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.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

If "the PCs do everything right" still allows for the PCs to have incomplete information, then I think it is entirely possible for the PCs to be able to successfully impact the setting, but for that impact to fail to advance their goals the way they intended. For instance, the PCs' chosen goals might be in tension with each other, easily leading to an unexpected failure resulting from an ostensible success despite the DM not having authored anything to prevent the PCs from impacting the setting.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I mean, that's sure as hell how it seems from half the participants in this thread. A "Viking Hat" DM that doesn't get immediate deference responds with a boot.

Maybe I misunderstand. If so, I am sure you will tell me.

I feel like when I enter a player-DM relationship, as a player. If I have not played with that person in any way, I have no trust in that person beyond my standard level of "stranger danger."

I feel like if I enter the first session of a campaign at that trust level, there was a break down in the process. For me, and maybe I'm weird due to playing mostly online, Session 0 is the step that either gains enough trust to move forward or convinces me to leave. It's about 50-50 on which result I see.

So I am mildly curious. For you, does your normal trust state, which I take as none, start at the beginning of the process or at session 1? Or are those the same thing? Because I feel like pre-session 1 discussions are where a base level of trust should be earned.

So I'm curious as for you where your zero trust point is? Is it session 1 or the start of the first conversation?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

This is possible, of course. But I think, in context of the original use in this thread by @Manbearcat , that wouldn’t seem to be the case. He even went on to clarify it’s a perfectly fine way to play which although he doesn’t like to run games that way, will happily play in them.

Now, aside from that… I think that when viewed in the larger context of this discussion, and the comments about the setting being the DM’s and players not being allowed/expected to contribute to the shared fiction of play… sometimes an outright rejection of the idea that the fiction is shared… then I think it certainly can seem like a description that implies passivity on the part of the players.

Though if that’s the case, I don’t think it’s the label that should change. Rather, the expectation that the players be passive needs to change. That the focus of play not be the setting, but the characters. That the players not be limited in what they can contribute to play, or in how they can impact the setting.

 

[tetrasodium]

So what was his reaction to all of this, and what did he alternately want to do?

I said it earlier?
you actually quoted it. Here it is again.

" there were a couple away from table talks where he nodded along enthusiastically without questioning and a couple adventures going on dark directions like getting a sacrificial altar out of a dungeon after killing some bbeg in there previously and such. All I remember was that the spell was called "transmute soul to familiar" and it required a live humanoid who's soul is consumed by the ritual.(I've since checked notes & found the details to make post 1852, which was quoted in the post IU'm responding to)

It was actually very frustrating because he tried to make it out like his refusal was because I was gm had somehow misled him by not giving him a standard find familiar or the eventual spell before repeatedly telling him it would go somewhere dark and sending him on multiple adventures going in dark necromantic directions without him ever bothering to ask even a single question. He failed because he made no effort to actively work with the GM and just participated as a spectator"

Not having any intention of giving him "an imp or a cure owl" I continued with the game after addressing some of the "wow why so evil?"/"so could he equip the skeleton like xyz if he cast it?" type questions from other players. He never cast the spell & the game continued for a couple more levels till I ended it in lowish teens.

I'll anticipate some questions Before they come up...

• Was there a not Evil as hell version of the spell?
  • Maybe? Truth be told I had no idea what the spell would ultimately look like or what path the party would take to creating it so was going to make something based on the adventures and components along the way
• Could the player have suggested things other than taking guidance from a literal demon described as a demon who was referencing a page from the book of vile darkness?
  • Maybe? I would have appreciated input from the player since "he I want to research this new spell/magic item/etc" is a great chance for the player to bring ideas to the table & work them out with the gm in a way the GM can create whatever adventures are needed... but he never asked a single question or even tried to make a suggestion till the very end when suddenly it was too evil.
• What would have happened if the player or the party had worked against the demon?
  • No ide, it never even got floated as an idea
• Could the player have kept researching and tried to find a way to make something other than a gore encrusted bloody skeleton?
  • I guess? Anything possible, I have no idea what such a process might look like & had no interest in spinning the mental hamster wheels to figure it out then implement it in adventure form for a player channeling "here we are now entertain us" through the whole process. His desire was very much not contagious enough for me to climb that hill for him a second time.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Depends. Why was the door mentioned in the first place? Was it because there was a door on the map? Or did the DM just add a door because they felt it enhanced verisimilitude?

I would go with ‘it was on the map’ as IMO that most closely aligns with the premise of a GM attempting to simulate a living moving world with other NPC actors independent of the player characters.

As it helps to know what already exists so you can then determine how it changes

 

[Oofta]

I'm hoping (hoping!) that if an enemy spellcaster casts fireball on the party from 300 feet away, and you tell the DM "I'm pretty sure that the range of fireball is 120 feet", they don't scream at you "DON'T QUESTION MY AUTHORITY!"

The correct response is either a) "My bad, let me re-do that action." or b) "Yes, that is indeed normally true that fireball only goes 120 feet." And for b), I am 100% expecting that in my authority as the scene-framer I can create NPC capabilities that go beyond the normal constraints for spells of abilities, and that I have narrative reasons for doing so.

Maybe it was a sorcerer that cast the spell that used distant spell. Maybe there's some kin of illusion going on.

But this is likely serious enough and easy enough to verify that if I didn't have something strange going on I'd look it up.

But I've had games come to a halt for 5 minutes in the middle of combat for something that was relatively trivial. That's what I try to avoid.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As a DM I don't pre-author any conclusions.

If you’ve decided that the Maltese Falcon that the players steal is a fake, then yes, you’ve largely pre-authored the outcome of the players attempt to steal the Maltese Falcon.

Failure is built in.

Now, could this example be mitigated in some way? Yes, possibly. But based on the limited example you gave, it certainly seems like you’ve pre-authored the outcome.

Any time the players attempt a reasonable action, and the DM makes a decision that determines that action fails, I’d say that’s potentially problematic.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because I have absolutely no interest...whatsoever in talking about the entirety of TTRPG play! That wasn't the point of my entry into the conversation!

Again.

1) The conversation seemed to be putting exploration into one giant bucket, thereby running together very distinct forms of exploration in TTRPGs. As it should be clear at this point, like so much other TTRPG conversation/analysis that runs together concepts or mystifies play, I think this is not good for the health and heterogeneity of our hobby.

2) I demonstrate these important distinctions in TTRPGs by citing two forms of exploration that diverge from each other significantly in both (a) the priorities of the participants in play and (b) in the way system is designed and implemented to facilitate those priorities.

I only need to discuss two forms of exploration (and no more) that diverge in order to demonstrate that exploration needs to be disambiguated.

That is it.

That is the whole deal.

OK. I think intertwining the whole ability to integrate meta considerations and use of dismissive language* was what confused me here. And you, know, the way you write...

(* And like it or not stuff like "setting tourism" and "GM storytime come across as such. You know this, you've been told this before.)

At this point I have no idea exactly how we got here...but I'm pretty sure it starts with people escalating to offense-taking unnecessarily and inferring the worse possible interpretation of a pretty freaking benign collection of words. I also know this sort of nonsense is exactly why I've reduced my posting dramatically.

This is ridiculous that we're here.

I am genuinely sad to hear this. I think you're often very insightful, and I like to hear your thought even if I might disagree. But there is one thing and I think I've said this to you before, and I say this again (and please take this in the kind and constructive spirit it is honestly intended): I'm sure there is a lot of reflexive antagonism on these boards, but part of the reason why your posts in particular often get misinterpreted is the way you post. You express yourself in unnecessarily opaque and convoluted manner. Like I said, I like to hear your ideas, but it is often a chore trying to decipher them.

 

[Mort]

Maybe it was a sorcerer that cast the spell that used distant spell. Maybe there's some kin of illusion going on.

But this is likely serious enough and easy enough to verify that if I didn't have something strange going on I'd look it up.

But I've had games come to a halt for 5 minutes in the middle of combat for something that was relatively trivial. That's what I try to avoid.

It does come up though.

Heck, just this last Sunday I accidentally messed up a fireball area of effect (my overlay had the size wrong and the radius was doubled) which would have caused it to hit 4 PCs instead of the 2 it should have. One of the players caught it, and I immediately corrected.

Point is, as long as it's quick, I'm happy to correct. I just don't want to get into a long meta discussion (rules or situation) that takes away from the game - that needs to happen when the game is done.

 

[Emerikol]

Now, aside from that… I think that when viewed in the larger context of this discussion, and the comments about the setting being the DM’s and players not being allowed/expected to contribute to the shared fiction of play… sometimes an outright rejection of the idea that the fiction is shared… then I think it certainly can seem like a description that implies passivity on the part of the players.

Though if that’s the case, I don’t think it’s the label that should change. Rather, the expectation that the players be passive needs to change. That the focus of play not be the setting, but the characters. That the players not be limited in what they can contribute to play, or in how they can impact the setting.

I think there is some confusion in terms that keep bouncing back. There are things you can do as your character and each thing you do affects the world just like each thing an NPC does affects the word. The confusion at times is the player affecting the world outside of what his character can do. I think we've cleared it up now but there was some confusion.

Now, when a player acts in the world, the DM responds by describing the outcome. In most instances just like real life when a character acts something expected happens. On rare occasions in our world and maybe a tad more in a fantasy world, something unexpected happens. That does not mean the PC has no ability to act. They acted and something happened it just wasn't what they expected to happen.

My players impact the world and often do so greatly but the world is not the sum total of their actions. I have NPCs in motion in the setting doing things that may never matter to the PCs. It may be purely to keep the verisimilitude of the setting strong. I have wars happening between nations near the PCs but not impacting them. They hear about it. They could go get involved but most don't. See my PCs don't assume every drop of information coming from me is an adventure lead. Sometimes it's just there for color.