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]

There are times when the PCs do everything right and they still don't achieve their goal. What, if anything, would make that end result what you consider a principled decision by the DM?

If the PCs do everything right and don't achieve their goal, assuming that the dice were not actively the cause, why did they not achieve their goal?

The only reason I can think of is that the DM has pre-authored part of the setting such that the PCs actions can't impact it.

 

[Xetheral]

People post all the time about how much they love to “explore the setting”… that’s all setting tourism means. It’s an incredibly common playstyle.

I think the objection is based on the fact that the word "tourist" can have a pejorative connotation. Even when not used pejoratively, "tourist" carries an implication that the exploring being done is passive in nature--indeed, a respectful tourist strives to be low-impact. This may conflict with those whose preference for "exploring the setting" may be highly active in nature, interacting with and driving change in the setting itself.

 

[Emerikol]

If the DM makes a call that precipitates multiple players having "some sort of rebellion", then the amount of trust necessary to run a game has already been lost.

If a player has a disagreement with a call I've made, then we stop the game for a minute or two and hash it out. If the players don't have buy in to the framework of the game and my decision-making, then there's really no point in continuing the game.

I find such an approach just leads to more "hashing things out" which in turn makes the game grind to a halt. To me it is more effective to discuss after the game. Any DM has to make rulings and sometimes those rulings will not be to a player or players taste. The decision to play in a campaign with a particular DM is based on your willingness to accept the DMs ruling. If not then don't play. There are DMs I would avoid. I'm not saying they all are good DMs. What I am saying is a good DM may in a players eyes get it wrong on occasion but they play because the good far outweighs the bad.

 

[TwoSix]

Oh, I dunno, the numerous times in this very thread people have said that the PCs not only may not know why the DM ruled on something a particular way, but that they may never know, and thus the player cannot ever expect an explanation.

That, to me, sounds like a pretty blatant non-one-way-street. The players are not ever allowed to expect accountability.

My personal belief is that, in a GM-led setting-exploration type game, the GM should be allowed to assert the presence of pre-existing fiction, even hidden fiction, that hinders or negates various action declarations. (This would be the "hidden antimagic field" example.)

This is absolutely the DM asking for an expression of trust that they're not doing this punitively or unfairly, and definitely should not be abused. ("I know this feels like BS, but trust me, there's a reason for it hidden in the adventure.")

 

[TiQuinn]

If the PCs do everything right and don't achieve their goal, assuming that the dice were not actively the cause, why did they not achieve their goal?

The only reason I can think of is that the DM has pre-authored part of the setting such that the PCs actions can't impact it.

That would pretty much be the definition of a novel at that point rather than a TTRPG.

 

[Oofta]

If the PCs do everything right and don't achieve their goal, assuming that the dice were not actively the cause, why did they not achieve their goal?

The only reason I can think of is that the DM has pre-authored part of the setting such that the PCs actions can't impact it.

There are times when the players don't know everything going on. Sometimes they steal the Maltese Falcon thinking they're getting a fabulous treasure only to find out it's a fake. Sometimes the goblin doesn't know anything because he was just a grunt doing whatever his commanders told him.

It's my job as a DM to create engaging challenges and a campaign world that feels real. It's not my job to reward every attempt with success. For that matter sometimes I simply make a mistake. Obviously if this is a repeated pattern, if the DM is always blocking progress or forcing the players into a specific direction then it's an issue.

Do the players always have to succeed? Is there never a place for setbacks? What process are you supposed to use other than your best judgement when a DM is running an improv scene? Why would it matter if before the game started the DM had mapped out an alley with a locked door, how does making the decision an hour before somehow make it "permissible" than a decision made the moment before?

 

[Emerikol]

That would pretty much be the definition of a novel at that point rather than a TTRPG.

Or it could be that the PCs gave up unless you are assuming the PCs are not in this question.

 

[TwoSix]

I find such an approach just leads to more "hashing things out" which in turn makes the game grind to a halt. To me it is more effective to discuss after the game. Any DM has to make rulings and sometimes those rulings will not be to a player or players taste. The decision to play in a campaign with a particular DM is based on your willingness to accept the DMs ruling. If not then don't play. There are DMs I would avoid. I'm not saying they all are good DMs. What I am saying is a good DM may in a players eyes get it wrong on occasion but they play because the good far outweighs the bad.

If hashing out a rules or framing issue takes more than 2-3 minutes, then I would say there are some deeper problems in the game.

 

[tetrasodium]

If the PCs do everything right and don't achieve their goal, assuming that the dice were not actively the cause, why did they not achieve their goal?

The only reason I can think of is that the DM has pre-authored part of the setting such that the PCs actions can't impact it.

Maybe they set an unreasonable goal? Maybe they had a goal that seemed reasonable until they discovered something they didn't know and can now use that knowledge to set a better goal? Maybe the dice were against it?

 

[TiQuinn]

Or it could be that the PCs gave up unless you are assuming the PCs are not in this question.

“If the PCs do everything right and don't achieve their goal, assuming that the dice were not actively the cause, why did they not achieve their goal?”