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]

I, personally, would apply "setting tourism" to most non-sandbox modules. If the expectation of play is that we're going to start in Chapter 1 and "X sessions later" get to the last boss fight in Chapter 6, that's setting tourism.

"Setting tourism" isn't some degenerate state; I imagine it's probably the most common playstyle across the entire spectrum of TTRPG tables.

Then why do the only people who happily refer to it as setting tourism seem to also be folks who prefer other styles of play? Coincidence?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"I want to play a cleric of the sun god. I'm envisioning the sun god's church as being pretty much monotheistic, and antagonistic to the churches of other gods."

Would you allow that pitch in your already defined setting?

That would be "no" from me, unless it would by chance match what I've already planned. (It doesn't.)

I would (and honestly be pretty enthused about it), because any setting cosmology I've already defined in my head is pretty much tissue paper strength.

Yeah, well, mine is way more lightweight and sketchy than people would probably assume by my posts, but not to this degree. Broad outline of how religions work was definitely among first things designed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Generally, it would mean making up the world for the specific campaign. Other than deciding we're using "X system", the players bring the dishes and the setting is a potluck buffet.

That is definitely the way some gamers prefer to play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unless the players are also cooking the meals I don't really see a functional difference.

I believe they are in this analogy.

 

[Emerikol]

I, personally, would apply "setting tourism" to most non-sandbox modules. If the expectation of play is that we're going to start in Chapter 1 and "X sessions later" get to the last boss fight in Chapter 6, that's setting tourism.

"Setting tourism" isn't some degenerate state; I imagine it's probably the most common playstyle across the entire spectrum of TTRPG tables.

I think the super-module and Pathfinder module series that go from low level to campaign end are examples of what you say. I wasn't thinking that was what you meant though with setting tourism. That is more railroading or scripted play.

I play sandboxes but on occasion there is an opportunity to do an adventure that involves a limited set of choices. The players can almost always choose to do it or opt out. In fact I might present them with multiple options. The sandbox is a setting with a lot of adventure hooks to be explored. The key is when choices are made the choices not made also affect the setting.

So for example let's suppose, the group passes on the Caves of Chaos. Later, let's suppose they notice prices are a bit higher in town and the citizens are complaining about the raiding, or there is news the King ordered a band of knights to go clear out the area, or another adventuring group cleared them. Anything could happen. The world is not static.

As a DM, letting news of other events come in is a great way to add verisimilitude. Having a rival adventuring group nearby can be a lot of fun. They aren't necessarily enemies but there is a sense of urgency to beat them to the dungeon. It might even happen that they have to join forces against a superior enemy at some point.

 

[Emerikol]

That is definitely the way some gamers prefer to play.

I often spend months working on a campaign setting before I recruit players. Fact is in some ways I'm always working on campaign setting material.

 

[TwoSix]

Then why do the only people who happily refer to it as setting tourism seem to also be folks who prefer other styles of play? Coincidence?

I honestly don't know. I'm in 4 games right now, I would describe 3 of them as comfortably falling in the "setting tourism" category.

I would honestly interrogate why someone would find it offensive or pejorative.

 

[Emerikol]

"I want to play a cleric of the sun god. I'm envisioning the sun god's church as being pretty much monotheistic, and antagonistic to the churches of other gods."

Would you allow that pitch in your already defined setting? I would (and honestly be pretty enthused about it), because any setting cosmology I've already defined in my head is pretty much tissue paper strength.

I wouldn't unless it was a very small move from what I have. Instead of asking players for setting specific background ideas I just ask them for more abstract guidelines. Then we meet and I go over various options that fit what he wants. I typically though when recruiting will do enough advertising to telegraph the style of game and flavor of setting I'm running.

 

[Emerikol]

That would be "no" from me, unless it would by chance match what I've already planned. (It doesn't.)


Yeah, well, mine is way more lightweight and sketchy than people would probably assume by my posts, but not to this degree. Broad outline of how religions work was definitely among first things designed.

Deities may be a bad example because they always factor in a big way in my world. Religions are major movers and shakers. if someone wanted to play an exile from a fallen Kingdom, then I might find something because it's a big world. But all of my established history is based on the Gods.

 

[Pedantic]

I honestly don't know. I'm in 4 games right now, I would describe 3 of them as comfortably falling in the "setting tourism" category.

I would honestly interrogate why someone would find it offensive or pejorative.

We'd have to fight about a definition of "agency" again to settle that question. "Tourism" carries a strong implication players don't have any; regardless of their prompts/actions they'd get the same exposition.