Quote from: K Peterson;860128Is that how initiative works in OD&D? I know shit-and-nothing about OD&D, and am a little surprised that it doesn't use group-initiative like a number of other 'early' systems (late 70s and early 80s stuff).

Auction style is for resolution of values. If Individual Modifiers are used you can get members of the group going at different counts in the initiative order. Yet Group Initiative is something that carried all the way through to at least 2e.

The different individual values came about when people started adding in Individual Modifiers. So you often had a choice at tables of Group Initiative - Group Modifiers or Group Initiative - Individual Modifiers. By 2e you also had Individual Initiative and Individual Modifiers, which became the de facto format by 3e and beyond.

Quote from: K Peterson;860127By group-initiative? I mean where a single d6 is rolled per side involved in a combat to determine which group (characters or monsters) move/act first. Rather than individual-initiative where a die is rolled per player (and per monster) and the movement/actions of characters and monsters is interspersed throughout the combat round.

In B/X D&D, at least, actions can be declared for the entire group and the order in which they occur depends on the type of action (movement, missile fire, magic use, hand-to-hand combat). So, it's easier for a Caller to declare exactly what all the characters are doing during a round.

In other versions of D&D, you have characters taking action after the action of monsters, so a character might elect to take a different action based on what another character does, or what a monster does. So, it would be more challenging to announce what a party is doing during combat because actions might change due to circumstances.

Nah I know what Group Initiative is; I meant, how would you have to change things up to use Caller with individual initiative.

The Caller is useful primarily in for dungeon exploration type activities i.e. "We go left", "we leave this room now", "we set a trap for the gnolls", "we search for traps before heading down this hall." Party caller listens to the other players and passes a decision onto the GM. Callers can be good for those folks who like to "plan."
A Caller might say "we attack the gnolls," or "we negotiate with the gnolls" but when the combat starts everyone is making their own decision.
Caller's are useful because while all the other players can say "I" the Caller can say "we."

I'd also suggest that you change who is the party caller somewhat regularly (from session to session), this mitigates some sense of their being "one leader."

You could also consider having a second or assistant GM. This person might RP an NPC or monster or three, but would help the most when combat breaks out.
I've never done this myself, but I have heard of others who have and had a good time with it.

But what I mean is, for "we" to do anything, it would have to be done IC right? But IC people are saying what THEY, specifically, do themselves. So then the Caller isn't saying what "we" do after all.

Or is it like, the party has a debate about what they should do. Go left, go right. Then the Caller makes the final decision.

Gygax and Arneson both used individual initiative from day one, and OD&D doesn't specify any method,  But INDIVIDUAL initiative is the oldest system.

Also I don't get how using the "fog of war" method would cut down on crosstalk. They could all still coordinate what they want to do even if they don't know what the result will be. "heal me, let's all attack the boss," etc.

Also what happens if something happens like a spellcaster wants to get a spell but also gets attacked. Do they get attacked first, then get to cast their spell? Or do they cast "first" and then have to make a Concentration check if they were hit?

At conventions I had to DM for groups upwards of 10 and one Albedo session had quite a few players that I do not nave my notes handu for the head count at the moment but was up there. The main problem was keeping everyone enguaged. This somewhat solved itself in the Albedo session as it was a political intrigue setup and the PCs not actively interacting with the NPCs were wheeling and dealing with eachother. Then the ILR showed up and the shooting started and things resolved into a managable who acts when. I dont pay much attention to the talk until its someones turn or I am directly addressing them.

For me it actually helps that I am hearing impaired and can just tell players to not talk over eachother as then I both have trouble tracking who is actually talking and it tends to interfere too much. Players have thus far been pretty good about that.

In like D&D its much the same. I focus on who the action is centered on at the moment and if someone is trying to talk over it I warn them to cut it out of necessary.

Sometimes its just players getting really excited and into the session. Which is not a bad thing usually.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860110I thought of this, but isn't that basically what the DM does anyway? What would the Caller do that the DM doesn't?

This question is backwards.  There's nothing the caller does that the DM doesn't normally do, but there are a lot of things the DM does which the caller doesn't do.  Using a caller takes the load of polling the players, coordinating everyone's actions into a single semi-coherent mass, etc. off the DM and gives the DM time to think/plan/update notes/etc. while the players and the caller discuss their actions among themselves.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860155Or is it like, the party has a debate about what they should do. Go left, go right. Then the Caller makes the final decision.

The party has a debate about what they should so, reaches a consensus, and then the caller reports that consensus to the DM.  It's really more of an administrative position than a leadership post.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860108It's actually more like 12 players total but 7-8 can actually show up on any given session. It makes scheduling less painful since there's always people around too.

The main reason everybody's lumped into one giant group is that we don't get to play that often, so splitting everyone into two groups would just make it so everyone plays half as much. That and the original reason we started playing in the first place was so all of us could have something to do together.

No it wouldn't. It would make it so they play half as often, but in each session they'd get to do twice as much stuff with a half-size group. So actual play time would be about the same, maybe better if there is less cross talk and quicker group decision making with the smaller group size.

Quote from: Opaopajr;860123(Fog of War initiative has so much layered utility it is an absolute wonder why people thought we could "reinvent the wheel." Culls tactical metagaming and social dithering in a single stroke. It even works wonders as a penalty on those who continually talk too loud and drown out other critical conversation, like between the GM & the active PC. Enjoy!)

This sounds interesting. What do you mean by Fog of War initiative?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860102As someone who runs a big group amongst my friends, I've run into trouble lately managing the chaos. What are some techniques you use to pace the game and maintain order?

Right now, I have around 8 players give or take. When we have that much, there's a lot of crosstalk, which makes it hard to get into character, and for everyone to get a word in. In fact, we tend to get into a lot of OOC analysis during combat too. That makes it last a longer, and then inevitably some people might get bored and you'll have side conversations start until I rein things back in. And then some players naturally gravitate to taking control of the pace, but it ends up with them basically playing the other player's characters for them, so I want to cut down on that. Stuff like, I'll ask what they all do, and one player jumps in and lays out a chain of events for all of them and then they all just basically say, "what he said."

I'm thinking of instituting the following measures and seeing what happens:

1) No talking outside your turn during combat.

2) You can only speak for yourself. It doesn't matter if you're all going to do the same thing, you all still have to individually say it, rather than one person saying, "Okay now we all leave" even if you agreed with it.

3) IC talk only. This is the hardest one and the one most likely to go, but we'll see.

There are other issues, like half the group favoring kick-down-the-door style play while the other half wants to meticulously plan an operation, but I think that might be easier to manage.

A lot of this sounds like failure to be assertive -- even aggressive -- and confident in yourself if I'm honest. Then again, maybe you don't have that kind of personality like I do so adapt as required.

Your suggestions:

1) Just tell them to leave the table and come back when they've got it out of their system (or have planned out what they're going to do next).

2) Keep it simple: contribute or shut up. As in Sons of Anarchy, "You don't ride, you don't vote". If they make it a habit, take away their agency and control and use that PC as an NPC companion for the PCs actually doing shit (ala Bioware games style companions). It's worked more than once for me.

3) This should be happening anyway. If you have a confident personality, then push them to act and talk in-character by putting them on the spot frequently when RP'ing one of your NPCs.

Hosting games for "large groups" (I honestly see them as normal-sized -- less than 7-8 is too small for me) is one of the best parts of tabletop RPGs ever! It's really not that hard. You'd be surprised how much of your work is done for you by the PCs if you just let em'.

Here's couple of devices I use when hosting games at my club:

The Interaction Moment (IM)

When your PCs have a chance to catch their breath or they're not making any rolls that might affect their choices or status going forward, give them some alone time. If your PCs do not require nor ask for your attention, don't give it to them. Leave them be. Let them talk with each other and roleplay as they will. It might be only several seconds, it could even be several minutes. They don't even need to be at the table to do this -- they can find a couch somewhere nearby, step into the hallway or pull their chairs away from the table. It leaves you free to focus on other players who are doing stuff that might get their character killed or something.

Don't Initiative for non-pitched combat or battles and confrontations that aren't critical

Seriously, it's more work than necessary. Most importantly, randomly prompt any of the PCs to make them move. If they don't move, you come back to them. If they make a habit of not moving, they lose their move automatically each time afterwards they might otherwise be prompted. Keep it roughly even but don't sweat it if some PCs get a move or two more than others. It keeps em' on their toes.

There are many more things you can do but those two right there are platinum.

Quote from: Bren;860391This sounds interesting. What do you mean by Fog of War initiative?

Not to answer for Opa, but we've been talking about this topic recently...

Generally speaking, Fog of War initiative means having the overall initiative order be unknown to the players, and rerolling initiative each round.  Often the players must declare their actions before initiative is rolled or revealed.

Quote from: Bren;860391No it wouldn't. It would make it so they play half as often, but in each session they'd get to do twice as much stuff with a half-size group. So actual play time would be about the same, maybe better if there is less cross talk and quicker group decision making with the smaller group size.

This, on toast points with Hollandaise.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860157Also I don't get how using the "fog of war" method would cut down on crosstalk. They could all still coordinate what they want to do even if they don't know what the result will be. "heal me, let's all attack the boss," etc.

With a "fog of war" approach there is still player coordination, but several factors come into play to reduce the overall cros-talk and analysis paralysis.  

Since the initiative order of the players and NPCs is unknown each round, this is one less set of data points that have to be crunched.

Also, since the players declare their actions before the round starts and before any initiative points are revealed, you don't have to call a detailed tactics moot before every player's turn.  You do what you declared, or you don't.  This greatly minimizes intra-round tactical chatter.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860157Also what happens if something happens like a spellcaster wants to get a spell but also gets attacked. Do they get attacked first, then get to cast their spell? Or do they cast "first" and then have to make a Concentration check if they were hit?

It depends on the rules you're using.  If I recall correctly, you're playing 5e currently, as am I, so I'll answer in that context.  

Rounds are still resolved in initiative order.  We play that if a caster has declared that they will cast a spell, and they are hit before their turn, then they must make a concentration check to not have their spell interrupted (for us an interrupted spell doesn't burn up the spell slot). We noodled around with the idea of porting in segment-based casting times, but ditched that idea pretty quickly in favor of what I just described.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;860413A lot of this sounds like failure to be assertive -- even aggressive -- and confident in yourself if I'm honest. Then again, maybe you don't have that kind of personality like I do so adapt as required.

I'm actually extremely confident and assertive normally. But when I was learning how to DM and reading around, all the literature said that it was immature to throw your weight around and to talk things out like reasonable adults, etc., etc., so it made me kind of gunshy to just slam the book on the table and tell people to shut up or whatever. That and the people doing it obviously enjoy playing this way, so given that "there's no right way to play" it made me hesitant to smack that down.

Also I like your suggestions; got any more? Though the 2nd one sounds like the kind that would get one labelled as an immature DM that abuses their power by the kind of literature I was mentioning.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;860632With a "fog of war" approach there is still player coordination, but several factors come into play to reduce the overall cros-talk and analysis paralysis.  

Since the initiative order of the players and NPCs is unknown each round, this is one less set of data points that have to be crunched.

Also, since the players declare their actions before the round starts and before any initiative points are revealed, you don't have to call a detailed tactics moot before every player's turn.  You do what you declared, or you don't.  This greatly minimizes intra-round tactical chatter.




It depends on the rules you're using.  If I recall correctly, you're playing 5e currently, as am I, so I'll answer in that context.  

Rounds are still resolved in initiative order.  We play that if a caster has declared that they will cast a spell, and they are hit before their turn, then they must make a concentration check to not have their spell interrupted (for us an interrupted spell doesn't burn up the spell slot). We noodled around with the idea of porting in segment-based casting times, but ditched that idea pretty quickly in favor of what I just described.

Ah okay, so they use initiative order still. That makes sense then. Also yes, it's 5E.

Couldn't they still coordinate and have a strategy meeting BEFORE rolling initiative when they're all declaring what they'll do? Or do you allow that and it just ends up being less time anyway.