Examples of Play and Refereeing

[Deleted]

I have always enjoyed reading the examples of play and the exchanges between the 'Caller' and 'Referee' such as the ones presented in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures and in M.A.R. Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne.

I often wonder if these examples are accurate in their presentation, albeit without context or inflection of voice, mood, etc., of how Gygax and Barker actually ran their games. The examples of play in description seem awfully sparse, which I like. The game seems to be more focused on events instead of on some kind attempt at literary or thespian exercise.

I guess what I am curious about is how "old-schoolers" play. It would be interesting to see transcripts of how various folks run their games and how closely they may or may not resemble each other and their predecessors and how this has changed or not.

[Zenopus]

I always liked those too, particularly the ones in the Holmes & Moldvay sets. They are great "flavor" text. Holmes seems to have written the one in the Holmes set. In Dragon #52, he indicated that he wasn't in favor of the "Caller" rule but kept it because it was in the original rules, so I don't think the example is reflective of his actual play, which he described as "Usually everybody talks at once. The resulting confusion is much more lifelike; one can hear the characters dithering away at the cross corridor as the monsters approach".

[Deleted]

If you all talked at once in Gary's game, God help you because nobody else would. The example in the LBB is pretty much dead on. We had a "caller" because he was also the "mapper"; how do you give directions if you don't know what the map looks like?

[Finarvyn]

Most of my early gaming was with a referee and 2-3 players, and we never used a caller. I suspect that if we had large groups then we might have resorted to this, but for smaller groups it never seened needed. We just took turns.

[Deleted]

You took turns mapping? Or just in combat?

I think people perhaps misunderstand the amount of what the "caller" did. Once combat started each person handled their own character.

[talysman]

Aug 29, 2011 8:15:24 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I think people perhaps misunderstand the amount of what the "caller" did. Once combat started each person handled their own character.

One example being Steve Jackson, when he designed his first RPG with a little inspiration from D&D. In The Fantasy Trip: In the Labyrinth, the example of play includes a caller who *does* say what each character is doing, although the player can override those directions.

Just using a caller during exploration makes a lot more sense.

[darkling]

I think the caller only becomes a requirement for large groups.

I run for a group of four, sometimes five, who handle their own actions just fine. During exploration movement whoever is physically at the front of the marching order is kind of a pseudo-caller saying where he or she leads the party, but the other party members often chime in with their own ideas and opinions. We also aren't afraid of splitting the party and so you might have a couple of groups running around at the same time. When exploring a room or piece of corridor in depth I take individual actions from the players going clockwise around the table (which is also the order in which they give combat actions).

Now, I think Men & Magic talks about games with up to 20 players per DM and in that situation I could definitely see a caller as necessary.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

I've used both in my games, though only recently began using a caller idea. Especially since our games can often include pre-teens, teens, and adults I stress the "team" mentality and make them discuss beforehand their declared actions, etc. I'm not hard and fast with this, and bring it back to the individual players during combat rounds. It seems to really bring the players together a lot more and helps the younger ones learn better "group think." I also have a lot less confusion at the table without people talking over one another.

So far, everybody, players and myself find the caller system works better for *us* As always, mileage may vary!

Remember, of course, I'm a professional development trainer. Those two spheres constantly overlap for me!

[xerxez]

I use a caller for any group over 3 players when I am DMing.

It seems to help a lot, especially with dungeon adventures.

I tend to type out very detailed Dungeon Keys with text of room descriptions to be read aloud--I find that after reading the description, the caller system lets the players quietly discuss what they want to do while I re-read the secrets of the room and jot notes for any encounters or traps.

By the time I look up from this, the caller has a neat presentation for me of what the party is going to do. I've had time to study the room anew, and they have had time to think about what they want to do.

Having a caller does not tend to eliminate the need for being questioned by all of the players but they should try to have the caller ask the questions.

I also ask my players to roll their combat and damage die all at the same time when we are doing battles--saves a bit of waiting.

[talysman]

Using the caller as a method to buy some time for the GM is actually a pretty cool idea!

For darkling and others who think that a caller is really only useful for large groups: you may be mistakenly thinking of the caller as the *leader*, or that other players aren't allowed to say anything. It might be helpful to compare this to a couple other practices.

You know how some people use strict separation of in-character and out-of-character discussion? Especially in on-line games, such as... here?

You know how a lot of the indie games have a "free and clear" procedure, where everyone, players and GM, discusses what they might do, makes a decision, and then basically says "this is what everyone is doing?"

The caller is like that. Having a caller is just a way to mark "what we actually do" as different from "what we are talking about doing".

[makofan]

I have implemented a caller in my play-by-post games just to keep the game moving. People have one day to give input and then the caller posts what the party is doing

[Deleted]

Do people not map? I can't imagine everyone at the table mapping, and I can't imagine making useful decisions on directions, etc., without a caller.

Or is the paradigm of "the layout of the dungeon is part of the puzzle" no longer used?

[darkling]

Aug 30, 2011 11:30:18 GMT -6 talysman said:

The caller is like that. Having a caller is just a way to mark "what we actually do" as different from "what we are talking about doing".

I just don't think I have ever seen this type of confusion crop up in an actual session. I agree that the caller idea is a good solution to that problem if you run into it.

Aug 30, 2011 12:13:13 GMT -6 makofan said:

I have implemented a caller in my play-by-post games just to keep the game moving. People have one day to give input and then the caller posts what the party is doing

This I get. Keeps threads clean and things straightforward, but that's because there are possibilities for confusion in meaning that arise due to the medium and it is important to minimize those.

Aug 30, 2011 13:12:13 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Do people not map? I can't imagine everyone at the table mapping, and I can't imagine making useful decisions on directions, etc., without a caller.

Or is the paradigm of "the layout of the dungeon is part of the puzzle" no longer used?

Oh we definitely have a designated mapper and I love fiendish dungeon layouts. One of our players is a geometry teacher and quite enjoys keeping the party maps, but I don't see any relation between the jobs of a mapper and a caller.

---

In short, I see the caller as a good way to reduce confusion about player actions. But if that confusion isn't arising in the first place, I don't see much need for it. And I am honestly not sure how that confusion arises, because that doesn't seem to happen with my group. I would definitely consider using one for an online game, and I would certainly use one for a large group or in a circumstance where inexperienced players outnumber experienced players. But for my normal group the idea just seems extraneous. Maybe there are differences in our playstyle that just aren't apparent from talking about things abstractly

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2011 13:12:13 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Do people not map? I can't imagine everyone at the table mapping, and I can't imagine making useful decisions on directions, etc., without a caller.

Or is the paradigm of "the layout of the dungeon is part of the puzzle" no longer used?

Most games that I've played in the GM draws the general layout of what we see on paper with pencil (if not using miniatures) or on a battle mat (if using miniatures). When I first starting gaming I was always GM and I described the environment to the players one of which mapped it on a piece of graph paper. However, now I find having the GM draw what the players see speeds up play rather than waiting on a player to draw what the GM is describing.

[talysman]

Aug 30, 2011 14:17:45 GMT -6 darkling said:

Aug 30, 2011 11:30:18 GMT -6 talysman said:

The caller is like that. Having a caller is just a way to mark "what we actually do" as different from "what we are talking about doing".

I just don't think I have ever seen this type of confusion crop up in an actual session. I agree that the caller idea is a good solution to that problem if you run into it.

I'm not really talking about solving a problem. I'm talking about an agreement between the GM and the players that the GM isn't going to exploit player mistakes until the caller, on behalf of the party, essentially says "this is our decision".

It's basically an extra saving throw against things like "I stick my hand in the mouth of the green devil face".

[Stormcrow]

Aug 28, 2011 21:53:25 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

If you all talked at once in Gary's game, God help you because nobody else would.

Gronan, how did Gary handle an everyone-talking situation and game time? If someone simply said, "I'm checking to see if there's anything in that pile of rags," would he assume the rest of the party was just standing around waiting during the search?

What exactly happened if everyone talked at once (aside from attracting wandering monsters)?

My players have always resented the idea of the caller, because they thought they weren't playing. I'd love to hear ways to bring fair consequences to parties that refuse to use a caller.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2011 18:47:03 GMT -6 talysman said:

It's basically an extra saving throw against things like "I stick my hand in the mouth of the green devil face".

If you did that in Gary's game, his response would be "chomp".

The caller does NOT dictate everyone's action, he or she declares what direction they go.

Gary and Rob and Dave and I WILL hose you royally if you blab stupid things.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2011 10:09:15 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Aug 28, 2011 21:53:25 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

If you all talked at once in Gary's game, God help you because nobody else would.

Gronan, how did Gary handle an everyone-talking situation and game time?

I don't know, it never happened. The caller and other players would stifle a player talking too much.

Oct 31, 2011 10:09:15 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

If someone simply said, "I'm checking to see if there's anything in that pile of rags," would he assume the rest of the party was just standing around waiting during the search?

Yes. The caller would point to players one by one and we'd say what we were doing. Otherwise, you were indeed assumed to be standing around with your thumb up your @ss.

Oct 31, 2011 10:09:15 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

What exactly happened if everyone talked at once (aside from attracting wandering monsters)?

The other players would choke you to death because they didn't want wandering monsters.

Oct 31, 2011 10:09:15 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

My players have always resented the idea of the caller, because they thought they weren't playing. I'd love to hear ways to bring fair consequences to parties that refuse to use a caller.

I can't even imagine what that first sentence means.

We sat on one side of a screen and Gary was on the other. The ONLY map we had was the one we drew ourselves based on Gary's verbal description. If another player was running his mouth, the mapper and other players would lose vital information, plus Gary would start throwing fistfuls of wandering monster dice.

"Fair Consequences" would be make them map, and every time they players are disorganized, start throwing wandering monster dice. If people get really noisy throw multiple dice. I really don't know how to solve this problem for you; wandering monsters were nothing but a drain on scarce resources and something we therefore all hated, and being disorganized was a great way to attract them.

[Stormcrow]

I've had some thoughts on getting the point across lately. I haven't been running anything for quite a while, but I'm itching to get back into it. I'm thinking of trying this:

I'll keep track of time with poker chips. When a turn passes, I put down a chip. If a player has a torch, spell, or other limited-duration item working, he'll get a stack of chips, and he has to hand one back to me each turn. When he runs out of chips, the item or spell is exhausted.

If a player blurts out they're doing something, and the other players just sit and wait for my response, time passes, I put down a chip, and anyone with a stack has to hand me a chip. This should get them to feel a bit of time pressure, and organize their actions.

And I don't have to go crazy keeping track of durations!

[talysman]

Oct 31, 2011 12:19:29 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Aug 30, 2011 18:47:03 GMT -6 talysman said:

It's basically an extra saving throw against things like "I stick my hand in the mouth of the green devil face".

If you did that in Gary's game, his response would be "chomp".

The caller does NOT dictate everyone's action, he or she declares what direction they go.

Gary and Rob and Dave and I WILL hose you royally if you blab stupid things.

Well, that was a side discussion about a hypothetical way of running D&D and the by-the-book way of running The Fantasy Trip (although even there, if a player contradicts the caller after the caller has described the party's actions, the GM takes the player's directions as the character's actual actions.)

Rule Number One of RPGs is (or should be): figure out how the GM and other players play the game before making stupid mistakes. If the GM takes your first statement of action as what you actually do, you have only yourself to blame if you don't find that out before blurting out what you're going to do.

[eris]

Aug 29, 2011 4:32:59 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Most of my early gaming was with a referee and 2-3 players, and we never used a caller. I suspect that if we had large groups then we might have resorted to this, but for smaller groups it never seened needed. We just took turns.

Originally, I always required there to be a mapper and a caller, but they didn't have to be the same person. The mapper drew the map in consultation with me and if he/she did a bad job I was perfectly happy to let the group get lost. The caller was the party "leader" in the sense that he/she said where the party was going, however, I always gave the players time to talk it over before the decision was made and the caller officially spoke.

In ftf games now days, my players really, *really* want visuals, so I tend to lay down sheets of paper with sections of corridor and/or rooms as they move along...and take them up as they leave an area. I don't enforce a mapper, but if they don't map they can still get lost. I don't enforce a caller either, but generally someone will take on that role (and who that is changes during the game) indicating the direction and movement of the party. I get a lot of "No wait! Let's check that door out before moving forward." and "Hey, use that pole! Remember the trap he threw at us last time?" leading to someone saying, "Ok, we'll stop and check the door...I listen, I try the knob, etc." and so on.

This works with groups up to 4 or 5, but if I got over that number I'd probably insist on a "caller" otherwise the game would a) bog down and b) the party would start splitting up. Splitting the party is okay with me as Ref, but muhahaha! not for the party's health.