The Uncommon Language

[Samloyal23]

I never really liked the idea of having one language everyone speaks in a campaign, it makes it too easy to lose track of the differences between races and cultures. I am not having Common in my campaign, what's the point of having languages if everyone speaks Common? From my campaign notes:

I am not a philologist but I want the names used in my campaign to be evocative and display the background of each character. So I have decided that each language in my campaign will be represented by a real world dialect appropriate to the culture with maybe a little tweaking for pronunciation purposes. So these are the languages spoken in my setting with their real world basis:

Kironan/Centaur: Greek
Faunish: Latin
Minotaur: Minoan
Melian Elvish: Etruscan
Valoran: Italian

Burghauser: German
Iron Dwarvish: Norwegian
Trollish: Finnish

Aarakocra: Mayan

Bullywug: French

Thosian/Naja-Set: Egyptian
Giff: Arabic
Gnollish: Swahili
Genasi/Djinn: Persian

Ysian/Liath Elvish: Welsh
Aldean/Sidhe: Irish Gaelic
Gruagach: Scottish Gaelic

Some of these may be subject to change if I have trouble making an adequate list of character names for a given language. Celtic language are virtually impossible to read if you are not a native speaker so I may attempt to make them more phonetic in spelling.

So yes, characters will need to spend a couple of precious skills points on learning some languages. I think it makes the world more interesting. Thoughts?

 

[Celebrim]

I never really liked the idea of having one language everyone speaks in a campaign, it makes it too easy to lose track of the differences between races and cultures. I am not having Common in my campaign, what's the point of having languages if everyone speaks Common? So yes, characters will need to spend a couple of precious skills points on learning some languages. I think it makes the world more interesting. Thoughts?

I used to believe as you. Then I learned that role playing oppurtunity isn't nearly as much fun for you the DM or for the players if no one can talk to each other. I generally introduce NPC's with the hope that a conversation happens. It's rare that I have an NPC of any importance that wouldn't at least want to monologue a bit before getting down to the serious business of killing PC's. Roleplaying is fun. Pantomine is fun maybe once. There are languages in my campaign, but a smaller number is better than a larger number and the assumption of a common merchantile or academic tongue - similar perhaps to Latin in antiquity or modern English - is a very useful one to the campaign.

Likewise I used to believe in elaborate monetary systems with different exchange rates and weights of coins to the pound, and lots of names for different currencies.

Then I realized that this added very little to the game. After the first time or two of dealing with it, it loses its interest.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I usually view "Common" as a trade language, made up of bits & pieces of many languages to facilitate trade. In some periods of time, vast empires were so dominant in trade and landholdings that THEIR base language became (for all intents & purposes) the "Common" of vast areas- look at Arabic, Greek, Latin, French and now, English.

I occasionally use a compromise rule- "Common" is the shorthand for the dominant language of a given landmass, and each major landmass has a different one. So, foe example, if my campaign world had 4 continents- Northland, The Southern Archiapago, Westhome, and the Eastern Islands- there would be a different "common" on each.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I've had rare occasion to create an NPC that did not speak Common, and that's been intentional to make the roleplay and strategy more difficult.

It would be very difficult for that to be the norm instead of the exception.

 

[Ashtagon]

Rather than different languages, I have decided that each "language" represents a distinctive regional dialect or accent. Consider English. Under this system, "American Deep South", "California Valley Speak", "Urban Ghetto", "Cockney", "Welsh Valley", "Newcastle" and so on are all different languages in game terms.

North American Dialect Chart: Ya’ll Talk… | Bit Rebels
(and the equivalent map for British English is even crazier)

In game terms, if you speak using a regional language, it's a DC 10 K/local check to place your accent. You'll generally be understood regardless, but expect a -2 on most language-dependent d20 rolls due to the possibility for misunderstanding due to regional choice of idiom. If the listener is prejudiced against a particular region ("Never did like them Northerners"), additional penalties may be imposed.

This makes your starting languages (those granted by race and Intelligence bonus) all the more important. You can only ever learn additional dialects for those languages you knew at the start. Learning an actual new language from scratch is just too hard to do in any sensible amount of game time.

Using this system does, however, mean that "monster" languages should generally be abolished as an insurmountable barrier to communication.

 

[Samloyal23]

I usually view "Common" as a trade language, made up of bits & pieces of many languages to facilitate trade. In some periods of time, vast empires were so dominant in trade and landholdings that THEIR base language became (for all intents & purposes) the "Common" of vast areas- look at Arabic, Greek, Latin, French and now, English.

I occasionally use a compromise rule- "Common" is the shorthand for the dominant language of a given landmass, and each major landmass has a different one. So, foe example, if my campaign world had 4 continents- Northland, The Southern Archiapago, Westhome, and the Eastern Islands- there would be a different "common" on each.

That's a good compromise. My campaign setting is small, an island the size of France and a couple of adjacent areas.

 

[The Red King]

It gets monotonous when you have to keep saying "he said.... and now you translate that to the party"

Especially when the translator might want to edit what he translates....

 

[Knight Templar]

Something you could try is to limit what can be said in common. Treat it as a pidgin language not suited for in-depth conversations. One way could be limiting each sentence to three words at most: a subject, an object, and a verb. You can get the basics through, but it's a pain in the butt.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's the kind of thing I was talking about with trade languages. It can actually be fun sitting around a table with everybody busting out their best stereotypical Hollywood "white man talks to natives" voice on occasion!

 

[Samloyal23]

Something you could try is to limit what can be said in common. Treat it as a pidgin language not suited for in-depth conversations. One way could be limiting each sentence to three words at most: a subject, an object, and a verb. You can get the basics through, but it's a pain in the butt.

That sounds like a good rule, three words or less. I would also say no word with more than two syllables. So you can say "I am sick" but not "I have pneumonia".