Back in the earliest incarnations of Dungeons & Dragons there was a player defined as the “Caller.” In addition to playing her own character, the Caller had the job of collecting all of the other players’ decisions in a round and communicating them to the GM. While this made sense in large games with 20+ players, it seems a little ridiculous when there’s only five people around the table. For my groups “Caller” was merely the D&D term for the party leader in-character.
Still, I sometimes wonder if there isn’t a role for a Caller as filter in some modern RPGs? Here are some positive points to consider:
Party Unity: Having a Caller in the party promotes the group over the individual. It fosters a team approach to scenes/encounters, as everyone deliberates their actions as a group before announcing them to the GM.
Veto Pause: Sometimes a player proposes an action that is detrimental to the party as a whole. With a Caller, that action can be challenged before the GM acts on it. The Caller or GM can then ask the player to rationalize why she wants to take that action. If it was just to be funny or throw a spanner in the works, the player will usually back down – it’s not as funny anymore. If, on the other hand, the player had a very good reason for the action, she now has a chance to explain it.
Rules Filter: GMs have a lot to keep track of and remembering to apply every applicable rule can be hard while managing the game. When players have to deliberate their actions, they’ll often bring up the pros and cons of any decisions on their own, making it more likely that other players will point out the relevant rules and how they’ll affect the action.
Attention Filter: Ever have a player announce a bizarre decision or make a rash action because she wasn’t paying attention to everything else going on at the table? With a Caller, these actions can be challenged before they’re communicated to a harried GM.
Everyone Counts: Ever get skipped over because you got up to get another bag of Cheetos at the wrong time? The Caller will make sure that you don’t miss your turn.
Equal Opportunity: In combat, everyone has an equal shot – you wait your turn, perform your action, and wait until your next turn. In non-combat scenes, things aren’t so clear cut and more aggressive players can chew on scenery while the less aggressive ones struggle to get a word in. A Caller helps ensure that everyone is taking turns while monitoring what the characters are up to.
GM Support: When communicating things to players, the GM need only inform the Caller. This cuts down on the GM needing to repeat information; it is presumed that pertinent information is only communicated when the Caller is at the table. She can then be responsible for informing the player that missed the session or was in the bathroom during the encounter with the Evil Queen.
Obviously, there are drawbacks as well. I wouldn’t suggest the “classical model” of a GM only communicating with the Caller; imagine how difficult it would be to roleplay a social encounter with the Caller parroting both sides of the conversation? Also, some players resent a party leader of any stripe and channel their inner anarchists in such situations. Finally, a lot of the above points are minimized in small groups.
So what say you? Should the Caller stand beside the dodo and the giant ground sloth? Is there a place for a Caller in modern games? If so, what modifications would be necessary to make her gel with the group?
I vaguely remember something like this from back in the day (I started playing about a year or so before 2nd edition came out), but I don’t recall it getting used all that often.
For very large groups, it might be worth looking into something like this, but I agree that it would just get in the way for smaller groups.
No negative traits? nor pro/con list. This seems very weird to me.
I don’t think there is a place for a “Caller”in the games. But some actions the caller performed have a place in modern games. Not stepping on each other and hogging spotlight- everyone’s responsibility.
I agree with Razjah. The listed duties for a modern caller should be duties for all of the players.
I vaguely recall the Caller from the earlier rules, but we only had it be that turn’s initiative roller (and that was all they did). Speaking for others, while it can be useful, in general tends to lead towards what I call “game piece mode”. Your character becomes a piece in the game (which in reality, he is) and creates a tendency to role-play less.
What I mean is that when you speak for your character, “I do this, I do that”, it is easier to play in character. But when you switch to “Joe’s elf does this, Joe’s character does that”, somehow a disconnect occurs. At least that is what I have seen. Again, sometimes clarification is needed, and that is fine, but it is the job of everyone,
While nice at times, the veto thing can be bad. I have seen players try to veto other players that they felt were doing something stupid, or just not what they would do themselves. I have seen that drive away new players. Having a Caller position would only reinforce the “authority” of a player that is trying to veto another. Just saying “hey, let’s think about this” is better, and again something every player should be able to do (we all have ideas and insights).
I’m following the format I used for the last two Classical Play articles.
These play methods have all been either relegated to the dustbin of RPG history or considered a minority in modern games. As such, the cons tend to be pretty evident, especially in the case of the Caller.
As far as bringing the Caller back as-was, I don’t think it’s a good idea. My interest in the Caller is more in the idea of having a “stop-gap” for bad ideas, rather than the sole point of communication between GM and PC party.
In the old days D&D was mostly a glorified wargame, so having players make centralized plans together made sense. Now we have (supposedly – *cough*D&D Next*cough*) progressed away from that model, so the Caller just doesn’t fit. It doesn’t feel like “roleplaying” to me if the players are always discussing _out_of_game_ what to do in active situations (combat being an obvious example, but direct social interactions would count also).
If their characters are discussing thing in-game that’s another story, and also if it’s one of the “time passes” scenes where presumably their characters would have plenty of time to have a discussion – although it would still be nice to do so in character.
BTW – I am not one of those Shakespearean-actor-wannabe GMs! I just like it to feel like we are playing the characters, otherwise it’s just a complicated board game.
“In the old days D&D was mostly a glorified wargame”
I hear this sentiment a lot, but I was there at the time and I state from my own personal, actually-played-the-thing, didn’t-read-it-on-the-internet-somewhere experience that it is rubbish.
D&D never resembled a wargame. The original idea was certainly drawn from Chainmail, but anyone who ever saw and used those rules and saw and used the old Whitebox D&D that was inspired by them could state that Chainmail was to wargaming what Warhammer FB is these days – a bit of lighthearted fun – and that the relationship between D&D and Chainmail was only apparent if you’d been told about it by the game designers.
If anything, D&D in those days was *LESS* like a wargame than is is in such guises as 3.5 and Pathfinder. There were almost no situational rules and most events were adjudicated by GM fiat.
Actual Whitebox campaigning speaking here, as in played numerous times a week for best part of a year, own the game, went to school with its mother. Okay, that last one is a lie.
I’m not sure why anyone would think wargaming involves groups with an elected leader either. In thirty mumble years of wargaming I’ve seen games done that way: Specifically, two games played on the same day back in 1980 as an experiment in command communications. But it certainly isn’t some sort of cultural necessity to the hobby.
I think the idea of the caller came from the size and chaotic nature of the groups playing in the Twin Cities during the development of D&D.
*grumbles* It SAID I was logged in and my whole comment was rejected (and thus lost, when I submitted it, even trying ‘back’. I will try ad re-create.)
Well, interesting concept! One I think in today’s make-up of RPGs is not really a good fit, at least not as how described. (I personally do not remember such a thing, but it HAS been a long time!)
I know personally, I have liked using a similar concept, someone to help with small tasks, one being gathering and keeping track of player’s initiative rolls, and the monster ones, after the first round. Sometimes also tracking things like conditions etc as well.
My familiarity as I remember has Always been one where everyone had their own initiative roll. Perhaps it was house-ruled if it was not the norm. But in addition, I don’t ever remember a time where ~everyone~ had to declare their actions Before anything happened. And talk around the table was quite often about what people could or would do. Probably a bit too much planning – but it definitely helps IMO, especially with newer players, so they don’t forget something. (say a Ranger dealing with their favored enemy for example.) Also, I am more used to the faster players (or monsters!) going first, maybe getting the jump on their target, but the slower ones, being able to react to that, and thus, change the flow mid-combat. Maybe it is not quite as intended, nor 100% realistic in the fast situation of combat, but it just seems to have worked (and, been what I am familiar with through various groups.) It also lets slower initiative characters benefit some. It takes the sting out of a low Init roll/modifier or both. Of course, a faster (or slower!) character can delay, and then react when they wish, but also modifying their order of action in subsequent rounds.
Definitely an interesting separate discussion IMO.
It is! See Classical Play: Group Initiative 🙂
I’ve always hated the idea of a group caller. I’ve played in games like this and they always ended up being essentially the GM gaming with the “caller” who just tells everyone else what they will do.
I don’t think there is any need for such a beast in a game with fewer than a dozen players because I’ve run games that size without ’em. At 12 or more people it might be necessary, but it might also be a better idea to make two smaller gaming groups.
I’m sorry, Walt, but I have to say that point by point I don’t find any of your arguments for a caller compelling, and the last point, the GM only needing to communicate with one player is to me not only an abrogation of the GM duties but the complete antithesis of roleplaying games in general from where I stand.
If you don’t want to communicate with the players, why did you invite them to the table in the first place? RPGs are first and foremost all about communication. The social aspect of gaming is the reason I do it.
And if you are “harried” in your GMing, why not simply say “hang on a minute while I get this sorted out”? The distraction of players animatedly discussing things while you are trying to find rules etc won’t be any different just because you elected someone else to listen to it all while you work.
And any questions they ask will need GM adjudication in the end anyway (unless you are ceding that authority to the caller in which event you had better hope the caller you picked sees the world the same way you do).
Ah, that was poor phrasing on my part. I wasn’t advocating that the GM only communicate to the Caller; what I meant was that as long as the GM said something to the group, she could assume that the Caller was responsible for getting players that were away from the table up to speed.
Oh, I see. My fault entirely for not reading closely enough. Yes, I have one of those in my Delta Green game. Very useful, if a bit frightening at times (he persuaded the others to join a Facebook page (is that the right term?) for in-character discussion of the fiendish plots I came up with).
My group has never “officially” had a Caller, but I’ve certainly made use of the role unofficially. Often, when my party gets going declaring their plan of action, there will be a flurry of comments and decisions being made from multiple people, often hinging on another player’s actions. To ensure I don’t miss anything, I’ll stop the group and ask for someone to explain what exactly they’re doing. Usually its the unofficial party leader that explains it, but its really open to whomever understands what they are doing best and jumps in first. While they are explaining it, the group has a chance to review what is being said and make adjustments before I resolve the action.
That said, I’m not particularly fond of the “Veto Pause” moment. Its fine in areas where pre-planning is going into effect and the whole party is talking about what they will do, but once the action starts / a scene is in play, it undercuts a lot of role-playing opportunities, especially “emotional” character responses. Specifically it often comes up in my games where one player decides to kill an NPC they especially despise, declaring that they shoot, stab, or otherwise impart harm onto them, and the rest of the party interrupts to point out that they really need him alive for X reasons. While their points are valid from a practical gaming perspective, it also undercuts the characters the players are creating.
In our “old” games, we had a position called the “leader” (led-er) who’s main responsibility was to move the figures on the map and make sure the map was organized. We had a custom built “H” shaped table with the GM on one end and the “Led-er” on the other and then the players (6 total) on the sides. But the Led-er’s main responsibility was just moving the figures. The players gave their input on every turn and dictated their characters moves and actions. The Led-er only confirmed it if they wanted to do something extremely goofy and whether it was legal on the map and then moved the figure. They also drew the map image onto the board since the GM drew onto graph paper the floor plan for a permanent record (olde school, remember?)
@Bronco_6 We have a similar role going in our current twlight:2013 game. A caller is useful to keep track of the initiative count so everyone (including the GM) knows when they are acting.
He doesn’t tell anyone what to do. He calls out that Eugene has finished reloading and can act again, and Armless Zombie #2 is due to attack on the same tick.
He acts as another processor so that the game can be multi-threaded.
For the other points that Walt writes about, players take different parts. In the end we don’t have a designated Caller, but many of its aspects are present.
And while it is nice to expect all players to be on the ball and give proper etiquette and play nice, it helps if there is another presence in operation to help keep everyone focused: Even the most attentive and respectful player has lapses, or misses things.
In answer to Walt’s question, I think there is a place for a Caller in contemporary gaming, especially in rules-centric systems. The GM should be focused on narrative, world management, and NPCs. Just as Players should not be expected to ask the GM what he is doing and help run the NPC villans, so too the GM should not have to round-up stray players and recap a scene he just laid out 3 minutes prior.
I think a lot of the caller advantages show up with two-headed/co-GMs, or a lead “rules reference person” for the players.
A GM-lite who is a useful resource, helps everyone keep images and “who is where” information straight… sounds good to me. The veto/delay aspect of the old-school caller is potentially dis-empowering, but honestly, the catcalls and “really?” from the group as a whole address the same issue informally.