Local languages

[Greywander]

5e likes to be rather broad when it comes to languages. Most races have their own racial language that is somehow spoken by every single member of their race, humans don't even have a racial language, and everyone speaks Common. If I wanted to move towards incorporating more localized languages, with each kingdom having their own local language, e.g. fantasy English, fantasy French, fantasy Spanish, what changes would you make as far as starting languages are concerned? It makes sense to retain something like Common as a lingua franca, but using it immediately paints you as a foreigner, and many of the less educated rural folks might not even speak it. How would you handle character creation if using these kinds of more localized languages?

[P. G. Macer]

It’s simple, have multiple languages per race/species, dependent on region, with the devil in the details.

For instance, Dragonlance has numerous human languages even in its 5e adaptation, such as Abanasinian, Khur, Nordmaarian, and Solamnic.

The route Eberron takes, meanwhile, is rather than having Common as a trade language have the nations of Khorvaire that once constituted Galifar be the nations that speak Common, which is descended from the Sarlonan language Old Common, which back on Sarlona became (/was manipulated into becoming) Riedran. Therefore, in the case of Eberron, Common is more of an out-of-character signifier for what should be called Galifarian or something.

The Forgotten Realms also has numerous human languages, but IIRC after the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide’s publication, 5e products tended to ignore that, though I know some barbarian tribes in STK speak Reghed or Uthgardt rather than Common, deliberately creating a language barrier for unprepared PCs, and I think some newer modules make use of Netherese.

[AllyRdr]

I have languages, and also have language groups. There's also some crossover dialects, based largely on Scots and it's variations such as Doric here in Scotland. Since it's a fantasy world, some of these crossover languages have their roots in draconic languages, etc.
This allows me to have localised languages for flavour but with enough crossover that similar tongues can be understood enough with Int or Wis checks.

[Schwann145]

Languages is one of those things that makes for much better storytelling and much worse gameplay.

It's unfortunate, but the reality of the situation is that the party all needs to speak the same language (regardless of what it's called) and, unless your goal as a GM is to have the party burn resources to understand others all the time (ie: Comprehend Languages, Tongues, etc) then they will need to share a language with the people/creatures they tend to encounter.

Common as a default is both lazy... and totally necessary. It feels bad but there's just legitimately no good way of approaching this without it.
This makes "language" into a ribbon feature; a fun way to differentiate your character, keep secrets, etc, but without blocking overall communication necessary for the game to actually go forward.

If you don't like "Common," then you can just ensure that the party, and the vast majority of their interactions, speak the same local language, perhaps Chondathan in the Sword Coast for example, but in practice that just makes "Chondathan" into the new "Common."

[Calen]

If you want a little more RP and use for language spells you could say that everyone speaks the language of your homeland, that's the "common" that appears on your character choice.
Then if a race gives you more language options let them select another regions language to learn. You could get rid of racial languages altogether or keep them.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'll note that IME experience D&D tends towards two Lingua Franca, with Human/Common as the language of trade and diplomacy, and Draconic (sometimes Elvish) as the language of academia and magic. It actually does make some kind of sense, in the most D&D settings have the local superpowers be Common-speaking human nations/cities, but you can definitely subdivide more and separate 'common tongues' by region. It's also very easy to go down a rabbit hole when you realise your four dozen playable species also need language variation, not just humans (or you can ditch racial languages entirely and just split along nationality).

If you REALLY want to go all in on languages it's definitely worth looking at how GURPS handles them. One point for basic functionality, two points for accented speech, and three points to speak like a native, with each level eliminating successive situational penalties. You want to be literate that'll be another one or three points per language, depending on if you want basic literacy or the ability to read entire books. You might not want to go so detailed, but if you want to have languages play an important role it's probably a good idea to draw distinctions between different levels of proficiency.

I give it two campaigns until the party winds up without a shared language.

[Greywander]

Therefore, in the case of Eberron, Common is more of an out-of-character signifier for what should be called Galifarian or something.
Yeah, we'll probably do this. It's just a matter of doing a bit of extra worldbuilding to identify the best kingdom to provide the lingua franca; either a vast trade empire where learning their language was just practical since it made doing business with them easier (in which case it will probably be common among merchants, less so among those more removed from commercial occupations), or the tattered remains of a ruined empire that had once conquered the known world before falling apart (in which case it's probably more academic than commercial), or possibly the liturgical language of a widespread religion. Heck, why not do one of each?


This allows me to have localised languages for flavour but with enough crossover that similar tongues can be understood enough with Int or Wis checks.
A History check would probably be the most appropriate. I've mentioned before the possibility of adding a Civics skill to the game (which would cover things like law and politics), which might be slightly more appropriate, but I'm now realizing this is a specific niche that doesn't really have anything that fits well. A Linguistics skill would be far too niche, but might be about right for a tool proficiency (in terms of value, though I suppose you could argue that linguists is a tool in the metaphorical sense).


Languages is one of those things that makes for much better storytelling and much worse gameplay.
[...]
Common as a default is both lazy... and totally necessary. It feels bad but there's just legitimately no good way of approaching this without it.
Unfortunately, I think you're probably right. Mostly, anyway. At the end of the day it's pretty much binary: you either understand an NPC or you do not. The number of languages and what those languages are don't really matter that much. Even so, I'd like to find a way to try and make this work to some degree.


If you REALLY want to go all in on languages it's definitely worth looking at how GURPS handles them. One point for basic functionality, two points for accented speech, and three points to speak like a native, with each level eliminating successive situational penalties.
Maybe for an original system or a homebrewed linguistics system. Though it might be necessary to implement a system like this if we're operating in a kingdom where we don't speak the language and we can't just take downtime to learn it. Gradually ramping up our knowledge of the language over several story arcs could be interesting. Hmm, I think I'd have us keep track of the time we spend in the kingdom and treat it as if we were using downtime to learn. Every few weeks we would get a "point" according to the system you've presented, so two or three weeks for basic comprehension, two or three more for accented speech, and two or three more weeks to speak like a native.

But for the most part, I was just wondering how many "extra" languages we should get at character creation to compensate for the larger number of localized languages. Common + 1 + whatever is spoken in our home kingdom seems like a good starting point, but maybe that's not enough? The campaign is going to start with our kingdom being destroyed and us fleeing to a neighboring kingdom, so that complicates things a bit. Though it could also make it more interesting.

[Unoriginal]

But for the most part, I was just wondering how many "extra" languages we should get at character creation to compensate for the larger number of localized languages. Common + 1 + whatever is spoken in our home kingdom seems like a good starting point, but maybe that's not enough? The campaign is going to start with our kingdom being destroyed and us fleeing to a neighboring kingdom, so that complicates things a bit. Though it could also make it more interesting.

I mean, if you compensate for it, it won't really have an impact.

I'd say that if you want to make the effort of having more, realm-specific languages, then it's better to embrace the possibility some of the PCs may not have the relevant language as something that can happen semi-regularly.

Which situation is more exciting:

1) the PCs going to a tavern to talk with a foreign sailor, and the sailor starts talking to his fellow tavern-goers in a language none of the PCs understand, causing several of the tavern-goers to leave worriedly, before the sailor turns to them with a smile and invites to sit down to discuss.

2) the PCs going to a tavern to talk with a foreign sailor, and the sailor starts talking to his fellow tavern-goers in a language all of the PCs understand, telling them to go warn the boss while the rest keep those adventurers busy, causing several of the tavern-goers to leave worriedly, before the sailor turns to them with a smile and invites to sit down to discuss.

3) the PCs going to a tavern to talk with a foreign sailor, and the sailor starts talking to his fellow tavern-goers in a language only one of the PCs understand, telling them to go warn the boss while the rest keep those adventurers busy, causing several of the tavern-goers to leave worriedly, before the sailor turns to them with a smile and invites to sit down to discuss.

1) can be interesting in term of"what is actually happening" tension. 3) can be interesting because the one who knows what was said needs to find a way to communicate that information if they want the other PCs to know, and just confronting the problem directly by bluntly stating it for all to hear has different results and consequences than transmitting the information covertly to the rest. Not to mention the possibility of the PC who understands choosing to *not* share the info immediately, preferring seeing what happens/pursue that lead later/explain what happened to the team once they're out of the lion's den.

Meanwhile 2) is just business as usual, everyone understands what happened equally and without tension or possibilities, with maybe just the added joke of the sailor going "I didn't think you would speak that language" or the boss being angry about it.


I would keep the same numbers of language proficiencies as regular 5e gives. With the possibility to learn more as per the Xanathar's rules and the possibility to swap tool/vehicle proficiencies for language ones at character creation.

[KorvinStarmast]

Languages is one of those things that makes for much better storytelling and much worse gameplay.

It's unfortunate, but the reality of the situation is that the party all needs to speak the same language (regardless of what it's called) and, unless your goal as a GM is to have the party burn resources to understand others all the time (ie: Comprehend Languages, Tongues, etc) then they will need to share a language with the people/creatures they tend to encounter.

Common as a default is both lazy... and totally necessary. It feels bad but there's just legitimately no good way of approaching this without it.
This makes "language" into a ribbon feature; a fun way to differentiate your character, keep secrets, etc, but without blocking overall communication necessary for the game to actually go forward. With a few rare exceptions over the years, I have found this to be true. Simpler, gameplay-wise, to have inability to understand be the exception not the rule.

[jjordan]

5e likes to be rather broad when it comes to languages. Most races have their own racial language that is somehow spoken by every single member of their race, humans don't even have a racial language, and everyone speaks Common. If I wanted to move towards incorporating more localized languages, with each kingdom having their own local language, e.g. fantasy English, fantasy French, fantasy Spanish, what changes would you make as far as starting languages are concerned? It makes sense to retain something like Common as a lingua franca, but using it immediately paints you as a foreigner, and many of the less educated rural folks might not even speak it. How would you handle character creation if using these kinds of more localized languages?
Monkeying with default language lore has never worked well for me. As others have said, it's awesome lore customization but makes for complicated gameplay. That said....

Dump the racial languages altogether and go with your cultural languages instead. Common is either a business pidgin with regional variation/dialects due to local grammar practices and loan words or it's a remnant of an ancient lingua franca. Same number of languages, no need to monkey with game mechanics, no awkward gameplay issues, and the same benefits you're looking for in social roleplay. E.G. Players hear someone talking in a dialect of common or a language from another region. Just give the players the list of languages and what regions they are associated with during character creation.

[Devils_Advocate]

Replace generic "Common" with Chondathan, Galifarian, Planar Trade Tongue, or whatever is appropriate to your campaign. Replace racial languages with regional languages. Each player character starts knowing the campaign's "Common" and one regional language, plus any extras from class, background, etc. And... done! You may now proceed largely as normal with a touch more realism.


At the end of the day it's pretty much binary: you either understand an NPC or you do not.
Well... Assuming that communication works like it does in real life, that's very much not true on the setting level. There are levels of understanding in between complete and total and none whatsoever. Indeed, even for two people who speak the same language fluently, perfectly understanding each other all of the time is more of a theoretical ideal than it is achievable. And sufficiently simple concepts can often be communicated through gestures, expressions, tone, and so on.

The question is whether it's worth the effort to model the middle of that spectrum. Even setting aside adjudicating things like semi-fluency and limited mutual intelligibility, those factors will make conversations take longer because that's how they work: The more unreliable communication is, the longer it takes to convey the same information. And without adding a lot of complexity, "the one with the highest modifier should make the roll" will probably be the level of tactics involved, which seems like it might make even high-stakes interactions tedious. Then again, with high enough stakes, a single die roll can be alarmingly tense. That could make it worth it, maybe. But other than that, probably nah.

[Mastikator]

Humans do have their own language, it's called "common".

I personally use the racial language as the national language, I pick whichever is the dominant race and let that be the national or regional language, then members of other races speak that one as their primary. A dwarf that was raised by gnomes speaks gnome as their primary language, dwarf language would only be preserved if dwarven sub-communities exist within the gnome dominated region. Members of those regions that have secondary languages can have whatever depending on their circumstance. (a merchant may pick a language that they share with their customers, for instance if they buy weapons from a hobgoblin empire they speak goblin, etc, an elf that wants to maintain their elfish heritage will have elf).

Kobolds that live in deep burrows may speak draconic and undercommon rather than draconic and common.

Orcs that feud with halflings may learn halfling to communicate their demands.

Edit- I find running the game this way makes language a meaningful choice for players and flavorful worldbuilding.

[Damon_Tor]

The existence of immortal and nigh-immortal beings helps justify a lack of language drift. Why would the elvish language have diverged into several distinct languages over time when the originators of that language are still around and teaching people to speak the version they were taught to speak by their progenitor gods? Even short lived races like humans and orcs and goblins and such have immortal influences on their culture: if Orcish was taught to the first orcs by Gruumsh then presumably He still speaks to His clerics in that same language, giving them a solid anchor which would prevent the language from drifting over time.

[Anonymouswizard]

Maybe for an original system or a homebrewed linguistics system. Though it might be necessary to implement a system like this if we're operating in a kingdom where we don't speak the language and we can't just take downtime to learn it. Gradually ramping up our knowledge of the language over several story arcs could be interesting. Hmm, I think I'd have us keep track of the time we spend in the kingdom and treat it as if we were using downtime to learn. Every few weeks we would get a "point" according to the system you've presented, so two or three weeks for basic comprehension, two or three more for accented speech, and two or three more weeks to speak like a native.

Bare in mind D&D doesn't go so in-depth with languages because that's not the point of languages in the system, Shadowrun and GURPS have more complicated language rules because 1) they're trying to model the real world and 2) practical fluency is a small fraction of starting character resources (4% of my CP total when I played GURPS, in Shadowrun it comes out of your dedicated flavour skills). In D&D you just sometimes get free native fluency from a race, background, or class.

But if you're running a game where the inability understand could be vital tracking fluency with more nuance could be worth it. It depends on if the table finds it fun. If you're not running such a game then there's a reason 7th Sea charges basically nothing for fluency in every living and dead language on the continent (i.e. this is swashbuckling adventure not tense spy drama).

...hell I'm not sure 7th Sea even has rules for starting languages beyond 'what makes sense'. Everybody's probably just speaking Montaigne or Eisen.


But for the most part, I was just wondering how many "extra" languages we should get at character creation to compensate for the larger number of localized languages. Common + 1 + whatever is spoken in our home kingdom seems like a good starting point, but maybe that's not enough? The campaign is going to start with our kingdom being destroyed and us fleeing to a neighboring kingdom, so that complicates things a bit. Though it could also make it more interesting.

Native tongue
Party common tongue
Potentially basic trade language proficiency

Any more and you're kind of removing the point of going more detailed.

On the other hand basic proficiency, or even potentially full basic fluency, in EVERY local living language is probably worth a half-feat. You might not be able to present yourself in court, but you can always order a mug of beer and a room without insulting the innkeeper.

My hovercraft is full of eels.

[MoiMagnus]

(1) If your RPG system encourage super-specialisation, it's quite frustrating for everyone involved if the language-character is not also the social-character.

(2) As for every element of worldbuilding, you are limited by how much your players care. Some tables, might find it really nice when they realise that the cities of this lavish kingdom are named following draconic conventions, foreshadowing an important plot point. Others might be annoyed that the city have unpronunciable names and instead refer to them using ridiculous nicknames. Know your table.

(3) Don't forget cultural variations. Even with a single language, politeness might not be expressed the same way, accents exists, some peoples might share a writing system but with widely different pronunciations, or the other way around, etc... You can get most of the features of "multiple languages" while still having a single language. And as a bonus, you're leaving the "all or nothing" so you can simply increase the DCs or give a disadvantage to communication checks rather than having the frustrating "you can't use your social abilities".

(4) "Assuming that the PCs are competent" works quite well if you still want a variety of languages for worldbuilding reasons, but don't want them to interfere with the gameplay. Simply notice the player when they're switching language but continue assuming that all the PCs are "good enough" at speaking this language.

[KorvinStarmast]

Humans do have their own language, it's called "common".
If there is a generally humano centric world in play, yes. But... the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide spells out a bunch of regional languages. Common is "the lingua franca" I think ...

I find running the game this way makes language a meaningful choice for players and flavorful worldbuilding. And if your players like it, so much the better. :smallsmile:

[Sorinth]

What do you actually want out of a more in-depth language system?

For example, a random NPC approaches the party and starts rapidly talking talking in a local dialect the players don't understand but the NPC is clearly trying to get the players to follow them someplace. Now this might be an enthusiastic merchant trying to get the PCs to come to their shop or it might be a mugger trying to get them to come down an alley to rob them. The lack of a common language just adds uncertainty to the players decision of whether to follow or not and of course changes how you the DM tell the story, ie narrating the NPC more and speaking in the 1st person less.

Mechanically it probably means more Insight or possibly Intelligence checks in social situations, as well as using advantage/disadvantage more often. Persuading the noble snob when you aren't fluent imposes disadvantage, requesting help from the kindly Cleric is at advantage because they appreciate the party making an attempt with the local language, etc...

Also keep in mind the size of the adventuring world, if the players are doing 90% of the adventuring inside a small kingdom then it's not going to matter much, if they are globetrotters it would matter more but the easier it is for anyone to travel the world, the more fluency people will have in a common language also making it matter less. Same with the more metropolitan the world/cities are, if it's common to run into all the exoctic races then a common language becomes more likely and people are more likely to be able to at least passably converse.

[Slipjig]

I really enjoy multilingual games. The ability to speak the local language is an important skill for diplomats and spies (even more so if they want to blend in). It can also be a useful plot point for people to have what they THINK is a private conversation, because they assume the Dwarf doesn't understand Elvish (or whatever).

One way to address this is to have heavy regional dialects, so that while players CAN communicate with everyone who speaks "Common", their accent marks them as a non-local. Also, people from sufficiently different locations may find each other unintelligible (for a real-world example, imagine a Scot talking to Jamaican: they are both speaking English, but communication may be slow).

If you want to do the languages thing, one way to handle it is to have the PCs find an interpreter. If they are from a sufficiently distant place, they may have a very limited selection of people who speak both their own language and the local tongue.