Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shadow" data-source="post: 706651" data-attributes="member: 2182">As a linguistics major I feel obliged to chime in.&nbsp; The idea of a common tongue is completely unrealistic, however such a thing is used for the sake of simplicity.&nbsp; It's possible to eliminate common in a campaign world (I have done this before).&nbsp; However, such a thing brings up a number of communication problems in game.&nbsp; Any time the characters travel, they are likely to encounter a different language or dialect.&nbsp; This can present some unique role-playing situations, or at least force players to spend more points in speak language.&nbsp; In a medieval world where people don't travel that much there is going to be many different languages and dialects.&nbsp; Even dividing the common tongue up into a few distinct languages is unrealistic, because within each language there are going to be many mutually unintelligeble dialects.&nbsp; In fact the boundary between language and dialect is fuzzy at best. (It's been said that a language is a dialect with an army.)&nbsp; &nbsp; Moreover, the current speak language rules in 3e are completely unrealistic.&nbsp; The idea that a person gains fluency in a language with just one skill point is absurd.&nbsp; Proficiency in a language comes in varying degrees.&nbsp; I have studied Japanese and can speak enough to ask requests or get around, but I am unable to communicate anything more complicated.&nbsp; Even someone with a high proficiency in a language might not understand all the subtleties that a native speaker would.&nbsp; For example, I have a friend who is an exchange student from Japan.&nbsp; He speaks English very well, but he is still learning all the slang and colloquial words.&nbsp; A better system would probably be the system presented in the Kingdoms of Kalamar Player's Guide.&nbsp; In spite of being unrealistic, the common tongue survives for ease of play.&nbsp; Most players want to either experience dungeon hackin' or a good story, but don't want to get into all the intricacies of language and communication.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shadow, post: 706651, member: 2182"] As a linguistics major I feel obliged to chime in. The idea of a common tongue is completely unrealistic, however such a thing is used for the sake of simplicity. It's possible to eliminate common in a campaign world (I have done this before). However, such a thing brings up a number of communication problems in game. Any time the characters travel, they are likely to encounter a different language or dialect. This can present some unique role-playing situations, or at least force players to spend more points in speak language. In a medieval world where people don't travel that much there is going to be many different languages and dialects. Even dividing the common tongue up into a few distinct languages is unrealistic, because within each language there are going to be many mutually unintelligeble dialects. In fact the boundary between language and dialect is fuzzy at best. (It's been said that a language is a dialect with an army.) Moreover, the current speak language rules in 3e are completely unrealistic. The idea that a person gains fluency in a language with just one skill point is absurd. Proficiency in a language comes in varying degrees. I have studied Japanese and can speak enough to ask requests or get around, but I am unable to communicate anything more complicated. Even someone with a high proficiency in a language might not understand all the subtleties that a native speaker would. For example, I have a friend who is an exchange student from Japan. He speaks English very well, but he is still learning all the slang and colloquial words. A better system would probably be the system presented in the Kingdoms of Kalamar Player's Guide. In spite of being unrealistic, the common tongue survives for ease of play. Most players want to either experience dungeon hackin' or a good story, but don't want to get into all the intricacies of language and communication. [/QUOTE]

Verification