For those running long term campaigns that are upgrading to the new core books, have you made a plan to explain why some things are  now different in the world, or do you plan to implement the new rules and act like nothing has happened.

For example even though we are still 6 weeks away from the new Players handbook dropping I've already started dropping hints that something wierd is going on. Started last session with players seeing a flaming asteroid streak across the sky, they will eventually get to where it impacted. Next session they will notice the Moon is blood red, eventually leading to the full blood moon coinciding with the events that lead to the changes. I'm still working out details.

I talked with both of my DMs and with a player I DM for and we all ssem to be in the "We-won't-change-mid-campaign"- boat. We probably will change over to the new rules when starting the new campaign, everything else seems like a lot of chaos and work. But if I would change over my campaign (wich would still be possible without a lot of hastle, since it's still very early on) - I would not include any in world explanation for the changes, I would just roll with it as if nothing changed. It's the same as with levelups- should you explain every detail of your characters abilities changing? Seems like a lot of work for not much value. I Would only do it for special steps (like getting a subclass or some very special feature)

I have told my players that 2014 rules will remain at my table while I DM my campaign & there will be no change to 5.5 in the foreseeable future. 

If I was trying to explain it in-world by response would be a good old fashioned tried and true explanation: A wizard did it!

And you could even turn it into a quest hook. Who is this wizard that changed the world? Why did he do it? How? You could start unravelling the threads, finding people tied to this unknown group. Turns out he's not even alone. He's part of a secret society of wizards. What do they want? Well you gotta talk to them. Track them down. Find those that have heard rumors of them. Reach their hideout on an ocean shore. But there's a river filled with crawfish in their way no boat no magic can take care of, except for one spot where the crawfish are so plentiful that their skeletons have caused the bottom to be much shallower than elsewhere. The Craw Ford. And after they finally finds these wizards you lure them into the next quest hook. For these wizards are not the highest on the chain in this secret society. Indeed they are but one faction of a larger entity...

Nah, such changes are non-diegetic in my games. I treat them no different from errata or other such changes. I've had players switch from UA to full release of options, or refined homebrew as they're using it and we just retcon it as always having been that way. This will be no different

Quote from Sutlo >>

I talked with both of my DMs and with a player I DM for and we all ssem to be in the "We-won't-change-mid-campaign"- boat. We probably will change over to the new rules when starting the new campaign, everything else seems like a lot of chaos and work. But if I would change over my campaign (wich would still be possible without a lot of hastle, since it's still very early on) - I would not include any in world explanation for the changes, I would just roll with it as if nothing changed. It's the same as with levelups- should you explain every detail of your characters abilities changing? Seems like a lot of work for not much value. I Would only do it for special steps (like getting a subclass or some very special feature)

Yeah, the party I DM for is about half really new players (this is their first campaign)... I can't imagine changing the rules for stuff on them mid-campaign

Quote from Davyd >>

Nah, such changes are non-diegetic in my games. I treat them no different from errata or other such changes. I've had players switch from UA to full release of options, or refined homebrew as they're using it and we just retcon it as always having been that way. This will be no different

 This same approach for me.  Nothing is changing so significantly that I feel this would be necessary anyway.  I like most of the tweaks and changes being made but the fundamentals are all still the same.

Quote from Allurian219 >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Nah, such changes are non-diegetic in my games. I treat them no different from errata or other such changes. I've had players switch from UA to full release of options, or refined homebrew as they're using it and we just retcon it as always having been that way. This will be no different

 This same approach for me.  Nothing is changing so significantly that I feel this would be necessary anyway.  I like most of the tweaks and changes being made but the fundamentals are all still the same.

 Same for me. If it were a major change to class functionality and rules, I'd play out the campaign before changing over. As it is, I'll let the players rebuild into updated classes if they want to, and not worry about it much.

I know the Forgotten Realms has a long tradition of world-changing Events to explain edition transitions, and, frankly, it's always struck me as a bad idea from a narrative sense. 

It makes sense when you're messing with the world building. Like, if you're going from spell slots to spell points, then it can make sense to explain why magic has suddenly become so much more flexible.

I haven't seen anything that would indicate such a change in this transition though.

It remains to be seen if i adopt elements from 2024 core rulebooks in my current campaign or next ones.

If i do, there wouldn't any world-wide in-game changes, treating it more akin to feature upgrade similar to when we level up and can do new things. Changed monsters encountered before that would be crossed again would simply also like feature upgrade. Rules and actions working differently would remain metagame mechanic changes and not necessarily noticeable in-game.

If the plot allows, I will give my players a month of downtime where they can focus on honing their skills - we are reaching the endgame of our campaign, so it would make sense for folks to refine their skills in preparation for what is to come. If it would be awkward for characters to take a month off, then I’ll probably just hand waive it as “y’all have been adventuring for 16 levels and learned some new tricks along the way.”

The decision whether to change their class to the new rules I will be leaving up to the players individually.  I have a few who are excited, and a few who are unlikely to want to learn something new mid-campaign.  As a DM, I have no real preference on which they choose to do.

No in-game explanation. I treat all this as fun and not a simulator.

That said, there'd be a fun path about "Changed? In what way? Nothing's changed! What are you telling me?? This is what... a game? None of this is real???"

In my setting, I’m probably either gonna seamlessly switch to the 2024 system in my next campaign, or just stick with 5e. No mention is needed. The events of the last campaign still happened, no matter the system, so it won’t change much.

I run a (heavily) modified FR campaign, dealing with the changes is actually fairly easy - the FR timeline sort of went on hold as Mystra was recreating her weave after returning. now the changes are the result of her finishing her spinning and altering the world in different ways because of the new web of magic. things like weapon mastery are the result of the changes the weave forced on everything in Faerun as are the various class changes. there will be a 1-3 year period of "adjustment" as I and my players switch over with some PCs/NPCs taking longer to be affect and others adjusting rapidly.

This is a slightly left-field thing to add to this thread, but did you know that there was a mooted fantasy RPG that was designed, but never published, around the premise of a world where three game core rules books falling from the sky and eventually forming the basis of a religion. It was called ‘FRUP’ and was, I think, the brainchild of Andrew Rilestone and James Wallis (of Baron Munchausen RPG fame). 

Like I say, while it was promoted for a while, it was never published but I always thought it could make a good basis of a satirical and self aware campaign. How it could pan out with rule changes, as described here, could end up being hilarious in play. 

Quote from TrippyHippyEcho >>

This is a slightly left-field thing to add to this thread, but did you know that there was a mooted fantasy RPG that was designed, but never published, around the premise of a world where three game core rules books falling from the sky and eventually forming the basis of a religion. It was called ‘FRUP’ and was, I think, the brainchild of Andrew Rilestone and James Wallis (of Baron Munchausen RPG fame). 

Like I say, while it was promoted for a while, it was never published but I always thought it could make a good basis of a satirical and self aware campaign. How it could pan out with rule changes, as described here, could end up being hilarious in play. 

 

The Great Schism of 2024

There is no reason to explain this in game. A fighter doesn’t know they have action surge. They just through strength of will or training just do it. A monk doesn’t know that their unarmed strikes couldn’t grapple and now they can. They just would just grapple, shove, or strike. Or that their Flurry of Blows doesn’t need the Attack action first (they don’t even know what an Attack action is, let alone a Bonus action or a Flurry of Blows, unless it was the name of a technique). 

I can understand tables wanting to wait until a new campaign to start to make the switch. But I don’t think it’s necessary