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]

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.

Alas, I think "the larger context of this discussion" is not amenable to any one discrete interpretation. It seems evident to me that even many of the posters directly responding to each other aren't actually having the same discussion, at least in part due to using language differently and starting with different high-level conceptions of roleplaying, up to and including at an ontological level. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I have time I'll write up a more complete response that addresses your point about active/passive play as it relates to my own playstyle and conception of our shared hobby.

 

[TiQuinn]

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

Sorry but I missed what his exact reaction and argument was. You alluded to it but you also seemed to hand wave some details in your first post so I wasn’t seeing the full picture.

" 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.

Okay, so not every player is worth the effort of a spotlight within the game. I’ve had those kinds of players - they claim they want something “special” to happen to them in the game, but they also don’t really engage with the DM to collaborate on what that means.

So let me summarize what happened:

1) Player wants a cool familiar based on some adventures revolving around occult stuff that occurred.
2) You tried to give him that but because it’s dark, occult stuff, you want to make it clear it’s definitely evil stuff and you’re thinking something outside the norm for the familiar.
3) You come up with a bloody skeleton idea, the player doesn’t like it, and abandons the idea entirely without attempting to give ideas back to you for what he would want that suit the atmosphere and his picture for the character.

Is that accurate?

 

[Emerikol]

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.

To me this falls under communication. In this case a player said something and the DM misunderstood what was said. I'm fine with communication correctives when either side obviously misheard or didn't understand. That isn't though the total of what is being discussed here.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

The party has not reached the outcome yet unless the game ends with no chance to cary on or they have no ability to influence what the gm prepares next....

Now the players know that the one they decided to steal is a fake. Knowing that they can:

Try to convince someone else that it's real
Try to investigate the counter fitting and see where that goes

Try to find the real one and decide what to do about it if they succeed.

Other stuff.

 

[Mort]

To me this falls under communication. In this case a player said something and the DM misunderstood what was said. I'm fine with communication correctives when either side obviously misheard or didn't understand. That isn't though the total of what is being discussed here.

Yes and no. It seems what's being discussed are degrees and what qualifies as communication vs. pushback/questioning.

 

[hawkeyefan]

i would most likely present it myself as 'the GM pre-authored a neutral setting element, which when combined with player actions and/or the consequences thereof, resulted an a failure state.'

An uninformed kobold or locked door or fake relic isn't a result of attempting to make the players fail, it's a result of attempting to simulate the world being a living, breathing entity with multiple agents and forces all constantly and simultaneously influencing things and acting out their wills.

How is a kobold who can provide no information neutral?

How is a locked door introduced on the fly during a chase scene that then results in the chase ending neutral?

How is a relic revealed to be false after it is stolen neutral?

Whether the DM decided these things in the moment or weeks before during prep, they are not neutral. Even if they “make sense for the setting” and so on… they are decisions the DM makes that clearly have an impact on outcomes in the game. Many things may make sense in a setting.

A kobold having information about its recent actions and the number of companions it has… makes sense.

An unlocked door… makes sense. Or even a locked door that can potentially be picked BEFORE the pursuers catch up… makes sense.

A stolen relic turning out to be authentic… makes sense.

 

[ezo]

A kobold having information about its recent actions and the number of companions it has… makes sense.

An unlocked door… makes sense. Or even a locked door that can potentially be picked BEFORE the pursuers catch up… makes sense.

A stolen relic turning out to be authentic… makes sense.

So, in other words, it "makes sense" if it makes the players happy and they don't see the outcome as failure?

Seems like railroading to me--just in the players' favor.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sorry but I missed what his exact reaction and argument was. You alluded to it but you also seemed to hand wave some details in your first post so I wasn’t seeing the full picture.



Okay, so not every player is worth the effort of a spotlight within the game. I’ve had those kinds of players - they claim they want something “special” to happen to them in the game, but they also don’t really engage with the DM to collaborate on what that means.

So let me summarize what happened:

1) Player wants a cool familiar based on some adventures revolving around occult stuff that occurred.
2) You tried to give him that but because it’s dark, occult stuff, you want to make it clear it’s definitely evil stuff and you’re thinking something outside the norm for the familiar.
3) You come up with a bloody skeleton idea, the player doesn’t like it, and abandons the idea entirely without attempting to give ideas back to you for what he would want that suit the atmosphere and his picture for the character.

Is that accurate?

On 1, it was my first on the fly thought and he was into it. As a general rule of thumb it's easy to get power by diving into the dark side of evil but the cost is the evil itself. Makes it easy to revisit any initial "oh I shouldn't have given out that"

On 2 the feel I got was that the capital E Evil involved and carried was just the excuse for not getting a 10gp "imp or cute owl". He expected more support from the table and a willingness to continue carrying it for a spectator. The next campaign he played a chain pact warlock.. you can guess how that went.

On3 worse, he did that while trying to pin the blame on me in a way that expected something else. I'm sure that we've all seen or heard of the "oh man that's an awesome great word, too bad it's not a great axe since I'm specialized in those" times where a gm forgot and admits they thought he used great swords while making it an axe" type things, he expected to bully such an outcome into being.

 

[Oofta]

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.

They only fail if they decide to steal it. Once they do steal it, perhaps they can turn it into a win and use it as a trap because other parties still believe it's real. On the other hand the PCs don't have perfect knowledge of the world. Sometimes I drop multiple hints they don't pick up on, sometimes the McGuffin is a forgery.

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.

I disagree. If they always fail? That's an issue. But there are no guarantees in life or in games. Something like not getting a treasure will be minor in the big picture. If a player can't handle the occasional setback then I'm not the right DM for them. The world doesn't have 100% transparency, sometimes allies are spies. I am less likely to enjoy playing a game where I am never surprised by an outcome. Whether that outcome is positive or negative.

It's about balance of course. But having the unexpected happen? That's a big part of the game for me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

But it is not pre-authored that the Maltese Falcon the players try to steal is a fake. It is pre-authored, that there is a Maltese Falcon, and it is fake. Then the players decide to steal it.

if it is true that 1) the players are free to set goals 2) there is pre-authored facts all of which are not know to the players, then it follows that players can set a goal that is impossible to achieve, leading to an automatic failure.