Making Common not automatic

[gadren]

For my next campaign, I was thinking of making it so that Common is an automatic language for PCs only. There are a fair number of NPCs that learn it (pretty much every merchant would), but if you wanted to converse with most common folk of various locations, someone in the party either needs to know their language, or have some other form of interpretation on hand.

Has anyone done this in a campaign before? Anyone think this is a terrible idea?

[Arcanist]

Treat Common as a trade language. Once you do that, you can determine whether a particular NPCs business or goals require them to speak Common. For example? Orc barbarian warlord? Orcish is enough for them. Goblin merchant? Common is perfectly fine for them to know and I imagine business would be excessively difficult for them to operate without.

[nedz]

Why would Common be automatic for PCs but not NPCs ? You could have an illiterate Barbarian, a Wood Elf from the deep forest, or a Dwarf who has never left their home mine before.

Also, I have different languages for different regions of my setting. The folks who live in one region may refer to their language as Common but it isn't really. If the party travel, and lets face it most do, then they need to hire interpreters or have some other means of communication. Now this is different to the idea you proposed, but the outcome is similar. I've never found it to be an issue - it just adds more flavour.

[Requiem_Jeer]

In our campaigns, common is a trade language... which means it's actually pretty simple and basic, and no one likes using it, avoiding doing so whenever possible.

[Troacctid]

It's a good way to get your players to learn Tongues.

[gadren]

Why would Common be automatic for PCs but not NPCs ? You could have an illiterate Barbarian, a Wood Elf from the deep forest, or a Dwarf who has never left their home mine before.

Because a party where people don't speak the same language is a pain in the rear. It works great for a story (like in Stand Still Stay Silent), but in practice at a table that is one headache I don't want. Also, what does illiteracy have to do with what languages someone can speak?

[Arcanist]

It's a good way to get your players to learn Tongues.

Smatterings from RoD is also pretty good for this sort of thing. Heck, this idea kind of makes me want to play an Archivist with ranks in Profession (Linguist)... I can see it all:


http://49.media.tumblr.com/fa98a321ff41cfb2c5fc908be2659ce3/tumblr_mqp7geNhGM1s2589qo1_400.gif


I specialize in gibberish.

[gadren]

It's a good way to get your players to learn Tongues.

Well at least then it'd merit the 3rd level spell slot.

[SangoProduction]

Why would Common be automatic for PCs but not NPCs ? You could have an illiterate Barbarian, a Wood Elf from the deep forest, or a Dwarf who has never left their home mine before.

Also, I have different languages for different regions of my setting. The folks who live in one region may refer to their language as Common but it isn't really. If the party travel, and lets face it most do, then they need to hire interpreters or have some other means of communication. Now this is different to the idea you proposed, but the outcome is similar. I've never found it to be an issue - it just adds more flavour.

Because the party has to communicate some how. Thus, it is implied that they did not sit in their home all day, neglecting the world (and yet have super amazing strength or magical ability far beyond that of a common person).

[Crake]

That's almost exactly what I do with the exception that common is automatic for players. It is instead replaced with the local language of whatever the player's home/starting region is, or, for creatures with racial languages for their homeland (like elves) then it's instead replaced with the starting region (if it's the elven lands, then tough luck, no ball).

This is the excerpt from my languages section from my campaign document for players


The races of Madius all have their own languages as is the case in most campaign settings, however the biggest change comes to the Common language. It is referred to as Common, not because it is commonly used, but rather because it is a universal language, a common language between nations. Roughly only 25% of the world's population in the civilized nations speak Common, and it is not a default starting language for players, though it is open to all as a bonus language. The default starting language is the regional language of the area you start in.

[Milo v3]

I do this in all my settings, hell in some settings I do it and split each language into multiple different languages.

[nedz]

Because a party where people don't speak the same language is a pain in the rear. It works great for a story (like in Stand Still Stay Silent), but in practice at a table that is one headache I don't want. Also, what does illiteracy have to do with what languages someone can speak?

I have a PC in one group who started off not speaking Common. It was excellent RP for him to attempt to communicate with the party. He picked up the language by about level 3.

[DrMartin]

Because a party where people don't speak the same language is a pain in the rear. It works great for a story (like in Stand Still Stay Silent), but in practice at a table that is one headache I don't want. Also, what does illiteracy have to do with what languages someone can speak?

it depends on your players. I usually go this route, with common not being an automatic language even for PCs, and we usually end up with one or more players not being able to communicate with each other beyond basic concepts. If i judge that the players can keep up with it and have fun while doing it, i stick with playing the language barrier (it does not last beyond the first few levels anyway). If i see it becoming a source of frustration i silently hand-wave it away

[Âmesang]

This reminds me of wanting to play as an Oriental Adventures-styled samurai who's primary tongue was Rokugani—the "Common" of his homeland; but in foreign lands he'd either have to pantomime or, depending on Intelligence, speak via another worldly tongue like Draconic or Celestial or some such thing… until he purchased the ranks for Speak Language (Flanaess/Faerûn/Krynn/Khorvaire Common).

[Red Fel]

Because a party where people don't speak the same language is a pain in the rear. It works great for a story (like in Stand Still Stay Silent), but in practice at a table that is one headache I don't want.

This makes sense from a metagame perspective - it allows the party to speak to each other. But it only works from a narrative perspective if the party is all from the same area, or grew up together. Like if they're all childhood friends and developed their own private language, I could get that. But if, as Nedz points out, you have a Dwarf who never before left the mountains, an Elf from deep in the forest, and a Barbarian who grew up in the wilds, how would they all speak the same language, particularly when nobody else speaks it? How would they have learned it? How would they have thought to check if other people (i.e. the PCs) knew it, when nobody does? Are they part of a secret society that uses it as a form of communication?

It makes sense if they're all from a place where it's spoken, or if they invented it themselves. But using it as a matter of DM fiat - "Okay, you all speak the same language, but if you want to talk to anybody else you need to invest in their language," - it makes no narrative sense.

I'd suggest using it as a trade language, as others have suggested. That way it's appropriate for some people to know it, but not others, unless they invest in it.

[HalfQuart]

The campaign that I play in now is like this -- there are (I think) 8 regional languages that Humans speak and no "Common", plus all the normal racial languages. There are two characters in our 5-member party that don't have a common language. There are two other characters that know both of the languages that they speak, so we just have to make sure one of them is with the other two if they're together... beyond that we mostly hand-wave the difference and assume that simple in-combat communication can be understood, since they've been working together so long and can anticipate what the other wants, and other stuff just gets translated back and forth. It does occasionally come up if we're in some sort of situation where taking the time to translate a complicated exchange is impractical, but so far that has just made things more interesting than annoying.

[Tiktakkat]

Has anyone done this in a campaign before?

Constantly.


Anyone think this is a terrible idea?

Only if you go overboard with it.
If every new settlement requires a new language, things will get out of hand rapidly.
If a new language gets used once and then disappears, players will get irked at the waste.
But if the players only hit a new language region every 3 or 4 levels it shouldn't be that much of an issue.

As for mentions of language splits causing play difficulties, my players have been more likely to find a second language they all speak as a cheap version of telepathy during negotiations or combat.

[Lhurgyof]

Dark Sun did this. Every city state has its own language and trade is the common tongue.

[Darth Ultron]

Has anyone done this in a campaign before? Anyone think this is a terrible idea?

Bad idea.

First it does waste a huge amount of time saying things like ''I tell the interpreter to tell the guy hello'', and you will pretty quickly fall into ''oh, yea this is all being interpreted by a guy, but lets just talk normal''.

Second, the whole not being able to speak to people ruins any chance of role play.

Third, most players tire of jumping through hoops quickly, so they will just stop speaking and role playing.

[Arutema]

I'm about to do something like this. The PCs will all be aliens who were abducted by silver mount's crew and placed into stasis before the rain of stars. When they wake from stasis on Golarion, they'll have to spend some time finding a way to learn a local language.

[gadren]

It's worth noting (since many have brought it up) I was also planning on doing a handful of regional languages and nixing all the racial languages (ie, elves don't speak elven, they speak the language of their area)

[Arcanist]

Dark Sun did this. Every city state has its own language and trade is the common tongue.

If memory serves, Common in Dark Sun was essentially just pictographs of what you wanted to talk about and numbers. It was annoying to verbally communicate, but rather easy to visually communicate what you were looking for so that might explain its nature as a trade language.

You can also mix languages with the alphabets of other languages. For example in the FR, the Netherese language of Loross uses the Draconic script as its basis (as do all languages descended from Netherese such as Halruaan). You could mix up the languages of the Dwarves by fusing some of the alphabet and grammatical rules with Undercommon or Terran if they live underground or something.

[AMFV]

For my next campaign, I was thinking of making it so that Common is an automatic language for PCs only. There are a fair number of NPCs that learn it (pretty much every merchant would), but if you wanted to converse with most common folk of various locations, someone in the party either needs to know their language, or have some other form of interpretation on hand.

Has anyone done this in a campaign before? Anyone think this is a terrible idea?

I've never tried it, I don't think it would be that bad an idea. Honestly if you're going to do it, go all the way. Don't even make it automatic for players. I mean with the way that bonus languages work, it's likely that almost all players will have at least one language in common, and that could make for some interesting roleplay.

[Venger]

For my next campaign, I was thinking of making it so that Common is an automatic language for PCs only. There are a fair number of NPCs that learn it (pretty much every merchant would), but if you wanted to converse with most common folk of various locations, someone in the party either needs to know their language, or have some other form of interpretation on hand.

Has anyone done this in a campaign before? Anyone think this is a terrible idea?
What is your goal in doing this? What are you trying to accomplish? What deficiency do you see in the default rules that this houserule will change?

These are good questions to ask for any house rule. Everyone's answers are different, so I can't know what yours will be, but it's a good way to hash out your aims.

Yes, it's been done before. It's just more busy work for your players. As has been mentioned already, it's easily obviated with comprehend languages, tongues, telepathy, etc. If that's the case, why do it at all? What is it adding to the game?

The goal with any rule change should be to make the game more fun and my experience with this houserule has been that it does the opposite. If you block ways of people getting languages easily and playing the game normally, then all you're doing is preventing them from advancing the story. As mentioned earlier, if you don't let them talk to people, it'll teach them not to roleplay, and that's probably not your goal.


Bad idea.

First it does waste a huge amount of time saying things like ''I tell the interpreter to tell the guy hello'', and you will pretty quickly fall into ''oh, yea this is all being interpreted by a guy, but lets just talk normal''.

Second, the whole not being able to speak to people ruins any chance of role play.

Third, most players tire of jumping through hoops quickly, so they will just stop speaking and role playing.
This is a good overview of the reasons this isn't a good idea.

[nedz]

Bad idea.

First it does waste a huge amount of time saying things like ''I tell the interpreter to tell the guy hello'', and you will pretty quickly fall into ''oh, yea this is all being interpreted by a guy, but lets just talk normal''.

Second, the whole not being able to speak to people ruins any chance of role play.

Third, most players tire of jumping through hoops quickly, so they will just stop speaking and role playing.

The way I've normally run this in the past, it's not a frequent occurrence, is to run through an interpreter whilst it's fun and then hand wave the whole thing. The fun often lasts for about six sentences - though this does depend upon the group.