|
Post by harlandski on Mar 3, 2017 11:54:08 GMT -6
Hi Gronan, As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm reading the Underworld and Wilderness Adventures at the moment with a view to playing OD&D in the relatively near future. I find the idea of a Caller, as evidenced in the example of play, both fascinating and alien. I've read this thread and from there I take it that Finarvyn didn't used to play with a caller. I'd like to know what the situation was like with Arneson, Gygax and Barker. How common was the use of callers in their games? And in general? Do you still play with a caller today? Was there a time when it went out of fashion, because I don't remember anyone using it when I started roleplaying around 1990. Thanks in advance!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 12:48:58 GMT -6
If you make players map, you need a caller. We ALWAYS played with a caller and still do.
How the Hell do you map WITHOUT a caller? Does the party sit down and debate every time they come to an intersection? with the attendant wandering monster checks...
|
|
|
Post by harlandski on Mar 3, 2017 13:25:02 GMT -6
In recent years I've only played once with a mapper (when I refereed a Holmes Basic game), but considering the interpersonal dynamics of our group there was no way one of them could be the caller (and therefore leader). I suppose over the years the groups I've been in have played in part by consensus, in part by characters just acting independently and the others having to react to that, in part by different party members deciding for the whole party at different points, and in part by having the party get chowed by some monster for discussing things for too long. And I must admit that some games I've been in have got painfully slow due to constant deliberations, so I'm open to the idea of caller, but I just find it hard to see how it would work in the long run.
I suppose my questions are - don't the players who are not the caller feel left out? What do they do whilst the caller's making decisions for their characters? Can they rebel against the caller, and how often do they do that? I'm taking it the caller is only for dungeon exploration (and combat?) but social interactions with monsters and NPCs would be a free-for-all? Oh, and do you take it in turns to be caller? - I guess that would be a deal-breaker with my group of individualists!
I'm sorry if it's annoying for me to ask questions about something which is so self-evident, but it really isn't to me and I want to get my head around it. Thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Mar 3, 2017 23:36:47 GMT -6
When I started playing, our group was ten strong. We mapped and we discussed; we didn't have a Caller... or so I thought. In retrospect, we actually did have a "caller". There was always one player directing the group - usually the one with the most charismatic character (so lots of Paladins in charge ). That role would shift session to session, and campaign to campaign, but there was always a party "leader" in our games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 0:33:52 GMT -6
Well, "caller" has transmogrified from "somebody who decides which direction" to "one guy playing everybody's character." Also we were all wargamers and used to team wargames, and in battle somebody has to call the shots. But it wasn't "this character will attack this orc, that character will throw magic missile." It was more like "let's fight, fighters form a line" sort of thing.
Really, it was never tough; I for the life of me don't understand why this seems to be such a sticking point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 0:34:40 GMT -6
Put your "group of individualists" up against some well drilled troops. They'll learn or die.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 4, 2017 15:33:12 GMT -6
The Fantasy Trip isn't the same as OD&D, of course, but it came out close enough to that time period that callers were still a thing, and it followed many of the same common practices. Maybe TFT: In The Labyrinth explained the idea better for modern audiences:
"CHOOSING A LEADER. Ask the players if they want to designate a leader. They don't have to — but if they do, you can assume their party is a little quieter as they travel. If they DO choose a leader, you will speak to the leader when asking what the party does (at least until a combat situation, when it's likely to be every man for himself). Of course, a player can always have his figure DISOBEY - and for some figures, this would be quite in character." (TFT:ITL, p. 33.)
Even this glosses over the fact that there are different levels of caller/leader. Some groups might just have someone make decisions on which direction to go and nothing else. Others might have the leader assign tasks to each character, although the player of that character decides how to obey, if they obey at all. There's only one hard rule: what players say to each other about their characters is assumed to be happening in the game world, so other characters or monsters can hear it, but what the caller says to the GM cannot be overheard and more or less happens outside of time. Hence, the comment about reduced noise for a party with a leader: if players aren't arguing about where to go or what to do, their characters aren't, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 18:46:35 GMT -6
When I run od&d at gencon for 8 players I use callers. I rotate the caller so everyone is a caller and when combat starts everyone says what their character does. Caller decides marching order and direction of movement.
|
|
|
Post by harlandski on Mar 4, 2017 22:04:46 GMT -6
Well, "caller" has transmogrified from "somebody who decides which direction" to "one guy playing everybody's character." Also we were all wargamers and used to team wargames, and in battle somebody has to call the shots. But it wasn't "this character will attack this orc, that character will throw magic missile." It was more like "let's fight, fighters form a line" sort of thing. Really, it was never tough; I for the life of me don't understand why this seems to be such a sticking point. The way you describe it, it sounds very rational. I suppose the confusing thing is that in some of the examples of play with a caller that I've read, it seemed to be the caller making all the decisions. But as someone to decide which way to go in the dungeon and decide on an initial battle-formation, it makes a lot of sense and I can see that it would allow for a faster-paced game.
|
|
|
Post by harlandski on Mar 4, 2017 22:06:49 GMT -6
The Fantasy Trip isn't the same as OD&D, of course, but it came out close enough to that time period that callers were still a thing, and it followed many of the same common practices. Maybe TFT: In The Labyrinth explained the idea better for modern audiences: "CHOOSING A LEADER. Ask the players if they want to designate a leader. They don't have to — but if they do, you can assume their party is a little quieter as they travel. If they DO choose a leader, you will speak to the leader when asking what the party does (at least until a combat situation, when it's likely to be every man for himself). Of course, a player can always have his figure DISOBEY - and for some figures, this would be quite in character." (TFT:ITL, p. 33.) Even this glosses over the fact that there are different levels of caller/leader. Some groups might just have someone make decisions on which direction to go and nothing else. Others might have the leader assign tasks to each character, although the player of that character decides how to obey, if they obey at all. There's only one hard rule: what players say to each other about their characters is assumed to be happening in the game world, so other characters or monsters can hear it, but what the caller says to the GM cannot be overheard and more or less happens outside of time. Hence, the comment about reduced noise for a party with a leader: if players aren't arguing about where to go or what to do, their characters aren't, either. Ooh, this is a really nice insight into things from a contemporary source. I also like the fact it accounts for disobeying, which I think would be an important option in my group :-D
|
|
|
Post by harlandski on Mar 4, 2017 22:07:46 GMT -6
When I run od&d at gencon for 8 players I use callers. I rotate the caller so everyone is a caller and when combat starts everyone says what their character does. Caller decides marching order and direction of movement. Rotating the caller would be a good solution in my group, and also limiting the callers role as you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by harlandski on Mar 4, 2017 22:10:57 GMT -6
So what I've learned from this is that a major advantage of a caller is to limit (or exclude) lengthy discussions about what to do next, and so to make the party more efficient in exploration, and possibly in combat.
My next question is: If the players nevertheless start arguing about something in the dungeon, how does that influence the likelihood of a wandering monster encounter. Does one just happen, or do I make an additional roll to check for it, or what? I'd like to know how experienced OD&D referees have handled this. Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Mar 4, 2017 23:37:37 GMT -6
I would make a wandering monster check (loudly and obviously) as soon as the discussion starts. That should keep them on their toes. And for what it's worth, from the first edition AD&D Players Handbook (I know... technically not OD&D*), pg.106, under "ORGANIZATION": *(Although one can argue that AD&D = OD&D + Supplements)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 1:13:15 GMT -6
When an argument starts, start rolling handsful of dice. Or my method "Does a wandering monster come?" *ROLL* "How about now?" *ROLL* "Maybe now?" *ROLL*
In essence I roll for wandering monsters about every 5 seconds during an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 5, 2017 6:52:30 GMT -6
We often played with a mapper, but that didn't mean we needed a "caller" to represent the party. What typically happened is that someone would just speak up "let's go left" and we did, and later on someone else might say "let's go right" and we would do so. That's how we played without a single caller.
In battle, each person placed their figure (or when we didn't use minis just said what he or she was doing) and initiative order took care of most of the rest. On your turn you did something. Folks might offer advice to one another ("let's try focus fire" or "a fireball right about now would be nice") but otherwise each person made decisions about his own character and we just worked it out from there.
I think the "caller" example is poorly written unless the intent is to have one person dominate play. Gronan's example sounds a lot like the way we played, only we didn't appoint an official spokesman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 15:59:06 GMT -6
That is pretty much how we played. The mapper wss almost always the caller just so there was a single point of communication, but we'd say things like "let's go left" or "don't go north, it's been cleaned out" to the caller/mapper instead of the ref. The purpose of a single person making directional decisions to the ref was to streamline the process.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 6, 2017 12:48:33 GMT -6
I think part of the problem is that people interpret the caller idea as an actual hard rule: "You have to have a caller, and the caller is the one who decides what each character does. No exceptions allowed!" But really, it's just a convenience, and no one is going to have a cow just because someone doesn't agree with what the caller says, or because someone suggested something to the caller, or if there's no formally designated caller and it's just one person saying, "Let's go left" without anyone saying otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Apr 1, 2017 10:25:30 GMT -6
The Fantasy Trip isn't the same as OD&D, of course, but it came out close enough to that time period that callers were still a thing, and it followed many of the same common practices. Maybe TFT: In The Labyrinth explained the idea better for modern audiences: "CHOOSING A LEADER. Ask the players if they want to designate a leader. They don't have to — but if they do, you can assume their party is a little quieter as they travel. If they DO choose a leader, you will speak to the leader when asking what the party does (at least until a combat situation, when it's likely to be every man for himself). Of course, a player can always have his figure DISOBEY - and for some figures, this would be quite in character." (TFT:ITL, p. 33.) Even this glosses over the fact that there are different levels of caller/leader. Some groups might just have someone make decisions on which direction to go and nothing else. Others might have the leader assign tasks to each character, although the player of that character decides how to obey, if they obey at all. There's only one hard rule: what players say to each other about their characters is assumed to be happening in the game world, so other characters or monsters can hear it, but what the caller says to the GM cannot be overheard and more or less happens outside of time. Hence, the comment about reduced noise for a party with a leader: if players aren't arguing about where to go or what to do, their characters aren't, either. Good quote. And excellent point about how the players have to use their characters abilities to communicate and interact in the game world in order to do so at the table. And that actions are attempted through the DM, which isn't the same thing. The DM doesn't have a playing piece. Here's how it was been explained to me: All of the players are Callers. Each makes attempts with their character by telling the DM. But players can cooperate and try working together. This usually means shared actions. Like a shared caller. Shared initiative. Shared note taking or mapping. Etc. Remember, the locus of interaction in OD&D and AD&D compared to 2e and later is not the DM. It is between the players. They are the group which is interacting and talking to each other throughout the affair. Then the group relays their actions to a neutral referee. It isn't the game of waiting for an individual turn with a DM, but you can work independently (even competitively). My next question is: If the players nevertheless start arguing about something in the dungeon, how does that influence the likelihood of a wandering monster encounter. Does one just happen, or do I make an additional roll to check for it, or what? I'd like to know how experienced OD&D referees have handled this. Thanks in advance! There are tons of ways to do this. I've seen distance ranges, time spent making noise, more and modified WM checks, and even alerting monsters with light (60' around corners). For me encounter distance is all about sensory abilities. There are human defaults for range of hearing, sight, smell, vibration, etc. to simplify when designing. Also how loud, how bright, how stinky, and other measures of activity - for both the PCs and the monsters. Wandering Monsters aren't those always alerted per se, populated lairs can be too. Patrols in corridors are more likely to notice as light, sound, etc. travels further down them then through walls. But that all depends on how populated your wandering monsters are. In a bustling city people will notice right away. In a trap-filled tomb no one will. Grimlocks won't see light, but hear sound far better - which vibrations made by movement remember. Entering a dark mirror maze with light may alert the guardian deep within right away. All those non-human standard monster abilities add variety to dungeon / encounter design and should be taken into account for the difficulty of each level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 11:54:57 GMT -6
Using a caller is what allows even a large group to have a game that moves quickly. I loved the comments above about wandering monsters, particularly those by @gronanofsimmerya.
|
|