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.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

...

I guess that if you don't think of the Dungeons...that may not be clear...

It's basically a dungeon building guideline?

Yes, sure, but there is a heck of a lot more to the Adventure books (which is what was being discussed, in a general sense) than just the dungeons contained therein.

If you're saying that the Adventuring Day is generally confined to Dungeons, then that would definitely be why I don't notice it much, and don't much care for it, as Dungeon exploration, while fine, is not one of my favorite parts of the game. Best used sparingly, IMO.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

In both cases I was making the assumption that the DM knows more about the setting than the player does. Therefore the player might benefit if the DM were to share that knowledge when the player is coming up with a character that will fit into that setting.
. . . Does that really sound that unreasonable?

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.

What problems did I quote? Drow are exotic in Khorvaire, but certainly not as problematic as they used to be in FR. As DM you have the right to ban any PC race, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing the justification if it didn't spoil any plot points. I may know more about Eberron than you do, but I don't know more about your Eberron setting than you do.

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).

. . . You never actually stated a reason why you don't allow drow in your Eberron game, so there is nothing to acknowledge. As DM you can ban an otherwise-existing race from a game, but I know enough about Eberron to know that drow are around, although they don't live on Khorvaire, as you say.
If you stated that drow were not available as a PC choice in your game, then I'd find another way of playing a concept I want, but many of your potential players may not know much about Eberron and thus they would benefit from your knowledge of the setting to find where their concepts fit best.

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.

I'm assuming Lanefan has a "No races that look monstrous", or similar, but without talking it out with them, a player probably isn't going to know if it is the looks, culture, or mechanical rules of the race that they don't tolerate.

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.

?
In all my posts on this thread I've literally been talking about how a players might compromise and change their character to accommodate the DM's preferences. But this will often require input from the DM to tell them what those preferences are.

If the DM simply says "No. Try again" with no information as to what part of the concept the player will have to change then its just a guessing game .

 

[clearstream]

This may be what happens when it's a type of hat. It often isn't when it really impacts the game. The DMs "vision" of reality is what is real. I've been in those situations before where players thought one thing and the DM another. If their senses are obviously out of whack with their brain I will say "you don't think that is possible given the X is too high up" or something like that.

Ceteris paribus it'll be the senses of four participants, rather than one's, that are not out of whack. YMMV. But what I wondered more about is where players invoke mechanics to give the greater weight to what they imagine.

 

[Mort]

In both cases I was making the assumption that the DM knows more about the setting than the player does. Therefore the player might benefit if the DM were to share that knowledge when the player is coming up with a character that will fit into that setting.
. . . Does that really sound that unreasonable?


What problems did I quote? Drow are exotic in Khorvaire, but certainly not as problematic as they used to be in FR. As DM you have the right to ban any PC race, but I'd certainly be interested in hearing the justification if it didn't spoil any plot points. I may know more about Eberron than you do, but I don't know more about your Eberron setting than you do.


. . . You never actually stated a reason why you don't allow drow in your Eberron game, so there is nothing to acknowledge. As DM you can ban an otherwise-existing race from a game, but I know enough about Eberron to know that drow are around, although they don't live on Khorvaire, as you say.
If you stated that drow were not available as a PC choice in your game, then I'd find another way of playing a concept I want, but many of your potential players may not know much about Eberron and thus they would benefit from your knowledge of the setting to find where their concepts fit best.


I'm assuming Lanefan has a "No races that look monstrous", or similar, but without talking it out with them, a player probably isn't going to know if it is the looks, culture, or mechanical rules of the race that they don't tolerate.


?
In all my posts on this thread I've literally been talking about how a players might compromise and change their character to accommodate the DM's preferences. But this will often require input from the DM to tell them what those preferences are.

If the DM simply says "No. Try again" with no information as to what part of the concept the player will have to change then its just a guessing game .

If a player picks a rare or otherwise problematic race IMC, I'll let them do it, but I'll also let then know it will likely be an extra hassle for them.

I'll let you play a Drow in my Greyhawk campaign, but you might seriously regret it!

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, sure, but there is a heck of a lot more to the Adventure books (which is what was being discussed, in a general sense) than just the dungeons contained therein.

If you're saying that the Adventuring Day is generally confined to Dungeons, then that would definitely be why I don't notice it much, and don't much care for it, as Dungeon exploration, while fine, is not one of my favorite parts of the game. Best used sparingly, IMO.

I mean, there is more to those books than Dungeons, sure...but they have an awfully large number of Dungeons? Which all follow the Adventure Day guidelines?

 

[abirdcall]

I agree.


Yup. I ran that scene two or three times, and it was awesome every time at my table.


I wasn't pointing out any of these examples to criticize their story-building - I was pointing out that they don't follow what is typically thought of as "balanced encounters".


Yeah, that's great stuff! Again - I've never once claimed that they cause the Adventure to be "poorly designed". We're talking about two different things. Honestly, I think following a rigid 6-8 encounters per day would be poor design. My saying that the Adventures DON'T FOLLOW THAT is not saying that they're poorly designed.

That's kind of my whole point.

The DMG doesn't say to do that though.

So you're saying not to do something no one is saying they do.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I mean, there is more to those books than Dungeons, sure...but they have an awfully large number of Dungeons? Which all follow the Adventure Day guidelines?

Sure, okay - I was just trying to explain why some of us might feel (and I admit that it was more a feeling - like I've said, I didn't check the math on it) that the books didn't use the Adventuring Day. I'm fine to admit that I'm wrong when it comes to the Dungeons. I stand corrected.

The DMG doesn't say to do that though.

I'm sorry - do what? I really think that we're talking about two different things, as I have no idea what you're saying to me.

So you're saying not to do something no one is saying they do.

Like this! I have no idea what I'm supposedly "saying not to do".

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, okay - I was just trying to explain why some of us might feel (and I admit that it was more a feeling - like I've said, I didn't check the math on it) that the books didn't use the Adventuring Day. I'm fine to admit that I'm wrong when it comes to the Dungeons. I stand corrected.

Oh, and I appreciate that, don't get me wrong. I was simply genuinely surprised, as I thought the "Adventure Day = Dungeon setup" link was obvious in my mind and di not realize till you said that, thst it might not be ovvious...but clearly, if we have learned anything from the past 10 years, the guidance was not at all obvious.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, and I appreciate that, don't get me wrong. I was simply genuinely surprised, as I thought the "Adventure Day = Dungeon setup" link was obvious in my mind and di not realize till you said that, thst it might not be ovvious...but clearly, if we have learned anything from the past 10 years, the guidance was not at all obvious.

Given that most people probably play games that do not revolve around big dungeons, a guideline that only works in such an environment isn't super useful.

 

[Parmandur]

Given that most people probably play games that do not revolve around big dungeons, a guideline that only works in such an environment isn't super useful.

Well, sure, but that's why it is a maximal rule: if you play a game thst doesn't push the engine, undershooting it doesn't hurt. You can use a Maserati to commute carefully to work just fine and enjoybit, but you can tell the difference between the Maserti and the Toyota Corrala in a drag race.

It's just that when I would read people say "the official campaigns don't follow the Adventure Day guidelinea" thwt read as "the official Campaigns don't include any Dungeons" because that is how identical those are in my brain. And frankly, that confused me.