Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 8801537" data-attributes="member: 1210">This is one of those things that really further dilutes any sense that different races and cultures are, well, different right in the face. It's not for me. My game has more different languages than the standard D&amp;D rules assume.As for creoles or pidgins, that is what Common is. And as for Common, in my campaign, there are different &quot;Commons&quot; in different places. The Common Tongue in the most frequent starting areas is actually Imperial, in other places it's Peshan or Strog, in planar metropolises, it is Planar Common (a pidgin made from different planar languages). I have rules for learning languages more quickly based on its similarity to other languages you know, as well as for how much you can communicate if you are only partially proficient in a language, as well as for learning faster if you are fully immersed in a language, all based on the starting assumption of 250 days of training to gain proficiency.I really don't want anything that makes the game easier at the cost of making the game world less believable. It would be one thing if my campaign was the size of, say, western Europe or northern China, but it's much bigger than that. I am a setting-first DM. While many others might prefer a simpler and easier system where you just handwave linguistic issues, that's why you have spells like comprehend languages and tongues (and know culture, for that matter) in my game. The trend toward erasing culture and differences between various peoples in D&amp;D is not one I think I will ever adopt.EDIT: A couple of words.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 8801537, member: 1210"] This is one of those things that really further dilutes any sense that different races and cultures are, well, different right in the face. It's not for me. My game has [I]more [/I]different languages than the standard D&D rules assume. As for creoles or pidgins, that is what Common is. And as for Common, in my campaign, there are different "Commons" in different places. The Common Tongue in the most frequent starting areas is actually Imperial, in other places it's Peshan or Strog, in planar metropolises, it is Planar Common (a pidgin made from different planar languages). I have rules for learning languages more quickly based on its similarity to other languages you know, as well as for how much you can communicate if you are only partially proficient in a language, as well as for learning faster if you are fully immersed in a language, all based on the starting assumption of 250 days of training to gain proficiency. I really don't want anything that makes the game easier at the cost of making the game world less believable. It would be one thing if my campaign was the size of, say, western Europe or northern China, but it's much bigger than that. I am a setting-first DM. While many others might prefer a simpler and easier system where you just handwave linguistic issues, that's why you have spells like [I]comprehend languages[/I] and [I]tongues[/I] (and [I]know culture,[/I] for that matter) in my game. The trend toward erasing culture and differences between various peoples in D&D is not one I think I will ever adopt. EDIT: A couple of words. [/QUOTE]

Verification