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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But what if it’s clear from the context that the DM made their decision just to thwart your idea? They didn’t use any kind of mechanics, didn’t roll a die or consult a map or a table… they just decided that your reasonable action failed?

I don’t think it’s “acting crazy” to question that. Or, in extreme cases where it’s happened a lot or you expect it to be the norm, to leave the game.



That’s what happened in this case. However, I would say that the response need not be so extreme. I have, as a player, questioned a GM’s decision. I’ve likewise been questioned by players when I GM. And in both cases, there have been times where an adjustment was made by the GM. Where they realized they had made a mistake.

Your view that anything of the sort is a “rebellion” is extreme and unnecessary. You can have perfectly fun and functional games that include this type of dynamic.

The kobold example, as described, was literally a rebellion.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Since there a large number of possible fictions that could make sense, the question becomes "why not author a fiction that allows the character's actions to be the linchpin of play?"

And the number one reason to NOT do that is to create situations that prove that character considerations do NOT have primacy over setting agency.

If the kobold doesn't know anything, that's proof positive that the kobold's fictional state was NOT determined by the dramatic needs of the players, but rather by some supposedly neutral "simulative" process.

Where trust is required is that when the DM makes up a framing (like introducing a door), they are mentally using some neutral "simulative" process rather than acting antagonistically towards the players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Since there a large number of possible fictions that could make sense, the question becomes "why not author a fiction that allows the character's actions to be the linchpin of play?"

And the number one reason to NOT do that is to create situations that prove that character considerations do NOT have primacy over setting agency.

If the kobold doesn't know anything, that's proof positive that the kobold's fictional state was NOT determined by the dramatic needs of the players, but rather by some supposedly neutral "simulative" process.

Where trust is required is that when the DM makes up a framing (like introducing a door), they are mentally using some neutral "simulative" process rather than acting antagonistically towards the players.

I try to do this, through various means, every time.

 

[Emerikol]

But what if it’s clear from the context that the DM made their decision just to thwart your idea? They didn’t use any kind of mechanics, didn’t roll a die or consult a map or a table… they just decided that your reasonable action failed?

I don’t think it’s “acting crazy” to question that. Or, in extreme cases where it’s happened a lot or you expect it to be the norm, to leave the game.

I would ask how you know that...and if I was convinced by your arguments then I'd say that is a bad DM. But "questioning" it is a waste of time.

That’s what happened in this case. However, I would say that the response need not be so extreme. I have, as a player, questioned a GM’s decision. I’ve likewise been questioned by players when I GM. And in both cases, there have been times where an adjustment was made by the GM. Where they realized they had made a mistake.

Your view that anything of the sort is a “rebellion” is extreme and unnecessary. You can have perfectly fun and functional games that include this type of dynamic.

Well we will agree to disagree there. At least while the session is running. I've never been glad a player challenged a ruling whether I'm a fellow player or the DM. It always wasted time and rarely turned out good.

And as I have said previously I'm fine with discussing things like rules mechanics with the DM outside the session.

 

[Emerikol]

The kobold example, as described, was literally a rebellion.

The second those players rebelled that campaign was over for me. Whatever happens. They were going to quit if the DM didn't given in and I am going to quit if he does.

 

[TwoSix]

I try to do this, through various means, every time.

And that's fine, but neutral "simulative" play is only virtuous for certain games and play styles.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So your personal preference is that the characters are more important than the setting? You should just say that.

this is the best answer I have ever heard. Yeah me and my buddies sit down, I thin I will rephrase it a little though,

We at the table matter more then setting. SO if any or all of us need a change to the setting, that is what we do...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Since there a large number of possible fictions that could make sense, the question becomes "why not author a fiction that allows the character's actions to be the linchpin of play?"

And the number one reason to NOT do that is to create situations that prove that character considerations do NOT have primacy over setting agency.

If the kobold doesn't know anything, that's proof positive that the kobold's fictional state was NOT determined by the dramatic needs of the players, but rather by some supposedly neutral "simulative" process.

Where trust is required is that when the DM makes up a framing (like introducing a door), they are mentally using some neutral "simulative" process rather than acting antagonistically towards the players.

Whilst alongside more simulationist concerns my adjudication is actually also often influenced by centring the narrative around the characters and other dramatic concerns, in my opinion overdoing it might make things seem too convenient, too contrived, too artificial. Real life is not neat and convenient and inserting some of that into the play helps to ground things and make them feel more real.

 

[Emerikol]

Whilst alongside more simulationist concerns my adjudication is actually also often influenced by centring the narrative around the characters and other dramatic concerns, in my opinion overdoing it might make things seem too convenient, too contrived, too artificial. Real life is not neat and convenient and inserting some of that into the play helps to ground things and make it feel more real.

I think I back towards it a bit from another angle. I'm very much trad but the player characters see themselves as heroes of their own journey. The whole world just doesn't revolve solely around their concerns. And that is intentional because I want the players to feel like the world is a living world.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that's fine, but neutral "simulative" play is only virtuous for certain games and play styles.

Who said anything about "virtuous"? There's no moral judgement from me. It's what I prefer.