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.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The DM decides it. Either by their perrogative via world-building and NPC control or by random chance, their choice.

Would the players have complained if the DM judged the kobold DID know everything and spilled his guts??? NO! They would have been thrilled. Yah! Woo-hoo!!! We captured a kobold and got the info we wanted. Yeah, us!!!

It is only when the DM decided against the players that they felt it was railroading when he provided no useful intel.

Well yes, when the DM blocks player action so that play only goes the way the DM wants rather than the way the players want, that's railroading.

Preferably, there were have been some mechanics involved here. A roll of some sort to interrogate, a Saving Throw by the kobold to resist, or even just a comparison between Hit Dice and Level or similar.

But if the DM is not going to use mechanics... if they're just going to decide the outcome... yes, I think it's preferable that they go with what the players are trying to do instead of block them for some reason.

Not sure how you can't see a difference here.

How is it "crappy"? It is just something that doesn't go the players' way. Unfortunate for the players yes, but nothing wrong with it as a DM.

It's crappy because it's a kobold. The typical kobold is... in my imagination... isn't (a) tough enough to really withstand an interrogation, (b) loyal enough not to try and save its own skin, or (c) stupid enough not to know something useful that the characters are asking about.

It's clearly a case of the DM just not wanting to give the players intel. And to me, that's a crappy DM. I tend to provide an abundance of information, and I kind of expect that when I play, as well. I want to see what players do with the information. I don't want to hoard it and make them work endlessly for a drizzle of info so that the game goes exactly the way I foresee it.

Yes, the DM has. Just like when the PCs get to the door and the DM decides it is locked. The DM shouldn't have to "roll randomly to determine if a door is locked or not". DMs decide how the world operates all the time. It is part of their job as world-builder and storyteller.

NO DM in ANY GAME determines everything by random roll that I know of. And if such a game exists, don't tell me about it, I'm better of not knowing about that crappy of a game. After all, the players don't decide everything their characters do or know by random roll, why should the DM?

I'm not talking about determining everything with a random roll. I'm talking about involving the mechanics somewhere... anywhere... in the process.

When all the factors of a given situation are decided solely by DM whim, then the DM is controlling the game, not facilitating the game.

Ok, good example! The DM should absolutely NOT just "decide if the interrogation will get the kobold to spill the beans".

The kobold breaking under the pressure of interrogation is the kobold's AC, it's "resistance" to the "interrogation attack".
This could be a static value, a "DC" the players have to get, or could work in the other direction and be a morale check the DM rolls for the kobold against a set morale value.

The kobold knowing information is the kobold's HP. In this case, knowing nothing would mean the kobold has like 1 hp.

So, the DM does get to set the amount, if any, of the information that kobold might know--just like the DM sets the AC for the creature the PC attacks

Sure, if some kind of rules were used to determine the outcome of the interrogation, then I don't think you'd see the complaints about it.

If I try and use Intimidate to interrogate a prisoner, and I roll poorly, I accept that I don't get any information, or that the information I get is nearly useless. That's perfectly fine!

The key difference is the absence of mechanics here. It's not about players just expecting everything to go their way... it's about the fact that a game is being played, and they should have the ability to steer the outcome of the game.

As long as the DM used a mechanic to determine IF the kobold would succumb to the interrogation (morale check, reaction roll, etc.) the interrogation, itself, did not fail. That they learned nothing useful is not the same thing.

In the example, he did not. That's the entire point.

The DM decides what NPCs know or don't know. It is really that simple and not railroading. Now, if the DM didn't use any system to determine IF the kobold would give in?--that would be railroading.

That's all that anyone is saying. So it seems you actually agree?

2) The fight cannot be avoided (it's the encounter!). The DM sets up the scene of the chase and the PCs get to the door but it is locked. Roll initiative.

This is also railroading, no? I mean... "it's the encounter!" is a pretty thin justification for the DM to make something happen.

If the DM introduces a chance to escape from a fight, then I would expect as a player that such a chance may work.

LOL you do you, man. That is all totally good scene development IMO and very much D&D!

No... eschewing all mechanics in favor of the DM determining all variables is crappy DMing.

What would YOU DO differently, huh? Where in that chain of decisions does the "good DM" do things differently?

• You don't design the layout? Well, I think you probably do unless you roll the city layout randomly?

I'd likely not have every street mapped out, so I'd likely establish these details on the fly.

• No alley? Ok... then where do the PCs go when they encounter the killers? Wherever that is, you just decided that instead of the alley.

I'd present choices that may be relevant to the players and their characters, and provide them details to choose their path.

So let's say the alley was one thing... I'd maybe also provide a gutter that could be used to climb to the rooftops. And perhaps a gathering crowd into which they could try and slip. I'd present the risks of each along with their description. "The door in the alley is likely to be locked in this part of the city... can you pick it before your pursuers reach you?" and "The gutter looks somewhat rickety, but should support your weight. Can each of you climb quickly enough to get up there before the pursuers catch up?" and "The crowd is pretty large, but mostly made up of commoners... simple folk in simple dress. Can you blend in somehow, or will your weapons and armor give you away?"

Something like that. Offer choices, let the players choose. Allow each of these options a chance to succeed.

Otherwise, there's no point in the chase. If you want the fight to happen, just make it happen before the chase. Still seems like railroading to me, but at least it saves some table time and some potential frustration.

• No door? Fine, then the alley is a dead-end and there's going to be a fight. Which is why it's an encounter.

I wouldn't do this. This is railroading.

• Not locked? Fine, then no encounter--the PCs escape. You just narrated the choices for where the PCs can go and they decided where to go. But then the "encounter" was never going to happen unless the PCs just decided they wanted to fight--but given the original synopsis fleeing seemed to be the decision. But then this begs the question: Why THAT door? Where does it go? Didn't you just "railroad" the PCs into going through the door--just like YOU wanted???

No, I wouldn't offer only one choice, and I'd also likely involve mechanics of some sort. There might be a DC to pick the lock or break the door. I may even just make a fortune roll to see if it's even locked to begin with.

Having only one option is a pretty clear indicator of a railroad, no?

• How far the pursuers are? Close enough to begin the encounter, otherwise why bother??? The DM could randomly roll this (I often do), but the range of the roll is still determined by the DM, right? So, close enough to begin the chase, but far enough that it isn't an immediate fight.

I'd set this based on the circumstances, and would let the players know. "You have three rounds until they're on you" or what have you.

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.

That’s because you’re failing to realize that the criticism is about the lack of mechanics, and the difference between blocking player actions and allowing them to succeed and how that impacts player agency.

It’s remarkable, really.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

They are neutral because their state of being was decided without consideration, reaction or relation to the PCs actions, intentions or desires, they were decided purely as a consequence of the living setting, The kobold may of had information, the door may have been unlocked and the relic may have been the original, but if these things were true or not were not influenced by any deciding factor from the players.

*the examples i am using are not intended to be the specific circumstances given by other posters, just mirrors of them.

 

[Emerikol]

What I find annoying is this assumption this is at least implied that if a DM is not running a narrative game they are an adversarial DM. It almost feels like every locked door, every unhelpful captive, every McGuffin that turns out to be worthless, can only be done by a DM laughing cruelly behind the scenes as the players gnash their teeth in despair. That's simply not true, in almost every case the DM is just doing their best to make the game fun. Sometimes styles just don't match up.

That was what I meant to say in my last sentence above.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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.

When do we cross the line? When does it stop being a game of D&D, in this example, and start being a game of "DM gotcha?" And is that destructive?

For me, I only bring something up to a DM if it breaks my suspension of disbelief or dispels the illusion of choice. I enter my player mindset with the intent of having fun, with the intent of playing the game. If I switch that. If I presume ill-intent, and scrutinize every decision a DM makes, I'd argue I'm no longer playing a game of D&D.

I'm instead pretending to be a DM critic. As my head, as a player, is not focused on playing, but on finding reasons to criticize someone else, and that is doing a disservice to my other players. Players who may disagree about the "problems" I see. They may not see them as being "problems" at all.

If we look at this another way. Lets say in the case of the DM presenting situations where the preconceived notions of the players are not met or even shown as false. At what point is the narrative so far in the control of the players, that the DM becomes superficial? If every independent DM choice is presumed wrong, if it conflicts with the player's idea of what should happen, why is the DM there?

This all is to say, that at some point the act of looking for problems becomes a problem. And if we presume problems anytime the DM comes in conflict with player expectations, I feel we run the risk of sucking the life out of our DMs and running into increasingly few who are willing to fill that role. A role that too few are willing to do as is.

I think someone once said; "“If you look hard enough, you’ll probably find something that makes you wish you hadn’t.” I think if we truly wish to play the game, we should keep that in mind.

 

[TwoSix]

I think though that in D&D there is at least the common style and unless you clarify you should expect a lot of us to be thinking in those terms.

I think establishing that this style might be common but NOT normative is the point of a lot of these conversations.

 

[Emerikol]

These responses are not engaging with @hawkeyefan 's point at all; a point which has nothing to do with whether or not an outcome of a player's action declaration lands in the player's favor.

The point is simple:

* GMs who pre-author outcomes that result in a net failure-state are not doing a neutral thing in the slightest. Its not neutral in terms of the play itself nor the experience of the play.

It would be if the DM does not do it all the time. If he created a sandbox and one possible adventure was going after what turns out to be a fake Maltese Falcon, it is neutral. In the real world not everything is as it seems. If though, the DM is doing this all the time then you may have an argument. I would say in isolation it is neutral.

* Those same GMs can't fall back on "but my choice of pre-authored outcome which resulted in a net failure-state made sense" because an alternative fiction and alternative gamestate can make just as much sense.

So? Of course, there are an infinite possible number of pre-authored outcomes. The DM chose for this particular adventure to make the Maltese Falcon a fake. Either because he just watched a Humphrey Bogart movie or something else. The DM draws inspiration from many sources. The key is whether the DM does it so much that the setting stops being nuetral. If every treasure is fake then that is bad. If every ally turns out to be a traitor, then that is bad. But these things to some degree happen so they are fine.

* Therefore "made sense" doesn't do decisive work here. So if "made sense" isn't doing the necessary work to validate the pre-authored outcome netting a failure state, then something else is happening. Need more information. That "something else" could be a number of things. Having a probing conversation about what that might be is productive.

I think makes sense or is plausible matters a lot. Because my argument against would be a plausibility one. if the DM hits us with three straight fake treasures, I'm going to think this is implausible. So plausibility matters very much.

 

[ezo]

Not sure what work you're intending with this response?

Fair enough, I had no idea what you were intending with yours. So, I guess wer're even on that side of things.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Alas, I think "the larger context of this discussion" is not amenable to any one discrete interpretation.

Okay… then I think in this specific instance, it’s already been clarified that no offense was meant.

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.

That’d be great. If possible, actual examples of play would help. As you can see, hypotheticals often lead to people chasing details instead of discussing the example.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

What if it’s a one shot?

 

[Emerikol]

That’d be great. If possible, actual examples of play would help. As you can see, hypotheticals often lead to people chasing details instead of discussing the example.

And the question here begs so many angles of observation.

Even if I agree with everything the original poster said for me the answer is not rebellion. It may be leaving the game but I'm not overriding the DM. So this little snippet of the discussion is one thread that runs somewhat in parallel but independently of the main point.

And I think the main point is so ambiguous that it is no wonder we go off in different directions. Some of us here do defend DM authority and do so strongly as we consider it absolutely essential. But even we might agree with the poster if we had a full history of what went on in the game. We are looking at something in isolation.

So for the scenario where all I know is a kobold got captured and he wouldn't talk per the DM, I can give no answer without making an assumption. By default I follow what the DM says. I see nothing in this example that makes me change my view in general. But of course if you start adding in more details then I could go either way depending on which you include.