The Vulgar Argot

[Lonely Tylenol]

There is a divide between in-character and out-of-character language concerning matters of game systems and metaphysics. Nobody walks into a bar and asks the bartender if he's seen "a 12th level rogue." In some campaigns, everyone knows about and talks about spells like Cure Light Wounds, but in other campaigns, people prefer to give them more colourful names, relegating the book names to OOC talk. Everyone needs to in some way define how people talk about things in-game if they care about preserving that particular "realism" that comes from having a consistent language in the campaign setting. Here are the conventions I use in my games:

1. Spell levels: D&D metaphysics has magic organizing itself into a set of 10 quantum levels. There are no level 5 1/2 spells. It's either 5 or 6. Wizards have noticed this, and written about it at great length. This suggests an analysis and accompanying language not unlike that of quantum mechanics. Since spell levels resemble the quantum energy levels of electrons surrounding an atom, they are referred to, in character, as valences. A wizard might say, "I've cast all of my third valence spells, but I still have some of my second valences." Epic spells are called transvalent by those who have heard of such esoteric magics. (Yes, I yoinked this from Sepulchrave II's story hour)

2. Everyone is generally familiar with the common spells. A commoner would know that a cleric could cast Cure Light Wounds, but might not use the "technical name" for the spell and might simply call it a cure spell, or a healing spell. Potions might be named "potion of cure light wounds" or "light healing potion" by the brewer, who would assume people would know what he meant by the latter.

3. Alignment is a metaphysically real phenomenon. Good, evil, law, and chaos are real and can be detected by magic. Most people are vaguely aware of this, but probably are also only vaguely aware of their own alignment unless they're in a dangerous profession like adventuring, which might make such knowledge useful (in case you're targeted by an alignment-based effect). Common people are about as interested in alignment as real-world common people are interested in atoms and quarks, seeing it as an esoteric area of knowledge. Still, there are often tavern debates on whether having an evil alignment should automatically be cause for imprisonment or execution. This is also a serious subject for debate among paladins, for whom it is an important issue in which their grace inheres.

4. On that note, the blessed qualities of clerics and paladins (those that can be lost, anyhow) are called grace. It is by a paladin's grace that he can cure the sick, cast spells, or turn undead. His grace is provided by the grace of his god. Neutral and Evil clerics have grace as well, sometimes referred to as dark grace, if evil, but that's just colourful language used by people who don't appreciate evil clerics.

5. Relative power levels are detectable by the various Detect (Alignment) spells. For example, an evil cleric's approximate level can be determined by analysis of the aura revealed by the detect evil spell. This quality is referred to as the gnosis of that character. A 12th level cleric has a strong gnosis, while a 2 HD undead has a weak or faint gnosis. Etymology: gnosis is one's intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths. Therefore a cleric's power is referenced by his insight into the nature of his god. This terminology has been somewhat distanced from this usage, and has come to refer, in common (common to magic-users, anyhow) parlance to a creature's general mystic power level, even if it is not associated with insight, as is the case with undead, or the power level of aligned characters determined by the Detect (Alignment) spells. So a 12th level Chaotic Good fighter would have a gnosis of moderate strength if viewed by the Detect Good or Detect Chaos spells. Et cetera.

6. Class titles: A wizard is probably called a wizard, but might be referred to as a mage or a sorcerer, even though the latter is technically erroneous. By contrast, a fighter is probably never called a fighter, instead being referred to as a soldier, a man-at-arms, a guard, or a mercenary, depending on circumstances. In general, if the class title refers to something specific, it's likely to be used in-character. If it refers to something general, it's likely to be replaced by something specific. Prestige classes are usually named for their associated organization, if any. This often means that two or more classes associated with the same organization can bear the same title, even if their abilities are quite different. Internally, there will probably be some kind of designation (different sects, different wings, different paths, etc. A knowledge roll might provide information on who is who.), but they generally represent themselves under the same title. Prestige classes that are well-known but not associated with any organization are generally named identically IC and OOC, eg. loremasters. Members of lesser-known PrCs generally call themselves whatever they like, since there's no well-established naming convention.

Does anyone have any other interesting conventions that determine how people talk about stuff in-character?

 

[Mark Hope]

In my homebrew games, teleport spells are referred to as "The Grey Walk", due to the momentary lapse of connection with the real world that takes place when the spell is cast (the caster experiences a brief sensation of sickening greyness before appearing at the destination point).

Magic weapons and armour are referred to as having different kinds of charms or runes placed on them ("This armour has a charm of warding placed upon it" or "this blade is charmed to guide the wielder's hand when hewing at the foe" or "each link of this chainmail has been inscribed with runes of warding against flame"). I stole this idea from Michael Scot Rohans "Winter of the World" series, iirc. Excellent books.

Rather than use valences (a neat idea, btw), in some cases we used names for arcane spell levels, subdivided into lesser and greater categories, which also applied to the caster of the spells. O-level spells were just cantrips or orisons. 1st and 2nd-level spells were Apprentice level, 3rd and 4th-level spells were Journeyman, 5th and 6th-level spells were Master level, 7th and 8th-level spells were Grandmaster level and 9th-level spells were Archmage level. So a 9th level wizard would be said to be a lesser master, a 7th level wizard would be a greater journeyman, a fireball was a lesser journeyman spell etc etc. Another group of casters instead divided their spells into Circles ("I am a mage of the Fifth Circle. Phear my leetness!")

For divine casters, the terminology differs from church to church. The church of the death god might refers to the prayers and abilities of a Reaver Optant or a Reaver Agitant, for example.

There are also different terms for different types of magic, rather than just "arcane", "divine", "psionics" etc. In my "magic and psionics are the same" game, psionics is referred to as Magecraft, divine magics are called Theurgy, the magics from Arcana Evolved (which feature heavily in the game) are called Weavecraft and the Core Rules arcane magics are divided into Wizardry and Sorcery (imaginatively enough) and are seen as being completely unrelated to each other.

 

[frankthedm]

Common people are about as interested in alignment as real-world common people are interested in atoms and quarks, seeing it as an esoteric area of knowledge.

Let me get this straight, people do not care if they are going to rot in agony for eternity?

1. Spell levels are called 'circles'.A spell can sometimes be jury rigged to a lower level, but doing so is very hazardous.

2. Spell names vary from caster to caster, players usualy use book names. Cosmetic effects vary for each caster, but succesfull spellcraft checks lets one see how a spell will work and thus what spell 'framework' will counter it.

3. Alignment detection; The weight of the sins/good deeds on mortals is what is visable to detect Evil /detect good. Rather than an evil cleric with 6 levels detects as XXX evil, a cleric will needed to have done enough wickedness to have XXX evil on his soul by the time he reaches level 6.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Let me get this straight, people do not care if they are going to rot in agony for eternity?

They just do what the cleric tells them, and don't care about the metaphysics behind why they need to do it or the implications of the reality of alignment. How many Christians are serious bible scholars, and understand the implications and history of the metaphysics taken for granted in the bible? Not the majority. They just go to church, listen to the sermon, and are advised by their clergy on the right way to live. Metaphysics is for experts and scholars. Certain schools of theological thought think that introducing advanced concepts can actually impede the path of the lay follower by confusing them and introducing doubt.

But also, it's hard work to think about metaphysics, and most commoners are more interested in their turnip crops.

 

[Enkhidu]

1. Spell levels are called 'circles'.A spell can sometimes be jury rigged to a lower level, but doing so is very hazardous.

I also use circles for spell levels.

For magic items, I use the idea of "orders of power." For example, a +2 brilliant battleaxe would be described as a "weapon with an enchantment of the second order, with an additional 4th order modification."

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Our group recently found a particularly powerful mace (epic +6/Holy Aura (overall +9)) known as Astell's Heart. The group handed it to my "Warlock" Lucifus Cray to have it identified with a "Lucifus's Spontaneous Divination", (Analyze Dweomer). Dumbfounded, he turned to the group after the analysis and merely pronounced it was "beyond anything he had ever examined before". His perspective on the thing was that if someone used it as a weapon, "it would most likely hit".

The group looked at me and collectively went, "you're not going to do this again are you". We have an in-game system of singularly enchanted, twice enchanted, thrice enchanted etc. that I absolutely detest. For some people, I suppose it's all about the plusses. This time though, I held to my guns and shrugged the shoulders. The mace was given to Father Brian and you could see the group sweating on him swinging the thing. I guess I'm a tease.

As for my own soon-to-start Age of Worms Campaign, I have decided upon the following:

1. Sepulchrave's system is the go. Vancian magic perfectly marries itself to valences.

2. Everyone is not familiar with spells and magic. In fact I'm pretty much saying that if you don't have ranks in spellcraft, you don't know much about magic at all aside from hearsay, myths and rumours. Most people would have no idea of the difference between a +1 weapon and a +2 weapon. A weapon is simply "magical".

Magic in itself is a mystery, even to those who cast it. Why it works, they have no idea. How it works, is only partially understood. This is the legacy of the magic system as I see it. For wizards, magic is more about following rituals and arcane recipes - not that I'd use the word "recipe" in game.

There are a lot of potions and stuff around but only some of them are truly magical. Mountebanks, frauds and hucksters are all too common peddling goodness knows what. It takes a dedicated expert to tell the difference between them (detect magic for one and spellcraft for another). Different potions by different casters have different qualities. No "it's green therefore it must be a curing spell".

3. I have told the players alignment will mean very little in game unless your class has a restriction on it. I have suggested to them that they work out the personality of their characters first and foremost. Apply an alignment afterwards that best fits your concept - not the other way. A particular dislike of mine is players saying that a character would not have acted in a particular way because they're "Chaotic Good". They "did" act in that way so get on with it.

4. Clerics and Paladins are rare. Very rare. Most in the church are experts and orators, defined more by their faith and devotion than their ability to knock out spells (which I define as prayers). Clerics and Paladins are usually given the title of Saint (when they reach 5th level) and addressed by "your grace".

5. I like your idea of gnosis to describe a divination. Consider it stolen.

6. Wizards are different to other spellcasters. They wear chains (not dissimilar to George R.R. Martin's Maesters in his Fire and Ice Trilogy). As most Bards and Sorcerers are low level (less than 3rd/4th), they are not differentiated between by the common populace. Higher level sorcerers are considered Warlocks or Witches and are regarded suspiciously. Druids are rarely seen and rarely interacted with. Most only have concerns that rarely coincide with the Realms of Men. As for prestige classes, they are not known or used onless they are part of a formal organisation and thus are described by the titles of that organisation.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[adwyn]

Years ago I played in a campaign where the DM detested D&D's weapon terminology so he had his own - short swords for example were called Thigh swords because the blades were as long as a man's thigh, that sort of thing.

So when the villagers warned us about bandits with hobbit swords we let down are guard and ridiculed the whole notion. When the bandits finally us they were using bastard swords, each blade as long as a halfling was tall.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

5. I like your idea of gnosis to describe a divination. Consider it stolen.

No real reason to start a thread like this except to steal and be stolen from.

 

[helium3]

No real reason to start a thread like this except to steal and be stolen from.

I'm not sure that valence is quite the right word to use for the analogy, but it's a good word and should be used none-the-less. In QM, you can say that some property is quantized but you don't generally don't dignify the differeing states with a particular name. As far as valences are concerned, they sort of describe the different energy levels that a given orbital can have. So, orbitals would probably be the more appropriate term and a valence would sorta be like the number of slots that a wizard had for spells in each level.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm not sure that valence is quite the right word to use for the analogy, but it's a good word and should be used none-the-less. In QM, you can say that some property is quantized but you don't generally don't dignify the differeing states with a particular name. As far as valences are concerned, they sort of describe the different energy levels that a given orbital can have. So, orbitals would probably be the more appropriate term and a valence would sorta be like the number of slots that a wizard had for spells in each level.

That's true, but valence sounds much cooler than orbital when used to describe spell levels, and part of designing a language for a fictional setting is designing words that people will want to say in character. A little exotic, a little technical, the letter v, it all adds up to something that rolls off the tongue well and is evocative.