D&D General Languages suck in D&D.

[Sorinth]

Seriously, why the heck would there even be a single language that virtually all humans (and most others) speak? Common as used in D&D makes no sense at all.

That answer depends on how humans came into existence? In most fantasy worlds it isn't evolution, so for instance if a large group who all spoke the same language were transported from a different world into this one, then yeah they speak the same language and even as they spread out and grow they might still all speak the same language.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in a typical D&D world there's a lot more world travel then is comparable to the real world history, and that travel helps to maintain a consistent language and limits the splitting off and isolation that leads to diverging dialects.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Greyhawk is set on a geography fairly close to the United States and Canada with a history of a vast generally historically unified but now fallen empire.

Common as English works for me as an American.

How long ago did the empire fall? Europe was unified (mostly) under one rule for quite a while, but regional/cultural languages never completely went away and resurged quickly once Rome fell. I don't think the Greyhawk model is a good excuse for the ubiquity of Common.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because then.theyd have to reconcile why there is only 1 language for the other major races.

D&D already has too many languages for a game with no concrete social mechanical subsystem

D&D with its lack of hard mechanics should only have 5 languages

1. Common
2. Runic (Dwarvish, Giant, and Orcish are dialects
3. Sylvan (Elvish and Goblin are dialects)
4. Primordial (the four element languages are dialects)
5. Astral ( abyssal, celestial, infernal, axiomatic, anarchic are dialects)

Hence the entire point of this thread. There should be more languages, not fewer, with relations so they can be more easily learned to some degree of fluency. There simply aren't granular enough mechanics in WotC D&D to support setting logic for their (and most peoples I think) settings, and I think there should be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That answer depends on how humans came into existence? In most fantasy worlds it isn't evolution, so for instance if a large group who all spoke the same language were transported from a different world into this one, then yeah they speak the same language and even as they spread out and grow they might still all speak the same language.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in a typical D&D world there's a lot more world travel then is comparable to the real world history, and that travel helps to maintain a consistent language and limits the splitting off and isolation that leads to diverging dialects.

Who is doing all the world traveling you describe, and how? PCs? That a hodgepodge population at best, almost certainly IMO not enough to maintain a common tongue over the whole world for millenia.

 

[Sorinth]

Who is doing all the world traveling you describe, and how? PCs? That a hodgepodge population at best, almost certainly IMO not enough to maintain a common tongue over the whole world for millenia.

There is generally more trade, ships tend towards renaissance era then the "medieval" baseline, it's not just PCs.

 

[Sorinth]

How long ago did the empire fall? Europe was unified (mostly) under one rule for quite a while, but regional/cultural languages never completely went away and resurged quickly once Rome fell. I don't think the Greyhawk model is a good excuse for the ubiquity of Common.

And if we look at the colonization of the America's we see the opposite the native languages have been almost wiped out completely and even when the empire fell (Britain/Spain) the previous languages didn't re-surge and likely never will and it takes work to keep them alive which is why Quebec has a bunch of language laws because they fear that the French languague will be lost. Now I'm not super familiar with Greyhawk history but it very much depends on the policies the empire.

 

[Minigiant]

Hence the entire point of this thread. There should be more languages, not fewer, with relations so they can be more easily learned to some degree of fluency. There simply aren't granular enough mechanics in WotC D&D to support setting logic for their (and most peoples I think) settings, and I think there should be.

No opposite.

Having more and easier ways to learn languages is just a patch for bad game mechanics designed out of flavor desire.

Either
1) Create a game mechanic that support having many languages in part of the game's design

Or

2) Reduce the languages until it matches the current game mechanic 's design

D&D's simple Know/Don't and every major species group and monster group has its own language design doesn't have its aesthetic and mechanics match. The Fluff and Crunch are out of wack.

So one or both of them need to adjust.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is generally more trade, ships tend towards renaissance era then the "medieval" baseline, it's not just PCs.

Ok, but it's not like the Renaissance world only had a handful of languages.

 

[Voadam]

How long ago did the empire fall?

I'd have to look up the specific timeline. I was always more of a big picture for Greyhawk country and historical lore. The Great Kingdom and its areas of control were still reaching across about a third of the continent starting on the east coast in the 1e boxed set (they lost a ton in the 2e Greyhawk wars and broke up further) and the breakaways from the last couple hundred years before the 1e set (not sure off the top of my head how long) reached another third across the midwest of the continent with the Baklunish kingdoms that were never part of the Great Kingdom but bordered it as a competing great power controlling about a third from the west coast.

Just looked it up, founding was 700 years ago, height was 500 years ago in common year 1, decline began 300 years ago with the Age of Sorrows beginning in CY 213, peeling off of outer areas began 250 years ago in CY 320, 1e boxed set current year is CY 576.

Europe was unified (mostly) under one rule for quite a while, but regional/cultural languages never completely went away and resurged quickly once Rome fell. I don't think the Greyhawk model is a good excuse for the ubiquity of Common.

I will continue to disagree and consider Greyhawk a good basis for common in its described setting.

It still has plenty of setting specific regional languages too if you want to delve into them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And if we look at the colonization of the America's we see the opposite the native languages have been almost wiped out completely and even when the empire fell (Britain/Spain) the previous languages didn't re-surge and likely never will and it takes work to keep them alive which is why Quebec has a bunch of language laws because they fear that the French languague will be lost. Now I'm not super familiar with Greyhawk history but it very much depends on the policies the empire.

That just seems very modern, to have only one common language.