D&D and AD&D - 10 Players?

[wingsandsword]

Thsi is the way it worked (in theory at least).

In other words, the Caller actually played D&D along with the DM, and the other PC's just sat and watched while the designated "party leader" actually made all the decisions for all the characters.

Yeah, right.

I'd heard of callers once, when a DM I know decided to run an old Basic D&D game that mentioned them. He jokingly suggested it to our group, who looked at the rule, laughed, and we all moved on and wondered how anybody could ever play like that.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

It's not so much that a Caller makes decisions and plays for the party, but organizes what the party is doing for presentation to the DM, so the DM can resolve actions in an organized fashion.

Not necessary in small groups, but helpful in large groups where there is a large discussion going on with many people submitting possibly conflicting actions. The Caller sums the actions up and presents them to the DM.

I find it helpful with more that six players. Last session -- eight players on hand -- I'd listen to the discussion, but not always hear firmly what each character was doing, with players someitmes suggesting multiple courses of action for their character. So I'd have to play Caller myself to confirm -- "So Char X goes over here, Char Y does this, and Char Z watches the door. Is that what you're doing?". It's useful to have a player do that for the party, at least with a large group.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It's not so much that a Caller makes decisions and plays for the party, but organizes what the party is doing for presentation to the DM, so the DM can resolve actions in an organized fashion.

In theory. In actuality it was a position that was subject to abuse, often with the DM's tacit permission. Both of the first two groups that I ever saw a DM get booted from was because of collusion between the caller and the DM, in the first the DM allowed the Caller's character to Charm Person the party then tell them to drop their saves for later Charms. (After he was booted I ended up DMing... my first time.) The second just allowed the Caller to run everybody, and to over rule the actual players of the characters. We told them to go off and play by themselves! (Only with a good deal more verve and innuendo...)

I do not miss the Caller at all, and have found 6 to be the ideal number of players since the 1970s.

The Auld Grump

 

[scadgrad]

Like what?

Quasqueton

Oh various things really. We're totally off-topic, but the biggest one to me seems to be the complete redesign of the game itself. There's nothing in the data to suggest that the sweeping changes made from 2nd ed to 3.0 were really needed at all. Most people who "lapsed" in the game did so primarily because A they got too busy, B didn't have enough time, or C didn't have enough people to play with.

Additionally WotC seems to have ignored the fact that its own data suggests that its "whales" are those that have been in the hobby the longest. Every grognard that they alienate costs them some $2500 a year in lost sales. Also, the real fans of the game and those who spend by far the most money are all adults and for the most part DMs. Perhaps it's just me, but 3.X seems obsessed with giving 'Players Options" and is clearly aimed at the younger, video game crowd; considerably more so than any of its predecessors.

There's quite a bit more, lost opportunities and the like, but you can check it out yourself if you'd like:

http://www.theescapist.com/WotCsummary1.htm

Look, I don't want to start an edition wars or anything, but most of the major changes (or at least those that many of us grognards complain about) were things that Skip & Monte thought would be good for the game and had absolutely nothing to do w/ the marketing research. There seems to be this notion that everything about 3.X was designed as a "response to what players wanted," and that's just not true really.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Of course, in addition to the "caller" there was the "mapper" position. That's something that's almost never seen in the current environment.

Ah yes, the Party Mapper! And the player of what character performed this role? The THIEF!

We also used a Party Chronicler that would keep tabs on plot points, important info.

 

[Glyfair]

Ah yes, the Party Mapper! And the player of what character performed this role? The THIEF!

While we never used the caller, we did use the mapper for a while (before our games turned less "dungeon" oriented). The mapper was never the thief. First, he was usually busy making decisions, checks, etc. while the mapper was recording the details. Secondly, the mapper was chosen based on how often the map was correct and readable.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Personally, my favorite party size is 6 players. It's enough to cover the bases and have some flexibilty for oddballs, from a D&D character standpoint.

That's one of the things I miss, is having more than four players. I'd like to do something oddball like a warlock or monk, instead of always having to cover one of the four basic positions.

Brad

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Oh various things really. We're totally off-topic, but the biggest one to me seems to be the complete redesign of the game itself. There's nothing in the data to suggest that the sweeping changes made from 2nd ed to 3.0 were really needed at all. Most people who "lapsed" in the game did so primarily because A they got too busy, B didn't have enough time, or C didn't have enough people to play with.

Additionally WotC seems to have ignored the fact that its own data suggests that its "whales" are those that have been in the hobby the longest. Every grognard that they alienate costs them some $2500 a year in lost sales. Also, the real fans of the game and those who spend by far the most money are all adults and for the most part DMs. Perhaps it's just me, but 3.X seems obsessed with giving 'Players Options" and is clearly aimed at the younger, video game crowd; considerably more so than any of its predecessors.

There's quite a bit more, lost opportunities and the like, but you can check it out yourself if you'd like:

http://www.theescapist.com/WotCsummary1.htm

Look, I don't want to start an edition wars or anything, but most of the major changes (or at least those that many of us grognards complain about) were things that Skip & Monte thought would be good for the game and had absolutely nothing to do w/ the marketing research. There seems to be this notion that everything about 3.X was designed as a "response to what players wanted," and that's just not true really.

Weird, I disagree with everything mentioned here. And most of the 'grognards' that I know have come back to the game, having been alienated by 2nd ed. (Some of them dinosaurs dating back to the '70s.) I have not met any who were alienated by 3rd, and tons that left during 2nd. So by all means let us go back to the halycon days of 2nd ed...

In what way is this not trying to start an edition war by the way? They seem to be keeping the whales that TSR lost.

The Auld Grump

 

[DarrenGMiller]

Oh various things really. We're totally off-topic, but the biggest one to me seems to be the complete redesign of the game itself. There's nothing in the data to suggest that the sweeping changes made from 2nd ed to 3.0 were really needed at all. Most people who "lapsed" in the game did so primarily because A they got too busy, B didn't have enough time, or C didn't have enough people to play with.

Additionally WotC seems to have ignored the fact that its own data suggests that its "whales" are those that have been in the hobby the longest. Every grognard that they alienate costs them some $2500 a year in lost sales. Also, the real fans of the game and those who spend by far the most money are all adults and for the most part DMs. Perhaps it's just me, but 3.X seems obsessed with giving 'Players Options" and is clearly aimed at the younger, video game crowd; considerably more so than any of its predecessors.

There's quite a bit more, lost opportunities and the like, but you can check it out yourself if you'd like:

http://www.theescapist.com/WotCsummary1.htm

Look, I don't want to start an edition wars or anything, but most of the major changes (or at least those that many of us grognards complain about) were things that Skip & Monte thought would be good for the game and had absolutely nothing to do w/ the marketing research. There seems to be this notion that everything about 3.X was designed as a "response to what players wanted," and that's just not true really.

If it looks like and edition war, sounds like an edition war and smells like an edition war...

I am with Auld Grump:

Weird, I disagree with everything mentioned here. And most of the 'grognards' that I know have come back to the game, having been alienated by 2nd ed. (Some of them dinosaurs dating back to the '70s.) I have not met any who were alienated by 3rd, and tons that left during 2nd. So by all means let us go back to the halycon days of 2nd ed...

In what way is this not trying to start an edition war by the way? They seem to be keeping the whales that TSR lost.

I don't know anything about the market research. I am one of the 'grognards' that was alienated by 2nd edition. While it is true that my life made finding the opportunity to game more difficult, I had already been rejecting the 2E products that came out before I stopped playing. 3E brought me back. While I agree that 3.x tries to give players a phenomenal number of character building options (many do seem to be aimed at younger players and evoke video games), I think the trend started back in 2E with FR and the "Player's Option" books and the kits, Baatezu and Tanar'ri.

DM

 

[ColonelHardisson]

If it looks like and edition war, sounds like an edition war and smells like an edition war...

I am with Auld Grump:



I don't know anything about the market research. I am one of the 'grognards' that was alienated by 2nd edition. While it is true that my life made finding the opportunity to game more difficult, I had already been rejecting the 2E products that came out before I stopped playing. 3E brought me back. While I agree that 3.x tries to give players a phenomenal number of character building options (many do seem to be aimed at younger players and evoke video games), I think the trend started back in 2E with FR and the "Player's Option" books and the kits, Baatezu and Tanar'ri.

DM

Get out of my head! I could have written this post. The only difference is that I lost my primary group of players with the release of 2e, after playing together since 1979. I was the one excited about a new edition; the rest weren't, and basically lost interest.

By the time 3e was announced, and the previews showed up in Dragon, I'd even stopped running the campaign I ran for my secondary group, the one which was much more casual, being my brother and some buddies. I still read Dragon out of habit, and bought some of the bigger TSR projects - like Return to the Tomb of Horrors, Birthright material, and Axe of the Dwarvish Lords - out of sheer curiosity. But my purchases were becoming few and far between, and my interest in playing had waned.

Problems with the old game had become glaring, and creating and keeping track of house rules just didn't appeal to me anymore. I could've gone back to older editions, but to be honest, I've always preferred more rules-heavy games, as did many of the people I gamed with. No matter what might be said about it on other threads or forums, I find more options (which to some reads as "more rules") to be more inspiring. Some will say that it has to do with a desire to do a lot of rules-lawyering, but that's baloney. I'm anything but a rules-lawyer. I just prefer more structure.

The previews in Dragon of 3e made sense to me. They took the old game and made it fun again, in my view. Some will insist 3e isn't "really" D&D, but I can't even relate to such a declarative statement. All the changes seemed to flow from logical extensions of the old game - a great example: AC became the number you had to roll "to hit." How simple a change is that?

All of which leads me to the actual thread topic. Yeah, I remember how old modules encouraged a large number of PCs. My groups were lucky to have 3 players, let alone 4 or more, so that kind of thing was right out. I remember reading about people gaming with what seemed like hordes of players (not characters; actual players), which led to me and the guys I gamed with being baffled. Where were all these gamers at?!? We sure didn't know of very many besides us, and we got our books from bookstores, where you really couldn't tap into the gamer community (there were no game shops nearby that we knew about). Anyway, we tried using multiple PCs per player at times, but we found that to be kinda boring; it really seemed to "take us out" of the whole experience when we were controlling PCs as one might control tokens on a board game or minis (and we weren't minis fans at all). So when 3e was designed to accomodate an average of 4 PCs, it struck me as being more in line with the gamer pool I had available.