L is for Levels

I missed the April A-Z Blog Challenge this year, so I'm doing my own...in June. This year, I will be posting one post per day discussing my AD&D campaign, for the curious. Since 2020, this is the ONLY campaign I run. Enjoy!

L is for Levels...specifically levels of experience. And, specifically, my thought regarding "level restriction."

I considered making this post's subject "languages," but what I was going to say? The human ("Common") tongue is English. Elves speak Spanish (my kids are bi-lingual and tend to play a lot of elves and half-elves, so that's fun). Orcs speak orc, usually (basically unintelligible except with orcs who speak Common/English...but, then, an orc who doesn't speak English is usually not going to be the type to have a conversation with PCs). Dwarves speak...what? Norwegian maybe? (we have a lot of Scandahoovians in north Seattle) Eh. Who cares? It's not worth a long post at this point...although being able to speak languages is important (and helps make demi-human characters viable in the game).

So, instead let's talk about levels. And this time, you won't see a bunch of AI generated content (apologies for that). Though...well, we'll see if that means "improvement" or not.

I love levels. I especially love how they function in AD&D. I love both what they mean, and I love what they do, mechanically speaking. I love level caps, and I use them exactly as written in the 1E Players Handbook, EXCEPT that I use the +2 level bonus rule from the UA for single-classed demi-humans. Only in classes they could normally multi-class, of course (sorry to all the elven assassins).

I've mentioned this stuff in passing, previously, but I wanted to set down my rules about this once and for all. 

Back circa 2020, I went through ALL the races and ALL the classes and ALL the level restrictions (and multi-class restrictions) to see ALL the potential types of characters that might appear in my campaign setting. I looked at the experience point totals across class types; I looked at what special abilities a character would have at particular character level (whether you're talking "access to 6th level spells" or the ability to multi-attack or attract followers or whatnot). And I made my own notations of how far I wanted each race to level in each class (or whether or not I wanted them to have access to a particular class) so that the "feel" of my campaign would be "correct" for how I envisioned my game world.

And what I found was that the rules in the PHB, as written, were pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME as the conclusions I had come to myself. Considering WHAT my game world looked like...for example, what "half-orcs" are or the distinct manner that elves appear in my game...I wanted certain limits to their race's ability to advance in certain areas.  I wanted limitations in place, because I wanted my world to look a particular way.  Maintaining the level limits, as is, allows me to keep the flavor I want: that of a human-centric fantasy world. 

Rule-wise, non-human characters receive a LOT of advantages over humans, not the least of which include the ability to multi-class and the ability to speak multiple languages from the start. However, because of level and class restrictions, humans still have value and thus players are faced with an interesting choice at the time of character creation: choose a race with a plethora of advantages (but a cap on advancement) or choose a human. Life's full of tough choices, and the choices we make says something about us (at least in that particular moment in time).  That's not WHY I retain level limits, it's just something I've observed that I find...worth mentioning.

As I said: "an interesting choice." And when a player begins approaching that level cap another interesting choice comes about: do I want to keep playing this character? Or do I want to start a new character (perhaps one with more potential for advancement)? That, too, is an interesting choice that I've watched both my kids wrestle with. 

In the end, I find it good for the game. Do I want to appease my players by removing level caps so their beloved player can keep going? No, I don't. Attachment to a character is expected to occur when a person puts time and effort into playing a singular PC, but attachment is not desirable. Too much attachment is what leads to things like 5E and death saves and whatnot. Too much appeasement leads to nonsensical gonzo games with half-demon clerics of Law and dragonborn bards croaking songs through a mouthful of flame. 

F. That. Noise.

Tough choices. Look, folks: we live this one life...we make choices, priorities of our time and energy, depending on what we think is important. Right now, I'm writing a blog post because I think practicing my writing and getting out some of my game philosophy and sticking to my A-Z commitment are all MORE IMPORTANT than doing the dishes or folding the laundry (both things I'll do later). When my newly graduated kid wakes up, I'll probably leave off this post (even if it's not yet done) because spending time with my 14 year old, soon-to-be grown-and-gone kid, is more important. The older we get the more choices we seem to be faced with, and the less time we have left to make those choices and decide what our life is about. And who knows what our "life after death" will look like?

Playing D&D with tough choices is good training.

Now, it HAS been suggested that one could allow players unlimited level advancement (in any race) while still presenting players with "an interesting choice" by giving humans various advantages of their own, just as the non-human species have. You see this tack with 3E-5E systems (where they first removed level limits and class restrictions), but I'm talking about Old School DMs adding additional rules and mechanics to the (1E) game...folks that I respect and admire. However, I have MULTIPLE reasons for not going this route and, instead, leaving the level restrictions in place, as is:

1. With regard to levels and racial abilities, the game already functions as written. Why make the effort to "re-balance" humans just in order to "fix" something that already functions?
2. Even if I wanted to make the effort, I don't trust my own ability to balance these restrictions and I observed (in the 3E era) how racial advantages can lead to "optimal builds;" I don't want to risk that and I don't need to because (again) the game already works as written, and I'm not about appeasement.
3. I don't want to "add" anything to humans because I see them as the BASELINE for play. Advantages and disadvantages conferred on nonhumans show how they are exceptional or how they "break" the baseline...how they differ from the baseline. Human ability scores go from 3-18 in every category; humans have access to all classes at the max level obtainable in those classes. Humans start knowing one language; human have normal vision; humans have saves and attacks and armor class as a person of their level and class with baseline abilities.  Humans are the STANDARD...they are the standard of what play would look like if all the nonhumans were to disappear from the game. I do not want to give them a "bonus anything." Humans set the bar...it's a human-centric game...and nonhumans are defined by how they are NOT human.

And WHY is it a human-centric game? Because it is played by humans. Everyone reading my words here (well, except for AI algorithms, I suppose) are humans. The only people to whom the game matters at all (AI really doesn't care about D&D) are humans.

"But I want to be an elf!"  Or whatever. Yes, I know. We play these fantasy games to escape (for a time) from our present reality...RPGs are escapist entertainment by design. But what exactly are you trying to escape from? Where is it that you want to escape to?  I've written before how, as an adventure game, D&D allows us to experience adventures in a way that aren't normally possible and/or particularly safe, convenient, etc. THIS is the type of "escape" D&D provides. The character you play is the vehicle for that escape.

But if what you want to escape from is YOURSELF...if you want to be an "elf" (or whatever) because you really, really, REALLY dislike being a human for some reason...well, that's opening a whole different can of worms with answers (from me) that can range from "play ElfQuest instead" to "seek psychiatric help."

We are humans. We might be old or young or short or tall or fat or skinny or scrawny or brawny or black or white or American or European or gay or straight or WHATEVER. But we are humans. And humans have fears and desires and ambitions and foibles. Humans have good times and bad times; joy and sadness and comfort and stress. Humans have finite life spans and tough choices to make regarding our priorities...playing D&D is NOT going to change that, regardless of whether or not you choose to play a nonhuman creature.

So let's not worry about that...about escaping who we are (since we can't)...and instead focus on what we can do with the game. Which is: experiencing adventure. Risking for reward. Making choices that have consequences that we have to deal with. Trying to succeed (i.e. survive and thrive) within the parameters of the game rules.

"Levels" are a game mechanic that measures both success and character effectiveness. Levels set the parameters, the boundaries, of play in which players must operate. Levels are an objective measure calculated from obtaining objective goals as defined by the game's rules. Levels and leveling ARE the game...if you are sitting in the chair of a player.

Playing a nonhuman will limit your success in the game. And that's okay...in a way, it's playing the game on "easy mode" (especially with the racial advantages your PC receives). "Default" mode is playing with a human character...tougher, but with a lot higher ceiling of success. And all of it measurable because of levels.

I love levels. What a great concept!

En Español

As I wrote, I've been doing far less "D&Ding" of late. Probably doesn't help that the last game session I ran (April 5th, per my records) resulted in a Total Party Kill, including three PCs and at least as many henchmen and hangers on (I believe the total was eight, mostly seasoned characters). Damn harpies.

However, even though I haven't been playing D&D, it feels like I keep getting called upon to evangelize the Dungeons & Dragons game...especially concerning the way I play and the reasons inherent in...well, in doing what I do. Running into folks who I haven't seen or talked to in decades, the subject just continues to...strangely...come up. Some examples:

• One of my mom's best friends (and past supervisor or mine) ended up having an extensive conversation pertaining to the history of the game, detailing the entire history of the game its various editions and the state of the hobby. Her son-in-law is, apparently a rabid D&D fan who is teaching his own children (her grandkids) how to play.
• A woman who was one of my mother's oldest and most beloved friends (they were maids-of-honor at each others' weddings), told me how my authorship of D&D books has made me something of a minor celebrity (or at least "impressive figure of lore") in their family as her adult grandchildren are now big D&D fans, like their mother (whom I grew up with and introduced to the game...waaaay back in the day).
• A local attorney and old family friend who I contacted about my mom's will and testament (and for whom I used to run games: he was in my brother's class)...the first words out of his mouth were "Have they put you in the Dungeon Masters' Hall of Fame yet?" He had no idea I wrote a blog (or books) or was still gaming; he was just remembering the games of our youth. His own daughters, now in high school, play D&D, but it's a different game from what he remembers (duh) and after long discussion, there was some thought that I might run a game or two for his family to show them what it was like.
• Had lunch with my old college buddy, Joel, who I NEVER played D&D with (we were balls deep in the White Wolf back in the 90s), but who is now playing Pathfinder 2 on a weekly basis. Ended up having an incredible 3-4 hour discussion about the fantasy gaming hobby, its evolution the last 20 years, and why I'm playing AD&D these days (hint: it's not nostalgia). I think I might have even convinced him to come over to my side of the fence, though he's one of those types that stubbornly maintains it's all about the quality of GM, not system (and perhaps it is, but system certainly helps). At least he remembers my GMing in a positive light.

But here's the real kicker: the last week-and-a-half we've hosted some friends from Mexico in our home. These are very old, very beloved friends: the woman, Heidi, grew up with my wife (they were neighbors as kids) and both she and her husband, Carlos, hosted us in their apartment in Mexico City the first time I visited Mexico (in 1998). They were at our wedding (Heidi was maid-of-honor) and we've watched their kids grow up (their youngest is 21 or 22 now??!). We all get along quite famously, Carlos and I especially (he is fluent in English and we share a passion for beer, music, Star Wars, and American football), despite him being a couple years my senior.

However, I've never had a conversation with him about Dungeons & Dragons...until yesterday. Like, never ever. I think he knows I did the writing thing (??) but usually when we've hung out we've spent our time discussing family or sports or culture or food or beer (these days he is a master-brewer and owns/operates a good-sized micro-brewery in Mexico...one of the few). This trip we've spent a LOT of time talking about beer (he's been touring the local breweries) or the inconveniences of death (his father just died in December and he's faced many of the same estate issues as myself). I mean, he and I have plenty of non-gaming stuff to talk about: Carlos is one of those bright-eyed, intelligent folks who goes through life with curiosity and thoughtfulness and a mind open to discussion and dialogue.

But (perhaps prompted by my wife) yesterday he brought up that his niece "really wants to learn how to play Dungeons & Dragons" and wanted to know what I recommended. Hoo-boy...what a can of worms!

What followed was an attempt to explain one of the world's stranger concepts (RPGs) to our friends in some combination of English and Spanish with a constant barrage of interruptions (er...helpful interjections) from my wife and kids. The strangest bit might have been my non-gamer wife enthusing over how much fun (?!!) the game is and how they (Carlos and Heidi) should try playing as well. Diego even offered to have me run a game for them while they're here (thanks, kid) though my wife told them we could always do it on-line (???!!!) when they returned to Mexico.

[you have to understand that my wife is fairly obstinate in her refusal to play RPGs; and, yes, she's tried them on more than a couple occasions]

Of course, there exists some significant challenges with the lack of Spanish language clones for my preferred edition(s) of the game. Even native English speakers get lost in the complications of a game like D&D (forgetting, missing, or misunderstanding rules)...throwing an English copy of B/X or Labyrinth Lord at a native Spanish speaker (even one fluent in English) and telling them to learn the game and teach it to their friends unassisted is a tall order. Never mind something as convoluted as Gygax's 1st edition manuals.

SO, despite many misgivings, and out of an altruistic desire to be helpful (and an ambassador for the game) I did pick up a copy of the D&D Essentials box set en Español for my friends at the local game shop (let's hear it for WotC inclusivity!). I own a copy of the Kit Esencial (as it's labeled) myself...though in English...and it's not a terrible way to introduce some of the basic D&D concepts. I mean...

*sigh*

Okay, I'll be honest: It actually IS a terrible way to introduce D&D concepts, but it is also the easiest way to do so, when you're talking about young teenagers from a different culture needing concepts (like class and race and hit points, etc.) in their own language. For a game taking place primarily in the imagination and constructed almost entirely from words, it IS "esencial" that the instructions be conveyed in a readily comprehended idioma. 

And it reminds me again of my own failure to produce a Spanish language retroclone, something I started working on back in Paraguay. Español isn't MY native language, of course, and translation is hard enough without needing to translate fantasy concepts (how do you say "halfling?"). Even doing a SMALL clone (I was using the 40-some page Holmes Basic as a foundation text) is grueling, thankless work...especially when considering the unlikeliness that I'd ever use it myself. Why would I? I already own all the instructions I need in my own (native) language.

But...now...here I am, exactly where I feared back in Paraguay (when my kids were young and I was surrounded by a culture of non-English-speaking, non-gamers): in a situation where I want to teach the game, and without the instructional text to do so. And so I am giving my beautiful friends WotC box sets that feature dragon fights with dragons that have no treasure. NO TREASURE. Does a hoard-less dragon scream "D&D" to you? Does that say "fun adventure?"

*sigh* (again)

SO. I got my friends the box set to give to their niece, which should tide her over till I have something more useful to provide her (at least the thing comes with dice). And I also purchased a copy of the Spanish language PHB (5E) which I will use alongside my son's dust-gathering English copy to reverse engineer RPG concepts and vocabulary for a better (Spanish) basic set. Just something I've put off for too long, considering the culture that shares my life and household.

OH: And to all my Spanish-speaking (and, sure, Portuguese-speaking) readers...you know who you are!...if you have suggestions for already-existing retroclones of "old edition D&D" that you prefer, I'd love to hear about them. Thanks in advance.

; )

Literacy

I'm guessing this post will be shorter than the last one. Yay!

Continuing the discussion of languages in D&D, we move on to the subject of literacy which for game purposes I'm going to define as "the ability to communicate through writing." That's a little more than the literal definition of the term (which is simply the ability to read and write), but for purposes of a game rule/system I want to make sure I'm considering "practical application."

The history of writing is a long and interesting one that predates the invention of paper. Mainly, the need for a written form of communication seems to have been tied to the rise of administration/bureaucracy (which itself was only made possible by the advent of agrarian culture and large communities of people starting to congregate). This is a gross simplification (I am as much a hack academic as I am a hack writer), but it works well enough for where I'm going with this (plus I said I wanted this to be shorter!).

The main part of originating writing is the development of an alphabet: illustrative characters that can represent sounds, words, or whole concepts. The alphabet I use (that I'm typing in right now) is the Latin alphabet, first developed some 2700 years ago (though it wasn't the same then as it is today). Other alphabets developed other places. Some of these are still used today, many have fallen by the way (or been subsumed into others). 

The latin alphabet is used throughout most of the "western world," because of the reach of the old Roman Empire and its influence on the rise of western culture. Romans needed writing because they had a gigantic bureaucracy to administer. Prior to its fall, folks living within the empire (both citizens and non-) enjoyed a high level of literacy and writing seems to have been quite proliferate. After the disintegration of the Empire...and the loss of a cheap source of writing material (papyrus from Egypt), literacy fell drastically in western Europe, and would remain low for centuries. 

[one might ask which came first: loss of literacy or loss of governmental cohesion. They probably fed into each other in a death spiral of de-evolution]

Again...I am grossly simplifying because it's not my objective to write a long essay on the subject (lots of good sources on this stuff exists for interested folks). However, for purposes of world building...and then rule design...this gross simplification provides the foundational material I'm working with.

Does the Dungeons & Dragons world need literacy? That's not a terrible question to ask. Originally, the main things PCs were supposed to read included spell books, magic scrolls, and treasure maps (all of which I intend to discuss in a follow-up post). And other then scribing ones own scrolls, the only thing a character was presumed to need to write were hiring notices posted at taverns...and, of course, one could hand-wave even this, given the likely illiteracy of desirable hires (especially considering it's the exact same cost for simply "having servitors circulate in public places, seeking such persons"). 

Spells like read languages (from OD&D, book 1), magic items like a helm of reading magic and languages (from OD&D, book 2), and the thief's ability to read languages are all explicit to reading treasure maps:

Thieves of the 3rd level and above are able to read most (80%) languages, so treasure maps can be read and understood by them without recourse to a spell.

- Supplement I (Greyhawk), page 4

Reading doesn't otherwise appear to have been all that important (note the low level associated with both the spell and the thief ability) to the D&D game. As Alexis pointed out the other day, having written text for PCs to discover is generally just finding a different, novel way of delivering exposition to the players. And if that writing is in a language that they don't understand (or can't read), the only thing you're gaining is time; i.e. the DM is delaying the delivery of exposition to the PCs, which is only rarely useful.

And yet, in my mind's eye I always remember that scene in 1952 film Ivanhoe in which Robert Taylor seeks out a local priest to read a letter confirming the location of King Richard (Ivanhoe is not a stupid man but obviously an illiterate nobleman...not terribly unusual for the 12th century). It's not "exposition" that's gained from the priest's literacy, but a useful clue. Such a clue isn't necessary to your typical D&D adventuring party (who could just as easily decide to assault every keep in Austria until they find their king or die terribly), but it is a useful piece of information, helping to save resources (and lives). And the prospect of a literate captive (one with whom a literate party might communicate via message) ALSO has uses. 

Even so, that's a fairly singular example of mundane literacy being useful (the party cannot be expected to rescue a king in durance vile every week!), and as far as using written messages with each other, nothing prevents party members from working out their own coded signs...or hiring scribes to read/write for them. 

The main reason that I want literacy is from a world building perspective. I like the idea of there being books in the world to be read, and useful information to be gleaned from their pages. Sages are hella' expensive after all...though that might simply reflect the fact that few persons can read the texts in the sage's library (ooo...I like the idea of a book thief campaign!). Useful hints, rumors, legends, and even magical command words should be available to the person able to read the memoirs and journals that have been left behind by other, literate folk. And the quest for folks who can read ancient alphabets...well that can be an adventure in and of itself!

SO...to the rules. There are two parts to comprehending writing: understanding the alphabet, and understanding the language the alphabet is expressing. I can read the Latin alphabet just fine, but if the words are in Danish, I'm not going to grasp what's been written down. In my campaign world, there are only a handful of written alphabets, all developed by their own cultures (generally long ages prior to the start of the campaign) for the purpose of administering their civilizations:

• the "Common" alphabet used by humans
• ancient elvish, a script not used in a thousand years
• "common" elvish
• runic dwarf (mainly used for counting and/or religious/magical purpose)

NOTE: ancient elvish can only be used by someone with fluency in elvish; runic dwarf may only be used by someone with fluency in dwarfish. These symbols used in both these languages communicate concepts, not just sounds, and cannot be used to transliterate the languages of other cultures.

There are at least two other languages I'm toying with adding: one will be related to an ancient snake-man (yuan ti) civilization, lost in the southern jungles. The other would be an "Underdark alphabet" used as a common script by the various deep dwellers (drow, svirfneblin, etc.); though drow themselves will mainly use a "tarted up" version of ancient elvish. Mind flayers, being big-brained telepaths, have never needed to develop an alphabet. 

Most of the other sentient humanoids of game world neither have nor use alphabets of their own. Goblins, orcs, gnolls, lizard men...none of these creatures have ever had the administrative needs to develop their own forms of writing, and few have access to learning the writing of others. That doesn't mean there aren't literate humanoids! They are just few and far between and the ones that do write are most likely to use the "Common" alphabet of humans.

[though to whom would they write?]

Learning any single alphabet requires only one point from the character's pool of language points (see the rules in my fluency post). Some DMs might want to make particularly rare or difficult languages "cost more" to learn...I don't. It amuses me to have a halfling academic who knows how to write "good morning" in common elvish without actually being able to speak elvish, or to have a rather low intelligence dwarf who still knows his holy runic writing.

Oh, and just by the way: with the inclusion of these rules I will be removing the thief skill of reading languages from the game. But that will be discussed in my next post regarding secret languages.

: )

Fluency

First: a quick reality check. Before I start diving into discussions of language (and language design), please understand that your humble author has no academic background in linguistics or communication, nor historical anthropology applying to the subject, nor even any background in teaching or education. I write for (i.e. "design") games. The games I design for (tabletop RPGs) seek to emulate specific particulars of my choosing, and they try to do so with an eye towards playability, balancing "fun" and "practicality," and my tastes for these two elements may well run counter to other folks' tastes. 

In the case of language fluency, what I want to emulate is based largely on a combination of "adventure fiction" and personal experiences, not necessarily in that order.

Your humble author is pretty much crap at learning foreign languages. Here's the brief history: took French class in the 8th grade and got straight A's. Took three years of Japanese in high school and got a B'ish average, yet retain ALMOST NOTHING despite actually traveling/living in Japan for three weeks or so (I did manage to acquire a girlfriend who later came to the U.S. and had an interest in marriage, but she was fluent in English). Took a year of French at University where I bottomed out in my third trimester (I believe the mark I received was a "D+") due to me skipping a LOT of class to be with my romantic interest of the time (another train wreck story). Took some night classes in Spanish at the local community college, years later, in order to get enough grounding in the language to fake holding a conversation with my Mexican in-laws (this AFTER a couple years of marriage and certain spousal threats relating to my inability to communicate with the family). And that's about it, education-wise...unless you count a couple-four CDs used to "try" learning foreign languages: Russian (that was for a different girl), German (for travel), Czech (for travel), and Italian (?? I think...for fun? Maybe, but we did travel there as well eventually. Regardless, I speak NO Italian).

These days, I'm fairly fluent in Spanish, but that's after 20+ years of marriage to a woman from Mexico (we've been together since '98), annual or twice annual trips to Mexico (where all the friends/relatives reside), three years or so living in Paraguay, several excursions to various Spanish-speaking countries (Panama, Guatamala, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and Spain). I knew NO Spanish before I met the wife, other than what was on the menu at a Tex-Mex joint...at least, nothing but bad words (picked up working in restaurant kitchens). 

"Fairly fluent" means the following: I can hold a conversation with someone in Spanish, though generally not a profound or deep one. I can follow (comprehend) a conversation between native Spanish speakers, so long as they are not A) speaking too fast, B) using a lot of "slang" or specific terminology, C) talking about anything particularly complex. I can communicate with native Spanish speakers enough that they understand (more-or-less) what I am trying to communicate to them (the reverse does NOT always hold true). I can teach simple concepts in Spanish (on par with what you'd teach a small child up to the age of 5 or so); we raised our kids to speak Spanish as their first language, and could only do this by only speaking Spanish in the home. 

Oh...and I can generally follow movies in Spanish, even without subtitles (though it's easier with...yes, even with subtitles in Spanish).

My reading comprehension is actually better than my listening/speaking ability because reading is a slower process, allowing me time to distinguish recognizable root words, make sense of syntax and context, and because writing is (generally) more formal in composition than the way people talk. Also: no accents in writing. I can distinguish (some) cultural accents these days, and some accents are so thick they don't even sound like Spanish at times. This was an issue for us when we liven in Paraguay...even my wife only understood two-thirds of what people were saying the first year we were there. 

My wife, unlike me, is amazing at learning languages (except French. Terrible, terrible French). She is fully fluent in English (with an extensive vocabulary) and "fairly fluent" in Italian. She can get by in Portuguese, and picked up Czech pretty quickly (though I doubt she remembers any now). She left the German stuff to me (when we were in Germany) but I doubt she'd have much issue with it, seeing as how closely related it is to English. But then, her work and education are in the field of communications (and she LOVES to travel).

In Dungeons & Dragons, knowledge of a language is a binary switch: your character either knows how to speak "troll" (or whatever) or she doesn't; degree of fluency doesn't enter into the equation. In D&D, the number of languages you speak is the resource that is counted, and it is tied directly to a character's intelligence attribute: the higher your character's INT, the larger the quantity of languages known and understood.

Which doesn't jibe with my experience. Your O-So-Humble Scribe (me) is a pretty smart guy...on a day of extreme modesty, I'd probably rate myself a 15 on the ol' INT scale. But despite years of effort (especially the last ten or so) my ability to speak ANY language other than Inglais has met with a LOT of frustration...you can be smart all day, and it just ain't easy (at least, nor for me). On the other hand plenty of folks (especially those raised outside the USA) speak multiple languages just as a matter of course. Native Paraguayans, from the most educated professor to the lowliest laborer, speak two languages fluently: Spanish and Guaranii. And those with ANY degree of education (i.e. anyone with some family money) speaks unaccented, fluent English (care of The American School) and probably some Portuguese as well (due to the country's history and cultural exchange with Brazil). "Intelligence" is not the issue; so far as I can determine, the main drives of "fluency" (i.e. the ability to communicate in a language) come down to use, opportunity, and access. Roughly in that order.

These days, I only rarely use my Spanish language, except for the habitual phrases and sentences I use (yelling at my children, buying chicharon at the Mexican grocery store), and as a result I'm quite "rusty." My kids are worse: since the pandemic, they've cut the Spanish class from our school (one of the reasons we were sending them there) and sometimes they forget even phrases like "merry Christmas"...at least, until their mother takes them aside and lectures/communicates with them for a couple hours in Espanol. Usually that's enough to knock the rust off. For me, my Spanish improves remarkably after a week in a country where I'm surrounded by the language, my fluency "amping up" to two or three times its normal level...but never more than what I've had the opportunity to learn.

Should an elf or wizard be able to hold a jovial conversation with a couple orcs when they spend most of their free time "in town?" Should the gnome illusionist using a change self spell be able to pass as a native speaking kobold? Personally, I don't think so...unless the character is some serious student of the language/culture. And yet, in Seattle I know many folks of non-American birth, switch seamlessly between their native tongue (still spoken in the home) and the English language that is all around them. Though many (including my wife) will at times complain of a loss of fluency in their original language due to living and working on foreign soil.

[actually, when we first returned from living in Paraguay, I would accidentally slip into Spanish quite often the first few months we were back. I don't do that anymore]

SO...how to model this in game terms? Well, what's the (game) objective here...besides making a more nuanced game world for the players to live in? For me, I want to give the PCs some options that will aid them in their navigating the challenges...specifically hostile NPCs...through the time honored means of negotiation and deception (or both).  And because this is a game, the system needs some abstraction. Here's how it works:

For any language, there are four degrees of fluency:

• Non-fluent (0 points): the character cannot communicate in the language. Oh, a person might be taught a word or two ("Breeyark," "yes/no," "please"), but the character will not understand what the language speaker is saying; communication is only one way, or very rudimentary and bolstered by gesture (point at food, point at mouth, etc.).
• Moderately fluent (1 point): character is "fairly" fluent...about the same as what I describe for my ability to speak Spanish (see above). Complex ideas cannot be conveyed, but basic conversations - both ways - are possible. Topics of conversation will be limited to the character's general interests, perhaps chitchat (food, treasure, directions, danger, etc.) not profound philosophies, deep matters of the heart, or intricacies of political situations.
• Fully fluent (2 points): character can communicate as well as befits a person of his or her station (type and level of education, intelligence, profession, etc.). The character cannot pass as a native speaker, and will exhibit a marked accent; subtleties of conversation (including humor and condescension/disdain) may be missed, but the character should "get it" most of the time. Character will have insights into the culture, but may still be thrown for a loop by rare words, new slang, or unique concepts.
• Native speaker (3 points): character speaks as well as someone born to the culture; the only limitations being the character's particular class/stature/station in life (this can be eyeballed based on a character's class, level, and CHA score). Appearance will be the only mark of a character's "foreignness," and perhaps not even that if the culture is sufficiently diverse enough to include members of the character's species. Character will be familiar with customs, clothing, food, etc. of the culture and will understand idioms, expressions, and subtleties as much as INT/WIS allows.

Characters start the game with 4 points worth of languages so long as their INT is at least six, otherwise they have only 3 points worth of languages. Elves and dwarves receive one bonus point (total of 5) so long as their INT is at least six. This number is modified by the character's Intelligence score as noted in the PHB for "number of additional languages spoken." For example, a halfling with a 13 intelligence would have 7 points to spend; a dwarf with an 18 intelligence would have 12 points; an elf with a 4 intelligence would only have three points, the same as a human of 4 intelligence.

Some languages (in my game world) share the same root "language family" such that a native or fully fluent speaker counts as moderately fluent without the need to expend additional points. These include:

• Dwarf to Gnome (and the reverse)
• Goblin to Kobold (and the reverse)

There may be others. "Bugbear" is not a goblin in my world. Hobgoblins are a larger form of goblin, but otherwise the same species (see dialect, below).

Creatures/characters of the same species share the same language but may have different "dialects." Native speakers may communicate as fully fluent when communicating with a speaker of a different dialect. Some examples from my world include:

• Humans (those West of the Cascades versus those to the East)
• Elves (wood elves versus high elves, etc.)
• Giants (hill, frost, stone, fire, etc.)

[Drow, if such exist (I haven't yet decided) are far enough removed culturally to be considered a different language family, rather than a different dialect. The same would probably apply to svirfneblin, derro, and duergar]

Mechanic-wise, characters should receive a bonus to reaction checks of +1 if fully fluent and +2 if a native speaker. Characters who are non-fluent should receive a -2 penalty when attempting to communicate (moderately fluent character receive neither bonus, nor penalty). These are in addition to the normal adjustments for CHA and circumstance (a group of adventurers with blades drawn are going to be seen as a threat regardless of their communication skills!).

Can fluency be lost? Yes, of course. So long as a character has the chance to use their conversation (either talking to NPCs, practicing with fellow party members, or residing in a "base town" where the language is spoken), fluency may be maintained at the purchased level. It takes 2d6 months for fluency to diminish (call it seven months) from non-use; fluency will never diminish more than one step, and never below moderately fluent. Former fluency level can be regained after immersing themselves in the language for 1d3 weeks.

[folks who want even more nuance can add a somewhat fluent category under moderately fluent; this degree of fluency is never purchased but may be fallen to from non-use. It carries a -1 reaction penalty]

Now, I'd bet there are some folks out there, reading this and saying "Eh? Who cares? Why add this needless complexity to the D&D game?" And, of course, you don't have to. You don't have to use weapon proficiencies either (B/X doesn't). Heck, if you really wanted to simplify the game you could remove all coinages besides gold pieces, lots of "simpler" fantasy board games get by with nothing else (games like Dungeon!, Dark Tower, Talisman...).

For me, some amount of complexity (no more than I can handle) makes for a richer, deeper gaming experience. For other folks it just adds to an already dizzying array of overwhelming rules. To each their own. But I think this is kind of neat, and I plan to put it into play pretty much immediately.

Next post, I'll talk about literacy.

; )

Language!

I like languages in my D&D games. I get that not everyone does. What I don't like is the system for languages, which has varied from edition to edition.

Welp, a couple nights ago I woke up with pretty much a complete idea formed in my head about how I might manage the issue in my games. I'm pretty excited by it. But before I share, please allow me to first write a bit about the whys and wherefores of languages in Dungeons & Dragons; I'll be quick, I promise!

Communication and interaction with non-player characters is one of the more important aspects of D&D; it is one of the elements of play that elevate the game, making it more than a complex way of counting points. It's the reason the game absolutely requires a Dungeon Master. Plenty of mechanics have been introduced over the years to do random adventure creation, and players can as easily do record keeping and chart/table tracking as a designated "referee." But NPC interaction? You generally want a neutral 3rd party to handle that part of D&D, so that players can stay firmly in the minds of their own characters, viscerally experiencing the game.

And from the beginning, the game's authors have had rules for a multiplicity of languages in the fantasy world. To me, this makes good design sense from both a "play" and "world building" perspective:

• With regard to play, the ability to speak another language (or lack of ability) adds both challenges and options to game play. The inability to communicate can lead to hostilities and resource draining problems where no such issue need to exist; conversely, the ability to communicate can open up opportunities to skirt danger and hostilities, develop allies, and engage in both tactical and strategic "faction play." And the finite number of languages spoken by PCs (and the plethora of sentient creatures in the fantasy world) means players have yet another way to contribute to a party...as well as another reason to rely on fellow party members...bringing the group closer together. 
• With regard to world building we are well familiar with the burdens and challenges of a multi-language world: we live in one! Cultural differences are tied deeply to language differences, and while the diversity of our human species makes for a far more interesting place, it also creates a multitude of issues and challenges (yes, that's a gross simplification) that have been documented throughout history. We can draw on this in our world building to make a richer game for exploration!

So, then...the problems with the rules as written with regard to language:

• Languages spoken being tied to intelligence offers different numbers known depending on edition: up to 10 (14 for elves and dwarves) in OD&D, up to 5 (9 for elves and dwarves) in B/X, and up to 9 (regardless of species) in AD&D. AD&D also adds some "class" languages (druid, thief, and illusionist writing) as well as classes that can learn additional languages (assassin, bard).
• "Common" tongue spoken "continent-wide."
• "Alignment language."
• Lack of mechanics regarding level of fluency.
• No mechanic provided with regard to learning language (or losing fluency through lack of practice).
• No mention (outside of B/X) with regard to literacy. B/X places literacy rate at 95% (and character with an intelligence above 5) compared to the real world average of 86%. And that's the present day; Europe circa 1500 was somewhere around 11% (somewhere in the 14-15+ range of intelligence). And this doesn't take into account class/profession-based training (most literate folks were clergy members, for example).
• Issues of language/writing with regard to magic spells, spell scrolls, spell books, magic-users vs. illusionists vs. clerics, and a thief's ability to read languages and magic.

That's a lot of issues to work through, and I could probably write two or three separate posts on the subjects. In fact, maybe I should...just to break up the giant "wall of text" that I was planning to smack my readers' eyes with!

Because the thing is: I've gotten a lot of mileage out of the language rules over the years, both as a DM and as a player. When you're dealing with sentient monsters that speak their own languages, suddenly that 1st level magic-user with the high INT score isn't quite so useless after expending her one spell. Hiring translators becomes a useful thing (and a nice little treasure sink). Challenges can be navigated in a different way than force of arms with communication. For the editions of D&D I play....where death comes easy through violent confrontation...talking is often a good thing. 

And language is important to me personally: my life has been filled with language-based challenges. Having in-laws that don't speak English (they're coming to visit in June). Living in a foreign country for years. Raising my children to be bilingual. Translating complex issues for non-English speaking clients and coworkers (back in my former occupation). Traveling in Asia, Europe, and Latin America. All as a dude who's spent the bulk of his life learning and perfecting just a single form of communication (English)...and I've still got miles to go on that (the journey from brain to words is often a stumbling-bumbling one for yours truly...especially regarding my "feelings"). 

Language is amazing...and frustrating. And I want to include that amazement AND frustration in my D&D game. Just not with the rules as currently written.

All right, I am going to break this one up. Expect a couple more posts on the subject.