D&D General Languages suck in D&D.

[LordEntrails]

Verisimilitude is A answer. But it's a pretty bad one when it comes to a game. How many threads do we have where Verisimilitude is dismissed when it comes to hit points, combat, rounds, item costs, etc?

I've played with the Dragon Lance languages chart. And frankly it was a big PITA that did not add to our enjoyment, but rather detracted from it.

IMO it comes down to this, what adds enjoyment for all the players at the table? If it's a complicated language schemes, then use it. But if it doesn't, then don't. It has never added enjoyment to any game I've played, but if it does for your table, do it.

There is no one way to play.

 

[Steampunkette]

It isn't uniquely difficult or terrible thing.
It also isn't a particularly interesting thing to deal with. Languages are the ammo-tacking of the social pillar, so to speak. The overwhelming majority of us are not Tolkien-esque linguists to find this a cool thing to have to manage.

I know this from experience - I'm a son of immigrants who did not pick up my parents' language to any real degree. Family gatherings were not an interesting challenge - they were just boring, leaving a boy to go off in a corner and read his aunt's hardcover collection of early Buck Rogers comics while the adults continuously made moth noises only vaguely understood..

I assume you meant mouth noises but I like the idea that you're secretly descended from the Mothman and his family, so I choose to enjoy this version of your post before you edit it. >.>

And sure. For most people it's as useful as the encumbrance chart. I'm not saying it would be a universally loved system that everyone would eagerly use. Most people would handwave it as much as language gets handwaved, now. But I do think it would make for more interesting options for those who have even a modicum of interest.

Would it be perfect? No. Would it be better than what we have, now? I think so. Would it be just as easily handwaved as "Everyone speaks (insert regional language here)" instead of "Everyone speaks Common" for those who don't like it? Absolutely.

Which, at least, would help get rid of the idea of race as culture.

Verisimilitude is A answer. But it's a pretty bad one when it comes to a game. How many threads do we have where Verisimilitude is dismissed when it comes to hit points, combat, rounds, item costs, etc?

I've played with the Dragon Lance languages chart. And frankly it was a big PITA that did not add to our enjoyment, but rather detracted from it.

IMO it comes down to this, what adds enjoyment for all the players at the table? If it's a complicated language schemes, then use it. But if it doesn't, then don't. It has never added enjoyment to any game I've played, but if it does for your table, do it.

There is no one way to play.

Sure. There is no one way to play.

I'm saying WotC should change their language rules. 'Cause for most people it wouldn't really matter, for some people it would be interesting, and for everyone it would be another step to breaking the races represent cultures structure that's existed in D&D for a long, long, time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What about gravity? Has gravity in the game ever prevented you from playing the game? Not really. You have to actively think about what the ramifications of a low or no gravity environment in order to create rules for how gravity impacts the game. Common exists because presumably all the players and the DM are going to speak a common language. Adding in other languages is merely a tool to create friction in a game sense, not a verisimilitude sense.

So all the folks who like more realistic languages for verisimilitude reasons are mistaken in their own feelings? Or lying?

 

[TiQuinn]

Hell. My position is that languages in game, as written, are more of a burdensome barrier than they SHOULD be, in favor of making language proficiency more fluid and less binary.

That's why it's so mind boggling. Add in the "This isn't versimilitude!" and it's like you're talking to someone else about something else.

Fine then. What precisely your position then? I still don’t really know. Or better yet, how does whatever you are proposing going to make everyone’s game better? You’ve said D&D sucks at languages. Make it not suck, and make it also not be a hoop I have to jump through at the game table.

Arguing about verisimilitude is not much different than arguing about physics. There’s a reason physics are abstracted in games as well. I don’t want to calculate the actual distance from the ground to a flying creature but for someone out there that probably breaks their verisimilitude and well, they can run their game as they see fit.

 

[TiQuinn]

It isn't uniquely difficult or terrible thing.
It also isn't a particularly interesting thing to deal with. Languages are the ammo-tacking of the social pillar, so to speak. The overwhelming majority of us are not Tolkien-esque linguists to find this a cool thing to have to manage.

Precisely this. I don’t want to deal with languages unless it is going to have an actual interesting result at the table, which is why I keep coming back to the riddle example.

 

[TiQuinn]

So all the folks who like more realistic languages for verisimilitude reasons are mistaken in their own feelings? Or lying?

Dude. Really?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Dude. Really?

You said languages in game aren't about versimillitude, but about obstacles. That is IMO steadfastly not true for everyone, so based on your statement I have to assume you believe one of the two conclusions I drew, or you misspoke.

 

[TiQuinn]

You said languages in game aren't about versimillitude, but about obstacles. That is IMO steadfastly not true for everyone, so based on your statement I have to assume you believe one of the two conclusions I drew, or you misspoke.

Okay, allow me to be clear: Your verisimilitude is not my verisimilitude. My idea of verisimilitude is not the next player’s idea of it. From a game design perspective where the idea is to appeal to a broad range of players, it is not or should not be a big concern. You, Micah Sweet, are allowed to do whatever you want within your game. Add all the verisimilitude you want.

Does that clarify things for you?

 

[Steampunkette]

Arguing about verisimilitude is not much different than arguing about physics. There’s a reason physics are abstracted in games as well. I don’t want to calculate the actual distance from the ground to a flying creature but for someone out there that probably breaks their verisimilitude and well, they can run their game as they see fit.

Physics and language both exist in the game world as elements of verisimilitude and challenge. They aren't one or the other and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Fine then. What precisely your position then? I still don’t really know. Or better yet, how does whatever you are proposing going to make everyone’s game better? You’ve said D&D sucks at languages. Make it not suck, and make it also not be a hoop I have to jump through at the game table.

1) Racial languages suck.
2) We should do regional languages instead.
3) We should use 'language families' as a gapfill to make languages less of a barrier.

The example I used was Latin with specific local languages French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish. If you speak Italian but not French you can still broadly communicate, but subtleties are lost. In reality, this isn't the case, but it's an abstraction that essentially creates a 'Partial Fluency'.

And, of course, if your campaign is pretty much set in Italy, it won't matter if the party doesn't speak Spanish when the invaders from the Iberian Peninsula attack. But even if it does come up, partial fluency means they can capture the Spanish orders and get the gist of their intentions, at least.

And then swap "Latin" for "Thorass" and "French, Italian, Portuguese, Romania, and Spanish" for "Flaenessian, Dambrathi, Balic, Barovian, and Brelish"

Or, y'know, whatever setting specific languages matter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, allow me to be clear: Your verisimilitude is not my verisimilitude. My idea of verisimilitude is not the next player’s idea of it. From a game design perspective where the idea is to appeal to a broad range of players, it is not or should not be a big concern. You, Micah Sweet, are allowed to do whatever you want within your game. Add all the verisimilitude you want.

Does that clarify things for you?

Ok, so you believe verisimilitude in a game where you are portraying an imaginary character interacting in an imaginary world shouldn't be a big deal from a design perspective if broad appeal is a priority? What should be a big deal then in such a game? What else should or shouldn't the designers care about?

Also regarding the "appeal" to broad appeal, when did the designers of D&D decide that should be the priority in your opinion? Or has it always been that way? Because throughout the editions the game has obviously been designed differently, and the kind of verisimilitude I prefer has been given various degrees of attention. And that of course disregards 3pp games using the same basic mechanical underpinnings as one version of D&D or another.