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.

 

[Oofta]

Of course not. But reading a rule, hearing some quick discussion, and making the call shouldn't take more than 2-3 minutes, as I said.

And more importantly, the point I was making wasn't about knowing a rule. It was with a player actively disagreeing with my interpretation and ruling. Those are two very distinct things.

In general if I have to reference a book or look something up it's not happening during the game unless it's really important.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Challenging the actual ruling inside the play session is being a jerk.

Not unless you presume bad behavior. It can also be standing up for yourself. Something I rather value.

Arguments during play are counterproductive and lead nowhere but lost play time.

Spending half an hour whining and moaning about something? Sure. Standing up for yourself and challenging something you consider a pretty obviously bad call, on the other hand, is extremely important--because no DM is perfect and sometimes they really do get things wrong. I get things wrong all the time, and I rely on my players correcting me when I make mistakes. I'll never not make mistakes, no matter how hard I work toward doing better; that doesn't mean I don't, it just means I'm not fool enough to think that my efforts will guarantee mistakes never happen.

 

[TwoSix]

So, what happens when the DM does a thing that could be 1 or 2, but it's really obviously very consequential, and it has a clear, immediate, significant negative impact on the PC(s), and the thing it's doing specifically and directly contradicts clear, basic, publicly-shared rules of the game, like the text of a spell or a class feature?

Because that's example I gave. This out-of-the-blue "nope, the rules don't matter, past precedent doesn't matter, you just have to trust me as DM that a spell blowing up in your face for no discernible reason is 100% okay." Which, again, this is not something I made up. It's something another user on this forum asked me about.

In my view, communication is key. As a Dm, you should tell the player "I know this seems frustrating, but I promise you that it's for a good reason and there will be a payoff later on in the adventure."

 

[Maxperson]

What is railroading is the GM making up stuff, without regard to any action resolution procedure, in order to shape the fiction in the direction they desire without regard to the players' intentions in declaring actions for their PCs. One example would be a GM making up fiction pertaining to an interrogated NPC in order to block the players' intended line of action (ie gathering information so as to take the initiative in a conflict) and force the players back into the passive role of responding to whatever the GM has next on their list of events to describe.

While your example above is railroading, the definition of railroading you provide doesn't work.

If I place a locked door I have 1) made up stuff without regard to any resolution procedure, 2) shaped the fiction in a direction I desired(I wanted a locked door there), and 3) did so without regard to the players intentions in declaring actions for their PCs(I have no idea what actions they will declare when they encounter the door). What I didn't do there was railroad anyone.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In my view, communication is key. As a Dm, you should tell the player "I know this seems frustrating, but I promise you that it's for a good reason and there will be a payoff later on in the adventure."

Okay.

Do you agree that the fact that you need to say, "I promise you that it's for a good reason" is, in and of itself, an appeal for trust, meaning, it is something you understand is (to use a crude metaphor) "cashing in" your trust points?

 

[TwoSix]

In general if I have to reference a book or look something up it's not happening during the game unless it's really important.

I mean, we'll definitely check the text of a relatively rarely-used spell or class feature as needed. But I'm not doing a deep dive into forums or Sage Advice or something like that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.")

Okay.

I think a DM needs to earn that major display of trust before they do those things.

I flatly reject any argument which claims that the DM deserves that trust automatically simply because they decided to run a game. The DM needs to prove to me that I should stay at the table--I don't need to prove to that DM that I'm worthy of playing at their table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Emerikol literally just said that.

Ok. Is that idea a problem for you?

 

[Emerikol]

So, what happens when the DM does a thing that could be 1 or 2, but it's really obviously very consequential, and it has a clear, immediate, significant negative impact on the PC(s), and the thing it's doing specifically and directly contradicts clear, basic, publicly-shared rules of the game, like the text of a spell or a class feature?

Because that's example I gave. This out-of-the-blue "nope, the rules don't matter, past precedent doesn't matter, you just have to trust me as DM that a spell blowing up in your face for no discernible reason is 100% okay." Which, again, this is not something I made up. It's something another user on this forum asked me about.

Your example though is clearly either 1 or 2 above. It's not an ambiguity in the rule. There is not rule where your spell blows up in your face. So either something really setting specific is amiss and the DM really can't tell you or the DM is just abusing you.

A better question would be something you think is according to the rules but the DM is genuinely just appearing to have a misunderstanding. I doubt your example is that. I think though ultimately you just don't play with jerks. A jerk is not a one time jerk.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If an inevitable result of y (the exclusion of an archetypal form of TTRPG play; GM Storyteller + Setting Tourism) doesn't follow from x (the preference or ability to integrate meta considerations when evaluating decision-trees and declaring actions for a PC), then I would say "x doesn't lead to y" follows.

I don't know how we're not clicking here?

That was not the claim.

Alright, so let me see if I've got what you're asking. You're asking if my prior post is trying to introduce the following:

People who can't or choose not to integrate meta considerations into their cognitive space while playing a character invariably leads to a play agenda that features passive Setting Toursim.

This would be "notX leads to notY", which you claim is false, and think X not leading to Y shows this. But that is obviously faulty logic.

I.e. that people who can integrate meta considerations are able to do setting tourism in no way proves that people not being able to integrate meta considerations would not lead to setting tourism.

So this is why I was confused, and assumed you were implying what you now say you were not.

It was brought up because the conversation seemed to be running together very different forms of exploration in TTRPG play. Its pretty important to distinguish between various forms of exploration priorities, exploration systemization, and the attendant experience of exploration that comes from priorities meeting systemization.

The (i) conflict-charged exploration in Moldvay Basic or Torchbearer in a challenge-centered game where multiple clocks and forms of resource/inventory management converge to generate constant duress on decision-trees is extremely different than (ii) exploration of the cities of Neverwinter or Baldur's Gates or Waterdeep in a Forgotten Realms 2e/3e/5e game that features a significant chunk of table time devoted to freeform play and conflict-neutral consumption of scenery-chewing, notorious NPC exposition, and declaring actions in order to trigger reveals and info dumps and plot nodes that engage with famous, novelized setting conceits.

I don't see how this is even slightly controversial? I've done all three for years and years and years. Those two forms of exploration are not even on a continuum. They're decisively different things in implementation and in experience for both GMs and players.

Because things like "setting tourism" and "GM storytime" are obviously derogatory, and imply the sort of passivity that is generally not present in actuality.