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

[Dyson Logos]

I remember the first convention I went to, it was hosted at the Collin Creek Community College back in 1990 or 1991. It was the first time I ever played a game with a g-g-g-g-g-girl!

I started playing D&D because of peer pressure - all the cool kids were playing it and thus both groups I joined already had (intimidating teenage) women in them. I was 9 at the time.

 

[Lanefan]

Division in the field is based on encumbrance, not even shares, so it's not an issue. The gems are held by the person or persons who can carry the gems without slowing the party down.

So...your party's characters don't care about share balancing? That's quite unusual IME.

I don't follow. It's not "if the Caller says it, it happens." The Caller simply relates the information to the DM once the players have decided on their (individual!) course of actions. The Caller can't say, "The thief checks for traps!" if the thief has not expressed their intention to check for traps.

In theory. In practice, some players would use the Caller role to in effect play everyone else's characters for them at different times.

Irrelevant to the function of a Caller. Agreement is not required.

Er...how is that possible?

Not an issue. The deadline for changing their minds is not the Caller speaking, but the DM adjudicating what has been communicated. If they tell the Caller one thing, but then change their minds while the Caller is telling the DM, they just say, "Wait, actually I'm going to do X." The Caller says, "Okay, Player A is doing X," and continue.

So the Caller has to repeat what the DM just heard from the player? OK, I get it....but at the same time don't get it...

I didn't think the Caller could state individuals' actions, just those of the party as a whole - meaning the party has to act as a unit for this to work.

So this is an interesting case, particularly if you value keeping player-headspace as close to character-headspace as possible, which I can fully understand and get behind. But then, I would just ask, how is this done without a Caller, in a way that maintains that congruity of IC and OOC knowledge? And why would that not work with a Caller? Because if it's just the player telling the DM, in full view and hearing of the other players, then I don't see the difference.

If playing in person, the player would pass the DM a note (which may or may not be blank, just to stir up some paranoia). Online, we use the 'whisper' function.

I resent the implication. And we were having such a good discussion.

Sorry, but to me any system that relies on group-think tends to force people into the roles of sheep going along with the herd. And that's what this is: there would seem to be a requirement that agreement be reached before the Caller can make a call for the party's action.

The basic disconnect here is that you're still looking at the Caller as some kind of party leader who wrangles the other players, obtains a consensus, and make sure everyone's moving in the same direction.

While I understand that's not how it's supposed to work, I can't see any situation in which this isn't in the end exactly how it would function. The Caller would simply end up taking charge of player discussions by default, if for no other reason than to try to determine just what is to be "called" at any given time, and it's a very short step from that to player-wrangler and table leader.

And that's simply not what I'm talking about. I don't want that in my group, either.

At least we agree on this last bit.

 

[Mannahnin]

Sorry, but to me any system that relies on group-think tends to force people into the roles of sheep going along with the herd.

I'm a little shocked that you still don't get it at this point. But more shocked that you keep using insulting language in this way that denigrates a play technique when it must be clear to you at this point that you're having a comprehension issue. Or that your group has a particular dynamic which doesn't correspond to the experience of those of us who've found the Caller role useful in some groups and contexts.

 

[Iosue]

So...your party's characters don't care about share balancing? That's quite unusual IME.

Their shares are balanced when its divided for XP.

In theory. In practice, some players would use the Caller role to in effect play everyone else's characters for them at different times.

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."

Er...how is that possible?

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

So the Caller has to repeat what the DM just heard from the player? OK, I get it....but at the same time don't get it...

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.

I didn't think the Caller could state individuals' actions, just those of the party as a whole - meaning the party has to act as a unit for this to work.

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.

If playing in person, the player would pass the DM a note (which may or may not be blank, just to stir up some paranoia). Online, we use the 'whisper' function.

And this would work just fine with a Caller.

Sorry, but to me any system that relies on group-think tends to force people into the roles of sheep going along with the herd. And that's what this is: there would seem to be a requirement that agreement be reached before the Caller can make a call for the party's action.

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.

While I understand that's not how it's supposed to work, I can't see any situation in which this isn't in the end exactly how it would function. The Caller would simply end up taking charge of player discussions by default, if for no other reason than to try to determine just what is to be "called" at any given time, and it's a very short step from that to player-wrangler and table leader.

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.

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.

 

[Voadam]

Just for reference:

Moldvay Basic: "To avoid confusion, the players should select one player to speak for the entire group or party. That player is named the caller. When unusual situations occur, each player may want to say what his or her character is doing. The caller should make sure that he or she is accurately representing all the player characters' wishes. The caller is a mediator between the players and the DM, and should not judge what the player characters should do."

"THE CALLER: One player should be chosen to tell the DM about the plans and actions of the party. This player is the caller. The players may tell the DM what their characters are doing, but the game runs more smoothly when the caller relays the information. The caller should be sure to check with each member of the party before announcing any actions (such as "We'll turn right" or "The thief will check for traps"). The caller is usually a character with a high Charisma score, and should be near the front of the party, where the character would be able to see what the DM describes."

"As caller, Morgan relays the party's actions to the DM after the characters decide what they want to do."

"caller — The player who normally tells the DM what his or her party will do, based on what the other players tell him or her."

 

[Mannahnin]

Yep. And again, you usually don't need this kind of organizational tool/role unless it's a larger group. I've most commonly seen it employed with groups above 6 players, especially when we start getting up to 8-10. When I first played Palace of the Vampire Queen with Frank Mentzer at a convention ~2011, we had two tables full of players, 12 in all, and he had us nominate a Caller for each table.

And as we discussed up-thread, the role also has added value in online conference call play, because it helps reduce the issue of turn-taking/unheard people talking over each other.

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.

It's still a decent time-saver there, though. If the group elects someone to make the "left turn or right?" decisions in the dungeon, you get less time spent on those decisions. Still SOME, though, because when you're doing it right the other players are still free to pipe up with a suggestion if they've spotted a clue on the map or remember a detail.

CALLER: "DM, you said both passages at the fork look identical? Ok, we go East."
OTHER PLAYER: "We said we were heading back to the bugbears, correct? Weren't they to the West?"
CALLER: "Oh right, good catch! West it is!"

 

[Voadam]

My D&D groups I have DMd for have generally varied from one to six players, I have never really used a caller.

 

[GuyBoy]

Never used a caller in the groups I gamed with in the late 1970s/early 80s.
In terms of conventions, we dreamed of attending Origins or GenCon, but it never happened, though we did go to Dragonmeet in the Horticultural Halls in London, which we thought was brilliant.
As an aside from the comment about hitch-hiking to conventions: never did that to a convention, since the only UK one was in London and I lived there anyway, but hitching was definitely a thing back then. When I was 18 in 1981 I finished my A levels and, with a mate, we went off to hitch round Europe and had a great time, started by our first lift from Calais to Milan!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I started going to conventions in '79 and never ran into the "tournament D&D is best / only D&D" thing. If anything, people were more excited to play weird off-shoot games and variants. But my experience was mostly around Origins and GenCon back then.

If that dynamic didn't play out at those two, its hard to see it being widespread at all (and as I noted, it certainly wasn't at DunDraCon which is a pretty big West Coast convention even now).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

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.