Languages in AD&D
Shaun Owen Hately
The following is the draft for an article I'm sriting for my game clubs
newsletter. I thought people might be interested, and I would appreciate
any comments.
Human Languages in AD&D
by Shaun Hately
--==(AMBULANT IN FABULAM)==--
In memory of James Dallas Egbert III
In most AD&D games, language does not play a large part. It should, but
as the general rules contain very little consideration of the idea,
players and Dungeon Masters, especially neophytes tend to ignore the
situation. All too many games contain one human language called `Common'
and a variety of monster languages. A few contain the idea of Alignment
languages, a throwback to 1st Edition, but the idea of each human
culture having its own discrete language is often neglected.
The following rules have been developed and used in my campaigns for six
years. They are based on Chapter 3: Debris from Babel in `The Lands of
Legend' book 6 of the Dragon Warriors RPG. My revised rules are able to
be used in AD&D games. I do not make any claim to these rules being in
anyway official, nor do I make any claim to any copyright privileges
already held on this work, by the producers of AD&D (TSR Inc) or Dragon
Warrior (Dave Morris, Oliver Johnson and Corgi books). However the
following article is (c) 1996 Shaun Hately. Permission is granted to
copy and distribute this work in any way, shape or form, provided it is
distributed in complete and unaltered form and no profit is made from
its dispersal. Permission to alter this work can be obtained by e-
mailing Shaun Hately at dred...@bud.swin.edu.au
This article is based on an understanding of the non weapon proficiency
rules described in the AD&D 2nd Edition Players Handbook and Dungeon
Master Guide, not those contained in the newer Skills & Powers book.
This is simply because I do not yet use Skills & Powers, and do not
understand its rule system.
Three Language Points (LPs) may be converted into one non weapon
proficiency point.
Number of Language Points
Virtually all PCs start with a set number of Language Points, based on
their intelligence score. The following table shows the number of points
for each character. This table takes the place of the # of Lang section
of the Intelligence table contained in the PHB.
Intelligence Score Initial Language Points
1 0
2 3
3 3
4 3
5 4
6 5
7 5
8 6
9 6
10 7
11 8
12 9
13 10
14 12
15 13
16 16
17 18
18 21
19 24
20 27
21 30
22 33
23 36
24 45
25 60
Contrary to what is said in the PHB, using this system a character of 1
intelligence is utterly incapable of learning coherent speech. A
character of higher intelligence who score is reduced to 1, may at the
DMs discretion retain such ability. This system does require the player
to use LPs in order to speak their native tongue.
Language Points may be exchanged for Non Weapon Proficiency points and
vice versa using a 3:1 exchange rate.
Command of Language
A PCs command of a language can be at one of three levels.
Basic: the PC knows almost nothing of a language. They may know a few
words :- `cold', `mercy', `die', `pain' etc. When faced with a situation
where it is necessary, they may be able to remember a word on a
successful Intelligence check. They may recognise a single word used on
a successful Intelligence check with a plus one bonus. The level is
similar to that which a normal person today might casually acquire
through watching television. (Jawohl, Herr Commandant)
Intermediate: the PC has some command of the language. He or she can
follow most conversation addressed to them, provided it is slow and
clear. They can also communicate most concepts effectively although
their grammar is likely to be atrocious. This level is similar to that
acquired by users of `Learn a Foreign Language' audio tapes, or by
senior High School students. Characteristic of this level of speech is
the use of native grammar interspersed over the new language, or
uncertainty in the use of the language.
Fluent: the PC can speak and understand the language perfectly. They may
still have an accent, but they will have no trouble in being understood
or in understanding those who speak to them. It is important to remember
however that their language acquires the features of those they learn it
from. A sailor may speak perfect Sulewanese, but he would not be able to
pass himself off as a native at court. For example (horribly exaggerated
for effect): the sailor is meeting a Princess of the Imperial Family. He
attempts to compliment her on her appearance.
He wishes to say: Your Imperial Highness, may I compliment you on your
lovely gown and your exquisite features. Truly, I have never seen such a
flower of beauty.
He actually says: Highness, you're quite a looker and that dress is a
ripper. You've got to be one of the best looking dames I've ever clapped
me eyes on.
Did you spot the difference?
Difficulty of Language
Some languages are easier to learn than others. The first step in using
language in your game world is to decide which languages are simple and
which are hard. When doing this try not to let cultural prejudice
intrude. For example, in the real world, most Americans (or
Australians!) seem to assume that English is an easy language to learn,
simply because they speak it, and they learnt it as a baby. In actual
fact English is a fairly difficult language to learn, as it does not
share the heavily structured grammar of many other languages and has so
many exceptions. Make your judgements free of these constraints.
Languages should be divided into one of four classes:
SIMPLE
UNDEMANDING
COMPLEX
ABTRUSE
Relationships of Language
Some languages are closer to each other than others. This makes them
easier to learn. The next step is to work out which languages are close
to each other and which are vastly different.
There are three degrees of closeness, given here with real world
examples
CLOSE: French to Italian, Spanish
to Portuguese
DISTANT: English to Dutch, Spanish to
Turkish
NONE: English to Japanese
(for the purists, yes I know there is a slight connection between
English and Japanese, however it does not effect the rules in this
table. All languages on Earth are connected with the possible exception
of a few of the Aboriginal languages of Australia. In all probabilty a
similar circumstance would exist in a fantasy world. Come on, you accept
that clerics can't use swords (well, *some* of you do 8-)) for game
balance. This is the same kind of thing!)
If a PC is fluent in a language which is related to another language,
learning the second language is easier, and so its difficulty level is
reduced. The effect also occurs if the PC knows the first language to an
intermidiate level, though the effect is reduced.
The effect is shown in the following table.
First language already known to:
Intermediate Fluent
Relation CLOSE one step two steps
between easier easier
first and DISTANT no advantage one step
second easier
language NONE no advantage no advantage
By the way, a product of these rules, is that if a PC knows a language
fluently which is closely related to another language, which is a simple
langauge to start with, they can probably already understand and make
themselves understood in the second language. This may be a probelm for
some DMs. I personally like it.
Starting Languages
Players must use LPs to learn their native language in this system. They
must allocate one LP for every level of command in any language. It is
suggested (in fact, I suggest the DM insists on this) that they allocate
three points in order to be fluent in their native language. It seems to
me absurd that a PC might have a smattering of three tongues and yet be
unable to speak any one tongue fluently. After that the PCs should be
able to use points to acquire any ability in any langauge, provided the
DM rules it to be acceptable. Obviously the DM must take such factors as
character backgrounds into account. I have found that this system
prevents players from just dumping languages and turning their extra
intelligence slots into extra non weapon proficiencies. I have also
found that it encourages PCs to keep slots in reserve in order to
acquire new languages, if and when they need them. I run very
proficiency intense games by the way (just ask Daniel or Antoinette).
Learning New Languages
There are two ways of learning a language. Learning from a tutor, or
learning by usage. We'll handle these one at a time.
Learning From A Tutor
First of all the PC must find a tutor. A tutor can be any person who
speaks a language fluently. Because so many factors must come into play
in determining the avaialabilty of tutors, etc, no rules are given on
whether or not there is one available or the costs. The DM must
determine this themselves. The time taken to progress from one level in
a language to the next is determined by its difficulty modified
according to knowledge of related language, and is only possible if the
PC has the necesary LPs to do so. The time is as follows:
SIMPLE three months
UNDEMANDING six months
COMPLEX one year
ABTRUSE 1d6 years
This assumes that the PC attends lessons once a week and practices
daily.
Learning By Usage
Living among natives is the best way to learn a language. Every two
months, provided they have LPs free the player should roll d100 on the
following table. A successful roll increases the PCs command of the
language by one level. The difficulty of the language is modified by
similarity to known languages and by intelligence. A intelligence of 5
or less modifies the roll by -10%, an intelligence of 6-8 modifies the
roll by -5%. An intelligence of 13-15 modifies the roll by +5% and an
Intelligence of 16 or greater imparts a +10% modifer.
SIMPLE 70%
UNDEMANDING 30%
COMPLEX 15%
ABTRUSE 6%
By the way, if a language is `dead', such as Latin or Ancient Greek, it
can obviously not be learned in this way, short of time travel or
finding an isolated community who still speak the language.
Literacy
Always remember that just because you can speak a language, doesn't mean
you can read or write it. This is likely to be even more true in a
fantasy world. It must also be considered that scripts etc differ. A
person who can read and write English is likely to be able to have a
stap at German or French where the script is more or less identical.
They may even be able to puzzle out Greek, but they've got a snow balls
chance in hell of managing to read imperial era Chinese or Egyptian
Hieroglyphics. If there is enough interest, I may write an article on
this, but for the moment, just bear it in mind.
Acknowledgments
Daniel Fields, Antoinette Vasey, Paul Fields, Daniel Mayes, Mark Jessop,
Scott McGrane, Damien Wise, Gareth Clark, Danny Micallef, Emma
Belantyne, JP Forster, Cruiser, and Linda Makepeace. Denizens of the
ADND-L, GMAST-L, and REALMS e-mailing lists, and of AUS.GAMES.ROLEPLAY,
REC.GAMES.FRP.DND and REC.GAMES.FRP.MISC usenet groups and as always all
past, present and future members (neophytes included 8-)) of the Ambulant
In Fabulam RPGamers Society.
Dreadnought
(dred...@bud.swin.edu.au)
Mr. Mad
Shaun Owen Hately wrote:
>
> The following is the draft for an article I'm sriting for my game clubs
> newsletter. I thought people might be interested, and I would appreciate
> any comments.
>
This is one of the rules I made for the Dusk setting, adapted from
the Shadowrun(tm) system.
Language
It's important to be able to talk with people, but unfortunately
not everyone speaks the same language. Dusk is not like many campaign
worlds, since there is no common tongue. In situations where a
character
is trying to understand an NPC speaking a foreign language, she must
succeed at an Intelligence / Reason check with the modifiers on Table
12.
If the modified chance is 0 or less no check can be attempted.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 12: Language Skill Table
Situation Modifier
Dialect of a language the character knows +2
Universal concept
(hunger, fear, bodily functions) -2
Basic conversations
(concerns of daily life) -4
Complex subject
(special / limited interest topics) -8
Intricate subject
(almost any technical subject) -12
Obscure subject
(deeply technical / rare knowledge) -16
_________________________________________________________________________________________
--
_
/ \//\ Mr. Mad http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0
mailto:mlm...@pop.uky.edu
\ ////
\M / "The Poor have little, Beggers none, the Rich too much, enough
not one."
\/ -Benjamin Franklin
DuaneVP
From: Shaun Owen Hately <075...@bud.cc.swin.edu.au>
>>The following is the draft for an article I'm sriting for my game clubs
newsletter. I thought people might be interested, and I would appreciate
any comments.<<
How about dealing with the difficulties of reading and writing the
language? Moving between similar written forms such as the Latin, Greek,
or Roman alphabets to Cyrillic is not overly difficult but then how about
Arabic, Sanskrit, or Japanese? Then there are written languages that use
a different symbol for every word such as Chinese, heiroglyphics or other
forms of "picture" writing. Cuneiform could also be an interesting form
of writing to be used in a campaign.
In fact, now that this subject has been broached I'd suggest doing
what I just did and breeze through a few Encyclopedia entries on Alphabets
and Writing.
Downtime
aka Duane VanderPol
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" - Thomas
Watson, IBM Chairman, 1943
odragon
(applause)
Cool. Very cool.
"My" Realms will soon be getting a little more
(for lack of a better term)
"real".
The only real trick i have used consistently is
giving certain races accents.
Elfs sound british (kinda' stuffy)
Dwarfs are are just deep voiced and gruff.
Halflings speak fluent common.. but when speaking
to other halflings the accent appears (hard to describe...
anyone ever been to Newfoundland?)
Gypsies (from Barovia) have "outrageous" french accents.
Gnomes just talk fast...really fast.
Once again, great system. Thanks for posting.
O'Dragon
http://fox.nstn.ca/~odragon/sashmain.html
*****************************
As with most mythical creatures who live in enchanted
forests with no visible means of support, the elves ate
rather frugally,.....
(Harvard Lampoon's Bored of the Rings)
Christopher Pound
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960826...@bud.cc.swin.edu.au>,
Shaun Owen Hately <075...@bud.cc.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>Some languages are easier to learn than others.
A language related to your own is easier to learn than one that isn't.
A language that has grammatical features similar to a language you know
may be easier to learn than one that doesn't. But, it isn't at all clear
that some languages are simple and others complex in any objective sense.
>In actual
>fact English is a fairly difficult language to learn, as it does not
>share the heavily structured grammar of many other languages and has so
>many exceptions.
There are too many things wrong with this statement for me to deal with
here. Briefly, however, let me just say that languages are simple and
complex in different ways. Most English verbs, for example, conjugate
trivially. English only has one marked case for nouns. Get the words in
the right place, and you'll be understood.
>Languages should be divided into one of four classes:
>SIMPLE
There is a commonly held belief that only pidgins and creoles would
fall into this category. But I don't know that the thorough simplicity of a
creole has been demonstrated beyond the description of features we typically
categorize as belonging to grammar (as opposed to lexicon, style, etc.).
>ABTRUSE [sic]
Obviously, there are abstruse topics in any language: things like religion
and philosophy. Writing these things down lets you add even more junk,
even more clauses, ideas, and lists of things, to the statement you're
forming. But unless you're talking about a magical or alien language, maybe
even something like a cant intentionally designed with greater complexity
than natural language, "abstruse" isn't a word that makes a lot of sense
as a description of a language, per se.
>DISTANT: English to Dutch, Spanish to
> Turkish
Dutch is English's closest relative, other than Frisian, but if you
want to call it distant, I guess I can understand why. But, Spanish and
Turkish? They're not distant; they're unrelated.
>(for the purists, yes I know there is a slight connection between
>English and Japanese
What? You mean because Japanese has borrowed a few English words
(and vice versa, though less so)? This is not what is normally meant
by the relatedness of languages -- neither familial nor areal, it's
just borrowing. No big deal.
You mentioned that all languages, perhaps excepting some Australian
languages (I hadn't heard that one before), are related. That's still
pure speculation at this point, and when I say that I'm not even
pretending to be some sort of gatekeeper as to what counts as hard
evidence. It's *really* just speculation, ambitiously abstracted from
the only mildly persuasive evidence for Nostratic.
--
Christopher Pound
IS Network Management, Rice University
Chris Pierson
In article <507fr7$3...@listserv.rice.edu>,
Christopher Pound <po...@brazos.is.rice.edu> wrote:
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960826...@bud.cc.swin.edu.au>,
>Shaun Owen Hately <075...@bud.cc.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>
>A language that has grammatical features similar to a language you know
>may be easier to learn than one that doesn't. But, it isn't at all clear
>that some languages are simple and others complex in any objective sense.
Well, to take an example, I'd say Spanish or German would be easier to
learn than Latin or Sanskrit, just based on the incredible array of
declensions, tenses, cases etc. for words in Lat and Skt (and Greek).
On the whole, however, you're right -- and what's more, some languages
are harder to learn because they use aspects unknown in other languages
(tonality in various Chinese languages, for instance, is quite dissimilar
to anything an Anglophone might use), or reject "natural" aspects of
other languages (I still have trouble getting my head around the fact
that Russian doesn't distinguish between past and present tense).
>>DISTANT: English to Dutch, Spanish to
>> Turkish
>
>Dutch is English's closest relative, other than Frisian, but if you
>want to call it distant, I guess I can understand why. But, Spanish and
>Turkish? They're not distant; they're unrelated.
Good points, both. I'd be more tempted to do the relations like so:
Very Close: Stuff like French - Provencal, and dialects as well (eg.
Italian dialects).
Close: Within the same end branch of a language tree, eg.
English-Frisian, Swedish-Danish, Irish Gaelic-Scottish Gaelic,
Russian-Ukrainian.
Related: Anything within the same language class, eg. Welsh-Irish,
Catalan-Portuguese, Icelandic-Dutch, Polish-Bulgarian.
Distant: Any related language classes, eg. Romance vs. Celtic, Persian
vs. various Indian dialects.
Very Distant: Anything within the same language family, eg.
English-Latvian, or Tocharian-Portuguese.
Unrelated: Everything else, eg. English-Japanese, Xhosa-Cree,
Arabic-Albanian.
--
****************************************************************************
Chris Pierson ** "No one hands me my gun and says, 'run.' _No one_."
Freelance Editor ** --Britt (James Coburn), The Magnificent Seven
****************************************************************************