Except “Darmok” isn’t really about language.To be fair, arguably one of the best episodes of any Trek was about language.
"Shaka. When the walls fell".
Except “Darmok” isn’t really about language.To be fair, arguably one of the best episodes of any Trek was about language.
"Shaka. When the walls fell".
Not French vs. Spanish, no. But attempting to understand the meaning of another culture's speech? Absolutely.Except “Darmok” isn’t really about language.
That's because Language by X has no bearing to gameplay.I'm not sure that replacing Language by Species with Language by region really fixes the issues people seem to be complaining about in this thread.
It might make things more realistic but doesn't add any improvements in gameplay beyond that.
Quoted for cosmic truth.To be fair, arguably one of the best episodes of any Trek was about language.
"Shaka. When the walls fell".
Still use reaction rolls on occasion. Was amusing and fun for all, when the NPC they needed to rent a ship from took an immediate dislike to the party as a whole.There's something about language - when you are in a strange land, and all of a sudden you encounter someone who speaks the same language, there's this relief and a sense of belonging that you didn't even realize you were missing. This of course is on a spectrum, very much (for me) proportional to how fluent I am in the mainstream language of the strange land. So when I have visited Japan or France, I am more comfortable than when I am in Germany or Spain.
All of which to say, it's gameable in the sense of: Perhaps there's a lingua franca across a wide region (let's call it Forgottenglish); but perhaps as a PC you have a CORE language (Let's call it Realmanese). And when you encounter someone else speaking that Realmanese language, you each have a bonus and/or advantage when dealing with each other. Sadly, 5e (either version) eschewed reaction rolls, which personally I think was a miss. But if I was to hack in some sort of reaction rule, then languages would be a cool way to modify that AND make languages useful and interesting again.
Yeah, this.Are you suggesting the players petition the DM to make language not matter? To my mind, the sign should be in whatever language makes sense for the setting and the circumstances (just like virtually everything else IMO). Maybe that works out well for the PCs, maybe not.
There actually are (some rather basic) reaction rolls in the 24 DMG on page 116, under "Initial Attitudes". It's not robust and isn't affected by Charisma (though, altering a creature/NPC's initial attitude is in the 24 PHB, under "Social Interactions, on page 16), but it is something.Sadly, 5e (either version) eschewed reaction rolls, which personally I think was a miss.
Back last century I was talking with one my players who spoke Russian and One of the Arabic languages. While he was at training at the military language institute, they roped a dm to having multiple languages at the table. Russian, Japanese, two Arabic, Spanish and something else. He said it was great fun practicing various languages at the table and some times humorist when someone after playing language phone tag, translated back into English. But they never really got far in the DM dungeon.That's typically called bad DMing if the barrier is to a mandatory route and not an optional one.
It's a quick and dirty way of doing native fluency proficiency.
I mean we could force players to pick a native language for their PCs and require high INT or the Linguist feat to be fluent in another language.
I conduct work in 3 languages but I'm only fully fluent in one. I can work in Spanish or Russian but it's soooooooooo much easier in English.