D&D General Languages suck in D&D.

[TiQuinn]

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.

And my point earlier is that makes perfect sense at the setting level, but there really hasn’t been a solid attempt by WotC in the 5e era to create settings. At the system level, the best you probably can do is have no languages listed, and simply say the PC will have X number of languages, based maybe on Int bonus, but the exact languages available will be given to you by the DM.

 

[Umbran]

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

Perhaps consider embracing the existence of generalizations as not being absolute statements you should take personal umbrage at.

 

[Steampunkette]

And my point earlier is that makes perfect sense at the setting level, but there really hasn’t been a solid attempt by WotC in the 5e era to create settings. At the system level, the best you probably can do is have no languages listed, and simply say the PC will have X number of languages, based maybe on Int bonus, but the exact languages available will be given to you by the DM.

At the system level the best you can do is introduce the system. And WotC could use Eberron or Faerun or Greyhawk to show an example of how it's done, or just use real world languages like I did.

Sort of like how they had the Appendix B "Gods of the Multiverse" in the 2014 edition including literally all the gods of Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron... And then had a separate "Nonhuman Deities" list. And then went into "Fantasy-Historical" deity lists for different real world mythologies... Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, and Norse.

It's a thing. I dunno why people think it has to be perfectly setting-neutral and thus magically impossible to have in the PHB.

 

[Voadam]

For me, when I went to France knowing some Spanish was no help to me in understanding French.

Also hearing people speak Portuguese and one of those non-Spanish Spanish languages I could tell they were close to Spanish but that was it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps consider embracing the existence of generalizations as not being absolute statements you should take personal umbrage at.

Granted, I was probably too harsh. But the idea that languages in gaming serve only gamist purposes rankles.

 

[Steampunkette]

For me, when I went to France knowing some Spanish was no help to me in understanding French.

Also hearing people speak Portuguese and one of those non-Spanish Spanish languages I could tell they were close to Spanish but that was it.

Oh, for -sure-. This isn't meant to be 100% true to life. It's meant to be a step up from race-languages and the slight reduction in the language-barrier.

I wouldn't want an -actual- true to life language system for ANY game. The Syntax, alone, would be hyper frustrating.

 

[Micah Sweet]

At the system level the best you can do is introduce the system. And WotC could use Eberron or Faerun or Greyhawk to show an example of how it's done, or just use real world languages like I did.

Sort of like how they had the Appendix B "Gods of the Multiverse" in the 2014 edition including literally all the gods of Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron... And then had a separate "Nonhuman Deities" list. And then went into "Fantasy-Historical" deity lists for different real world mythologies... Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, and Norse.

It's a thing. I dunno why people think it has to be perfectly setting-neutral and thus magically impossible to have in the PHB.

Precisely. That's why I suggested you put the alternative language rules in the DMG and use Greyhawk (which is obviously already there) as an example.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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?

The fun of the game. Fun is what sells a game. If a game is not fun, why would anyone buy it? Verisimilitude is simply a tool that is used to increase the fun of some games. If the audience you are aiming for wants a certain level of verisimilitude, adding more than is desired is, likely, not a net positive.

An example might be food preparation. Tasking players with in-depth food preparation rules might have a high level of verisimilitude with a very low amount of appeal. This would be due to being seen as repetitive and boring by large swaths of players. Myself included. I don't want to have to state that I cook my chicken to 165°F (73.9°C), or how I figure out that it's a safe temperature using a long sword and some ball berrings.

Verisimilitude and fun are not synonyms, and don't always align for everyone. Designers simply aim for the level of both that attracts the most audience to their product.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The fun of the game. Fun is what sells a game. If a game is not fun, why would anyone buy it? Verisimilitude is simply a tool that is used to increase the fun of some games. If the audience you are aiming for wants a certain level of verisimilitude, adding more than is desired is, likely, not a net positive.

An example might be food preparation. Tasking players with in-depth food preparation rules might have a high level of verisimilitude with a very low amount of appeal. This would be due to being seen as repetitive and boring by large swaths of players. Myself included. I don't want to have to state that I cook my chicken to 165°F (73.9°C), or how I figure out that it's a safe temperature using a long sword and some ball berrings.

Verisimilitude and fun are not synonyms, and don't always align for everyone. Designers simply aim for the level of both that attracts the most audience to their product.

I agree. That's what optional rules are for. WotC 5e used to have them.

 

[TiQuinn]

It's a thing. I dunno why people think it has to be perfectly setting-neutral and thus magically impossible to have in the PHB.

Nobody's saying it's magically impossible.