Party Cant?

[jjordan]

I've been coming down on the players for out of character chatter. I'm fine with a little of that but discussing tactics for interrogating a prisoner while he's right there.... Anyway, one of the players came up with the idea of using their own coded speech. Rather than Thieves' Cant it would be a cant known only to the party. I'm tempted to make them actually create and use something but....

So I'm curious about how people might represent this mechanically. I'm thinking that IF I allow this then I'm going to make them speak in sentences of no more than 3 words and it will be obvious to observers that they are using coded communications. Observers will still be able to make insight checks to see if they can understand the general content/tone of the conversation. The DC will start at 16 and go down the longer the observer is able to watch and listen. If they want to use code phrases in a language to communicate then I'll make them actually do that.

[saucerhead]

I understand your reasons about shutting down chatter, (especially since my game went on discord) but are you saying the players will be talking in character with cant?
I don't see that lasting long so I wouldn't over think it. I can't imagine sitting through half and hour of pig-latin, let alone a large part of a session, and that probably would not reduce chatter at all.

[jjordan]

I understand your reasons about shutting down chatter, (especially since my game went on discord) but are you saying the players will be talking in character with cant?
I don't see that lasting long so I wouldn't over think it. I can't imagine sitting through half and hour of pig-latin, let alone a large part of a session, and that probably would not reduce chatter at all.
Me: You realize you're having this discussion right in front of the prisoner, right? He hears everything you're saying.
Them: Wait, what? We're planning.
Me: Planning is done beforehand. You're having a conversation about interrogation tactics.
Them: Out of character.
Me: No, this kind of communication is done in character.
Them: What if we made our own Thieves' Cant for the party? We could talk using that and no one would know what we are saying.

Basically, they're trying to find a way to preserve their out of character chatter about game matters, such as how to best lie to the guard standing right in front of them. I could just say no but I always try to accommodate reasonable requests. I am trying to limit this a little by saying they have to communicate in three word sentences and giving observers the opportunity to gleam some information about the discussion.

As to how long this will last... I honestly don't know. I'd guess it won't last long but I've been wrong before.

[Gallowglass]

Me: You realize you're having this discussion right in front of the prisoner, right? He hears everything you're saying.
Them: Wait, what? We're planning.
Me: Planning is done beforehand. You're having a conversation about interrogation tactics.
Them: Out of character.
Me: No, this kind of communication is done in character.
Them: What if we made our own Thieves' Cant for the party? We could talk using that and no one would know what we are saying.

Basically, they're trying to find a way to preserve their out of character chatter about game matters, such as how to best lie to the guard standing right in front of them. I could just say no but I always try to accommodate reasonable requests. I am trying to limit this a little by saying they have to communicate in three word sentences and giving observers the opportunity to gleam some information about the discussion.

As to how long this will last... I honestly don't know. I'd guess it won't last long but I've been wrong before.

Just out of curiosity, if the entire party were to agree to spend one skill point each at next level in Speak Language and pick up some really obscure language like "Grimlock", "Vegepygmy", or "Hooked Horror" that there would absolutely be no reasonable excuse for any of their enemies to happen to know, would you make them concoct a vocabulary and speak in fake grimlock?

If not, then don't make them jump through a ridiculous hoop to concoct a "party cant". Just make them each spend 1 skill point to pick up an obscure language to use for party communications.

I'm not a big fan of what you are doing anyway. The players are not the characters. The characters are usually smarter and more competent than the players could ever be. There's things they can effectively communicate in game that get abstracted out. So the in-person chatter represents that. They represent things like character A standing behind the prisoner and out of ear shot and making hand motions or eye motions to indicate an idea effectively to character B. Like two characters falling back for a quick whispered aside while character C shouts at the prisoner to keep him from overhearing it. Allowing them some in person chatter doesn't make the game less fun, it makes the game more fun because now they get to work together and interact. I'm never fond of any rule that makes the game less fun.

[Tzardok]

Just out of curiosity, if the entire party were to agree to spend one skill point each at next level in Speak Language and pick up some really obscure language like "Grimlock" that there would absolutely be no reasonable excuse for any of their enemies to happen to know, would you make them concoct a vocabulary and speak in fake grimlock?

If not, then don't make them jump through a ridiculous hoop to concoct a "party cant". Just make them each spend 1 skill point to pick up an obscure language to use for party communications.

He's playing 5e. They don't have skill points or Speak Language as a skill there.

[Gallowglass]

He's playing 5e. They don't have skill points or Speak Language as a skill there.

Ah. How to people get new languages in 5E? they don't? Never mind. I looked it up. 250 days and 250 gp huh? welp. they were probably going to need to do that to make "party cant" anyway.

[Argis13]

Hmm... if it were up to me, I'd make them spend some downtime on it, but allow it. Maybe a month base, some expenditure (Books, language tutors, ect.) if none of the characters have a reason to know how to make a language that is functional, or how to teach a language, and a few INT rolls to learn it, and a bonus to those rolls if one of them actually comes to the session with the outlines of a language made.

Failure on the rolls means that they need to spend more time and money until they get a fixed number of successes per party member. Party members that have learned the language can give advantage to those with lower INT scores who are struggling.

And that's for a simple language designed to only communicate basic tactics. This is the Roll Player option.

Alternatively, they could go find a group of people and learn their obscure language, like Giant Elk (MM325) over maybe two or three months, if they can convince this insular group of people to accept outsiders. This is the Role Player option.

I would let the players do it- the world is designed for their fun, after all, and it doesn't give them any outrageous advantage, and it could make for a fun little sidequest if you fleshed out things like "how do we keep our tutors honest" or "how do we even find the giant elk" or "how far are we willing to go to secure this minor advantage" (Answer: Sunk Cost Fallacy will keep them going all the way). It's a way for the players to engage with your world.

[Gallowglass]

Hmm... if it were up to me, I'd make them spend some downtime on it, but allow it. Maybe a month base, some expenditure (Books, language tutors, ect.) if none of the characters have a reason to know how to make a language that is functional, or how to teach a language, and a few INT rolls to learn it, and a bonus to those rolls if one of them actually comes to the session with the outlines of a language made.

Failure on the rolls means that they need to spend more time and money until they get a fixed number of successes per party member. Party members that have learned the language can give advantage to those with lower INT scores who are struggling.

And that's for a simple language designed to only communicate basic tactics. This is the Roll Player option.

Alternatively, they could go find a group of people and learn their obscure language, like Giant Elk (MM325) over maybe two or three months, if they can convince this insular group of people to accept outsiders. This is the Role Player option.

I would let the players do it- the world is designed for their fun, after all, and it doesn't give them any outrageous advantage, and it could make for a fun little sidequest if you fleshed out things like "how do we keep our tutors honest" or "how do we even find the giant elk" or "how far are we willing to go to secure this minor advantage" (Answer: Sunk Cost Fallacy will keep them going all the way). It's a way for the players to engage with your world.

I vote for this, just because I want to see the party emotively discussing things in elk-like moans in front of a tied up prisoner.

Fighter: "ERRrruuungh-Errungggha"
Cleric: "RrruMngkh-ErrUUUnggh-Grrruuunnnukah"
Prisoner: "What the **** is wrong with you people?"
Fighter: "RRRummmngguhuk!"

[LibraryOgre]

Many years ago, Knights of the Dinner Table (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/116668/KoDT-Tales-from-the-Vault-vol-1?affiliate_id=315505) had a few issues where "Player Advantage Codes" were a thing... the GM was cutting down on table talk, so the group got together and wrote some codes for common strategies and information they needed to pass on. I don't remember most of them, but one for in-game use was "chunky salsa" which meant "Screw the blowback damage, throw a fireball at those guys... and shove the NPC in there, too", and one for player information was "pink frosting" which meant "let's have a conference away from the GM".

I know there was a metagame one for "I am being mind controlled/replaced by a doppleganger".

While some of them got metagamey, I actually like this solution for parties to discuss strategy in combat. If I say "cheese weasel!" and my party knows that means "I am going to shove my opponent back", my party knows my plan, and can support it (maybe getting in position), but the opposition doesn't know what that means.

[Maat Mons]

Why wouldn't they have one person keep an eye on the prisoner while the others get into a huddle?

https://images2.imgbox.com/60/39/3MBjGeuY_o.jpg
"Alright, the dungeoneer's pack includes a crowbar, a hammer, and rope. The thieves' tools include scissors and pliers..."

Actually, just go ahead and have that conversation in front of the prisoner. It can only help.

[nickl_2000]

I vote for this, just because I want to see the party emotively discussing things in elk-like moans in front of a tied up prisoner.

Fighter: "ERRrruuungh-Errungggha"
Cleric: "RrruMngkh-ErrUUUnggh-Grrruuunnnukah"
Prisoner: "What the **** is wrong with you people?"
Fighter: "RRRummmngguhuk!"

I feel like this would give advantage on an intimidation check.

Prisoner: I have no idea what the heck these people are doing. They are clearly completely nuts, and whatever they threaten they will likely do to me, and worse@

[Aliess]

In that situation we usual have the dm just chip in with "I assume you've stepped outside to have this conversation?"
Having a party cant sounds fun if, as mentioned above, it's being used to talk in real time in front of opponents without them understanding.
If it's being used so the players can have oc planning conversations and hoping the NPCs don't react I'd avoid it. You just need to decide as a table what level of oc conversation is acceptable for you (and no one answer is correct).
If everybody's going to take it then I probably wouldn't charge the PCs for the skill, but just make them roleplay up learning/using it a bit.

[Tzardok]

Why wouldn't they have one person keep an eye on the prisoner while the others get into a huddle?

https://images2.imgbox.com/60/39/3MBjGeuY_o.jpg
"Alright, the dungeoneer's pack includes a crowbar, a hammer, and rope. The thieves' tools include scissors and pliers..."

Actually, just go ahead and have that conversation in front of the prisoner. It can only help.

Where's that image from?

[MoiMagnus]

How this would go at our table:

Me: You realize you're having this discussion right in front of the prisoner, right? He hears everything you're saying.
Them: Wait, what? We're planning.
Me: Planning is done beforehand. You're having a conversation about interrogation tactics.
Them: We're obviously doing it before entering the interrogation room. This is an out-of-character sum up of what our characters likely exchanged during the few hours that preceded this talk.

Our table convention is that all the planing session are skipped when playing, and made a posteriori when needed.
(The GM might object in situations where we did not have the time for a short rest to actually plan, or when the situation was not predictable)
This preserve the pacing. There is nothing more annoying that having to take a break before each and every social encounter, with an awkward silence when someone ask "so, what's our plan here?", followed by the players asking for the GM to describe what is about to happen (who will likely be there, etc), which will be redundant with the description at the beginning of the next scene. Not counting the IRL time lost at planning for things that end up fully unnecessary because the GM was planning for a the person to trigger a bomb or something.

[Draconi Redfir]

why not just let them talk out of character?

[jjordan]

why not just let them talk out of character?Easiest option, right? But they were coordinating complex character actions and it was becoming very metagamey. I'm okay with a certain amount of that but they've been exceeding my comfort level on a regular basis. When I talked with them about it they proposed this solution and I'm trying to accommodate.

[Gallowglass]

Easiest option, right? But they were coordinating complex character actions and it was becoming very metagamey. I'm okay with a certain amount of that but they've been exceeding my comfort level on a regular basis. When I talked with them about it they proposed this solution and I'm trying to accommodate.

Sounds like you may need to work on expanding your comfort level to keep a happy game table.

[Maat Mons]

Google says the image I used is from something called "School-Live!" I've never seen it. I was just doing search for "huddle," and settled on that one as the most striking juxtaposition for people planning on doing terrible things to someone.

[Cicciograna]

Consider the party cant as a new language, then use the XGE rules for training for your players to learn it, or if you prefer, the ones in the PHB.

Since it's a language that they are inventing, maybe you can reduce the standard amount of time required to learn it, and then apply the normal reduction for the Intelligence modifier. Maybe also remove the gp cost, since they are not actually paying anybody to do it, or reduce them if you want, to simulate access to, dunno, other manuals and different languages grammars to take inspiration for their own cant.

After their characters have mastered the cant, have them speak normally but come up with some visual sign, like talking with a raised closed fist, to signal that they are using the cant.

[clash]

I'm my home games this is generally where telepathy comes into play. I almost always have a player that takes telepathic bond or lower level substitute specifically to enable this kind of thing. They even used a hand gesture where they point at their head while speaking to indicate it is telepathic communication.

[quinron]

I'm not a big fan of what you are doing anyway. The players are not the characters. The characters are usually smarter and more competent than the players could ever be. There's things they can effectively communicate in game that get abstracted out. So the in-person chatter represents that. They represent things like character A standing behind the prisoner and out of ear shot and making hand motions or eye motions to indicate an idea effectively to character B. Like two characters falling back for a quick whispered aside while character C shouts at the prisoner to keep him from overhearing it. Allowing them some in person chatter doesn't make the game less fun, it makes the game more fun because now they get to work together and interact. I'm never fond of any rule that makes the game less fun.

If something comes up that the characters are no more aware of than the players, I don't think it's unfair or unreasonable to consider the players' interactions as fundamentally reflecting the characters'. For things like waving signals or having conversations away from NPCs, it's very easy for the players to actually say that they're doing that stuff before starting to discuss things.

jjordan, I'd say go with your gut. It doesn't sound like you actually want to allow this; your tone feels very begrudging and like you feel you should allow this despite not wanting to. If the players want to learn some obscure language like Ignan or Gnoll or something (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0384.html), there are feats and training mechanics for those. But if you just tell them you want them to let you know when they want to have a conversation that the NPCs don't hear, they'll eventually start telling you before they start talking. Give them a little leeway at first and, as Aliess suggested, ask them when they start discussing something sensitive whether they want it to be overheard; just don't try to pull a "gotcha" and you should be fine.

[Zanos]

Is there any particular reason that the characters couldn't be having the discussion, in character, out of earshot of the prisoner?

I've had some issues with players strategizing on social situations literally as they are occurring. You can't exactly talk about how to butter up a noble right in front of him, nor can you pause the conversation to confer. But I don't see a particular reason that the characters couldn't just briefly step away to collaborate in this scenario. The prisoner isn't going anywhere, most likely.

Anyway, there's two ways to handle this. If they want to be able to say basically anything in their codetalk I'd treat it as a separate language, and handle it however you normally would from there. Presumably you do not make your players learn elven to play a character who speaks elven. If they just want to prep a dozen codephrases, they'll have to remember them, but I wouldn't say they'd need to learn a whole new language. If they just uses the codephrases someone could probably pretty easily pick up that they are using some kind of code, but just hearing 'pink flamingo' out of the blue isn't going to give you any insight into what it means, only that it's masking some other meaning. You could increase the insight check DC to determine codespeak is being used depending on how naturally its mixed into conversation. But no amount of insight is going to tell you that 'pink flamingo' means 'gank their wizard' until their wizard is actually being ganked.

[LudicSavant]

Me: You realize you're having this discussion right in front of the prisoner, right? He hears everything you're saying.
Them: Wait, what? We're planning.
Me: Planning is done beforehand. You're having a conversation about interrogation tactics.
Them: Out of character.
Me: No, this kind of communication is done in character.
Them: What if we made our own Thieves' Cant for the party? We could talk using that and no one would know what we are saying.

Basically, they're trying to find a way to preserve their out of character chatter about game matters, such as how to best lie to the guard standing right in front of them. I could just say no but I always try to accommodate reasonable requests. I am trying to limit this a little by saying they have to communicate in three word sentences and giving observers the opportunity to gleam some information about the discussion.

As to how long this will last... I honestly don't know. I'd guess it won't last long but I've been wrong before.

I usually solve this problem for my parties using magic. One of the best ways is the Rary's Telepathic Bond ritual, but there are other ways available from level 1.

Another possibility is, instead of going through the hassle of inventing their own language, they could all choose to learn an obscure language. This way you can retain full depth of language without having an actual linguist in the party develop a whole language for you. With the only cost being that there's a low chance that someone else will know it.

In fact... some real wartime codes were based around taking advantage of obscure languages.


Why wouldn't they have one person keep an eye on the prisoner while the others get into a huddle?

https://images2.imgbox.com/60/39/3MBjGeuY_o.jpg
"Alright, the dungeoneer's pack includes a crowbar, a hammer, and rope. The thieves' tools include scissors and pliers..."

Actually, just go ahead and have that conversation in front of the prisoner. It can only help.

I know you're joking, but it's worth noting that evidence suggests torture hurts your chances of getting useful information out of someone. Worth noting because there are a lot of people who, tragically, don't know this... in part because people writing fiction keep showing us fictional counterexamples.

If anything, resorting to any kind of torture in your interrogation could very realistically give you a penalty.

[jjordan]

I've had some issues with players strategizing on social situations literally as they are occurring. You can't exactly talk about how to butter up a noble right in front of him, nor can you pause the conversation to confer.
This. Exactly this. And taking two sessions to break the Druid of the habit of casting Guidance on the party spokesperson right in front of the person they're trying to convince of something.

If the players want to learn an obscure language or create a fully functional private language then 250 days and 250gp per player and they can tell me they're chattering away in secret in front of whoever.

If they want to step off to one side and confer out of earshot of whomever, then go for it.

If they want to have an excessive amount of side chatter conversation then I'm going to check on what language they are using and give the mark/prisoner/guard/victim a chance to understand/overhear what they are saying. They can stop abusing the side chatter limits if they don't want to be overheard.

If they want to make code phrases they can use then I say go for it, that's on them and I don't need to be involved.

If they want to try and sidestep some of the requirements (250days and 250gp) then I'm going to make them actually speak in truncated sentences to reflect the limited abilities of their cant. Not my preferred solution and I suspect it will not end up being their preferred solution either. I'm fine with accommodating this and I've had NPCs use this solution in other games.

[Herbert_W]

Where's that image from?

School Live, specifically the anime adaptation. It's a good series with a twist that I won't spoil, which is unfortunately difficult to discuss without spoiling the twist. I'd recommend that you just watch it.

Then think carefully about whether you want to show it to your DM. The twist might give them ideas.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm reminded of Ghostbusters, where Venkman is talking to the hotel manager, and Spangler is subtly telling him how much to charge.

[quinron]

This. Exactly this. And taking two sessions to break the Druid of the habit of casting Guidance on the party spokesperson right in front of the person they're trying to convince of something.

If the players want to learn an obscure language or create a fully functional private language then 250 days and 250gp per player and they can tell me they're chattering away in secret in front of whoever.

If they want to step off to one side and confer out of earshot of whomever, then go for it.

If they want to have an excessive amount of side chatter conversation then I'm going to check on what language they are using and give the mark/prisoner/guard/victim a chance to understand/overhear what they are saying. They can stop abusing the side chatter limits if they don't want to be overheard.

If they want to make code phrases they can use then I say go for it, that's on them and I don't need to be involved.

If they want to try and sidestep some of the requirements (250days and 250gp) then I'm going to make them actually speak in truncated sentences to reflect the limited abilities of their cant. Not my preferred solution and I suspect it will not end up being their preferred solution either. I'm fine with accommodating this and I've had NPCs use this solution in other games.

Also keep in mind that if a group of people who seem to know each other stop talking to you in a language you can understand and start talking to each other in a language you don't, even that is usually enough to put someone on edge. Given your concern is over group chat/table talk not having in-game consequences when you feel it should, I think it's probably worth pointing out to the players that even a secret, party-only language isn't quite the magic bullet they seem to be looking for.

[jjordan]

Thank you all for the discussion and suggestions. I appreciate them all. Yes, even the suggestion that I need to suck it up and just let the players talk. Because sometimes the problem is the DM.

[Osuniev]

The Linguist feat does something similar that what your party wants, but written.

In my previous campaign, the Linguist of the group invented their own language and taught it to the party, who used it to their advantage. They had designed it so it sounded like unrelated stuff, like "would you like a glass of water ?" meant "should we trust them", "there's a rock in my shoe", meant "let's kill them", etc. Sometimes they would roleplay the language (they used names of vegetables for the precious artifacts they collected), and sometimes they'd just say ""I speak in Pain Perdu. So, what do we do ?"

[Slipjig]

Have the players come up with what their code actually is, and not tell you. Then have them actually use it. If you can figure it out, NPCs (or at least smart NPCs) probably can too.

It's totally appropriate for a group that trains together to have their own shorthand for "calling plays" both in combat or negotiations where retreating to the next room to hash out your plan isn't an option.

I wouldn't let them have complicated strategy discussions OOC, though, unless they are discussing clearly metagame things like what options they'll take next time they level up.

[Angelalex242]

Well, that depends. If the PCs are having a discussion on how to cold blooded torture the captive right in front of the captive, that's grounds for 'everybody roll intimidate...'

[Ionathus]

I once tried to develop a code as a player for in-combat tactics. It saw use exactly once, and then nobody could remember any of it.

I wanted to encourage it as a DM in my own campaign, though, and my approach was very simple, perhaps too simple:

"I will give you Advantage when you act on in-the-moment tactics spoken in code, as long as it would surprise me if I had the same information."

They could all speak in Elvish if the target doesn't know it, they could reference previous fights, they could use code. It's really open, but it has to have at least a tiny bit of obfuscation.

Of course, that's a very hazy definition and requires a lot of faith in the DM's goodwill, but I found it's better to keep it simple than devise an entire thing around it. Nobody but Tolkien and the Esperanto guy wants to sit around inventing languages.

[rel]

So, there are two good reasons to generally give the PC's leeway for extensive OOC chatter.

Firstly, the PC's probably know one another very well, have known each other for years, have overcome life threatening challenges together, have camped out in the hostile wilds as a group for weeks and months and have spent days in each others company. They have probably discussed every conceivable common (and most uncommon) adventuring scenario at length and are very good at cooperating together.

The players by contrast are playing these characters for a couple of hours a month and only see a sliver of the world their characters see through the brief descriptions of the GM.

As such OOC chatter is all but required to allow the players to accurately portray their characters.


Secondly, cracking down on OOC talk and the like encourages degenerate behaviors like planning things where the GM can't hear and interfere, establishing OOC codes and flat out not telling the GM about them, engaging in long IC planning sessions during which the GM has no interaction and simply sits around bored and so on.