D&D General Languages suck in D&D.

[jasper]

The OP is just changing the source of the problem. I speak, english, Southern, and DM. Does matter if I spoke Goblin, common, and DM against English, Boston, and DM.

Since Boston and Southern can't communicate what is the difference if I am adventuring alone or with a group of Southerns.

Like the 50+ languages in the 1e DMG nice flavor but big Hassel if no one can communicate.

 

[Voadam]

Only Quenya and Sindarin, the two main Elven tongues, were well-developed; Sindarin, the "common" tongue of Elves in Middle-earth by the Third Age, being moreso.

There are tiny bits of other languages that show up: Khuzdul (the Dwarven tongue), the Black Speech, the language of the Rohirrim and other tongues of the Northmen, etc. But none of them were fully-developed languages.

Tolkien also developed some vocabulary for Westron, but I don't believe any of that appears in the main sources (Hobbit/LotR/Silmarillion), since the conceit was that all Westron was "translated" to English.

There was a Rohirrim language?

So overall it still sounds like less languages than in the PH.

 

[Alzrius]

Nevertheless, Black Speech was made in mockery of Quenya with which it has many correspondences, so could be seen as a form, or at least derivative, of Elvish. For example, Quenya urco, orco becomes Black Speech Uruk.

At the risk of things going off topic, the idea of the Black Speech being a mockery of Quenya is speculative. According to Tolkien (as per this page):

The Black Speech was not intentionally modeled on any style, but was meant to be self consistent, very different from Elvish, yet organized and expressive, as would be expected of a device of Sauron before his complete corruption. It was evidently an agglutinative language, and the verbal system must have included pronominal suffixes expressing the object, as well as those indicating the subject. [...] I have tried to play fair linguistically, and it is meant to have a meaning and not to be a mere casual group of nasty noises, though an accurate translation would even nowadays only be printable in the higher and artistically more advanced forms of literature. According to my taste such things are best left to Orcs, ancient and modern.

From an in-world standpoint, we are (if I recall correctly) simply told that Sauron invented Black Speech during the height of his power during the Second Age. While it does have some words that seem very similar to Quenya (as you noted), there are similarities to other languages also, e.g. the Valarin word naškâd ("ring") is similar to the Black Speech word nazg ("ring"), leaving the entire thing uncertain.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I think the point is that given there's Goblins all over the world, what we generally abstract as just "the Goblin language" would itself have many regional variants and-or dialects, just like Human languages.

Sure.

This problem is intractable at the abstract level, which is where the baseline for D&D lives.

I don't have the Pomarj in my setting. The PHB including Pomarji in their language table, and explaining that people from the Pomarj speak it, would be unhelpful.

The way language is used at the moment sufficiently gets across the notion that there are many languages in the world, and that different peoples generally use different tongues.

Having some kind of section in the DMG explaining to DMs that they absolutely can mess with this, and provide an example of how to make languages more "realistic," would certainly be welcome. But for DMs who are new, or can't be bothered to build out a language tree, the baseline as presented serves adequately.

 

[Dire Bare]

PERSONALLY... I don't think a 10,000 year old life span would result in your language being the same from your youth to the end of your life.

I think it'd wind up really freaking weird. Like this:


View attachment 399041

Constantly picking up new variations through use is a hallmark of every language that is used. Only truly dead languages are unchanging...

Of course, you could have a society of 500 year old grammarians that backhand anyone younger than them who doesn't use -specifically approved- grammar and vocabulary... which is probably the only way the Elven tongue would remain unchanged.

Vampires are immortal beings who not only began their existence as mortals, but exist within mortal society. Human language changes because humans, not because vampires. If the vampires in your setting have a "secret vampire language", I would assume it would be more static than the mortal languages.

Your video is fun, because it could showcase how different immortal vampires interact with the changes in mortal society . . . not just with language. Do they adapt with the changing times, or remain static, or mish-mash it all together?

Elves on the other hand, are immortal beings who exist within a culture of immortal beings. Well Tolkien elves anyways. D&D elves aren't immortal, but are very long-lived. I would assume elvish language in a typical D&D setting (where elves can live for hundreds of years) would certainly change and drift over time, but at a much slower rate than the language of the short-lived peoples like humans. It makes sense to me that elvish would have less language drift over time, and less pronounced dialect changes over large regions.

 

[Dire Bare]

There was a Rohirrim language?

So overall it still sounds like less languages than in the PH.

The middle-earth bestiary is a lot smaller than the D&D bestiary. So, yeah, if languages are matched to species, there's gonna be less to worry about in middle-earth.

 

[Steampunkette]

What is the difference between proposing a number of languages based on monster or species type versus culture beyond verisimilitude?

From a game perspective, the settings in the past often did have these differences. Greyhawk had different languages with Flan, Baklunish, Nyrondese, Old Oeridian, etc. But those don't work in Forgotten Realms, so there you have Netherese, Thorass, Illuskan, and others. Each setting has set up its own languages culturally, but they are deep in the canon for a reason. My guess is they generally get thrown out anyways in favor of just...Common.

Verisimilitude is nice to have, when it's not -too- expensive.

And a little more spilled ink than the current lists with maybe a bit of rules on partial fluency through adjacent language understanding would be better than what we have for verisimilitude. And not terribly expensive.

Would every table use the full rules? No. Most of the time people are going to pick one language and it'll be 'Common' for the campaign's purposes and off they go, ignoring all the restrictions 'Common' has 'cause it doesn't matter.

But it would provide a bit more verisimilitude and interest for some players. And move away from Racial Monolith thought space. Both of these are worthy courses, for me.

At the cost of just a lil' more spilled ink.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure.

This problem is intractable at the abstract level, which is where the baseline for D&D lives.

I don't have the Pomarj in my setting. The PHB including Pomarji in their language table, and explaining that people from the Pomarj speak it, would be unhelpful.

One of the things a DM has to do IMO in worldbuilding or campaign prep is rebuild the language table/list to suit that particular campaign. Thus, if you don't have Pomarj in your setting then obviously that language won't appear on your list.

The way language is used at the moment sufficiently gets across the notion that there are many languages in the world, and that different peoples generally use different tongues.

That's just it: I don't think it gets the notion across nearly well enough, mostly due to the default that all PCs (and a shocking number of NPCs) automatically and must know Common.

Me, I prefer a set-up where universal translators are highly-sought-after (and very expensive!) magic items. Also, if the Wizard has to keep casting Comprehend Language all the time it serves to reduce her effectiveness in other ways, right?

Having some kind of section in the DMG explaining to DMs that they absolutely can mess with this, and provide an example of how to make languages more "realistic," would certainly be welcome. But for DMs who are new, or can't be bothered to build out a language tree, the baseline as presented serves adequately.

Fair enough. Just one more thing to add to the "worldbuilding" chapter in the DMG; a chapter that really should be its own entire book.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you think that most players value realism so much? Do you think that most players love linguistics and would enjoy modeling the D&D language system off of the Middle Ages?

Maybe not. But I don't believe in speaking for the community. Just myself and people I know.

 

[Steampunkette]

The OP is just changing the source of the problem. I speak, english, Southern, and DM. Does matter if I spoke Goblin, common, and DM against English, Boston, and DM.

Since Boston and Southern can't communicate what is the difference if I am adventuring alone or with a group of Southerns.

Like the 50+ languages in the 1e DMG nice flavor but big Hassel if no one can communicate.

You're absolutely right...

Except that I both champion fewer total languages and partial fluency through language families. So since you and the Bostonian still speak English you could communicate pretty easily, though there'd still be some stuff that is difficult.

Like hearing someone from Minnesota ask for a bag. "Can I have a beg?" "A WHAT?" "A Beg. Give me a beg, please."

Anyway, yes. Aside from ascribing issues to me that don't apply, the argument you invented where people speaking English can no longer understand each other because they have accents is definitely a bad situation.