I think the assumption was that the DM was busy doing "DM stuff" and shouldn't be bothered with listening to all the player discussion/debate over what to do and that simply waiting for the caller to declare everyone's actions was faster and easier for the DM. I've never played with a group that was big enough, or had enough "DM stuff" going on outside adjudicating the players actions that a Caller seemed necessary or desirable.
OD&D example of play
- Thread starter Doug McCrae
- Start date
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
That'd take away all the entertainment I get from listening to them argue!
Lan-"back in the saddle again"-efan
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
The Caller is the OOC-leader of the group and handles most of the direct discussion with the DM. He doesn't control the group, he simply anticipates most of their regular actions and relates them to the DM. While one of the other players might be playing the PC who is actually the leader of the group, the Caller is often one of the more experienced, expedient, and clever players. People can take turns at being the Caller but usually settle on one or two of the group, whoever serves the purposes of the group best.
Odhanan
Adventurer
To know more about the Caller, see this thread on Knights & Knaves.
Doug McCrae
Legend
It's interesting to note that there's disagreement in that thread as to the assumed number of players in early D&D. In what I think is the oldest example of play we have, The First Dungeon Adventure from the winter of 70/71 there are six players, but 30 men in the party in total. In the Expedition into the Black Reservoir there are only four characters, perhaps fewer players.
I'd have said a caller would only be useful for large groups of around a dozen players. We've always managed fine without one for groups of three to six. Whenever it got up to a dozen, we'd have two GMs, rather than a GM and a caller.
Last edited:
InVinoVeritas
Adventurer
Yeah, I remember the Caller from my first D&D days. We read about it, realized it was silly, and dropped it.
Of course, it was also expected that you were running around with tons of henchmen and hirelings; no one did that either, which is why 2e and later editions completely ignored it.
The game has changed mightily over the years.
Of course, it was also expected that you were running around with tons of henchmen and hirelings; no one did that either, which is why 2e and later editions completely ignored it.
The game has changed mightily over the years.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
We used one all the time. Our group often had 8 players and a DM so it was kind of necessary. Basically, the way we used it was that for routine questions where there didn't need to be a lot of discussion, whatever the Caller said goes.
So if we needed to decide whether to take the left or right passage, the party caller was allowed to just make the decision for the party. If there was a reason other party members extremely disagreed with the decision, they were free to voice their opinion. But it better be good, we didn't have much patience for constantly questioning the Callers decisions and slowing the game down if we didn't have to.
It served to eliminate some confusion. I know at least one DM who likes to have a party caller in his 4e game as well. He feels that it prevents the party from constantly bickering.
In the past we had incidents where one PC would say "We open the door and go inside" while 2 other players were discussing their weekend and 2 other players were having a discussion about how powerful their characters were. When the DM figured everyone was either in agreement or didn't care so just said "Alright, you enter the room and spring the trap", followed immediately by the other 4 players stopping dead in their conversations and saying "Whoa, none of us agreed to open that door, there's no way we'd let him open it."
The solution was simply to reinforce the mandatory party caller. The DM would refuse to accept any action that didn't come from the caller. But our group wasn't big on any PC doing independent actions.
Doug McCrae
Legend
There's an example of play in Moldvay BD&D which is clearly based on the one in OD&D, but a lot more detailed. Unfortunately it's too long to reprint it here, it's over a page, but it's good stuff, far superior to the original imo. There's actually some roleplaying in it (in the sense of speaking in character) for one thing.
As an aside, I think Moldvay BD&D may be the first TSR publication to promote roleplaying in this sense, it does so in several places. It was probably the source of the concept in my group. We certainly regarded it as a desirable thing, even aged 11.
There is a caller but she is a much more consensus-seeking leader than the one in OD&D. The other players are asked if they have no objections to going in a particular direction. They even get to talk!
They still avoid the silent door, killing the monsters (this time goblins) behind the noisy door. They still know about magic cloaks and boots.
But probably the best bit is -
DM: "Black Dougal gasps 'Poison!' and falls to the floor. He looks dead."
Fredrik: "I'm grabbing his pack to carry treasure in."
Cold mang, real cold.
As an aside, I think Moldvay BD&D may be the first TSR publication to promote roleplaying in this sense, it does so in several places. It was probably the source of the concept in my group. We certainly regarded it as a desirable thing, even aged 11.
There is a caller but she is a much more consensus-seeking leader than the one in OD&D. The other players are asked if they have no objections to going in a particular direction. They even get to talk!
They still avoid the silent door, killing the monsters (this time goblins) behind the noisy door. They still know about magic cloaks and boots.
But probably the best bit is -
DM: "Black Dougal gasps 'Poison!' and falls to the floor. He looks dead."
Fredrik: "I'm grabbing his pack to carry treasure in."
Cold mang, real cold.
Last edited:
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
IME, the caller isn't interceding for the DM, he is simply streamlining the general actions of the group for the group, though any group member could jump in at any time if something is not being done in their interest. There seems to be this idea that the Caller is taking something away from the other players rather than being of service to them (acting on their behalf), and that was never the case. Again, IME, as a gamer since the pre-D&D Seventies who played in Gencon tourneys in those days like the D&D Open where having a Caller was one of the few ways to get through those extensive modules (and still few groups managed to get all the way through). You can see from the excerpt above how swiftly exploration can be handled using that method and no one feels left out because everyone is listening and planning and putting in their two cents when it is useful.
Doug McCrae
Legend
In the play example in the 1e DMG, there is no caller, but there is a leader, who acts much like a caller. He makes all the minor decisions - movement and searching. The other players get to speak quite a bit though. Another player seems to take the lead in the water room with the blind fish, where the leader is quite disinterested at first, and then a different player, the gnome character's, takes more of a lead in the room with the secret door.
