Listening to old-timers describe RP in the 70s and 80s

[Thomas Shey]

Never had a Treasurer because the party would just split all loot as they found it depending on who could handle the encumbrance.

Most groups I've been around would found that tedious and sometimes hazardous since there are often things that don't split up tidily.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah that sounds more like Hackmaster to me.

Yes, this is the parody version of what gaming at the time was like.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There was a time when Tournament play at a convention was considered the only "real" way to play D&D in gaming circles. Anyone who played D&D in their basement was not playing "real D&D", or maybe it was seen as "practice", but still not real D&D.

Never saw that. Ever.

To be fair, though, my first play experience in the 70s was in Aurora, CO, as a player ONLY. And the next place I lived was Manhattan, KS. There weren’t even RUMORS of things called “conventions” in either city. (I may have seen ads in Dragon, but certainly didn’t notice them.)

I don’t have recollection of the possibility of going to a convention until I was a teenager in the mid-1980s, and even then, it was many states away from Texas, so I wasn’t going. And neither was anyone I gamed with.

 

[Lanefan]

Never had a Treasurer because the party would just split all loot as they found it depending on who could handle the encumbrance.

And that split carried over to after the adventure? As in, if someone gave you 250 g.p. to carry, that money was yours to keep?

'Cause if not, you needed a treasurer to keep a tally.

If a Caller made a unilateral Call, I’d check with everyone to make sure they agree before acting on it. Then remind the Caller that their job is to poll the group, not make decisions.

That in itself would provoke an argument, as some would see the Caller's role as being that of outright party leader or boss. That's a large part of why the concept just never caught on here.

I don’t see any of this as incongruent with a Caller. Having a Caller doesn’t mean the party acts in lockstep. What would happen is:

Caller: “Me, Player 5, Player 6, and Player 7 are going left, toward the dim green light, in that marching order. Player 2 is going to check out that door. Player 3 is going to go 20' down the right passage, to try and get an idea of what's causing that rumble. Player 4 is staying put at the intersection so she can keep an eye on everyone.”

That assumes the players said all those things beforehand.

When the party is chaotic, you Call the chaos! If the party split like that, I would then treat the lone players as their own Caller, or depending on the situation split the party into two groups, each with their own Caller.

The idea is to avoid this kind of thing:
DM: “Down the left passage is a dim green light. Straight ahead is a finely carved door. Down the right passage is a low constant rumble coming from the darkness.”
Player 1: “Left? Left sound good?”
(Muted agreement and noncommittal shrugs from rest of group.)
DM: “Okay, you travel 30 feet and come to—”
Player 2: "Wait, not me - while they go that way, I'm going to check out that door! There's gotta be some great loot behind that thing!"
DM: “Uh, okay. Are you listening to the door or checking for traps?”
Player 3: "If he’s doing that, I'm going to go 20' down the right passage, to try and get an idea of what's causing that rumble."
DM: “Right, okay.” (Thinking: That’s gonna trigger an encounter. Crap, which to handle first…?)
Player 4: "OK, I'm staying put at the intersection so I can keep an eye on everyone."
DM (starting to scribble on scratch paper): “So who’s doing what now?”

This is what I'm used to, and IMO it far better preserves player agency. I'd have them move their minis on the board to show me where each is going, then deal with them in short time increments until-unless something happened.

 

[Iosue]

And that split carried over to after the adventure? As in, if someone gave you 250 g.p. to carry, that money was yours to keep?

'Cause if not, you needed a treasurer to keep a tally.

Well, no, the DM is keeping a tally, in order to award XP.

That in itself would provoke an argument, as some would see the Caller's role as being that of outright party leader or boss. That's a large part of why the concept just never caught on here.

That's a problem with the understanding of the concept of a Caller, not with the concept of the Caller itself. Like I said, it was never explained very well, and was sometimes conflated, intentionally or unintentionally, with the idea of a "party leader."

Which is to say, if you're saying, "We never used a Caller because we didn't like the idea of one player being the leader," then I don't think there's any disagreement. Each group is going to do as they do. But you're saying the idea of a Caller as I described it (and how I think it should have been described) wouldn't work with your group. And if a reason is, "People will think the Caller is the leader," then there is a more fundamental issue of what the Caller is, before even getting to what the Caller does.

That assumes the players said all those things beforehand.

Yes, that's how it would work if a group used a Caller.

I mean, what you're in effect saying is, "A Caller wouldn't work for my group because we would never play in a way that utilized a Caller." Which is fine. If you've got your own rhythm, your own methods, and ways of smoothly managing a variety of actions and perspectives, more power to you. You don't need a Caller. A Caller, like the Moldvay Combat Sequence, or Reaction Rolls, or Dungeon Stocking system, is just a procedural tool to help manage the work of being a DM. And like those other tools, it's one I find very useful and helpful.

This is what I'm used to, and IMO it far better preserves player agency. I'd have them move their minis on the board to show me where each is going, then deal with them in short time increments until-unless something happened.

I don't think use of a Caller has any effect on player agency. It certainly doesn't have any effect in my groups. Players still interact with the DM to clarify things, and do their own thing when they want to. If anything, it just encourages more discussion and coordination among the group. The final decisions are the players'. All the Caller does is relate those to the DM in a nice package.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, no, the DM is keeping a tally, in order to award XP.

I've never used xp-for-gp but if I did I'd still push the accounting over to the players. There's also the tracking of non-magical but valuable items e.g. gems, jewelry, fancy dinner sets, etc. that likely wouldn't get divided in the field as you wouldn't know their values.

That's a problem with the understanding of the concept of a Caller, not with the concept of the Caller itself. Like I said, it was never explained very well, and was sometimes conflated, intentionally or unintentionally, with the idea of a "party leader."

It's unavoidable, I think, as soon as you implement "if the Caller says it, it happens"; and if that's not implemented the DM still doesn't know when to listen and when not to, meaning what's the point of a Caller?

I mean, what you're in effect saying is, "A Caller wouldn't work for my group because we would never play in a way that utilized a Caller." Which is fine. If you've got your own rhythm, your own methods, and ways of smoothly managing a variety of actions and perspectives, more power to you. You don't need a Caller. A Caller, like the Moldvay Combat Sequence, or Reaction Rolls, or Dungeon Stocking system, is just a procedural tool to help manage the work of being a DM. And like those other tools, it's one I find very useful and helpful.

I get that it's a procedural tool, but when your players are a bunch of individualists it just ain't gonna fly.

I don't think use of a Caller has any effect on player agency. It certainly doesn't have any effect in my groups. Players still interact with the DM to clarify things, and do their own thing when they want to. If anything, it just encourages more discussion and coordination among the group. The final decisions are the players'. All the Caller does is relate those to the DM in a nice package.

This (IME wrongly, a lot of the time) assumes some things:

--- that the players, in and-or out of character, are willing to come to any sort of agreement on a regular basis
--- that all the players are willing to tell the Caller what their characters are doing
--- that the Caller's own character isn't doing something unknown to the rest of the party
--- that players won't change their minds during the time the Caller is talking to the DM

At the intersection, for example, if everyone goes toward the green light except one character wants to hide, hang back, and then sneak to the door instead, ideally none of the other players know what this character is doing - which means the Caller can't be told either. And yet if everything has to run through the Caller...then what?

Yes, running a big party is often an exercise in cat-herding; but as both DM and player I'd far rather that than have it be an exercise in sheep-herding.

 

[Dyson Logos]

At the intersection, for example, if everyone goes toward the green light except one character wants to hide, hang back, and then sneak to the door instead, ideally none of the other players know what this character is doing - which means the Caller can't be told either. And yet if everything has to run through the Caller...then what?

Then you role-play.

Seriously, we do this all the time in games. One player says flat out "I'm going to wait until everyone moves ahead and then sneak back to the door", the Caller then transmits it to the DM "We are heading west except, obviously, Dyson, who's doing his own thing".

Just like flubbing a search check for traps. You don't then have everyone else search, you announce with gusto "No traps!" and then proceed to do the thing that would set off a trap if there is one.

 

[Lanefan]

Then you role-play.

Seriously, we do this all the time in games. One player says flat out "I'm going to wait until everyone moves ahead and then sneak back to the door", the Caller then transmits it to the DM "We are heading west except, obviously, Dyson, who's doing his own thing".

We very much emphasize player knowledge and character knowledge being the same (mostly to avoid metagame issues); thus if the characters don't realize Dyson is going a different direction then ideally the players won't either.

Just like flubbing a search check for traps. You don't then have everyone else search, you announce with gusto "No traps!" and then proceed to do the thing that would set off a trap if there is one.

Even though it makes in-character sense to have someone else search, if only because your not finding a trap could still mean you missed one.

 

[Dyson Logos]

We very much emphasize player knowledge and character knowledge being the same (mostly to avoid metagame issues); thus if the characters don't realize Dyson is going a different direction then ideally the players won't either.

So most characters understand how to make electricity, how germ theory works, and how to speak and write English as well as Common?

Seems to me that you are making things harder on yourselves than you need to by getting rid of those distinctions.

 

[Dyson Logos]

Even though it makes in-character sense to have someone else search, if only because your not finding a trap could still mean you missed one.

Do you always double-check your mechanic's work on your car and similar? Generally speaking we tend to accept that professionals and skilled individuals are good at what they do, and not replicate their efforts (especially in old school D&D, where each character who checks after the first is spending ten minutes searching and providing yet another wandering monster check).