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.

; )

Crowns of Blood: Chargen (Part 3)

[continued from here]

STATISTICS AND SKILLS

1. Divide 72 points among the following six statistics: SIZ (size), STR (Strength), DEX (Dexterity), CON (Constitution), INT (Intelligence), and APP (Appearance). No statistic may exceed 18, nor be less than 5, prior to adding cultural modifiers. If a character is to have combat training (see Step 6 below), a minimum SIZ of 8 is required, prior to adjustment.

INT is a new stat for Crowns of Blood; it is not found in Pendragon. INT represents a character's inherent smarts, learned knowledge, and ability to learn. It replaces the old skill recognition, and is used in opposition to intrigue the way an animal used avoidance in opposition to the hunting skill. It is important for determination of a character's non-combat skills.

A male character with an INT that exceeds Love (family) and Loyalty (lord) might be tempted to become a maester...but player characters are never obligated to take that path.

"Okay, we're short...get over it."

2. Add cultural modifiers. Stats may be increased above 18, or reduced below 5 in this way. However, if ANY stat would be reduced to 3 or less, the character is bedridden, making it very difficult to take part in adventures.

Andal: SIZ +1, CON +2
Crannogman: SIZ -2, DEX +2, CON +2, APP -2
Dornishman (Rhoynar): DEX +1, APP +2
Ironborn: STR +1, DEX +1, CON +1
Mountain Clan (North or Vale): STR +1, DEX +1, CON +2, INT -2, APP -2
Northman: STR +1, CON +2
Targaryen: INT +1, APP +2

3. Figure derived statistics

Total Hit Points = CON + SIZ
Unconscious = Total Hit Points /4
Movement Rate = (STR + DEX) /10
Damage = (SIZ + STR) /6
Healing Rate = (CON + STR) /10
Distinctive Features based on APP:

Less than 7, greater than 16 = three distinctive features
7 to 9 or 13 to 16 = two distinctive features
10 to 12 = one distinctive feature

Distinctive features can be chosen from the following categories: hair, body, expression, speech, facial features, and limbs. Random rolling is not required.

4. Determine Family Characteristic

Randomly determined. All members of your character's family will have the same characteristic.

Roll D20: Characteristic
1-2: At home in nature (+5 hunting)
3-4: Born to saddle (+5 horsemanship)*
5: Dextrous fingers (+10 industry)
6: Excellent strategists (+5 battle)
7-8: Keen sighted (+5 awareness)
9: Long memories (+5 folklore)
10: Machiavellian (+5 intrigue)
11: Masters of etiquette (+5 courtesy)
12: Musically gifted (+10 music)
13: Natural healer (+5 first aid**)
14: Pirate ancestors (+5 sailing)
15: Raised bilingual (+10 language)
16: Rumored necromancy (+5 magic)
17: Symbol affinity (+10 heraldry)
18: Talented organizer (+5 stewardship)
19: Water born (+5 boating)
20: Well read (+5 knowledge)

*Crannogmen learn "Poison Makers" (+5 poisons) instead.
**Non-combatants may add bonus to chiurgery instead of first aid.

5. Select Non-Combat skills

• A character is allowed a number of non-combat skills equal to the character's INT score.
• Skill choices are limited to the following: awareness, boating, courtesy, first aid, folklore, heraldry, hunting, intrigue, knowledge, music, stewardship, and the individual's "family characteristic."
• The following skills may be available (GM discretion) based on foster or home culture: sailing (especially in the Iron Islands) and other language.
• Non-combatants (see Step 6) may also learn the following skills: chiurgery and industry.
• The following skills are only available with maester training (unless possessed as a "family characteristic"): magic, poisons, and potions.

Choose two skills to begin at 10; all other skills known begin at 5. If a character is "combat trained" (see Step 6), add a +5 bonus to first aid.

6. Select Combat skills

• If trained for combat (player's choice), the player learns the following skills: battle, horsemanship, dagger, and three other weapon skills (including grapple as an option). Choose two skills to begin at 10; all others start at 5. Character also receives the bonus to first aid listed in Step 5.
• Combat trained characters are considered to know all other weapon skills at level 0.
• Non-combat trained characters may add 1D6 to APP, not to exceed the character's cultural maximum. A non-combatant may still select combat skills (like horsemanship or a weapon skill) from the character's normal allowance of skill choices (based on INT, see Step 5). Even non-combatants receive training in dagger at skill level 5; this does not count against the character's allowance of skills.

"Not all of us were meant for bloody swordplay."

7. Add skills based on father's social class

A character receives a number of points based on social class to add to the skills already possessed; this reflects the character's training through childhood. Points cannot be allocated to skills not already possessed (remember that a combat trained character possesses ALL weapon skills, though most start at "0"). The following limitations apply:

• No skill may be raised above 15, unless it receives a bonus as a "family characteristic."
• Non-combat skills may not exceed a character's INT score (even if INT is less than 15), except in the case of a "family characteristic."
• The maximum for a family characteristic is 15 plus bonus, or INT plus bonus if INT is less than 15.

Great House lord: add 25 points of skill.
Officer of lord: add 20 points of skill.
Minor House lord, clan chieftain, or landed knight: add 15 points of skill.
All other social classes: add 10 points of skill.

Note that there are several "officer" positions that a character's father may possess (lord steward, marshal, chief forester, castellan, lord of coin, "hand," etc.) and these positions are not inherited. The extra points should be used to select appropriate skills that the character's father would have taught his children (in hopes the son or daughter might succeed the father to the office).

[to be continued]

Getting' Down To It

We have to have a confrontation with our housekeeper today over a pile of missing cash, which I'm not looking forward to. It's a situation really outside my realm of experience...I never had "servants" growing up (nor do I back in Seattle), and I'm not used to working with cash so much that I have bunches of it laying around (or, rather, "squirreled away") at home. But Paraguay and developing countries are different...it's very "old timey" when it comes to having hired help and a cash-n-carry economy.

*sigh* I now understand why people have safes in their homes. I'm probably going to have to buy one, too.

Anyway...I get to put that off for the moment, however, so I might as well get to writing. The knowledge of the upcoming confrontation kept me up a while last night, and I had quite a few brain-thoughts about Pendragon and my adaptation of it.

First off: I went back over my abbreviated skill list, and analyzed it in light of the actual systems they cover. I see now why the game authors made flirtation and romance two separate skills, and got a closer look at how they're used, not to mention the whole concept of "the romantic knight" and its associated Glory. And I've decided I need to just axe the whole thing from the game. The skills, the ambition, the system for love affairs...gone.

I know that longtime fans of the Pendragon game might think ill of me, but the fact is this isn't going to be a Pendragon game. This is not a fairytale, 6th century England with an enchanting queen creating a tradition of fine amor. This is A Song of Ice and Fire...and romance, sex, and love just don't work like that in the setting. Marriages between nobles are arranged affairs, for wealth and politics, not love affairs. There ARE love affairs...and the consummation of those affairs...but there's no waiting around for years, mooning over each other, and bringing gifts. When people have an attraction, they jump in the sack and do it. It ain't Guenever's idealized world.

[and while there ARE instances of romantic longing in Martin's books...Petyr Baelish for Catelyn Stark, Brienne for Renly, etc...they are all of the "unrequited" variety, never culminating in anything, and simply ending when one party dies]

Anything that appears to be fine amor (i.e. "courtly love") is simply a sham...it's the stuff of Westeros fairy tales. If there's an attraction, there's an invitation extended, and either accepted or rejected. After the proverbial "roll in the hay" folks might develop a bond of love...see Tyrion, Lysa Arryn (on her part, at least), the Stark brothers, Dany, for example...at least as the characters are portrayed in the television program. But the "attraction" part needs a different system.

[maybe something akin to "recognition" in another Chaosium game: ElfQuest]

In the books, there are nobles who marry for love, rather than political alliance...the children of Aegon V, for example. But that happens after they've been betrothed for political alliance and often ends up starting wars/rebellions...these are exceptions that lead to adventure hooks. No, we don't need a system for exceptions...and we don't need flirting and Glory for romantic knights.

Besides, the whole "romantic knight" thing really only works in one direction (male to female), and as I've stated before, part of the reason for using this setting is that it's more inclusive. If you want to play a female knight...or a homosexual knight (like Ser Loras Tyrell)...you should have the same chances at Glory as anyone else. And it's difficult (if not impossible) to make the "courtly love" thing work if it ain't strictly Arthurian.

"What's your feeling on beards?"

Nope...axing it. As well as any "seduction" skill I was thinking of adding. There's intrigue (used differently...to find out secrets and what people want) and there's marrying and there's attraction (based on traits and APP)...my game doesn't need these extra skill rolls.

[Pendragon, for those who don't know, already has a system for producing arranged marriages: within, below, and above one's social class. They involve courtesy skill checks with your Lord (since the Lord is the one who needs to arrange-approve the marriage match) and works just fine as is. Anything else should come down to role-playing...probably involving personality traits like "lustful" and "reckless"]

The other major change is that I've decided to add a sixth statistic after all: Intelligence (INT). I can't see any way around it, as it's just too useful a measure. For one thing, it can be used (as DEX is) as a catch-all check for mental pursuits: in place of recognition (another Pendragon skill that I axed), or for opposition to an intrigue roll in a one-on-one conversation (the same way an animal's avoidance check is used in opposition to a hunting roll). Intelligence will have an impact on the number of starting skills a character has, and set maximums for those skills...but only with regard to non-combat skills. Being stupid doesn't affect one's ability to fight...that's a lot of practice, repetitive muscle memory, and combat experience.

Plus, these are knights we're talking about.

Tywin: cunning AND evil.

For a point-buy method of character creation, this will give PCs an extra 12 points to spend (72 total). It allows for a little extra distinction between characters, highlighting the difference between cunning types (like Tywin Lannister) and brutal meatheads (like the Cleganes).

Okay, that's it for the moment. My next post(s) should have the step-by-step of chargen for the Crowns of Blood campaign. Hope-hope!
; )

On the Nature of Humanoids

Intelligence in B/X play is a little less spelled out than other editions. For my games, I categorize monsters (that is, any non-PC species creature) into four categories of intelligence:

Sentient
Beagle
Animal
Non-

Sentient beings are the equivalent of humans: they have language and reasoning ability and the potential for writing and inter-species communication…they may be dumb or clever, but they can put together plans.

Beagle intelligence is the equivalent of my beagles: they don’t really have language, though they have means of expressing themselves and they are clever enough to open doors, climb fences, hide (themselves and their possessions), and exhibit behavior other than simple instinct. Creatures like ghouls, rock baboons, and B/X troglodytes fall into the “beagle” category.

Animal intelligence is based on biology and instinct, generally categorized by terms that begin with the letter “F”: food, fear, fire, fight, flight, and f**king, etc. Bears and owl bears fall into this category, as do insects and slimes, alien though their particular drives may be.

Non-intelligent creatures are those that have no capacity for self-generated thought; these are programmed automatons like statues and zombies and golems. They only act as they are commanded by their creator/master, and without command they do not act.

Sentient beings are the only monsters that are “tool users;” if a lesser brained monster wields a weapon, it is either entirely incidental (like a baboon wielding a tree branch “club”) or was equipped by someone other than the creature itself (for example, a skeleton wielding a sword or a lion with metal-shod claws). Conversely, any monster described as using weapons or being “highly intelligent” (like vampires) can be considered sentient.

Sentient humanoids up to “ogre-size” (i.e. HD 4+1 or less) are assumed to have an intelligence of 9-12, according to the description of the spell Charm Person (page B16 of the Moldvay rules). They’ll speak their own language and any other that the DM deems appropriate for their species (or mentioned in their description). Creatures larger than ogres (minotaur and giants, for example)…well, their intelligence will need to be determined by the DM. As Intelligence affects nothing but languages and literacy in B/X, it’s really a matter of how often you want such a being to receive a saving throw versus Charm Monster.

The orc is the baseline monster in B/X.

Orcs deserve their own post for another time, but for now we’re just looking at its fighting stats. An orc warrior (the standard antagonist PCs will encounter, not the non-combatant women and children) is the equivalent of a 1st level fighter/man-at-arms:

AC 6 (leather and shield), Hit Dice 1, average hit points 4.5,THAC0 19, damage 1-6 (as a weapon in other words), average damage 3.5 per hit. True their morale is better than baseline (and worse than baseline without a leader), and they have both infravision and daylight penalties, but for the most part they are the equivalent of a 1st level fighter with 9-12 in all categories (including strength and constitution).

[the normal human described in the Basic set is the equivalent of what Conan would sneeringly refer to as a “civilized man”]

With orcs as a baseline, one can put the other humanoids in their proper pecking order of humanoid tool users:

- Kobolds (average hit points 2.5, THAC0 19, average damage 2.5 due to general “shrimpiness”).

- Goblins (average hit points 3.625, THAC0 19, average damage 3.5…equivalent to a 1st level fighter with a CON of 6-8).

- Orcs (as stated: equivalent of the average human 1st level fighter)

- Hobgoblins (average hit points 5.5, THAC0 18, average damage 4.5. Gygax’s version of Tolkien’s Uruk-Hai, these are the equivalent of fighters with STR and CON of 13-15).

- Gnolls (average hit points 9, THAC0 18, average damage 5…equivalent to a 2nd level fighter with a STR of 13-15).

- Bugbears (average hit points 14.5, THAC0 16, average damage 5…equivalent to a “goblin hero,” a 4th level fighter with a CON of 6-8 with a STR of 13-15).

- Ogres (average hit points 19, THAC0 15, average damage 5.5…equivalent to a 4th level fighter with a STR of 16-17).

- Minotaur (average hit points 27, THAC0 14, average damage (with weapon) 5.5…equivalent to a 6th level fighter with a STR of 16-17 and a +1 attack bonus, perhaps due to ferocity).


Okay, great…so why do I bother writing all this up? Aside from the “fun of it,” this is just the set-up for my post on SHIELDS.

***EDIT: I realize that Hit Dice originally come from Chainmail (like ogres being worth four men "+1"), a game system I still haven't managed to acquire. Please forgive my reflections from a B/X-centric perspective.***