D&D General Languages suck in D&D.

[Hriston]

Core D&D has 16 languages. And they all suck except MAYBE one.

That's not to say that it 'sucks' to speak a specific given language or whatever. Or that people speaking Goblin being incapable of communicating with people who don't speak Goblin is somehow unrealistic.

I'm saying that, as a concept, the languages that are provided are terrible and provide an image of cultural monoliths and narrative identity-stripping to a ridiculous degree. Sincerely just awful.

Essentially: Every "Race" gets its own language. And every "Race" that you add gets to speak it's own unique special snowflake language which further dilutes all understanding to being Common and nothing else. Common, as a result, is the language that everything in the entire game gets communicated in, unless the party's elves want to talk trash about the dwarf in the bar without anyone overhearing them.

... which is a valid use of other languages, of course, but the point is most languages are rendered utterly moot.

It also means that every Goblin speaks the same language everywhere in the world. Every Bugbear, Hobgoblin, and Goblin from the Moonshae Isles to the ass-end of Kara Tur speaks Goblin in the exact same way... Though depending on your DM they might speak it with one of several offensive accent caricatures.

Goblins in the Underdark? Goblin. Goblins on the mountaintops? Goblin. Goblins isolated to a fast-time demiplane for 10,000 years with a hyper-evolved society and space-fantasy technology? Goblin.

Meanwhile, in the -REAL WORLD-, people on the "Wrong Side" of the Alps spoke such a different language the Romans called them barbarians to insult the mealy-mouthed pronunciation of their 'Bar Bar Bar Bar' language.

Hell, even the countries conquered by Rome, that once all spoke Latin because it was -THE- language to speak, now mostly speak new languages that are still based -on- Latin... But don't make sense to each other. Don't believe me? Go to Spain and speak Italian, exclusively, while telling everyone you're speaking the Roman tongue and they should understand you!

Okay, don't do that. But you know what I mean. Even though French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish are all "Romance Languages" based on Latin they've all evolved in very different ways due to native cultural languages, neighboring languages, and conquests.

And it's not like Pathfinder is -much- different in that regard. Oh, sure, they add a ton of different human languages to go along with 'Common'... But then they keep all the other Race languages and add in some fresh ones like Vanaran and Sahaugin and Rougarou and...

Like come the hell on, Golarion, you -almost- had it and then you biffed the landing!

So what's the one maybe good language? Undercommon. Because even though it, like common, is an insane trade language, it almost makes sense because it is, itself, a regional language. The region is Underdark.

Regional languages make infinitely more sense for a story purpose. If you absolutely HAVE to have at least ONE racial language, make it Elven to show they're a united people for all their disparities... united in being old and unwilling to adapt their language based on the cultures and languages around themselves.

But imagine a setting where there are, maybe, 6 languages to choose from for the area you're in. Your character's heritage as an elf or a halfling doesn't really play into which of those 6 you know, but one is the most common, like English in England, but there's still Gaelic, Scots, and Welsh about, the nobles speak French, and the Germans are a potential threat. Way easier to pick languages that make sense for your character in relation to the setting, and even if there's only a handful of pieces of German in the entire game it'll still be more useful than freaking Rougarou...

Corollary: Thieves Cant is trash. It's meant to simulate Cockney rhyming slang being used to confuse cops and stuff, but adding in a universal "Thief" language doesn't make any more sense when your thieves from opposite ends of the world can communicate without any issue.

TLDR
Racial languages, which D&D runs on as a foundational principle, suck. Regional Languages are way better.

Common is a regional language. From Dungeons & Dragons (1974), Vol. 1, p. 12:

LANGUAGES: The “common tongue” spoken throughout the “continent” is known by most humans. All other creatures and monsters which can speak have their own language, although some (20%) also know the common one.​

From this, you can see some of D&D's implied default setting, which is a pastiche of Appendix N fantasy. Common is the language spoken by "most humans" in a region known as "the 'continent'" where the game takes place.

This arrangement is notably similar to that in The Lord of the Rings of Westron or "Common Speech" which "had become the native language of nearly all the speaking-peoples (save the Elves) who dwelt within the bounds of the old kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor" (LotR, Vol 3, Appendix F). Following the pastiche approach, D&D genericizes the area of the old kingdoms as the "continent", but I think Common's source is recognizable enough to D&D's intended audience to carry with it the implication of a similar history.

Also of note in OD&D's language scheme is that only 20% of non-humans speak Common. I think this is important for keeping "creature languages" relevant in gameplay and that the languages listed in later editions' monster statblocks should be understood as a menu of possibilities precisely for this purpose.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I also made a chart like the Hero page posted. It only has about a dozen languages on it in about five families.

My comprehend languages spell is a bit different:

Comprehend Languages
Level: 1
Duration: 1 hour
Range: Self

The caster can understand any written language in a book, scroll, tablet, &c., the caster is touching. The ability to read does not necessarily impart insight into the material, merely its literal meaning. The ability to understand a language depends on the number of living speakers whose knowledge can be drawn upon.

Common languages can be read easily (English, Mandarin). Living but uncommon languages require a caster check of 10+ to read (Basque, Welsh). Dead languages that are still understood by sages require a caster check of 15+ (Latin, Ge'ez). Extinct languages require a caster check of 20+ (Manx, Tillamook). Nearly expunged languages require a check of 25+ (Tocharian, Luwian). An additional casting can grant an additional roll.

 

[pemerton]

Also of note in OD&D's language scheme is that only 20% of non-humans speak Common. I think this is important for keeping "creature languages" relevant in gameplay and that the languages listed in later editions' monster statblocks should be understood as a menu of possibilities precisely for this purpose.

This arrangement works best under other assumptions about game play - eg that creature reactions are mostly up for grabs, and so being able to speak to a non-human person whom you encounter might be helpful in improving their reaction, negotiating arrangements with them, etc.

I don't think it works as well in a more GM-directed, AP-ish/"storytime"-ish approach to play.

 

[Hussar]

This arrangement works best under other assumptions about game play - eg that creature reactions are mostly up for grabs, and so being able to speak to a non-human person whom you encounter might be helpful in improving their reaction, negotiating arrangements with them, etc.

I don't think it works as well in a more GM-directed, AP-ish/"storytime"-ish approach to play.

The other issue with this sort of thing is that it generally won't matter. So long as someone in the group of NPC's speaks common, we're good to go. Which means that any group of 5 NPC's generally will have at least one Common speaker in the group. Considering the encounter numbers in OD&D and then in AD&D, meeting an NPC that speaks common is virtually guaranteed. It was hardly rare to meet 10-15 humanoids at a time.

And, as I said, once at least one NPC can translate, language really stops being an issue.

 

[pemerton]

The other issue with this sort of thing is that it generally won't matter. So long as someone in the group of NPC's speaks common, we're good to go. Which means that any group of 5 NPC's generally will have at least one Common speaker in the group. Considering the encounter numbers in OD&D and then in AD&D, meeting an NPC that speaks common is virtually guaranteed. It was hardly rare to meet 10-15 humanoids at a time.

And, as I said, once at least one NPC can translate, language really stops being an issue.

I think that at some, maybe many tables, the 20% chance was rolled for the group.

If it's done person-by-person, then what you say is correct.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This arrangement works best under other assumptions about game play - eg that creature reactions are mostly up for grabs, and so being able to speak to a non-human person whom you encounter might be helpful in improving their reaction, negotiating arrangements with them, etc.

I don't think it works as well in a more GM-directed, AP-ish/"storytime"-ish approach to play.

Agreed. One more reason I never want to play that way.

 

[Hussar]

I think that at some, maybe many tables, the 20% chance was rolled for the group.

If it's done person-by-person, then what you say is correct.

Fair enough, I suppose, but, that's not what that says, is it? If 20% of a group speaks a language, that doesn't mean determining by group. Then again, considering the source, vague mechanics was very much the rule of the day.

 

[Azzy]

High literacy rates presume a mass education system that even in a magic-based setting likely wouldn't exist.

Why? As an example, religious institutes in the setting might run schools for the community (maybe out of altruism or for the practical purpose of teaching religious scripture to the masses). Or maybe an empire is trying to assert their language and culture over a conquered people (that would never happen in the real-world ) and a mass education system may be developed to ensure forced assimilation.

 

[Maxperson]

Common is an issue. There are a few others.

1) Race is being used as a proxy for culture (Thank you, Umbran) which supports some pretty racist assumptions.

I don't think race is a proxy for culture. I think race is race, but culture is largely ignored within the races. Elves have the most with wood elf, high elf, etc. Those still ignore that even among say wood elves, wood elves of different forests would likely have different cultures.

The issue I think is that creating a bunch of cultures isn't financially sound. They would take up a lot of space and you'd have some players like them and some not, with those not being less likely to buy that book. As a result, we are stuck with a limited number of cultures per race unless we make them ourselves.

3) Languages thus are diluted to relative uselessness because Elves don't get Common, Elven, +1 language to choose the racial language of another party member. So everyone -has- to default to Common for every conversation to ever happen.

Many backgrounds give one or two more languages, and you can pick feats to give you languages, as well as create a custom background with languages if you want.

Not only does everyone not have to default to common due to the prevalence of language in backgrounds, but if the group wants, they can all just make characters with bonuses languages at 1st level and speak whatever language they want. It's super easy to have every speak extra languages.

4) Every race speaks Common and their own language. Or just common if they're human, meaning little overlap.

Except the above makes that wrong.

6) We now have to invent ridiculous explanations for why every elf everywhere ever speaks exactly the same form of Elven regardless of any social differences across time or space. All elf slang is exactly the same in all worlds and is utterly unchanged from the moment Elven was first spoken, and the language is perfectly preserved... And so is Orcish and Goblin and Tabaxi and...

That has nothing to do with any of the things you listed, except for number 1. Of course, if you varied the elven languages by region, you'd cause it to go from easy to have a group speak languages in common(other than common), to the very hard you are complaining about above.

 

[Hriston]

This arrangement works best under other assumptions about game play - eg that creature reactions are mostly up for grabs, and so being able to speak to a non-human person whom you encounter might be helpful in improving their reaction, negotiating arrangements with them, etc.

Yes, which further reinforces the value of knowing a variety of languages. I recently revised my encounter procedure for my 5E game by reexamining the relevant rules from OD&D and AD&D, and in the resulting system not having a shared language to use (ETA: or being able to communicate in some other way) counts as a 0 result on the reaction check because it requires speech, and this guarantees a hostile (if not violently hostile) starting attitude.

I don't think it works as well in a more GM-directed, AP-ish/"storytime"-ish approach to play.

I suppose the GM would just decide what language(s) an NPC speaks, in that style, depending on what purpose they had in mind for the encounter. For instance, although JRR Tolkien has different peoples in the LotR speak a variety of languages, they serve mostly as color when they are used and never that I recall as a hindrance to communication, which is facilitated in nearly if not all cases by the existence of Common Speech.