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

[Lanefan]

That's no more an argument against the Caller than "Viking hat" or "mother-may-I" is an argument against DM-based resolution.

You're talking in theory, but I'm talking in practice. That doesn't happen because a) the way I explain the Caller explicitly rules this out, and b) the players have their own free will, and don't let that happen, and c) I've never seen anyone do that, but if I did I, the DM, would say, "That's Player B's character, let him decide what he's going to do."

This is the part I don't get: if the pl;ayers have their own free will and can directly declare their own actions then what role is left for the Caller?

Because the Caller is not the party leader. As I've said and demonstrated by example repeatedly in the thread. When people want to do their own thing, they tell the Caller what they are going to do. He or she doesn't have to agree, he or she just has to tell the DM what the people are doing.

In practice I could see this quickly breaking down if-when the Caller either didn't agree with what a character was doing or had a specific vested interest in what a character was doing; to the point where a stubborn Caller (and the people I run with are a generally stubborn lot) might outright say "I'm not declaring that". Cue the argument.

Now if the Caller didn't have a character and was more like an assistant DM, this issue goes away.

The Caller's role is a procedural one to keep things orderly for the DM on a meta-level of being at the table.

That's the theory, and I get it. In practice, however, I can easily see it backfiring; generating chaos rather than order.

In that particular case he doesn't have to, but it's good practice.

If I'm running a dungeoncrawl or a hexcrawl, there's a bit of administrative work I'm doing from turn to turn. I'm keeping track of time, rolling wandering monsters, refamiliarizing myself with what lies up ahead, if it's online I may be calling up the statblocks of upcoming monsters. I can listen to my players talk to the Caller while I'm doing all this, and even act on what they say. Oh, the thief is going to be moving silently up the corridor? Better ready some d10s for the check. Oh, Player B is splitting from the party and going down this other corridor? Better recheck my notes for that passage. I'm already figuring out the sequence I'm going adjudicate in. Once the players have decided on their individual actions, and informed the Caller, I'm ready to go.

Fair enough. I'm more often in "react mode" when things get chaotic like this, and I suspect the end result of our two methods might look much the same at the table.

If the party was always acting as a unit, I wouldn't need a Caller. Telling me which corridor the party has decided to go down is the least useful thing the Caller does.

Which is interesting, as to me the presence of a Caller represents a not-very-subtle game-based hint that the party is supposed to act cohesively.

Nope, no "going with the herd." No agreement required. Which is to say, my group tends to play cooperatively, as a team. So when they are in a dungeon, there's typically discussion until an agreement is come to about what the team is going to do. But that's not a function of the Caller; they do the same thing when out of the dungeon and there is no Caller. Players still go off and do their own thing when they want to.

Ah. I'm used to groups that often play as individualists; where the times they really do work together as a team are potential-TPK-level combats or where there's a massive treasure haul at stake, and where some characters (and thus players) often do things or go places that other characters/players don't know about.

Two things actually happen in practice. 1) Once players are used to playing with a Caller, the Caller doesn't have to determine what is to be called. The player's are engaged, and with each turn they have their own ideas of what they want to do, which they immediately tell the Caller. Online, the Caller may ask each player in turn, but that's only to avoid cross-talk and confusion in the video chat. 2) When there is a discussion to be had, and/or a decision to be made as a group, it is the outgoing and extroverted players that lead the discussion, whether they are the Caller or not. We rotate the Caller, so I've seen this in action many times.

Ah, that makes a big difference: you rotate the Caller. Long-term experience with Mapper and Treasurer tells me those roles get locked in to two people pretty fast, and the only time someone else temporarily takes on either role is if that role's usual player misses the session. Caller would no doubt go the same way.

When you make it clear to the Caller and the other player's that the Caller is not any kind of leader, people quickly stop treating them as one.

That's just it: I could make it clear as day every ten minutes and some players would still see the Caller as leader (or, if the Caller, assume a leadership role and proceed accordingly).

 

[Cruentus]

Keep in mind that a Caller isn’t really needed unless you have a big table size. We used to play with 8-12 people in Ad&d around one table. Having them all talking to the DM at the same time would be complete chaos. A Caller is helpful in that situation. A Caller is unnecessary by today’s standards where 4 party members is how the games (5e in particular) are balanced, and many older games run with smaller parties due to VTT, or space, or whatever.

Tables that Gygax ran in the early days could be north of 20 players. Try that without a Caller. And also, a Caller was probably a holdover from wargaming, where someone would need to ‘hand in’ the official move to the referee during the wargame. (Apologies if all of this was already mentioned). I just think folks are fixated on a Caller as some necessary thing that must happen. Situation and context at the table are important.

 

[Iosue]

Keep in mind that a Caller isn’t really needed unless you have a big table size. We used to play with 8-12 people in Ad&d around one table. Having them all talking to the DM at the same time would be complete chaos. A Caller is helpful in that situation. A Caller is unnecessary by today’s standards where 4 party members is how the games (5e in particular) are balanced, and many older games run with smaller parties due to VTT, or space, or whatever.

Tables that Gygax ran in the early days could be north of 20 players. Try that without a Caller. And also, a Caller was probably a holdover from wargaming, where someone would need to ‘hand in’ the official move to the referee during the wargame. (Apologies if all of this was already mentioned). I just think folks are fixated on a Caller as some necessary thing that must happen. Situation and context at the table are important.

Moldvay writes that the game can be played with 3 to 8 people (i.e., 2-7 players and a DM), and demonstrates the Caller being used in a party of 4.

I personally require a Caller with groups larger than 3 players. I can handle 3 players without a Caller, but find it useful anyway.

If anything, it sounds like he's just an intermediate link between the players as a group and the GM. I'm not sure I quite see the point, but it doesn't seem like its any different than what happens between players and the GM in groups that don't do that, so I think Lanefan is kind of projecting, here.

This is the part I don't get: if the pl;ayers have their own free will and can directly declare their own actions then what role is left for the Caller?

Some folks never use Moldvay's Combat Sequence. Why split it up in phases? Just roll group initiative and let everyone say what they are going to do. Personally, I like to use the Combat Sequence. It makes things nice and orderly, and in my XP the game runs quicker and smoother with it.

It's the same with the Caller. Is it absolutely necessary? No. Are there other methods that work just as well? Sure. But in my XP the game runs quicker and smoother with it. It fits well in turn-based exploration.

Secondary benefits include: while the characters are not forced to work together, or as a team, it provides an explicit opportunity, every turn, for the players to huddle and engage with each other. I once ran a Basic dungeoncrawl for a group that was used to playing 4e. When we played 4e, and there was a battle, these guys shined in their cooperative play. Advice, assists, plans, all sorts of goodness. But when we played the Basic dungeoncrawl (initially three players, so without a Caller), they were unusually passive. Generally they didn't engage until there was something they identified as particularly within their characters' abilities. Or a battle. During exploration, they didn't talk to each other. If they came to a decision point, there'd be a bit of silence until somebody said, "Go left?" or something similar, and then everyone else would just go along with that.

After a few hiccups of the "No, wait, I was outside the room!" variety, I instituted the Caller rule. (The Caller rule is very useful for eliminating Schroedinger's PCs.) I was just trying to avoid the hiccups, but what I found was that having the rule brought out their natural inclinations to give ideas, plan, strategize, and work together. Just having another player, not me, asking, "What do you guys want to do?" made a huge difference. They would actually debate decisions, and even (and this was what I was trying to explain to Lanefan) split the party or go off on their own if they didn't agree.

By rotating the Caller, everyone gets a chance to contribute, even the quiet players who are happy to just hang in the background. And because they don't have any extra responsibility, other than to tell me the players' actions, they don't feel put on the spot.

It's not for every group, or every DM. I'm not trying to proselytize here. I'm just pushing back on the idea that using a Caller meant that players weren't individualistic, or were sheep always moving in lockstep.

 

[Lanefan]

After a few hiccups of the "No, wait, I was outside the room!" variety, I instituted the Caller rule. (The Caller rule is very useful for eliminating Schroedinger's PCs.)

Question: do you use minis (or tokens if online) and a board?

If yes, a hard rule, applied reasonably, of your character is where its mini is clears up this issue and sends Schroedinger down to the pub for a beer.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Question: do you use minis (or tokens if online) and a board?

If yes, a hard rule, applied reasonably, of your character is where its mini is clears up this issue and sends Schroedinger down to the pub for a beer.

Back when the primary dungeon map was performed by the mapper on whatever size graph paper they could find, this often wasn't plausible.

 

[Cruentus]

Back when the primary dungeon map was performed by the mapper on whatever size graph paper they could find, this often wasn't plausible.

And even now when using VTT’s unless you lock people‘s tokens down, or have to ‘approve‘ moves, which slows the game down, folks will run their pieces all over the map, exposing fog of war or creatures embedded on the map, and then “oops, I’m actually back here”.

Now, I primarily use theatre of the mind, even when using a VTT, which I use to show atmosphere pictures, and maybe a room layout and a combat tracker for HP. We don’t do tokens or positioning. Folks tell me where they are or what they’re trying to do, I confirm, before anything actually happens, and then we move along. It’s been a lot quicker and easier for us.

And even when we were playing with minis, it never stopped that guy (in our group) from arguing he meant his mini was “here” and not there. And you either devolve into an immoveable object/irresistible force argument, or give in to the player to keep things moving. But that’s a whole different table dynamic issue.

If I have more than 4 players, Caller it is. It’s a tool in the toolbox, nothing more.

 

[bloodtide]

We used minis back in the day....but not many of the fancy offical ones.

The fancy ones were not only expensive, but they were only to be found in a game store or two. And worse often a hostile game store: they would keep all the minis way back behind the counter. And you could not even look at them, it was just "buy and get out of the store".

We mostly bought the cheap plastic ones at the Ben Franklins or the Woolworth. They both had utter junk toy aisles.....full of cheep toys. D and K was the best store. They would take the cheap 99 cent plastic bag of animals or monsters or whatever, rip them open and put them in big bins. Then you could buy each one individually for 7 cents.

 

[Lanefan]

And even now when using VTT’s unless you lock people‘s tokens down, or have to ‘approve‘ moves, which slows the game down, folks will run their pieces all over the map, exposing fog of war or creatures embedded on the map, and then “oops, I’m actually back here”.

Nope, "oops" doesn't count. You go there, that's where you go; period, stop, end of story. Deal with it.

Now, I primarily use theatre of the mind, even when using a VTT, which I use to show atmosphere pictures, and maybe a room layout and a combat tracker for HP. We don’t do tokens or positioning. Folks tell me where they are or what they’re trying to do, I confirm, before anything actually happens, and then we move along. It’s been a lot quicker and easier for us.

We've used minis on a chalkboard since forever; and I'd posit their use has prevented a crazy amount more arguments than it's caused.

And even when we were playing with minis, it never stopped that guy (in our group) from arguing he meant his mini was “here” and not there. And you either devolve into an immoveable object/irresistible force argument, or give in to the player to keep things moving.

All other things being equal, the player cannot win that argument if the DM is doing her job. Been there, on both sides.

 

[Lanefan]

Back when the primary dungeon map was performed by the mapper on whatever size graph paper they could find, this often wasn't plausible.

The dungeon map ends up on graph paper, sure, but there's an intermediate step where the bit of the map currently in play is on something bigger - a chalkboard, a piece of plain newsprint, a dry-erase board, whatever - and that's where the minis went.

 

[Iosue]

Question: do you use minis (or tokens if online) and a board?

Not for exploration in B/X.

Currently, playing 5e online, yes. But as Cruentus mentioned, the Caller is useful even then.