Language Idea

[Black Rose]

I was prowling around on Fitz's website, and decided to take a look at his DnD House Rules. Many of them are very HERO influenced, and I thought I would point out his idea for Languages. You can find it here.

 

What do you think of it? Specifically, I'm referring to the +1 for Besic Literacy, +2 for High Literacy. Now, in a setting where literacy is assumed (most modern), you could skip the first level, and simply have +1 for "Highly Literate". As a way of handling skills, it's close enough to the official way of doing it that the explanations by each level only serve to make it easier to understand, without adding any complexity.

 

Thoughts?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Language Idea

 

Not bad, but I've always wondered why we do languages differently from any other skill.

 

Familiarity (High School French) would be enough to do basic communications, asking directions, ordering a meal. For anything more complicated you have to roll (8-)

 

General skill (Graduate French) would be reasonably fluent: you could communicate pretty much whatever you liked, but you would have to use it with most presence skills using the language: although, unlike a complimentary skill, a failure could apply penalties! Technical or convoluted converstations would require rolls and possibly complimentary skills to avoid misinterpretation.

 

INT Skill (Fluent) as above but you really know your language and all the twists and turns. A native speaker gets this as an everyman skill at +2.

 

At least that way you have a number to roll against where there may be misinterpretation, unlike the present system where it is all GM call.

 

Literacy would be a one point adder to each language skill or you could do it as a skill enhancer (say 3 points for litereacy in all your spoken languages), and I'd have 'High literacy' as a complimentary skill: creative writing/speech writing/journalism or whatever.

 

NB I'd say that translating from one language to another would require a skill roll in both languages AND would apply a penalty in most cases, depending on how closely related the languages are (at least -1): ever seen a foreign language film with subtitles? The translations are certainly NOT exact or precise!

 

Can I also suggest a practical role playing solution to translations. We were playing DnD (boo) and only one character could speak Orc, the party wanted to negotiate so I stood in one room, had the party in the next and had the translator stand in the corridor between. I would speak to the translator and then he had to convey that to the party and their comments to me. It was great: complete chinese whispers, as I made sure we had big chunks of converstation so that he couldn't just report what was said verbatim. Try it.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Language Idea

 

Can I also suggest a practical role playing solution to translations. We were playing DnD (boo) and only one character could speak Orc' date=' the party wanted to negotiate so I stood in one room, had the party in the next and had the translator stand in the corridor between. I would speak to the translator and then he had to convey that to the party and their comments to me. It was great: complete chinese whispers, as I made sure we had big chunks of converstation so that he couldn't just report what was said verbatim. Try it. [/quote']Yes, that can be a lot of fun. I had fun with it in one of those "play-only-at-conventions" games, Living Verge (using the Alternity rules set). My character was a human doctor, and during character creation I spent points to be able to speak -- er, can't remember the name now, darn it! -- the language of a large, physically powerful race (a bit like Wookies), in part because I knew that (a) most people wouldn't spend points on "useless" things like languages and ( being a large, physically powerful race, a lot of people would opt to play them (munchkin leanings being what they are, and all).

 

I was right on both counts. On more than one occassion my character was the only one at the table that could speak to everyone present. Despite his rather sour disposition, my doctor quickly became very popular with PCs of that race because I could get their meaning across clearly to NPCs and such. Made a lot of friends that way, he did!

 

It didn't always go smoothly, though...there was a time (during job negotiations) where one of these big guys was getting really annoyed with the employer-to-be, and made some pretty serious threats. When I translated that, I made some serious "editorial adjustments" and the player of the big guy said "Hey! That's not what I said!" and I responded "And your character would know this how?" He blinked, thought about it, and then grinned. In the end, we ended up with a decent price for our services.

 

There were lots of examples like that while I was playing that character, and it was a blast! So much so that when I created my d20 Star Wars character for Living Force, I made him a Noble and spent the vast majority of my skill points on languages...27 of them, to be exact, including literacy in them. He's next to useless in a fight, but a load of fun to role-play!

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Language Idea

 

I disagree that language should be treated like any other skill. I think the current system handles levels of knowledge appropriately.

 

My suggestion is that you require an INT roll to understand something at +1 level to your fluency, -3 per additional level.

 

Example: someone with a Fluency of 1 trying to understand a Fluency 4 concept would be at INT-6 to understand. Extra time can be used, and Professional Skill: Linguist or Science Skll: Linguistics can act as a complimentary skill to the roll.

 

This makes it very simple to compare abstract levels like communication and comprehension.

 

As for literacy, define what the average level is for the campaign (i.e. everyman) and then you could do the following:

 

+1 per Alphabet. You can assume that after about 3 alphabets you will effectively learn the written form for every language you know, assuming one exists. Therefore, literacy costs 3 pts for all languages. Subtle variances like those that exist between French and English do not consititute a new alphabet.

 

I generally assume everyone is semiliterate - they can read simple signs, numbers, and so on but would require an INT roll to read something like a Macdonalds menu. Illiterate would be a disad, either 5 points in a pre-information society or 10 points in an information society.

 

As a linguist this has always worked for me, and I was happy to see SJGames abandon their skill based system for something like Hero's. I think it works best for games.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Language Idea

 

I disagree that language should be treated like any other skill. I think the current system handles levels of knowledge appropriately.

 

My suggestion is that you require an INT roll to understand something at +1 level to your fluency, -3 per additional level.

 

Example: someone with a Fluency of 1 trying to understand a Fluency 4 concept would be at INT-6 to understand. Extra time can be used, and Professional Skill: Linguist or Science Skll: Linguistics can act as a complimentary skill to the roll.

 

This makes it very simple to compare abstract levels like communication and comprehension.

 

As for literacy, define what the average level is for the campaign (i.e. everyman) and then you could do the following:

 

+1 per Alphabet. You can assume that after about 3 alphabets you will effectively learn the written form for every language you know, assuming one exists. Therefore, literacy costs 3 pts for all languages. Subtle variances like those that exist between French and English do not consititute a new alphabet.

 

I generally assume everyone is semiliterate - they can read simple signs, numbers, and so on but would require an INT roll to read something like a Macdonalds menu. Illiterate would be a disad, either 5 points in a pre-information society or 10 points in an information society.

 

As a linguist this has always worked for me, and I was happy to see SJGames abandon their skill based system for something like Hero's. I think it works best for games.

 

There is a lawyerly part of me that loves this idea.

 

The far more practical part of me, however, shudders with horror at the thought of defining Fluency 4 concepts on the fly whilst trying to run a game.

 

Boring and inacurate as a simple '12 or less' may be, it delivers sufficient grittiness to allow comprehension and the possibility of misconception whilst maintaining a simple but non 'GM-arbitrary' mechanic.

 

Besides, if you are allowing INT rolls anyway, you are using the skill system, you are simply (to my mind) defining the bonuses and penalties in a different way to other skills. I could be wrong: I usually am.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Language Idea

 

I can appreciate your PoV, but I think the 5 level system is actually easy to judge (more so than a skill system). I do recognize that this system approaches a roll, should one be required, in a slightly non-standard fashion. However, I think that given the 5 level system is similar to a system in place in our society and is quite usable as is, I think it is a pretty good approach.

 

To judge these levels I can point you to the following resource:http://www.utm.edu/staff/globeg/ilrhome.shtml with examples of reading proficiency here http://www.utm.edu/staff/globeg/ilrread.html

 

You could handle the + ratings by using half-points if you want, but I don't think that's necessary for regular play.

 

Using a skill based system also seems too expensive to me. While being fluent (INT skill as you say) only would cost 3 pts, I find it difficult to judge the complexity of texts on a normal skill-linear scale. In my experience, 4 pts is adequate to reflect the game-value of being natively fluent in a skill. I also feel that there is indeed a nearly -3 modifier per level of fluency for comprehension.

 

I have been tested and trained in two languages using the ILR scale, and have worked with hundreds of personnel that have as well. The difficulty between a level 1 task and a level 2 is pretty clear, as is a 3 vs. a 4. 5 is jargon-centric and realistically would be more a function of a topical skill contributing the appropriate jargon to a level 4 text/discorse.

 

As an analog,

level 1 = Pre Readers, simple sentences, basic tenses (Preschool)

level 2 = Early readers, simple paragraphs, participles (Grade School)

level 3 = Average readers, simple texts, subjunctives (Middle-High School)

level 4 = Advanced readers, complex texts, subordinates & complex passives (College)

 

The average person is actually closer to a level 3 than a 4. I've used this system and I thiink it works well. By establishing a -3 per level greater than 1 difference, it makes it an order of significance more challenging (which I do strongly agree with). While this is a continuum, judging at what point in that continuum you are is much more challenging than assessing these levels.

 

So, for me it's about playability and game-value. I hate systems that make you spend too "skill" points on learning languages. On one level it does take time to learn, but on the playable side of the house it is a color issue for most games and most people could easily speak more than one language if they could get the exposure.

 

Learning languages is more an issue of exposure. It is so challenging here in the US because getting exposure is so challenging (except possibly via family or in the southwest for spanish). With exposure, even if learning a language isn't your primary focus, you can get to level 2 or 3 within a year. Level 4 takes more effort and time, but for game purposes that additional point is still appropriate.

 

Accent is another issue. If you want to add that color to the game, a person's accent is defined primarily by their level of proficiency and the distance of the language. A general formula is 6 - level + distance -1 (Linguist skill enhancer) -1 (SS: Linguistics 11-+).

 

English to German would be a distance of 0, English to French or Russian would be +1, English to anything else would be +2, although extremely different languages (clicks or other aspects) might warrant +3.

 

Characters can spend 1 point per level of Accent to offset.

 

Accent:

0. None/Native

1. Minor, maskable with appropriate skill roll or with INT roll communicating Fluency -1 concepts

2. Significant. Rapid communication will require an INT roll to understand.

3+. Extreme. Communication at fluency-1 or higher will require an INT roll to understand. Rapid communication will require INT-3.

 

Obviously YMMV and a skill based system can certainly work. I just have always found the Hero scale work so well as is.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Language Idea

 

Hmm, I appreciate the way in which you learn a language as you develop or are taught it is one thing, but the way you learn it in practice is often another thing entirely. A sophisticated grasp of one language will probably mean you have a different approach to learning another. Leaning in an environment where you are working or living in a country with another language will give a far less structured approach: you may be very good with the language but have significant learning gaps.

 

I think your approach has a great deal to recommend it over a simple skill roll, but simple is good to me: it isn't just opposites that attract!

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Language Idea

 

Fair enough. Just a couple of more points.

 

A sophisticated grasp of one language will probably mean you have a different approach to learning another.

Only as relates to the distance of the language. Mastery of English doesn't help you learn Mandarin at all, but learning German will be easier. I think the language table cost breaks capture this nicely.

 

Leaning in an environment where you are working or living in a country with another language will give a far less structured approach: you may be very good with the language but have significant learning gaps.

That's more an issue of formal training or the lack thereof. I agree that without formal training your grasp of the language will have gaps. But formal training + immersion (i.e. in that country) will result in faster learning and no fewer gaps than any other formal training. Yes, the average person who comes to America, lives in an ethnic community, and relies only on society to learn the language will have a skewed fluency. The average person who comes to America, takes 4-6 hours of english a week as well as relies on society will end up being fluent in, typically, 1 year, if the language is at least part of the same family.