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.

 

[Zardnaar]

Would you say that someone who digs in their heels and absolutely never accepts anything except total capitulation is a person who is participating in good faith?

Would you say that a "passive-aggressive type," as you have described here, is a person who is participating in good faith?

If we are to accept the demand that only DMs who participate in good faith are worthy of discussion, then I expect that we apply the exact same standard to players. If we are to move forward presuming that the DM actually must deal with players engaging in bad faith, that that is genuinely unavoidable, then I refuse to accept that expectation: if bad player behavior is seen as an unavoidable issue that must be addressed, then bad DM behavior is also an unavoidable issue that must be addressed.

You cannot have it both ways. Either we only talk about DMs and players who engage with the game in good faith, or we talk about both players and DMs potentially coming to the table in bad faith. It is fundamentally biased and unfair to force a conversation where ONLY players can behave badly, and thus the angelic grace of the DM must be relied upon. Particularly when it is people who mostly DM who demand this we-don't-talk-about-bad-DMs presumption.

I don't allow at will flying races. That's a hard no.

You have 50 odd races to pick from.

Can't really compromise on no flying rule it's a yes/no thing.

No evil PCs either except for evil games maybe a trusted player.

 

[Lanefan]

Would you say that someone who digs in their heels and absolutely never accepts anything except total capitulation is a person who is participating in good faith?

Would you say that a "passive-aggressive type," as you have described here, is a person who is participating in good faith?

Good faith or not, these are IME two very common sorts of people. Also, as it's basic human nature to want to get one's way, labelling the attempt to do so as "bad faith" probably isn't going to fly.

If we are to accept the demand that only DMs who participate in good faith are worthy of discussion, then I expect that we apply the exact same standard to players. If we are to move forward presuming that the DM actually must deal with players engaging in bad faith, that that is genuinely unavoidable, then I refuse to accept that expectation: if bad player behavior is seen as an unavoidable issue that must be addressed, then bad DM behavior is also an unavoidable issue that must be addressed.

You cannot have it both ways. Either we only talk about DMs and players who engage with the game in good faith, or we talk about both players and DMs potentially coming to the table in bad faith. It is fundamentally biased and unfair to force a conversation where ONLY players can behave badly, and thus the angelic grace of the DM must be relied upon. Particularly when it is people who mostly DM who demand this we-don't-talk-about-bad-DMs presumption.

In my previous post I was referring to DMs and players alike.

The difference is that a player can leave and the game can continue*, while if the DM leaves the game ends; and if the now-DM-less players select a replacement DM from among themselves it'll still be a different game, as that new DM will at the very least be running a different setting and campaign even if the players keep their existing characters and the new DM uses the same rule-set.

* - the obvious exception, of course, being a game that only has one player.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't allow at will flying races. That's a hard no.

You have 50 odd races to pick from.

Can't really compromise on no flying rule it's a yes/no thing.

Still doesn't answer my point re flight coming online into the game anyway (5th level for the Fly spell, 2nd level for Druid shapeshift, etc.) so soon that it really makes no difference.

But you're right that there's far too many playable species.

No evil PCs either except for evil games maybe a trusted player.

Even though I might not play an evil character this time, I always want the option to be available.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't allow at will flying races. That's a hard no.

You have 50 odd races to pick from.

Can't really compromise in no flying rule it's a yes/no thing.

Really? You can't conceive of any way that could make this work?

Because there are degrees of flight. Consider the 4e Pixie; it can fly, but it has a height limit of 5 feet, meaning it's more like a hover. Sorta like having a race that can cast fey step once per short rest--they can fly across a gap, but they can't fly up a wall or over a building.

And there are ways to get always-on flight through class or subclass, liked druid's wild shape or dragon sorcerer's wings, or a ring of flight.

And there are spells that grant flight pretty much whenever you might need it, especially once you're level 7+ and thus have plenty of spell slots of 3rd level or higher.

So...clearly PCs having sometimes-on flight isn't a problem, otherwise you'd be banning spells too. Clearly, PCs having (effectively) always-on flight at high level isn't a problem, otherwise you'd be banning Sorcerers. Clearly, PCs having limited or resource-costing flight isn't a problem, or you'd be banning Druids (or at least banning the ability to transform into songbirds etc.) Point being: it's not "the PC has access to flight, therefore it's intolerable." It's "the PC has too much access," or too easy access, or too early access, etc. Those things admit shades of grey, and thus provide extremely fruitful ground for seeking compromise. Example drafted in five seconds: maybe a race that grants 1/day feather fall at 1st level, and then 1/day levitate at a higher level, and finally 1/day fly at a higher level still, just as some Tieflings get a cantrip at 1st level, a 2nd level spell at level 3, and a 3rd level spell at level 5.

Even the "no evil PCs" thing--which is a hard line for me, in the sense of "I won't run a game for a PC that is genuinely, unequivocally, unrepentantly evil"--still admits a lot of leeway, a lot of possibility for finding mutually-acceptable solutions. I'm absolutely on board for a recovering evil person, someone hoping to achieve redemption or at least to compensate somewhat for the evil they did. I think it's wonderful to have a good PC who has one or two exploitable temptations that they can wobble about or even occasionally succumb to so long as they don't happily embrace it. I currently have a player's PC who is pretty hard neutral but pacifist, and thus is much more open to listening to villainous NPCs than most other characters. That's incredibly juicy, because it presents an opening for manipulative, desperate, or self-preserving antagonists to potentially get the PCs to let them get away with some of what they want, or to work with groups that other PCs would be too stuffy or do-goody to accept.

None of this requires that much creativity. It just requires that, even when you have a hard line, you think about what the hard line really requires. I say "I can't--and thus won't--run a game for unrepentant Evil PCs." The reason for that is, I not only don't enjoy doing the DM work to create interesting stakes, challenges, and rewards for unrepentant evil PCs...doing that would absolutely slowly sour my experience. Hence, things which avoid that slow souring are not a problem. If I'm still making interesting stakes, challenges, and rewards for either repentant or non-evil PCs, things are fine. So...it behooves me to look at those things.

The exact same process can be applied to what players want to do. Maybe they want to play evil because they think playing a good person is boring, which is...not generally the case in my game. Maybe they want to play someone who gets to break the rules--there's lots of ways to do that without unrepentant evil. Maybe what they really care about is nuance and depth, and that's something the two of us can work out a zillion different ways. Hence: both sides find the things they really truly can't budge on, and I find that pretty much always, there's room for some kind of compromise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Good faith or not, these are IME two very common sorts of people.

And the "Viking Hat DM" and the "manipulative jerk" DM--the DM equivalents of the two people you just spoke of--are, one should think, exactly as common, since they're both drawn from the same pool, humans-in-general.

The argument that obstinate or petulant people are common does nothing whatever to mean that DMs engage in less bad-faith behavior than players.

Also, as it's basic human nature to want to get one's way, labelling the attempt to do so as "bad faith" probably isn't going to fly.

The whole point here, Lanefan, is that there is a difference between "I am trying to make things happen in a way I like" and "I will not ever accept a result other than the one, specific, pre-determined result I demand."

I certainly grant that players will advocate for their interests. It would be stupid to say otherwise. But there is a clear, demonstrable difference between merely advocating for one's interests, and engaging in bad faith; you yourself have just cited two examples of it with the understanding that these are harmful subsets of that otherwise-acceptable thing, self-advocacy.

In my previous post I was referring to DMs and players alike.

The difference is that a player can leave and the game can continue*, while if the DM leaves the game ends; and if the now-DM-less players select a replacement DM from among themselves it'll still be a different game, as that new DM will at the very least be running a different setting and campaign even if the players keep their existing characters and the new DM uses the same rule-set.

* - the obvious exception, of course, being a game that only has one player.

None of this provides me with a single reason why I should presume automatic good faith on the DM's part while simultaneously presuming that every DM must be armed against bad player behavior.

If the rules cannot save good players from a bad DM, how can they save good DMs from bad players?

 

[pemerton]

No. I'm saying he has final authority because there is literally nothing anyone can do to override him.

There is nothing anyone can do to override anyone. It's not a legislature, or a court, or a committee governed by externally-imposed rules. It's a group of people jointly participating in a voluntary activity.

If I decide, for instance, that my PC's is wearing a green cap, there is nothing the GM can do to override that.

 

[Emerikol]

You are trying to argue that the DM has final authority over what happens in the game by taking as a premise the DM has the final authority over what happens in the game (see the "because" clause in the final sentence of the quote). That is obviously circular reasoning.

Suppose that the GM makes a "ruling" - that is to say, suggests that something is part of the shared fiction - that a player doesn't like. The player has the option of not accepting that the GM's suggestion is part of the shared fiction. Other players may or may not join with them. The GM has no authority to compel or oblige anyone to imagine anything.

The player really doesn't have that option. I've never seen that in any game I've played in let alone DM'd.

I am the interface to the world that the players use to run their characters. What they see, smell, hear, touch, etc... is relayed by me to them. They then relay what they want to do back to me. If I tell them their sword turned to butter and splashed against an enemies shield, they are going to be shocked but they aren't going to question what their characters saw.

And a campaign is the DMs. If the players leave and new players begin it is the same campaign. If players leave a campaign and use the same characters with a different DM it is still a different campaign.

RPGing is shared imagination, with a process ("system") for working out what is true in the shared imagining.

A GM imagining stuff to themself is not RPGing. That's just daydreaming!

I've played in games in which the GM was imagining stuff to himself, and the players were largely ignoring it and imagining their own stuff (that pertained mostly but not exclusively to interactions among the PCs). The GM didn't have any "final authority". And when the GM tried to change the setting and backstory in ways that would have largely invalidated/overridden what the players were doing among themselves, the game collapsed as the players were not interested in the stuff the GM was putting forward.

You are an archetype of a player that of course would not last long in most of our campaigns. If you find one where it works then all power to you. I think we all should seek to play the type of game we desire.

 

[Emerikol]

There is nothing anyone can do to override anyone. It's not a legislature, or a court, or a committee governed by externally-imposed rules. It's a group of people jointly participating in a voluntary activity.

If I decide, for instance, that my PC's is wearing a green cap, there is nothing the GM can do to override that.

You are just wrong here. Your character may be imagining he is wearing a red cap but if the DM does not say you are wearing a red cap then none of the world is going to react to you like you are wearing a red cap. But this already is beside the point. Someone with your view would be booted quickly and it wouldn't get to arguing about red caps. You hopefully would go find a DM to suit your fancy and the other players and myself will get on with playing D&D.

 

[Oofta]

There is nothing anyone can do to override anyone. It's not a legislature, or a court, or a committee governed by externally-imposed rules. It's a group of people jointly participating in a voluntary activity.

If I decide, for instance, that my PC's is wearing a green cap, there is nothing the GM can do to override that.

They can tell you that they've made it clear that green hats are not allowed. If you insist they ask you to leave the game.

On the other hand if you never do anything evil ... sorry ... mention your green hat, never talk about the evil things you did during downtime ... dangit ... show a picture of your PC in a green hat? Even if your PC used to wear a green hat before the campaign started then the green hat isn't relevant.

If you declare at the end of the campaign that you were secretly evil but never did anything evil ... shoot ... wearing a green hat the whole time? That's just weird.

*more likely evil PCs or drow in a world were elves or anything else a DM might actually restrict don't exist. But I'll keep this in mind the next time you complain about hyperbole.

 

[Emerikol]

Would you say that someone who digs in their heels and absolutely never accepts anything except total capitulation is a person who is participating in good faith?

Would you say that a "passive-aggressive type," as you have described here, is a person who is participating in good faith?

I would argue that in session that is exactly what I expect. I do not expect arguments about rulings at all. Now outside of the session, a player can make suggestions for anything. The DM has veto power.

The key here is the DM is working to make a great campaign. He will hopefully do what he can to accommodate interests that do not run afoul of his own. I would say though that my initial campaign overview that lays out house rules etc... is largely final. I got enthused enough to spend an inordinate amount of time developing a campaign. I also find it obnoxious when I've decided to have a world with these five races and another person wants an exception. The point I'm going for is a certain flavor. If I want a dragonborn but no dwarves, I don't want dwarves.