It seems that one of the basic assumptions in the game is that everyone is literate more or less. By extension PC’s can all read and write all languages that they can speak. You might find this is not a problem, but as a dilettante student of history, I find this unsatisfying. Estimates of literacy rates in the ancient and medieval world are in the range of ten to twenty percent of the population, and as recently as two hundred years ago, as much as thirty-five percent of the population still couldn’t read or write. Even today, we haven’t achieved a 100% literacy rate world-wide.
If you are happy with the assumption that everyone who needs to read and write can do so, then read no further (lol). If you are unsatisfied with that assumption, then my remarks are addressed to you. I’m going to focus on PC generation and leave whether or not anyone else in the milieu is literate at the DM’s discretion.
At least one other RPG has attempted to address this problem. In GURPS in a medieval or ancient setting, there’s a penalty for being literate (It’s an advantage that costs you ten character points), and it’s a requisite for being a spell caster (if memory serves). I dislike this penalty mentality, but I want to make the option of an illiterate PC at least something to consider for a player.
Several approaches come to mind:
1)The PC rolls percentile dice against the base literacy rate for the world as set by the DM. This is a very AD&D approach. This might rule out some choices of class due to the dice roll (ie Wizard), but this is again a very AD&D flavor of play.
2)The PC must choose a background that carries literacy as an assumption such as Noble, Acolyte or Archivist in order to be literate (DM’s discretion as to which backgrounds do and do not carry this assumption.)
3)The PC must chose a class that carries the assumption of literacy, such as Wizard. Again which classes do or do not carry this assumption is up to the DM. Barbarian might be an obvious candidate for illiteracy, but I’m going to mention that the architype for this class, Conan of Cimmeria, was both literate and a polyglot to boot.
4)Literacy is treated as a separate proficiency, selectable by anyone, and the PC must expend a proficiency during character generation to be literate.
5)Literacy is a separate proficiency as above, and everyone gets an additional proficiency to those granted by background and class to assign as desired.
6)Literacy is the default condition for PC’s, that is every PC is literate, but a player can decide to be illiterate and gain a bonus proficiency to assign as desired.
Note: The last two are functionally the same, but feel different IMO. I only put that in because I’m currently reading some Richard Thaler and am a fan of Daniel Kahneman’s work as well.
Again, I stress that if you like a campaign where almost everyone is assumed to be able to read and write, then these sort of game mechanics likely are of little value to you and don’t merit your time or attention. I find that assuming a high literacy rate breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. Also, illiteracy presents some additional opportunities for roleplay and presenting interesting challenges for the PC’s to overcome.
I like the idea of asking players to make tradeoffs for literacy. The one thing I'd probably do differently, though, would be to treat literacy as a tool/language proficiency rather than a skill proficiency--because skill proficiencies scale in late game and literacy doesn't. But it also depends on how important literacy is to your campaign. If you're going to make literacy important, I can see having to trade a skill proficiency for it.
If you feel this is an issue, I'd say talk to your DM/players about it. Back in 3.5, Barbarians had Illiteracy as a class feature, which they could dump by spending a few of their skill points. Personally, I feel Wizards should automatically be considered literate just because of how they prepare their spells. As for other classes, I'd say it depends on your background. If you're an Outlander, you probably wouldn't know how to read realistically. If you were an Acolyte or a merchant of sorts, chances are a lot higher.
I understand your point, and I do agree that the fact that every PC can read and write is weird. However, remember that the literacy of the entire population of the middle ages includes farmers, beggars, children and more. None of these are, and probably ever will be, an adventurer, so they will most likely never need to learn how to write.
If we change the scope to include specific professions, like researchers and merchants, the literacy should be noticeably higher than in the first case. We can then, in the same way, move the scope to only include adventurers. Because adventurers often are people who travel a lot between countries, it shouldn't be too unusual to find a literate, or even bilingual adventurer. Not as many as when looking at merchants, but it should still be quite a bit more compared to the first case. Thinking of it like this should make it easier for you to come to terms with the literacy rate.
Personally, I think that the fact that PCs usually can both speak and write 3+ languages is of more concern. Especially if the PC is young. Not to mention that it makes nearly no sense whatsoever that someone who grew up in an isolated human village for some reason knows elvish, dwarven or even abyssal in addition to common.
I don't see literacy as a problem because this isn't set in Earth or using Earth history so any relevance or similarity to statistics in real world history is entirely fruitless - the standard settings of D&D are not based on any specific time-period of Earth's history.
From my experience in playing games many DMs base this on the character Intelligence score - and there is a precedent for this on the show Critical Role. One of the characters, Grog, had an Intelligence score of 6 so it was decided by the DM, Matt, that due to this score Grog could not read or write. I have found that through all the games I have played with 3.5, 4th and 5th editions this is the norm: if you have a low enough Intelligence you are automatically considered illiterate, if you have an average score you can do OK and if you have a high score you are well versed (since the assumption that literacy is a "you have it or you don't" skill is stupid beyond measure because that's not what literacy is). I don't see any reason to change this paradigm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I would like to point out that although it is inspired heavily by ancient/medieval times, the realms of D&D are most decidedly *not* medieval. Obviously that's my interpretation, but I think it's one shared by many, and a good reason for the literacy rates being the way they are.
Plus, we're not exactly playing commoners. We play the best of the best, people who are more powerful than average even at level 1. I know my post is kinda arguing against this thread, but I just wanted to play devils advocate for a bit
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Thank you everyone for replying to my original post.
It seems that the opinions expressed so far are that people are more comfortable with PC’s being literate as a default condition. I’m pretty much in the same camp. PC’s are the exception, not the rule, so they would likely be a much more literate group than the general populace.
In fact, my preferred mechanic of the several that I presented for providing a trade-off to players to be illiterate was giving them an additional skill proficiency in trade for choosing illteracy. Even that does not seem sufficiently attractive.
Ok, I have a follow-up question: What would the DM have to give you to make you want to or at least consider generating a PC who was illiterate?
However, illiteracy is not a permanent condition, and given a fantasy world full of magic, there are potentially lots of options for becoming literate above and beyond the usual method. In fact, it opens the door to at least three new magic items: a potion of literacy (temporary effect), an item that confers literacy on the possessor, and a book (ironic choice) that makes the reader become literate. I suppose the last item would require either the potion or the magic dingus to be able to be used.
Ok, I have a follow-up question: What would the DM have to give you to make you want to or at least consider generating a PC who was illiterate?
If I tried to make a farmboy fighter PC who got his family killed during an orc raid, and then swearing vengeance on orcs as a background, then my DM would simply have to say "If so, you won't be able to read or write, since as a farmboy you never had the chance or the need to learn it. Churches in this world don't act as schools for children either. Is that okay?", and then I'd reply with "Yeah, sure. Sounds reasonable to me.".
To me, it's more important that things makes sense for my character than it is to be strong (I even waste a few turns in combat now and then because of this, but that's another story). I'd object if the DM tried to make me illiterate if I took a noble background or if I made a wizard, but if I start out as a nobody from an unknown village where being educated isn't as important as knowing how to plow a field? Go ahead.
Getting hit by a curse of illiteracy would also be something I have no problems with accepting, as long it is something we can reliably get rid of.
I agree with Weenaru. It would greatly depend on the background and backstory of the character. If my character had a Intelligence of 10 and was an Urchin background I would assume he would have difficulty with literacy while a Noble background with the same Intelligence score could fare much better.
I think it has to take into account the logical reasoning of who the character is and what has happened. Backgrounds like Urchin make it less likely (but not impossible) for characters to be literate while Nobles, Wizards and such are almost guaranteed to be literate. Likewise if my Intelligence score was abysmal like 6 then I would understand being illiterate or having difficulty no matter the background/class.
There's also the setting to consider. Growing up in a city with easy access to schools and tutors and free libraries makes it much more likely even street urchins will know basic literacy at least. While, the most intelligent person in the world growing up in a remote village with no written material anywhere in sight isn't going to be very literate at all.
As long as the illiteracy makes sense, I have no problems with it. I mean if my noble-background Wizard who spent his life studying and writing in a city academy is supposed to be illiterate I would ask what drugs the DM was smoking. This is why it is vital to always discuss your character creation with your DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Not particularly worried either way, but re the comment that D&D is not a medieval setting - an alternative perspective. It is a true statement, but the matter or literacy holds true across most cultures across history. People are illiterate for a reason - reading/writing materials are expensive, the struggle for survival, etc. Of course, in a high fantasy setting maybe this isn't an issue, but then most people probably don't play fantasy settings very consistently.
I typically have more issue with a character being literate in every language they can speak. Sure it makes it simple, but for me it I feel it needs more granularity.
So what I have done is split languages into essentially language slots, one language slot gives the character spoken (lets you speak a language) or written language (read and write). Typically you can't have written for a language without spoken (unless the language has no spoken form).
Given the language slots characters get as follow: * Character's get both spoken and written of their racial language (or choice for humans) and common (where appropriate) * Intelligence bonus gives additional language slots equal to the bonus, a -1 penalty means you lose your secondary written language (common for most) , -2 penalty means you lose both written languages, -3 penalty and you cant take a written language. * Backgrounds that give one language give only spoken * Backgrounds that give two languages give both spoken and written for one of the languages chosen * Proficiency in Arcana, History, Medicine, and Religion give one additional language slot each.
In my campaigns the PLAYERS are all literate as per rules, but the populace is generally not, unless educated.
IMO it would be cool if there was a variant rule for level of fluency, or maybe you spend your languages as points... instead of one fluent language you know two or three at a broken level
so you’d know:
Common: fluent
Elvish: broken
Orcish: broken
thow in some rules about communicating in two word sentences only, and a percentage chance of failure...and you’ve got a closer reality.
To elf: “Need sword”
elf: “No, I don’t need a sword.”
player: “me need”
elf, in common: “you know, I speak please dont practice your high school elvish on me”
——
if elves were talking to each other... 1d4 roll = 2 = two words in a sentence are understood.
elf says in elvish: “We really should bind them, and bring them before the king”
gm: “he says something about needing something or other and a king”
if elves were talking to each other... 1d4 roll = 2 = two words in a sentence are understood.
elf says in elvish: “We really should bind them, and bring them before the king”
gm: “he says something about needing something or other and a king”
I'd be careful with this one... Players might call foul if you habitually obfuscate too much information from them. For example, why not "bind" and "king", or "bring" and "king"? There's a lot of particulars to work out too. Why a d4? Does it scale to skill, sentence length? Will enemies suddenly pick up a habit of run-ons and comma splices? Will players discover their characters learned the words "the" and "photosynthesis" before "prisoners" and "trap"? Are your rulings perfectly reasonable, but you have players who will question every call and devolve into paranoia? Or ever worse, ones who know (or think they know) something about linguistics?
The players wouldn't know what they were actually saying. That's for the DM to know. Why a d4? Because the GM chose a d4. Not intending to create a real mechanism but to provide a feasible structure a DM could work through. If you were going to go to an extreme it would depend on how fast they were talking, do they have a sub-accent Tennessee vs New York, etc.
The idea is only, allow for the RP opportunity that being out of your depth in regard to language might afford. If you happen to have the advantage IRL of knowing a couple of languages and their cultures you will understand the hilarity that can ensue from mispronunciations or cultural misunderstandings. All of these would be much more fun if at least one of the players was from that culture and could thereby be mortified.
Gerald: "I reach out to shake the stranger's hand"
GM: Ok, Fred, as he does this you know how people from this area consider that to be a challenge to combat, what do you do?
Fred: "Nooo! No, no, no!" I hold him back and say to the stranger, "Forgive my stupid dwarven companion, it's how he greets people...because dwarves are weird."
GM: Gerald, You hear Fred say no no no and hold you back and say something about "Forgive and dwarves and then something and then dwarves again"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
That's why I mentioned the paranoia. Plus, if they keep ending up in To Serve Man situations, they're going to start wondering if something is up ;)
Edit: To word my last post better, a party seems less likely to act on "need something, something about a king" than "bringing something to the king", or "binding something, something king." Whether that ends up boring or disastrous for them is a bit of a balancing act.
Interesting thoughts all. If I were considering a campaign where languages and reading were major points, then I'd maybe offer all PCs the chance to exchange one spoken language for the ability to read and write in all other languages they speak. So a sage or human might easily have a spare language to trade in, while others might have to think about it a bit harder. Possible caveat that a PC with only two languages (like a dwarf with only common and dwarven) would be able to trade in a tool proficiency for literacy. Any time they get to learn a new language in the game they can choose to learn their letters instead. That might be interesting to see who chooses what - with only wizards completely dependent on the written word.
Interesting thoughts all. If I were considering a campaign where languages and reading were major points, then I'd maybe offer all PCs the chance to exchange one spoken language for the ability to read and write in all other languages they speak. So a sage or human might easily have a spare language to trade in, while others might have to think about it a bit harder. Possible caveat that a PC with only two languages (like a dwarf with only common and dwarven) would be able to trade in a tool proficiency for literacy. Any time they get to learn a new language in the game they can choose to learn their letters instead. That might be interesting to see who chooses what - with only wizards completely dependent on the written word.
Another thing to consider, certain languages use the WRITTEN characters of another... similar to Spanish and English and Italian. Someone who can read in Spanish can read English to a level that most of what they read could be understood though HEAVILY accented. Spanish and Italian pronunciation is way more similar. Gnomes, Dwarves, Goblins, and Orcs all use Dwarven letters as I recall.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
You learn to speak a language. You learn to read an alphabet. Most people in my campaign, to include PCs, are illiterate. Unless your background or class would dictate otherwise.
For those characters that are literate it is more of a discussion with the player to what extent your literacy applies across your languages. For a sage background I might say you are literate across all of your languages. For a merchant I might say you are only literate in common and the Imperial trade tongue. All other languages you would be fluent in but not literate.
I am guessing I would apply the training rules from pg 187 to address learning more languages and/or becoming literate.
I once played an illiterate fighter with a very low intelligence score, and had to get other characters to read things for her.
You're right that most undeveloped societies have a huge population of illiterate people. BUT, in a fantasy campaign set in a fantasy world, I don't think it's unreasonable to give the population a high literacy rate. After all, most real-life societies also don't have magic-users, dragon-slayers, or 800-year-old citizens.
Suspend belief. Enjoy the fantasy setting. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It seems that one of the basic assumptions in the game is that everyone is literate more or less. By extension PC’s can all read and write all languages that they can speak. You might find this is not a problem, but as a dilettante student of history, I find this unsatisfying. Estimates of literacy rates in the ancient and medieval world are in the range of ten to twenty percent of the population, and as recently as two hundred years ago, as much as thirty-five percent of the population still couldn’t read or write. Even today, we haven’t achieved a 100% literacy rate world-wide.
If you are happy with the assumption that everyone who needs to read and write can do so, then read no further (lol). If you are unsatisfied with that assumption, then my remarks are addressed to you. I’m going to focus on PC generation and leave whether or not anyone else in the milieu is literate at the DM’s discretion.
At least one other RPG has attempted to address this problem. In GURPS in a medieval or ancient setting, there’s a penalty for being literate (It’s an advantage that costs you ten character points), and it’s a requisite for being a spell caster (if memory serves). I dislike this penalty mentality, but I want to make the option of an illiterate PC at least something to consider for a player.
Several approaches come to mind:
1)The PC rolls percentile dice against the base literacy rate for the world as set by the DM. This is a very AD&D approach. This might rule out some choices of class due to the dice roll (ie Wizard), but this is again a very AD&D flavor of play.
2)The PC must choose a background that carries literacy as an assumption such as Noble, Acolyte or Archivist in order to be literate (DM’s discretion as to which backgrounds do and do not carry this assumption.)
3)The PC must chose a class that carries the assumption of literacy, such as Wizard. Again which classes do or do not carry this assumption is up to the DM. Barbarian might be an obvious candidate for illiteracy, but I’m going to mention that the architype for this class, Conan of Cimmeria, was both literate and a polyglot to boot.
4)Literacy is treated as a separate proficiency, selectable by anyone, and the PC must expend a proficiency during character generation to be literate.
5)Literacy is a separate proficiency as above, and everyone gets an additional proficiency to those granted by background and class to assign as desired.
6)Literacy is the default condition for PC’s, that is every PC is literate, but a player can decide to be illiterate and gain a bonus proficiency to assign as desired.
Note: The last two are functionally the same, but feel different IMO. I only put that in because I’m currently reading some Richard Thaler and am a fan of Daniel Kahneman’s work as well.
Again, I stress that if you like a campaign where almost everyone is assumed to be able to read and write, then these sort of game mechanics likely are of little value to you and don’t merit your time or attention. I find that assuming a high literacy rate breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. Also, illiteracy presents some additional opportunities for roleplay and presenting interesting challenges for the PC’s to overcome.
I like the idea of asking players to make tradeoffs for literacy. The one thing I'd probably do differently, though, would be to treat literacy as a tool/language proficiency rather than a skill proficiency--because skill proficiencies scale in late game and literacy doesn't. But it also depends on how important literacy is to your campaign. If you're going to make literacy important, I can see having to trade a skill proficiency for it.
If you feel this is an issue, I'd say talk to your DM/players about it. Back in 3.5, Barbarians had Illiteracy as a class feature, which they could dump by spending a few of their skill points. Personally, I feel Wizards should automatically be considered literate just because of how they prepare their spells. As for other classes, I'd say it depends on your background. If you're an Outlander, you probably wouldn't know how to read realistically. If you were an Acolyte or a merchant of sorts, chances are a lot higher.
I understand your point, and I do agree that the fact that every PC can read and write is weird. However, remember that the literacy of the entire population of the middle ages includes farmers, beggars, children and more. None of these are, and probably ever will be, an adventurer, so they will most likely never need to learn how to write.
If we change the scope to include specific professions, like researchers and merchants, the literacy should be noticeably higher than in the first case. We can then, in the same way, move the scope to only include adventurers. Because adventurers often are people who travel a lot between countries, it shouldn't be too unusual to find a literate, or even bilingual adventurer. Not as many as when looking at merchants, but it should still be quite a bit more compared to the first case. Thinking of it like this should make it easier for you to come to terms with the literacy rate.
Personally, I think that the fact that PCs usually can both speak and write 3+ languages is of more concern. Especially if the PC is young. Not to mention that it makes nearly no sense whatsoever that someone who grew up in an isolated human village for some reason knows elvish, dwarven or even abyssal in addition to common.
I don't see literacy as a problem because this isn't set in Earth or using Earth history so any relevance or similarity to statistics in real world history is entirely fruitless - the standard settings of D&D are not based on any specific time-period of Earth's history.
From my experience in playing games many DMs base this on the character Intelligence score - and there is a precedent for this on the show Critical Role. One of the characters, Grog, had an Intelligence score of 6 so it was decided by the DM, Matt, that due to this score Grog could not read or write. I have found that through all the games I have played with 3.5, 4th and 5th editions this is the norm: if you have a low enough Intelligence you are automatically considered illiterate, if you have an average score you can do OK and if you have a high score you are well versed (since the assumption that literacy is a "you have it or you don't" skill is stupid beyond measure because that's not what literacy is). I don't see any reason to change this paradigm.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I would like to point out that although it is inspired heavily by ancient/medieval times, the realms of D&D are most decidedly *not* medieval. Obviously that's my interpretation, but I think it's one shared by many, and a good reason for the literacy rates being the way they are.
Plus, we're not exactly playing commoners. We play the best of the best, people who are more powerful than average even at level 1. I know my post is kinda arguing against this thread, but I just wanted to play devils advocate for a bit
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Thank you everyone for replying to my original post.
It seems that the opinions expressed so far are that people are more comfortable with PC’s being literate as a default condition. I’m pretty much in the same camp. PC’s are the exception, not the rule, so they would likely be a much more literate group than the general populace.
In fact, my preferred mechanic of the several that I presented for providing a trade-off to players to be illiterate was giving them an additional skill proficiency in trade for choosing illteracy. Even that does not seem sufficiently attractive.
Ok, I have a follow-up question: What would the DM have to give you to make you want to or at least consider generating a PC who was illiterate?
However, illiteracy is not a permanent condition, and given a fantasy world full of magic, there are potentially lots of options for becoming literate above and beyond the usual method. In fact, it opens the door to at least three new magic items: a potion of literacy (temporary effect), an item that confers literacy on the possessor, and a book (ironic choice) that makes the reader become literate. I suppose the last item would require either the potion or the magic dingus to be able to be used.
Ok, I have a follow-up question: What would the DM have to give you to make you want to or at least consider generating a PC who was illiterate?
If I tried to make a farmboy fighter PC who got his family killed during an orc raid, and then swearing vengeance on orcs as a background, then my DM would simply have to say "If so, you won't be able to read or write, since as a farmboy you never had the chance or the need to learn it. Churches in this world don't act as schools for children either. Is that okay?", and then I'd reply with "Yeah, sure. Sounds reasonable to me.".
To me, it's more important that things makes sense for my character than it is to be strong (I even waste a few turns in combat now and then because of this, but that's another story). I'd object if the DM tried to make me illiterate if I took a noble background or if I made a wizard, but if I start out as a nobody from an unknown village where being educated isn't as important as knowing how to plow a field? Go ahead.
Getting hit by a curse of illiteracy would also be something I have no problems with accepting, as long it is something we can reliably get rid of.
I agree with Weenaru. It would greatly depend on the background and backstory of the character. If my character had a Intelligence of 10 and was an Urchin background I would assume he would have difficulty with literacy while a Noble background with the same Intelligence score could fare much better.
I think it has to take into account the logical reasoning of who the character is and what has happened. Backgrounds like Urchin make it less likely (but not impossible) for characters to be literate while Nobles, Wizards and such are almost guaranteed to be literate. Likewise if my Intelligence score was abysmal like 6 then I would understand being illiterate or having difficulty no matter the background/class.
There's also the setting to consider. Growing up in a city with easy access to schools and tutors and free libraries makes it much more likely even street urchins will know basic literacy at least. While, the most intelligent person in the world growing up in a remote village with no written material anywhere in sight isn't going to be very literate at all.
As long as the illiteracy makes sense, I have no problems with it. I mean if my noble-background Wizard who spent his life studying and writing in a city academy is supposed to be illiterate I would ask what drugs the DM was smoking. This is why it is vital to always discuss your character creation with your DM.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Not particularly worried either way, but re the comment that D&D is not a medieval setting - an alternative perspective. It is a true statement, but the matter or literacy holds true across most cultures across history. People are illiterate for a reason - reading/writing materials are expensive, the struggle for survival, etc. Of course, in a high fantasy setting maybe this isn't an issue, but then most people probably don't play fantasy settings very consistently.
I typically have more issue with a character being literate in every language they can speak. Sure it makes it simple, but for me it I feel it needs more granularity.
So what I have done is split languages into essentially language slots, one language slot gives the character spoken (lets you speak a language) or written language (read and write). Typically you can't have written for a language without spoken (unless the language has no spoken form).
Given the language slots characters get as follow:
* Character's get both spoken and written of their racial language (or choice for humans) and common (where appropriate)
* Intelligence bonus gives additional language slots equal to the bonus, a -1 penalty means you lose your secondary written language (common for most) , -2 penalty means you lose both written languages, -3 penalty and you cant take a written language.
* Backgrounds that give one language give only spoken
* Backgrounds that give two languages give both spoken and written for one of the languages chosen
* Proficiency in Arcana, History, Medicine, and Religion give one additional language slot each.
- Loswaith
In my campaigns the PLAYERS are all literate as per rules, but the populace is generally not, unless educated.
IMO it would be cool if there was a variant rule for level of fluency, or maybe you spend your languages as points... instead of one fluent language you know two or three at a broken level
so you’d know:
thow in some rules about communicating in two word sentences only, and a percentage chance of failure...and you’ve got a closer reality.
To elf: “Need sword”
elf: “No, I don’t need a sword.”
player: “me need”
elf, in common: “you know, I speak please dont practice your high school elvish on me”
——
if elves were talking to each other... 1d4 roll = 2 = two words in a sentence are understood.
elf says in elvish: “We really should bind them, and bring them before the king”
gm: “he says something about needing something or other and a king”
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Two paths diverged in the woods... one leads to simplicity. One leads to 5.5e.
ptsdspira,
The players wouldn't know what they were actually saying. That's for the DM to know. Why a d4? Because the GM chose a d4. Not intending to create a real mechanism but to provide a feasible structure a DM could work through. If you were going to go to an extreme it would depend on how fast they were talking, do they have a sub-accent Tennessee vs New York, etc.
The idea is only, allow for the RP opportunity that being out of your depth in regard to language might afford. If you happen to have the advantage IRL of knowing a couple of languages and their cultures you will understand the hilarity that can ensue from mispronunciations or cultural misunderstandings. All of these would be much more fun if at least one of the players was from that culture and could thereby be mortified.
Gerald: "I reach out to shake the stranger's hand"
GM: Ok, Fred, as he does this you know how people from this area consider that to be a challenge to combat, what do you do?
Fred: "Nooo! No, no, no!" I hold him back and say to the stranger, "Forgive my stupid dwarven companion, it's how he greets people...because dwarves are weird."
GM: Gerald, You hear Fred say no no no and hold you back and say something about "Forgive and dwarves and then something and then dwarves again"
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
That's why I mentioned the paranoia. Plus, if they keep ending up in To Serve Man situations, they're going to start wondering if something is up ;)
Edit: To word my last post better, a party seems less likely to act on "need something, something about a king" than "bringing something to the king", or "binding something, something king." Whether that ends up boring or disastrous for them is a bit of a balancing act.
Interesting thoughts all. If I were considering a campaign where languages and reading were major points, then I'd maybe offer all PCs the chance to exchange one spoken language for the ability to read and write in all other languages they speak. So a sage or human might easily have a spare language to trade in, while others might have to think about it a bit harder. Possible caveat that a PC with only two languages (like a dwarf with only common and dwarven) would be able to trade in a tool proficiency for literacy. Any time they get to learn a new language in the game they can choose to learn their letters instead. That might be interesting to see who chooses what - with only wizards completely dependent on the written word.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
You learn to speak a language. You learn to read an alphabet. Most people in my campaign, to include PCs, are illiterate. Unless your background or class would dictate otherwise.
For those characters that are literate it is more of a discussion with the player to what extent your literacy applies across your languages. For a sage background I might say you are literate across all of your languages. For a merchant I might say you are only literate in common and the Imperial trade tongue. All other languages you would be fluent in but not literate.
I am guessing I would apply the training rules from pg 187 to address learning more languages and/or becoming literate.
I once played an illiterate fighter with a very low intelligence score, and had to get other characters to read things for her.
You're right that most undeveloped societies have a huge population of illiterate people. BUT, in a fantasy campaign set in a fantasy world, I don't think it's unreasonable to give the population a high literacy rate. After all, most real-life societies also don't have magic-users, dragon-slayers, or 800-year-old citizens.
Suspend belief. Enjoy the fantasy setting. :)