Sparked by reading discussions here: OD&D Discussion Board

Does anyone use a "caller" in their D&D game? The "caller" is the leader who states the actions of everyone after conferring with the players.

If you do use a "caller", how did you convince your group to  go along with it?

Thanks!

Eric

We don't use anything like this, but we also generally ignore the declare action phase of any system, simply preferring to declare actions as we get to players.

We used one briefly when we started up a Hackmaster campaign a while back but very quickly threw it out. It slows things down by forcing most actions to be repeated twice: once to the caller and once from the caller. I can definitely see where it would be useful from the GM side of the screen, but the benefits didn't outweigh the penalties so we axed it.

I tried it when I first ran D&D, back in '77 or '78. We quickly adandoned it as too clumsy, the first of many, many houserules.

-clash

We had a wierd little house rule in my group back in '81 until about '86, i guess, when we ditched it. This rule was that the Paladin or Fighter, or the character with the highest Charisma stat, was the caller. Not only that, but the character spoke for the party both in and out of character. We were big on party leaders back then and those were the conditions.

Surprisingly, it never led to any friction or any cock-ups, that i can remember.

Every time I tried it, it lasted less than a session.

It's cumbersome and frustrating.  It may make things better-organized, but it also makes them slower.

-O

Pretty sure I used it back when I played OD&D and maybe AD&D, circa 1977-82.

Particularly for dungeon scenarios it felt pretty natural if I can remember that far back. Basically just a way to keep a bunch of squabbling players from overwhelming a harried DM, and prevent misunderstandings. Thinking about it now I'd say the caller was sort of a DM's assistant charged with making sure everyone got their story straight before submitting it to the DM.

And yes, I sort of remember the same person being assumed to be the party leader for purpose of talking to NPCs and such.

But we probably didn't treat the role very formally either: it was more like there'd be a natural leader (often a more experienced player) in the group to whom the GM would turn to say "What do you do next?", and everyone would pretty much defer to him unless he said something they didn't like.

Quote from: enelsonDoes anyone use a "caller" in their D&D game? The "caller" is the leader who states the actions of everyone after conferring with the players.

Nope. Never. Not in decades of playing. (Obviously, I don't like the idea.)

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut we probably didn't treat the role very formally either: it was more like there'd be a natural leader (often a more experienced player) in the group to whom the GM would turn to say "What do you do next?", and everyone would pretty much defer to him unless he said something they didn't like.

To this day I do pretty much act as implied caller if the other players let me get away with it.  I think this behavior is partially a result of being a spotlight-grabbing egomaniac and partially because I loathe adventuring parties that dither.

Wait, wait, wait, your group actually manages to _agree_ on at least the general course of action? :confused:

Quote from: SosthenesWait, wait, wait, your group actually manages to _agree_ on at least the general course of action? :confused:

If this statement is directed towards my group, nope. That's why I kinda like the idea of a caller.

Here's an example of play for Hackmaster that pretty much matches my group play :haw:
Hackmaster Example of Play

Thanks for that link, enelson!

In my early D&D games, we occasionally used a caller.  The caller was usually the one (typically me) who cut through all the bickering and declared what the party would do.  Going through the caller also helped distinguish between in-character and out-of-character actions.
 
It became less of an issue as we got older, bickered less and had a much smaller group.  But with six or more 13 year-olds, it was useful.  Of course, the role of caller rarely last long...

I have one player who everyone sort of defers to (he also GMs games).  He sort of acts like a caller in tactical situations, but he's not a dictator who decides what people do.  

Speaking of roles, in my old group we had something called a Brownie Bitch or BB.  We would roll dice at the beginning of the night; low roll was the BB and had to bake the brownies (or muffins, or cookies, or whatever).  Of course, we were pretty close friends as well, so it was all in fun, and it helped that most of my friends were high during the game.  As the GM, I was exempt, so that was also a plus.    

Pete

While reading Maelstrom (the Puffin Books game by Alexander Scott), I noted that it too suggests using a "caller" (I think Scott just says "leader", but he describes it exactly like the old "caller".) And his rationale points up a major reason why the idea was needed back in the day: Scott talks about parties of 8 or more players. I think these days people think in terms of 4-5 player parties, but in the 70's I think larger parties were pretty common.