Languages
-
You might be surprised, but in the real world, different languages often -do- use different sounds for exclamations.
-
@a2aecb1dc1=Ace-of-Spades:
Uhhhhm. I have always emoted (e.g. nodded or smirked, or whatever in brackets [] [b:a2aecb1dc1]outside of " <infernal>Text." Just to throw that out there.</infernal>
Not pointing you out specifically. I've accidentally done this slip myself, of doing "(e) Oh" when my character has been talking in elven in awhile. Sometimes you're so used to putting up the (e), that it just becomes habit after awhile. No offense meant, but just pointing out something silly is all.
-
Uhhhhm. I have always emoted (e.g. nodded or smirked, or whatever in brackets [] [b:4a11a40af4]outside of " <infernal>Text." Just to throw that out there.</infernal>
-
There's other odd things used in languages. Examples:
(inf) nods
(e) Oh
(g) Ah
(uc) Huh?
Correct me if I'm wrong if you can nod in infernal. Also if there's a word for Oh in elf, a word for Ah in gnomish, or a word for Huh in undercommon.
I would guess nodding in infernal would just be a smirk or to chuckle darkly..
-
Good analogies, Andrik.
-
Sorry cringes Just my opinion. Honestly I'll be fine either way, with or without any new fangled shiny gizmos
-
head + desk
That's not what I'm talking about.I give up at this point.
-
Well, after reading though all 4 pages I have this to say:
I'd be all for the ciphering/garbling doohickey mainly because it would add the extra element, the feel of rare/foreign languages. Yes there would be people left out, those that do not understand the language. For me I personally run into these sorts of situations everyday, living in Toronto the big multicultural city it is, where people on the bus or at work are speaking spanish/portuguese(mainly at work)/italian/hindu/hungarian/french/swahili etc… and I dont understand a darn thing theyre saying except the odd swear or other odd word as in the case of spanish/french/hungarian. When it is important that I know what they are saying, as in the case of work, I simply ask them what theyre saying, and usually they politely oblige this anglo mono-lingual partial hungaro. I feel that this too would be the case IG.
For example:
Three elves are sitting by the south gate fire chattering away in elvish. In comes say a single, possibly several, humans/hins/gnomes/dwarves what-have-you.
One of two things can happen, as in real life when you walk up to a public place where two or more people of common lingual use are speaking:
a) They stop talking in their native tongue, include you in the convo and casually revert to common so as to not be rude or..
b) They continue their private conversation amongst themselves. Maybe switching to common to add a comment or whatever when they feel like it. But mainly they keep speaking in elvish because, hey, they were there first by themselves and why wouldnt they speak in elvish and also why shouldnt they be able to talk about whatever in another language...after all it is a private conversation and the very act of using another language for a private language is, in my opinion, as good as having whispered it.
Basically, I do not think it is right to cry foul because two people sitting by the fire choose to speak to each other privately in a native or foreign tongue.
Would I do the same in real life to the people on the bus who are probably talking about some crazy outing they had that was awesomely awesome? Nope. Would it be neat if they were waxing nostalgic in English so I could eavesdrop and have a silent chuckle along with them? Yes. But they chose to talk about their private affairs in a public place with a foreign language, so I turn on my ipod, crank the tunes and read my book, or talk to my friend in english about our own crazy adventure etc...
tbh, makes me wish I was more fluent in any other language since where I live at least all the anglo's are on stage for everyone to hear when they talk about anything.
Sorry for the ramble -_-
(My points are of course aimed at non combat/non event situations where being a d bag and talking only in elvish about say a battle plan or the impending invasion of drow etc... in a group of mixed race/language PC's would seriously annoy people/impede the event/story.)
-
A cipher system could eliminate one of my pet peeves. I hate it when people emote translating. When an elf rattles an off some elven and his friend translates for the rest of the group by emoting 'translates for the group' it drives me crazy.
I want to shout "//CHEATER!" :lol:
-
Sounds cool if you can automate the proccess to acquire them Will. For example, the NPCs at the lobby could give you one if you're elegible and don't have one already, and save tons of DM time.
-
New spells get a little tricky, as to implement them properly requires a TLK table edit (which means a hak).
I have some ideas on how to get around that, but it would basically require creating a widget that would be used before spell memorization, to "store" the uses of the spell.
-
@4af5563856=Zyphlin:
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.
We all like different things. The crux of this is and will continue to be if the majority likes the idea. Right now, it looks a like a fairly even split, but that's hard to tell as even the one I suggest is in the minority, my own position, is quite vocal. Five pages of as much "Whoa, let's think about this for a second!" as there is "Neat, we could do this this and this."
-
@6ab2d41943:
Tongues
Divination
Level: Brd 2, Clr 4, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: NoThis spell grants the creature touched the ability to speak and understand the language of any intelligent creature, whether it is a racial tongue or a regional dialect. The subject can speak only one language at a time, although it may be able to understand several languages. Tongues does not enable the subject to speak with creatures who don’t speak. The subject can make itself understood as far as its voice carries. This spell does not predispose any creature addressed toward the subject in any way.
There is an arcane material component consisting of a clay ziggurat that needs to be broken upon pronouncing the spell (meaning -only- arcane casters need it. Divine casters may ignore the material component).
A level 12 cleric/mage/wizard/etc could have the effect for 2 hours per cast. These should probably be real time hours for the sake of RP, and not ingame hours. The game passing of time is just that, a game mechanic built around combat, not RP - eg, nobody in reality manages to say just 3 sentences in 2 hours time. In fact, 2 hours of real life typing are still worth much less than 2 hours of real life spoken communication.
-
@97d16c96a6=Fraoch:
I'm sure there's something funny about tongues. Let me see if I can find out what it was.
While you can understand several, it only allows you to speak one chosen language. In addition, it's only 10 min/level, so about 2 hours for a very high level cleric. However, it's range touch, so you can grant the ability to someone else.
Also, if you are an 11th level or higher Wizard or Sorcerer, you can cast Permancy, spend 1,500xp, and make it permanent on yourself.
-
I'm sure there's something funny about tongues. Let me see if I can find out what it was.
-
Well, if in one thing we agree, is that it's up to Devs/DMs decide what is best for the server and what they want to spend their time with.
I would feel very ripped off, though, if tokens were implemented, but not the rightful PnP spell to counter them (Yes, yes, Tongues). You may find it doesn't bother you, I'd find it aggravating.
-
I am sure both sides of the equitation will be looked at by the team before any decision is made. Worry not Narfers….we listen…kinda like Frasier when I say it like that…but you get the drift
-
@49df513855=Emerwyn:
I see your point Zyphlin, but I don't see a massive "Yes we want tokens" in here. In fact, I see a 50/50. That's where I question if it's worth spending all that dev time into displeasing half the players to please the other half. I personally don't see adding tokens as a perk, more as an exploitable tool.
I wouldn't really suggest the DM's use this thread as a baromoter even if it was all in favor of the tokens. Perhaps things have changed recently, but I know often in the past what the concensus is in a single post where a dozen or so people are giving comments isn't necessarily true of the majority of players. Especially since those posters most likely to be involved in such are the more likely ones to be opinionated and outspoken (and I realize I'm often in that grouping).
Mostly, I trust the DM's to make the call. If they choose not to, I may disagree personally but I'm sure they're doing it cause they feel its what's best for the server. From what I remember, I'd dare say that the VAST majority of players are rather benign to having a REALLY strong feeling on most things either way, and see changes and new things as something extra of varying interest unless there's a glaring problem which is when you start seeing people who normally never speak up flooding in to cry fowl.
@49df513855:
Then again, I personally won't care, as long as we're provided with Tongues spell as well, but that's even more dev time that could go to other areas like new maps, scripts or creatures.
I think if we could do a tongues spell it'd be great. If not, I'm not hugely bothered by it. As I said, I'm not caring too much about the "fairness" because all you're doing is flipping the "unfairness" from the past of the speakers to the part of the observers. If its possible, great, if not, I don't think that alone should disqualify it.
I also think finding a middle ground, such as the item I suggested for spellcasters that would have the potential for tongues which would allow them to 1/day use it and have an "all languages" token dropped on them for a short bit of time.
@49df513855:
There ancient areas of Narfell's development that would benefit the playerbase as a whole to see implemented/fixed, before this.
True enough, then again, from experience Dev's getting to do things they're intrested with help out too. The mistaken assumption people make is that "If they didn't work on X, they could've been fixing this issue I'd rather have fixed". The problem is the assumption that if they didn't work on x that they'd work on your issue, and not work on something else you didn't want or even just not work on anything.
Narfell has gone through MASSIVE dev changes. Build 9 was a TON of new content in and of itself, and that's just talking about the aesthetic side. The scripting work and changes done for it is a massive thing in and of itself and is a testimont to Will and many of the others. And since that point its simply been added on top of more and more. However there's no reason only old things getting updated should be what the dev's spend time doing.
For example, changes to the ancient areas of Narfell would benefit most of the player base more than an override to rangers that helps out pure classed rangers…something far from wide spread in Narfell. And yet I wouldn't imagine a lot of people bemoaning dev time to that simply because its not helping the playerbase at large as much as another project does.
Its a wonderful discussion and the fact that there are passionate people about it is a sign of how much the server means to people and ultimately at the end of the day that's a great thing. But really, I'd hope the DM's end up doing what they feel is best for the forum and the fun of the players rather than worrying what a dozen or so people are squabbling about in this thread as the definition of what the entire forum thinks. Whatever they end up doing, I no doubt think it'll be fine.
-
I see your point Zyphlin, but I don't see a massive "Yes we want tokens" in here. In fact, I see a 50/50. That's where I question if it's worth spending all that dev time into displeasing half the players to please the other half. I personally don't see adding tokens as a perk, more as an exploitable tool.
Then again, I personally won't care, as long as we're provided with Tongues spell as well, but that's even more dev time that could go to other areas like new maps, scripts or creatures. There are ancient areas of Narfell's development that would benefit the playerbase as a whole to see implemented/fixed, before this.
Of course it's not my place to call where the devs will find their time better spent. As you, I give my own (biased, as anyone's) view of it.
-
@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.
