Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Language Question
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Hey everyone,

I'm playing a Human Sioux Wildcat Physical Adept and I have the following language skills:

Sioux: 3
Sioux Sign Language: 2
English: 2

My question is, what does a 2 in English really stand for? How should I roleplay basic interaction between this character and other who speak native English? The book says that simple ideas are understood, but complex ones cause trouble. Does this mean I should pretend to not know what they are talking about sometimes or what?

I just like keeping in character and playing them as their stats dictate... thanks for any ideas you guys have
You took it in high school, basically. You can speak about things with which you are familiar, but don't understand enough to work out from context when you aren't familiar with it.
You'll be saying "slow down" a lot when talking about unusual things, and you will have to describe technical things since you won't know the words for them.

That said, you do know enough to usually notice when you don't understand what's being said.
Does this mean I should pretend to not know what they are talking about sometimes or what?

Pretty much. Particularly anything complex or subtle. As for how it affects the game, having another PC explain something complicated to you, or you explain it to them, should take longer. Because it's a friendly environment, one would imagine that you'd take the time to make sure each side understood. In a situation where time is an issue, or where you're trying to hide your difficulties (say, if you're talking to an NPC), or where you can't ask clarifying questions (overhearing something), the GM should periodically make a check and possibly give you misleading information, which you may or may not know you're misunderstanding.

Consider that "he'll delete the file" and "he deleted the file" contain the same root words as each other, sound similair, but mean different things.

Your GM should do most of the heavy lifting on this one, though throwing in a few, "I'm not sure I understand" would be a good effort towards roleplaying. Just don't go overboard, there's a difference between roleplaying your character's faults and making every conversation all about them.
Considering that a 2 is only slightly below average, you would probably be able to get most things done. You probably have a noticable accent and can understand a lot better than you can communicate. I'm guessing from your number of language skills that your guy is fairly bright, so he could probably get most things from context. This is probably high school ESL+a semester or two of college level english, or possibly four years of highschool ESL that were actually worthwhile. You'd mostly just have trouble with the subtleties mentioned before.
I'd let him handle just about everything except technical jargon for which he has no applicable knowledge skill. For instance, I have a spanish skill IRL of about a 1-2 (HS + 2 Semesters of college), and a structural engineering skill of 5 (per canon). I have experienced that I can communicate engineering concepts in Spanish due to my familiarity with the jargon in English better than I can for Computers (skill 0).
I've houseruled it, so opinions may vary, but generally I've taken the skill rating and doubled it, then compared it to the TNs for language listed in the language skill use section to get an idea of what your 'day-to-day' conversational abilities are. So in the above case, with a skill 2 in english, that turns into a 4, which we see is the TN for "basic conversation/concerns of daily life". For your skill 3 Sioux, that'd be a 6, the TN for "Complex subjects, special/limited interest topics".
Here's how I've thought of it.

1- You've heard the language a bit, and can piece together a few basic scentances... perhaps you studied it for a year in high school. You can ask where the bathroom is, and get directions, but you can't speak on technical subjects, and often have to ask people to repeat things.

2- You've actively studied the language, perhaps for all of high school. You can speak relatively well, though your vocabulary may be imperfect, and you have a heavy accent. You still have to ask people to slow down when they speak, and unfamiliar subjects can confuse you.

3- Either you've spoken the language your whole life, but never took appropriate classes in it, or you've studied it a good bit but haven't used it enough. You have a noticeable accent, and may have trouble with technical areas, but you do speak the language, and can converse easily on most subjects. You're not eliquent though, and no one could confuse you for a great orator. This is the average level for poorly educated types to speak their native language, or for relatively well educated types to speak a foriegn language.

4- You're fluent in the language. You speak it regularly, and can maintain gramatical correctness. You're not the most elequent speaker, but you can understand other speakers of the language quite well, and speak with a bit of class. You could probably give a decent speach, and sound educated when you speak. You might still have trouble speaking about unfamiliar technical subjects, but that's only due to small vocabulary problems. This is the average level of speach for native speakers who've been through high school, and perhaps college (though not majoring in linguistics).

5- You're a very good speaker. You have no trouble understanding Shakespeare. Perhaps you've studied the language in college, in addition to speaking it regularly in life... at any rate, you're notably eloquent, and easily able to communicate using metaphore and other complex forms of speach. You sound like you have class. You have little or no decernable foreign accent, and perhaps you can fake other accents as well. You're most likely from a well to do family, and perhaps dable in writing or poetry.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012