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.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Oh, I know why. I just find it fascinating how sharp and obvious a divide it is.

Like, I absolutely see it as a pro-immersion technique. I’m explaining what I see in my character’s field of vision rather than asking what my character sees.

But I understand a lot of players have the exact opposite reaction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Fair enough. I suppose at that point the question turns to whether or not the GM adjudicated the interrogation and its results in a principled fashion. I don't see any clear evidence one way or the other in your posted example, however, just your very clear feelings about the result.

 

[Oofta]

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.

People understand, we disagree. In D&D the DM does not need a process, does not need to have a system, does not need anything the need other than their best judgment to decide the resolution. A DM relying on their best judgement is not being "arbitrary".

Your insistence that if there is not some systemic method that the DM must abide by when making a decision or it's a railroad is the issue. That is not now and never has been the guidance for DMs.

 

[Manbearcat]

Oh, I know why. I just find it fascinating how sharp and obvious a divide it is.

Like, I absolutely see it as a pro-immersion technique. I’m explaining what I see in my character’s field of vision rather than asking what my character sees.

But I understand a lot of players have the exact opposite reaction.

Yeah, the dynamics of this cognitive orientation to play are interesting. There is clearly both an aspect of nature and nurture here. I've run games for people who:

* Can trivially and naturally onboard Gamist priorities or Narrativist priorities and seamlessly hold meta-priorities in one hand and experience and engage with a conceptual first person cognitive loop for their player character in the other hand. These same folks overwhelmingly can also play the type of exploration-centered Setting Tourism and GM Storyteller games where their role is overwhelmingly performative color + declare actions to trigger GM reveal/exposition dump just fine. Some of them absolutely prefer one particular set of priorities and systemization to the others while there are some among that cohort who are quite happy to play any of the three.

* I've GMed for players who fundamentally cannot do that bolded above and trying to help them rejigger their cognitive orientation to play such that they can becomes a total lost cause. I should note as well that I've seen both sides of this; people who, earnestly try as they might, authentically cannot rejigger their cognitive orientation to play...and those that absolutely refuse to even accept that, in principle, it's possible to do so (therefore short-circuiting the effort before it even gets off the ground).

* I've GMed for players who absolutely, 100 % learned how to do that bolded bit while being unable to do so for a certain amount of their gaming life. Success rate is hard for me to say. I'd put it south of 50 %, but north of 1 in 5.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, I know why. I just find it fascinating how sharp and obvious a divide it is.

Like, I absolutely see it as a pro-immersion technique. I’m explaining what I see in my character’s field of vision rather than asking what my character sees.

But I understand a lot of players have the exact opposite reaction.

One of my favorite parts of D&D is that sometimes I have to stay at a high level, not really immerse myself in a character because I'm the DM. I'm thinking how multiple NPC think, along with what's going on around the PCs. It's fun juggling the different bits and pieces, thinking about how A is going to affect B and does it matter to C? But when I play instead of DM? I can really dive into that character, become the protagonist of the story and focus on what they think and feel. I don't want that taken away when I get to play!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

* Can trivially and naturally onboard Gamist priorities or Narrativist priorities and seamlessly hold meta-priorities in one hand and experience and engage with a conceptual first person cognitive loop for their player character in the other hand. These same folks overwhelmingly can also play the type of exploration-centered Setting Tourism and GM Storyteller games where their role is overwhelmingly performative color + declare actions to trigger GM reveal/exposition dump just fine. Some of them absolutely prefer one particular set of priorities and systemization to the others while there are some among that cohort who are quite happy to play any of the three.

Why are these two approaches contrasted in this way? Like what this passive setting tourism thing has to do with the matter? Like are you implying that this is the result of not on-boarding the meta considerations? I hope not!

And for me, I cannot do the bolded seamlessly. It is definitely the sort of multitasking where the two things interfere each other somewhat. It is by no means impossible, but to me they work better when I can focus on just one. And I find this to be extremely common.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One of my favorite parts of D&D is that sometimes I have to stay at a high level, not really immerse myself in a character because I'm the DM. I'm thinking how multiple NPC think, along with what's going on around the PCs. It's fun juggling the different bits and pieces, thinking about how A is going to affect B and does it matter to C? But when I play instead of DM? I can really dive into that character, become the protagonist of the story and focus on what they think and feel. I don't want that taken away when I get to play!

Right, exactly! I like GMing, but I like it for different reasons than I like playing the character. When I play a character, I don't want to side-GM as well. I get to do enough of that when I'm the actual GM.

 

[ezo]

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?"

Here's the thing... you are not removing the option to pick the lock, just narrating the time frame in creating the encounter.

Now, you could remove all agency to get through the door, but that is a no-no, which is why I wrote this above:

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.

However, just not allowing the PCs the time to do it before more things happen is just the narrative the DM is estabishing and there is nothing wrong with that (see below).

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

I'm not certain why this would be the opposing opinion.... Aren't they the same thing??? 1) You frame the scene to there isn't time to pick the lock and 2) because of the framing a roll to pick the lock isn't plausible.

For 2), why does it lack plausibility? Do you mean the time element again? Or some other reason...?

Anyway, the framing of the scene determines the intent.

A) the DM says a door is in the alley, indicating the PCs might be able to escape through it
B) the timing allows the PCs to reach the door and attempt to open it, but it doesn't, it is locked

Now, different things could be going on IMO:

Is the door meant to be a means of avoiding the conflict? In this case the PCs should have time to get through the door to avoid the conflict. Success within a pre-determined time frame means conflict is avoided, failure means conflict ensues. At this point, getting the door open as a means to break from the conflict is still an option.

Is the door meant to be part of the challenge during the fight? In this case, the PCs certainly can try to get through while dealing with the conflict. Getting through the door might be a means of ending the conflict or creates a strategic bottleneck the PCs can exploit.

 

[Manbearcat]

Why are these two approaches contrasted in this way? Like what this passive setting tourism thing has to do with the matter? Like are you implying that this is the result of not on-boarding the meta considerations? I hope not!

And for me, I cannot do the bolded seamlessly. It is definitely the sort of multitasking where the two things interfere each other somewhat. It is by no means impossible, but to me they work better when I can focus on just one. And I find this to be extremely common.

I don't want to answer here and get you wrong. Your second paragraph makes perfect sense to me, but I don't quite get that first paragraph. So I can confirm I know what you're after, can you unpack what you're sense of each of the bolded parts are:

* What two approaches? I'm talking about cognitive orientations to information/play. Then I'm talking about three different sets of play priorities, system, and play; Narrativism, challenge-based play, and GM Storyteller + Setting Tourism.

* What are you seeing as "the matter" under discussion here. I thought it was clear, but I'm not so sure we're on the same page.

* What is "this" that you're pointing at in that 3rd sentence?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't want to answer here and get you wrong. Your second paragraph makes perfect sense to me, but I don't quite get that first paragraph. So I can confirm I know what you're after, can you unpack what you're sense of each of the bolded parts are:

* What two approaches? I'm talking about cognitive orientations to information/play. Then I'm talking about three different sets of play priorities, system, and play; Narrativism, challenge-based play, and GM Storyteller + Setting Tourism.

* What are you seeing as "the matter" under discussion here. I thought it was clear, but I'm not so sure we're on the same page.

* What is "this" that you're pointing at in that 3rd sentence?

I won't speak for @Crimson Longinus , but the way your post read to me was, "some people just know how to play the way I prefer. Some people don't and maybe can't. A third group can be taught to play the way I prefer, sometimes.

Is this what you meant to say?