3. Languages

Languages


  • @050cd8f2fd=Emerwyn:

    Well the main point of people who want the tokens is that other people can metagame what they say but shouldn't understand. But if tokens were ingame, speakers could metagame (or cheat, call it as you like) by not detailing outisde of the gibberish the tone, attitude, gestures etc that they do while talking.

    Metagaming isn't a huge reason for me, as metagaming could happen either way. For me, its about what would be more enjoyablee and provide a better RPing atmosphere as my main point. And to me, having the gibberish to better represent a situation…imho...where someone is speaking in a completely foriegn language is far more interesting and lends itself to far more interesting roleplaying situations then not having it. To me, it would a more immersive and more entertaining environment, which is why I support it. The fact that I think more metagaming, purposefully and non-purposeful, generally occurs currently than it would under a token system is far from my main point or even one of the top ones for me. For me, its that it'd create a more interesting, immerse, fun world to interact with.

    @050cd8f2fd:

    I also think that if I emote casting Tongues spell without a real tool for it, nobody will actually bother to send me in tells exactly all they're talking about, word by word, comma by comma.

    Likewise, I imagine if I say "speaks in elven" currently and don't want to make what I'm saying visible to everyone that wouldn't understand it I'm going to have to deal with being inuadated with Tells asking me to translate because "they speak elven".

    @050cd8f2fd:

    And if they do, they might be still cheating/lying to me OOCly.

    Ditto above.

    @050cd8f2fd:

    So if people weren't trusted to not metagame exclussive language info, I find rather moot point to ask to trust those who use the language tokens in the way that people weren't trusted before.

    Which is why I said the notion of "fairness" isn't really a key factor here in my mind. Neither is metagaming to a large extent, though to me the balance of it is more on one side than the other, but again that's simply my opinion.

    @050cd8f2fd:

    The other aspect, the flavor one, as we see there are encountered opinions, so I don't know to what extent it's worth dev effort to please ones and displease others instead of just not fixing what ain't broken.

    It "aint broke" because you like it. Others may find it "broke" but never pushed heavily for the "fix" because it would harm the server due to the backend scripts. Now that the fix wouldn't kill the server, suddenly they see the potential to fix something they've long seen as "broke" is possible. You see it as fixing somethin that ain't broke so its a waste of Dev times. I'm saying that others see it as something that's long been broke, that only recently has the technology been available to actually fix it.

    I'm not saying one opinion of this is better than the other, but comments like "it aint broke" and suggestions that it will ruin the ability for people to get into the narrative in a generalized sort of way are not absolutes but simply comments coming from your alls perspective. Which is fine, but that it appears that way to you doens't somehow invalidate other peoples opinions who see it differently.


  • @19238412b4=Zyphlin:

    Could we use something like Craft Weapon as a generic skill dump?

    If so, I wonder if you could automate the process somehow with an NPC that would give you your choice of language tokens based on your intelligence modifier and your race. You can then buy a new token for every 2 points you have in craft weapon (or in the case of bards every 1 point). It would simply check how many tokens you have and compare it to what your total number possible is (race + int mod + points in craft weapon) and if the number of tokens is less you can buy more.

    This would be lovely for an in game record of what languages a pc knows. I'd still hate to see it used in conjuction with garble though. I saw that long ago and liked it not one bit. I didn't use it.


  • @9d79986bc8=Fraoch:

    Cardamon, I am proposing nothing.

    I meant you as a collective. Sorry.


  • Well the main point of people who want the tokens is that other people can metagame what they say but shouldn't understand. But if tokens were ingame, speakers could metagame (or cheat, call it as you like) by not detailing outisde of the gibberish the tone, attitude, gestures etc that they do while talking.

    I also think that if I emote casting Tongues spell without a real tool for it, nobody will actually bother to send me in tells exactly all they're talking about, word by word, comma by comma. And if they do, they might be still cheating/lying to me OOCly. So if people weren't trusted to not metagame exclussive language info, I find rather moot point to ask to trust those who use the language tokens in the way that people weren't trusted before.

    The other aspect, the flavor one, as we see there are encountered opinions, so I don't know to what extent it's worth dev effort to please ones and displease others instead of just not fixing what ain't broken.


  • Card, I get your point that i'd OOCly affect your play by making it less fun.

    Do you perhaps see the other side of the coin that your position on that is not an absolute truth? For others, they're saying it would INCREASE their fun OOCly and make the narrative of the world more interesting to them, for the situation to occur where when words they can't understand are spoken that they're really actually unable to understand it.

    I can completely see and understand why some people would find it more fun to be able to read everything. I don't think that's "wrong". But I also don't think that's an absolute truth. I think its equally legitimate to find it MORE fun to not be able to read words their characters can't read and the change in the way the game feels based on it.

    As to comments of fairness that's gone through the post, I don't think "fairness" really plays into it. I don't think there can be 100% "fair" ruling regarding language without narfell going to .haks, and I'd put money on the Browns winning the Superbowl before I'd expect to see that happen after how long its fought going that direction. Right now its "unfair" to people who would like to have their foreign languages actually blocked and "unfair" to people who would want languages to be more stringently enforced. I don't think "fairness" really should be the prime factor on whether or not something like this happens because frankly there's not going to be a perfect "fair" option with regards to this situation.


  • @0b0ee40a06=Fraoch:

    Any word on lip reading?

    As a total aside - if we were giving garbling tokens - in the vast majority of cases I'd use a different sign to denote the language and avoid garbling.

    I usually use a language because people do prefer to communicate using their native tongue. If I'm at the south fire sitting talking to my elven friends there is absolutely no reason for to talk common for strangers to understand. Think of tourists in a city centre, or a group for foreign students at university.

    When I do use language to exclude someone it's to exlude pcs. I don't want to exclude players.

    Unless of course it's secrets, in which case I'd be using whispers anyway.

    Cardamon, I am proposing nothing.


  • …


  • @a0b14b7dd7=Fraoch:

    @a0b14b7dd7=Zyphlin:

    If you're human warrior is int 8 and spends all his skill points on class skills, he doesn't get to have any language other than common.

    You always get your regional (local) language eg chondothan for the heartlands, damaran for Narfell.

    Yep, my bad. Was thinking D&D in general. In Faerun you get your regional as well


  • @baa81c2ca7=Fraoch:

    @baa81c2ca7=cardamon:

    I just can't help feeling that this sort of thing locks us, as players, not characters (they're already locked out) out of part of the narrative simply for playing relatively low INT or low skill point characters who'd rather sink it into things like Discipline and Heal.

    Instead of leaving it up to a script to manage, what about a middle path? A token with reference tags on various aspects about a character, including spoken language. New languages could be added by DM, but no scripting backend to hide the unknown languages. Same direction you're going, with most of the benefits and very little grief for people who share my view point.

    A low int/skill point character gets the benefits of that in high stats/other things. You'd also be hosing over one of the bard's class features.

    You missed my point. It's not about the PC's ability. The PC with low int and skill points SHOULDN'T understand all those languages. I'm talking about the differentiation between PC and Player. As the widget's been discussed, it locks most players out of conversations their PC was already conceptually and skill pointedly locked out of. Which you all know. That's what you're talking about. That's what you've proposed.


  • @0bd9ea179a=cardamon:

    I just can't help feeling that this sort of thing locks us, as players, not characters (they're already locked out) out of part of the narrative simply for playing relatively low INT or low skill point characters who'd rather sink it into things like Discipline and Heal.

    Instead of leaving it up to a script to manage, what about a middle path? A token with reference tags on various aspects about a character, including spoken language. New languages could be added by DM, but no scripting backend to hide the unknown languages. Same direction you're going, with most of the benefits and very little grief for people who share my view point.

    A low int/skill point character gets the benefits of that in other stats/abilities.

    You'd also be hosing one of the bard's class feature.


  • @eb52167c4a=Zyphlin:

    If you're human warrior is int 8 and spends all his skill points on class skills, he doesn't get to have any language other than common.

    You always get your regional (local) language eg chondothan for the heartlands, damaran for Narfell.


  • The teaching thing sounds really neat, as does the "levels" as long as its not extremely difficult to advance those levels since you're spending skill points in it to get.

    I don't think things like infernal/ingan/draconic/etc should be limited however from classes that are allowed access to them by the rules. I think the layout Rei gave would be the thing to go with for initial creation languages, with allowing learned languages to be any of the non-secret ones.


  • I just can't help feeling that this sort of thing locks us, as players, not characters (they're already locked out) out of part of the narrative simply for playing relatively low INT or low skill point characters who'd rather sink it into things like Discipline and Heal.

    Instead of leaving it up to a script to manage, what about a middle path? A token with reference tags on various aspects about a character, including spoken language. New languages could be added by DM, but no scripting backend to hide the unknown languages. Same direction you're going, with most of the benefits and very little grief for people who share my view point.

    This Token note could also be used to tag a PC for reference to something that a DM might also want other DMs to be aware of. The USE on the item should cough up things like "Speaks Common, Elvish, and Druid" and maybe "Marked by Juju's Magic as Protected till the time of the Slaughter" for whatever RP abilities that might confer for an elvish druid. Pay your points like normal, and the DM adds a new tag to it.

    We enjoy a fairly strong honor code as it is. Most players, the majority of the time, do not metagame (per say…being in the right place at the right time due to an OOC agreement is largely a metagame. But it does not disrupt and thus we enjoy its liberal usage. But imagine a if you couldn't read the Tales section of the forums. Especially if a PC's writing their "private diary" in a language none of your characters speak. Now, all those IC threads in the town? Was your PC there for them? No? Then you can't read them. Of course, it's impossible to lock someone out of a thread like that, but it illustrates my point that we share so much with each other and we're talking about something that hedges that free flow of ideas in. And we're talking about a widget that would do the same to another section of our gameplay for the sake of a bit of realism I for one have never felt was dearly missed.


  • Thanks for that post Rei. I couldn't access the SRD from work.

    Also, since it seems some confusion. Those listed languages are not languages you get for free. They're languages you have the ability to buy. If you're human warrior is int 8 and spends all his skill points on class skills, he doesn't get to have any language other than common.

    The only things that "automatically" gain languages that I can remember off hand is various races getting their "racial" language for free and Druids getting Druidic.

    Eoden, I agree with you with regards to the regional languages. At the same time, simply put, not as many people are familiar with the intricacies of the Faerun rules compared to the general D&D rules and even those that are they hardly remember all the various regional languages. And even then, it seems you're just deeming certain languages as more valuable than others based on how much of a backstory would be needed to prove to you to deserve it. Would a human resident of Silverymoon really be more reasonble saying he can speak Chultan…a language used almost singularly in a country that's on literally the other end of the continent...rather than Elven, a language likely used widely in one of the cities with a larger than normal elven population?


  • @5dde6b579f=Emerwyn:

    Rei, I just spotted a small conflict in your post and one from Fraoch previously…

    According your source Thieves' Cant is a secret language, like druidic, that can't be learned by spending any skill points on it (so tied to the rogue class, I presume).

    Fraoch quoted something earlier saying that rogues do -need- to pay for Theives' Cant, like anyone else? Or did I get that wrong?

    Druidic is a secret language which is gained automatically with a druid level.

    Rogues do need to play for Thieves Cant with their 2 points, but they're the only ones who can.

    I don't/wont have it on El since she's a ranger with rogue levels for trapping and no background with thieves who'd use/teach it.

    Thank you for the ruling on lip reading. I'll get the second point into sign some time in the next few weeks.


  • @2c82dae866=Vashpsycho:

    Professor Roguely

    Smackie McFacekill

    Stealsworth Moneypockets

    Oh, well… I don't have to think up names for my next 3 characters!

  • V

    Like I said before (just my own opinion) Thieves Cant is for Rogues who are thieves. Not anyone who has rogue as a class. Which I why I suspect you need to spend a skill point on it.

    For instance Professor Roguely the Lawful Good rogue would likely not know thieves cant by default. Hence why it wouldn't be a default language.

    Smackie McFacekill the Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue doesn't automatically know it because he isn't a thief, though if he was, he'd spend a point on Thieves Cant to use later when he took levels in rogue.

    Stealsworth Moneypockets the CN Rogue learns thieves cant from his old thieves guild, as he is in fact a thief. edit He spends the point on Thieves Cant from creation.


  • Well, thieves cant is a Forgotten Realms specific thing

    My understanding is that only thieves can learn it, because no-one would teach it to a non-thief.

    It's not covered by the D20 SRD. I included it in the secret languages section because I thought it relevant, not because the rules listed covered it.


  • Rei, I just spotted a small conflict in your post and one from Fraoch previously…

    According your source Thieves' Cant is a secret language, like druidic, that can't be learned by spending any skill points on it (so tied to the rogue class, I presume).

    Fraoch quoted something earlier saying that rogues do -need- to pay for Theives' Cant, like anyone else? Or did I get that wrong?


  • If languages were enforced according to the D&D 3.5 ruleset, there is a list of bonus languages for each race. IF your intelligence is over 11, then you have some you can pick, others you can't.

    As an example, Dwarves get Giant, Gnome, Goblin, Orc, Terran, and Undercommon as their options, if they have a higher than normal intelligence. Anything else, they have to spend skillpoints on.

    Note that there's no Elven on that list. So, unless your Dwarf has spent points on it, don't expect a DM to let you be able to speak Elven.

    Just so everyone knows what's out there…

    @5c8427647a:

    Dwarves get Giant, Gnome, Goblin, Orc, Terran, and Undercommon.
    Elves get Draconic, Gnoll, Gnome, Goblin, Orc, and Sylvan.
    Gnomes get Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Giant, Goblin, and Orc.
    Humans and Half-elves get any, bar secret languages (Druidic and Thieves Cant, etc)
    Half-orcs get Draconic, Giant, Gnoll, Goblin, and Abyssal.
    Hins get Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, Goblin, and Orc.

    In addition to this, some classes change how languages work

    @5c8427647a:

    Bards get Speak Language as a Class Skill, meaning that it only costs them 1 point, not 2, to learn a language.
    Clerics add Abyssal, Celestial, and Infernal to their list of optional languages.
    Druids add Sylvan to their list of optional languages
    Wizards add Draconic to their list of optional languages.

    This is all as per the D20 SRD.

    Personally, this is how I've been doing things for Narfell. As such, my bard has a lot of known languages. Other characters I have are more often than not, blissfully ignorant of what gets said around them.