Something that doesnt come up often but one I think can be very important in a campaign is PC literacy. Mostly seen , if ever, in Fantasy and Post-Apoc settings. The ability to read and write can be very important. In a fantasy setting it is usually assumed a wizard character at least can read and write. Though in BX D&D that was not necessarily the case as you could roll up a PC with a 3 INT who can neither read nor speak well. "Ogg make Fire!" Characters up to INT 5 were illiterate.

So in a fantasy setting the ability to read can be very important. And going by BXs guidelines a fair chunk of the average populace can read and write at least common. But sometimes you need someone who can read dwarven when you dont have a dwarf on hand. Or some other odd language. Or read at all for that matter. This is something I feel 5e D&D could make use of more.

Post apoc settings can be much the same. Who can read? Who cant?

Which brings us to the question at hand. How literate, or not, do you play your characters? Do you just assume they can read or do you assume they cant? How important, or not, has the ability to read been in the campaigns you've played in or DMed?

I tend to play literate PCs and have sometimes been the only PC in the group able to read at all. Other times theres been one or two others like a cleric or thief in the group that could. I play a PC in two Post-apoc games that cant read and look to others to handle that stuff. Other times I have again been the only one in the group who can read.

As a DM I like to play up this element at times as it adds a bit of lost history or mystery to the setting. Or can be a background element such as those in charge try to keep the populace illiterate as a form of control. Or its just not caught on yet.

Reading isn't very hard (I mean, children who can barely walk can do it), so IMHO, you need to explain why people would be illiterate.  Is the written language super complex? Is there a monopoly on learning?

Runequest and games derived from it include reading/writing as a skill. So it shows up in those games.

Quote from: JeremyR;1027628Reading isn't very hard (I mean, children who can barely walk can do it), so IMHO, you need to explain why people would be illiterate.  Is the written language super complex? Is there a monopoly on learning?

So why was only 12% of the world literate in 1820?
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy

I'd say that monopoly on learning, and lack of the free time to learn, kind of covers much of it. It's not like farmers and factory workers in 1820 needed to read and write to be able to farm or work.

Depends on how widespread access to learning is, if the common jobs require reading or not.

I tend to use a lot of written information and clues in my adventures - signs, letters etc.
If I dont want the PC´s to be able to read it right away, I just say it´s in an unknown language.
In BRP I let all PC´s read and write, but the skill % affects their ability to learn new spells and skills from books.
I´ve been experimenting a lot with the training and experience-rules (BRP), so this might change.

Depends on the setting. If I want literacy to be common, you get read/write at INT 8. If I want it uncommon, you get it at INT 13. Mages and Clerics get it with their class, but how truly literate they may be depends on their INT.

Depends on setting, and setting locale. Literacy is not a static function across language. Some languages are harder to learn in their scripts and writing conventions than others. Further, there's degrees of reading and writing fluency, just as there is degrees of language learning.

That said, its lack is not that great a barrier to communication or security as one would think. Non-literate societies had a plethora of ways to securely communicate information across great distances and times. It is merely a subject matter that is often overlooked by us because we've grown up adapting to a highly literate society.

All in all, if it becomes a disruptive element in my game where my players are struggling to adapt, I'll fluff it into a manner they can cope with, and explain that's what they are doing in-character. However I do like it if they try. I like sprinkling a bit of the everyday implications just to retain that alien atmosphere. It feels immersive to me, as GM and player, and I like trying to retain that.

In my current 5e edition game, it depends on your choice of Background. In my upcoming Birthright game, you'll need to buy literacy with a proficiency slot, unless you're a noble. In my upcoming Ravenloft game, it's assumed you are literate unless you come up with a backstory that precludes it. So I guess the answer is, depends on the setting and how class/education works in that setting.

9+ Intelligence means literacy, others can learn to write in 20 minus Intelligence weeks (the rate it takes to learn a language in my campaign) if they have access to a teacher. This level is for player characters, NPC literacy depends on their job.

When I arranged a big fantasy larp (600 people over 4 days) I designed two new alphabets for Law and Chaos and only literate characters got the cipher to learn. Since learning them fluently took about an hour of practice even if 50% of the characters were literate on paper in practice most players (and co-hosts) could barely read or usually only one of the alphabets. They were distinct enough that even an illiterate player could see which was which (Law was based on hieroglyphs with even blocky shapes, Chaos all curves and dots). People actually sought out scribes in game because reading long or subtle texts or writing something legible was difficult, some people even played writing teachers and taught people to read and write in game.

I would have that literacy should be a function of background, not Intelligence.

So someone of noble background will be literate even at Int 8, while a barbarian may be illiterate even at Int 18.

My first or second session of TFT.  1975 or so.

I was playing a fighter.  We were playing with 38 point characters.  I rolled a 15 to hit, and one of the other fighters said "You hit."

I said, "No, I miss."

"Huh?  Dex 15 means you hit.  38 points, STR 15, DEX 15, IQ 8.  That's the way you build a fighter."

"I don't have a DEX of 15, I have a DEX of 14.  I put a point into IQ so I could be literate."

"Huh?  Why would you do that?"

"Because a gentleman should be well-read."

Everybody else looked at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my ears.

I agree, reading and writing should be a factor of background, but perhaps modified by INT or WIS.

Someone can be literate and be a poor reader (ie poor vocabulary). A high INT would indicate a higher / richer vocabulary.

Someone can be literate and a lousy writer (bad understanding of audience). A high WIS would indicate a better writer.

Reading and writing are not that simple. Anyone can collect and remember a handful of symbols, but sometimes stringing those symbols together make something new that are entirely out of context with someone's experience. Or you get symbols that are only readily available to certain classes of people.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1027677When I arranged a big fantasy larp (600 people over 4 days) I designed two new alphabets for Law and Chaos and only literate characters got the cipher to learn.

THAT sounds awesome!!!

Quote from: jhkim;1027699I would have that literacy should be a function of background, not Intelligence.

So someone of noble background will be literate even at Int 8, while a barbarian may be illiterate even at Int 18.

Agreed...in theory.

As I don't use skills in my OD&D, I do expand INT to function as IQ + Education. You can choose to play your INT 8 character as street smart, cunning, but unlearned, or you can be unimaginative dolt whose parents wasted their silver sending you to sages as a child.