D&D General Languages suck in D&D.


log in or register to remove this ad


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.
That's because Language by X has no bearing to gameplay.

If you want Language to be a designed gameplay element, you must decide what game language is supposed to be in.

For example, if you are designed an Old School game where Good species/monsters speak Good languages and Bad species/monster speak Evil languages in a world of black and white, then you design a way for all the Good PCs in a typical party to easily be able to all the Forces of Good and make understanding the Forces of Evil a crapshoot unless one of the "He Who fights Monsters" types.

If you want Languages to be a Region identifier and hand with each region and plane having a langua franca, then you map out the regions, sort the people, and THEN assign languages.
 

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.
 


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.
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.
 

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.
Yeah, this.

It's like trying to say certain traps or locks or even, gasp, prices on goods at the town equipment merchant are "Mother May I" if the PC fails to accomplish their goal of disarming/unlocking/buying. I mean, the game is based on overcoming challenges. If the party doesn't have the means, they fail. But there are plenty of creative approaches when attempting to achieve the goal of completing a challenge. I mean, in our game last night, a PC who did not speak Aquan or Giant mimed their shared goal of opening a stuck gate... and that gave the PC who did speak Aquan advantage on the contested CHA(Persuasion) roll. No petitioning of the DM necessary.
 

Sadly, 5e (either version) eschewed reaction rolls, which personally I think was a miss.
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.
 

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.
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.
So having a various detail language system is great for those small group of tables who enjoy that.
Me I with stick with Southern as Common. Y'all hear.
 

Remove ads

Top