do retain editorial control so their actions still fit in the overall campaign.

I don't see bastions as anything more than an enhancement and structure for downtime activities. I assume there's still going to be overall DM control.

I really want to see how they word those rules.

 

[Yaarel]

Not so much as you might think. A bad PM gets (metaphorically) stabbed in the back by his own party, a bad king gets a poker stuck up his backside.

Hence the need for democracy and the peaceful transference of power.

In the context of D&D, there is an increasing sense of egalitarianism where players have equal weight in the narrative.

The social power rules can describe intent. For example, that the purpose of rules is for players to "fun", and players should choose actions that bring "delight", is hardly a math equation. But it does serve to formally define what the game is for, and how to play it. It isnt for the DM to fantasize an world that players are unable to contribute to. Heh, "here is my museum, please, look around but dont touch anything".

That said. I feel it is a useful model to have the players play their characters (including supporting characters in bastions etcetera), while the DM plays the setting. Just as the characters adjust and adapt so too does the setting. I like curated settings (as long the players can interact with it meaningfully). I hope these dedicated settings can remain while the power balance shifts around a little bit.