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.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, this is true. What conclusion are you trying to draw for me from this?

That I wish you and others would recognise, when I talk about players influencing/shaping the fiction, that this does not entail anything beyond (i) declaring actions for their PCs, which (ii) are then resolved in a principled fashion.

 

[pemerton]

There are of course exception for everything, but it generally is good practice to let the players react to new information, and that didn't quite happen in your example.

So - and in the interests of avoiding mere semantics! - are you agreeing with me that the example that I gave would be an example of bad, railroading GMing?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So - and in the interests of avoiding mere semantics! - are you agreeing with me that the example that I gave would be an example of bad, railroading GMing?

It would be inelegant GMing, perhaps even bad. As an isolated incident I wouldn't probably call it railroading, as I understand it to be more macro scale phenomenon. But labels aside, not the best, could be done better, should probably be avoided.

 

[ezo]

It's likely the Kobold knows things like (i) where it entered the city, (ii) where it came from, and (iii) how many other Kobolds are with it.

There is a reasonable chance of know it might know those things, I agree. But it is just as likely it might not:

(i) remember where it entered the city from. People get lost and turned around in cities easily when they are not from them or moving quickly (like a kobold strike force).

(ii) depending on the location, region, etc. the names it knows things by might not be at all how the PCs would know them.

(iii) as part of an attack force, it should reasonably be able to tell you "many", but why would it know just how many there are? perhaps numbers or even their concept are foreign to the kobold culture (a stretch and more homebrew admittedly).

However, again, all this depends on just how smart the kobold is, what rank it has within its... well, ranks, etc. So, while I agree it is entirely reasonable to hope you might get such intel from the kobold, there is no guarantee what you will actually get.

I know when I DM and players capture creatures (a very common practice as I am sure you can imagine!), I run the entire gambit for how much the PCs will learn. Sometimes nothing, sometimes everything (with detailed maps!), and most the time in between.

Are you talking about a character in a RPG, or a player playing a RPG where there character is trying to buy milk, or about an actual real-world trip to the shop to buy milk?

Ok... I am going with the thought you are asking this in earnest...

It is a direct analogy. I expect (it is a reasonable assumption) that if I drive to the store to buy milk, I will be able to buy milk there. I will get there successfully, I have the money, the milk will be there, and someone will be working their to take my money in exchange for the milk. However, when I arrive and have my money, there is NO milk at the store--it is all gone. So, while it was a reasonable expectation I would be able to buy milk, I was disappointed because there was no milk and I could not.

In your situation, you wanted to capture a kobold to get information (the reasonable assumption). You developed the plan, and carried out the plan (capturing the kobold == me getting to the store), but the kobold was unable to provide you with information (no milk).

It sucks, but it happens. I did not get to just say "Well, it is a store, there should be milk," and poof there is milk! Just like you players don't get ti decide "Well, the kobold should be able to give us information", and poof it must be so.

The real-world activity I've been talking about is not shopping; it's playing a RPG. When I sit down to play a RPG, just as when I sit down to play any other game, I expect to be able to affect what happens in the game. As I've already posted, I'm not just turning up to have the GM tell me their story.

I understand that, but IMO I don't think you can reasonably expect every action to you take to work in your favor, do you? You don't expect every plan to work, every attack to hit, etc. right?

You affected the game by removing that kobold from the assault. You just didn't get the result you hoped for. Just like I didn't get to buy the milk I had hoped for.

How does it take away "all agency"? The player can build a new PC and jump right back in.

Because the player then knows they still don't have the agency to control their character as they wish since the DM can kill the PC off without any hope of salvation--again, and again, and again.

Random chance is certainly a factor IRL, and if a DM said "Ok everyone, each day of the game I am rolling 10d20s for each PC. If all the d20s roll 20, your PC suffers from some horribly calamity and is killed instantly," I would laugh and say, "Sure, go ahead."

However, if a DM said the same thing but is only rolling 1d20, I would say, "No, I don't think so. A 1 in 20 chance to just "die" a random death doesn't jive" and I would exercise my right to walk away. If just a DM had other players who were ok with this idea, I hope they enjoy it.

A recurring element in some discussions on these boards is not engaging with the distinction between (i) failed action resolution and (ii) the GM just saying "no" until the players say the magic words that will prompt the GM to say "yes".

Agreed, but you don't seem to understand---or at the very least just don't agree---that you did not (i) fail action resolution. You succeeded in capturing a kobold (the action) but the resolution just wasn't what you expected. That is not failure.

Now, my proposed scenario where you learned incorrect intel or when you acted on it, it was no longer valid, seemed (correct me if I am wrong!) to satisfy you that your action resolution was not a failure because you received some intel; even though this intel was useless to you.

So, acting on no intel gained vs. acting on misleading/ incorrect intel? Which is better? You feel better in the second case?

Finally, if the DM in question pulled the same thing many times over and over, then I can see your point a bit more. Which brings us back to the original situation and my thoughts this was just the final straw---not really the inciting incident.

 

[TwoSix]

Moral of the story: @Oofta, @Micah Sweet and other posters, who are trying to argue that either your are "playing to create" or else the GM is free to make up whatever fiction they want, are not correct. "Playing to explore" is just as dependent on the GM playing with integrity, honouring the established fiction, following action resolution procedures.

Unless "playing to explore" is just a euphemism for "listening to the GM's story-time".

I think the counterpoint of the other posters is that the action of being blocked, of pursuing a false lead or a red herring or an impossible plan, is not only virtuous in play but necessary for their playstyle. Because the act of adding in a fail-state triggered by pre-generated fiction demonstrates the primacy of the setting needs over dramatic needs or player resolution.

Basically, the setting lacks verisimilitude if pre-generated fail states can't be discovered in play (because those states "make sense" to exist in the fiction).

 

[Manbearcat]

So, imagine a group of people sitting around a table, "playing to explore". What they want to explore is stuff like: where are the Kobolds coming from? How are they entering the city? What are their numbers?

And so they come up with the idea of capturing and interrogating one of the infiltrating Kobolds.

And the GM blocks their exploration by presenting the Kobold in such a way as to stop any of that information being obtained.

Those people might become rather annoyed!

Moral of the story: @Oofta, @Micah Sweet and other posters, who are trying to argue that either your are "playing to create" or else the GM is free to make up whatever fiction they want, are not correct. "Playing to explore" is just as dependent on the GM playing with integrity, honouring the established fiction, following action resolution procedures.

Unless "playing to explore" is just a euphemism for "listening to the GM's story-time".

Yeah, I really think "playing to explore" needs to be disambiguated from "exploring to overcome challenge." Like bright, stark lines to clarify the significantly distinguishing characteristics.

As you know, I've spent the majority of my TTRPG GMing life running challenge-prioritized, Pawn Stance D&D. That challenge-centered exploration couldn't look or play less like players passively touring a canonical Forgotten Realm's location or when players are primarily tasked with making moves that generate exposition dumps/reveals from GM prepped or AP material + providing color and affectation as they explore a GM's metaplot.

While they both entail exploration, the system design, participant roles, and the exploration-centered play priorities are very different beasts.

 

[ezo]

So, my apologies if you've already replied in to a similar response--there are a lot of posting going on.

For instance, suppose that the GM is running a modern game, set in a city. There is no map-and-key. The PCs are fleeing for their lives from ruthless killers pursuing them. The GM described an alley with a door on one side wall. The players describet their PCs fleeing into the alley, and trying the door. The GM replies that the door is locked, and that while the PCs are trying to open it, their pursuers catch up.

You don't think that that is questionable GMing? The GM is pretending to the players that they have a choice, and a chance of their PCs escaping the killers; but in fact just makes stuff up so as to frame the PCs into combat.

How is that not railroading?

This is not railroading, this is building up the suspense of the scene and a viable DM tool. The locked door is PART of the challenge in the scene! How do you get through it? Pick the lock, break it down, what? Can you do so before the killers arrive? Can a few PCs hold of the killers while another gets the door open?

Timing can be an issue, certainly. Do the PCs have a round or two to get the door open? If not, and the killers are just there the next round after discovering the door is lock, then the door becomes an option in the scene, not an escape from it.

Now, there IS a point where it can be railroading--the PCs MUST fight, there is no escape, certainly, and if the DM says:

• "The DC for the lock is 100, good luck!" or
• "The door is adamantine and has 10000 hp and AC 50, good luck!" or
• "You open the door and find the entrance has been bricked up... good luck!"

then yeah, that is pretty lame IMO.

But in such a case, yes, the DM should just inform the PCs "You round the corner and the alley is a dead end. Hot on your heels the killers arrive at the entry to the alley just behind you. You see some boxes, crates, and a garbage bin, which can provide you some cover. Roll initiative."

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, I really think "playing to explore" needs to be disambiguated from "exploring to overcome challenge." Like bright, stark lines to clarify the significantly distinguishing characteristics.

As you know, I've spent the majority of my TTRPG GMing life running challenge-prioritized, Pawn Stance D&D. That challenge-centered exploration couldn't look or play less like players passively touring a canonical Forgotten Realm's location or when players are primarily tasked with making moves that generate exposition dumps/reveals from GM prepped or AP material + providing color and affectation as they explore a GM's metaplot.

While they both entail exploration, the system design, participant roles, and the exploration-centered play priorities are very different beasts.

Fair. I was more trying to elucidate the psychological divide between players who are primed to introduce their own ideas into the fiction, and those who are very averse.

IMX, when you ask a player "Tell me what the barkeep at this tavern that you want to question looks like", some players light up at the chance to be able to add those details, and others are hesitant or uncomfortable. And except for a few absolute novices, exposure does not change the relative comfort level.

 

[TwoSix]

But in such a case, yes, the DM should just inform the PCs "You round the corner and the alley is a dead end. Hot on your heels the killers arrive at the entry to the alley just behind you. You see some boxes, crates, and a garbage bin, which can provide you some cover. Roll initiative."

Just from my reading, I feel like the distinction of opinion here is "You CAN frame the scene so that the lock doesn't have time to be picked, but why WOULD you when you have the option of empowering the PCs to make a roll?"

And the opposing opinion would be "Based on the framing of the chase, a roll to pick the lock lacks plausibility."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Fair. I was more trying to elucidate the psychological divide between players who are primed to introduce their own ideas into the fiction, and those who are very averse.

IMX, when you ask a player "Tell me what the barkeep at this tavern that you want to question looks like", some players light up at the chance to be able to add those details, and others are hesitant or uncomfortable. And except for a few absolute novices, exposure does not change the relative comfort level.

The reason why some people do not like this, is that it yanks them from the actor stance to the author stance. I can do this, I don't exactly hate it, but TBH, I'd actually prefer if the GM just described the barkeep so I can focus on immersing into my character.