Proposed Caller Rules
I'm going to propose requiring a caller in our campaign. We never had a caller before, and I've never played with one. Even in a sprawling, old school sandbox with umpteen players, there were typically a max of six players in an expedition.
Having a large group of of people that all want to show up and game is one of those "good problems." Usually. From our stable of 12 regular players (all adults) and a few occasionals, we usually get 8 and sometimes ten players. Running an old school system (Castles and Crusades), we still get several combats and a lot of exploration and conversation.
10 is just too much. Even without inter-party conflicts, there are just too many inputs on the DM, the table is too large, etc. We've had a couple of sessions where both co-DMs ran sessions (of 4 and 5) in separate rooms. But we don't always have that luxury, and it makes it hard on the DM that was looking forward to taking their turn at playing.
And last week we had a problem. The party was confronted with a difficult tactical situation, and there were some strong disagreements on how to proceed. There were some bad feelings, and one player carried his resentment through the remainder of the game. He's apologized, but it left a bad impression on a new player. The other side of the argument hasn't apologized for their role in it and that's unfortunate.
Some may think that as the DM I should have put a stop to it. I don't think it is my role to handle inter-party conflicts. But what happens at the table is my concern, and I did attempt to force them to settle and called the party to vote. Likely I should have done that earlier.
I've looked through Dragonsfoot and found references to requiring callers in several posts from old schoolers, but I've not found a description of how a caller works. I'm also hesitant to take away individual player choices and hand them over. So this is the result:
Does anyone else have any experience with callers? Played in Tim Kask's game at a convention and have something to share?
Having a large group of of people that all want to show up and game is one of those "good problems." Usually. From our stable of 12 regular players (all adults) and a few occasionals, we usually get 8 and sometimes ten players. Running an old school system (Castles and Crusades), we still get several combats and a lot of exploration and conversation.
10 is just too much. Even without inter-party conflicts, there are just too many inputs on the DM, the table is too large, etc. We've had a couple of sessions where both co-DMs ran sessions (of 4 and 5) in separate rooms. But we don't always have that luxury, and it makes it hard on the DM that was looking forward to taking their turn at playing.
And last week we had a problem. The party was confronted with a difficult tactical situation, and there were some strong disagreements on how to proceed. There were some bad feelings, and one player carried his resentment through the remainder of the game. He's apologized, but it left a bad impression on a new player. The other side of the argument hasn't apologized for their role in it and that's unfortunate.
Some may think that as the DM I should have put a stop to it. I don't think it is my role to handle inter-party conflicts. But what happens at the table is my concern, and I did attempt to force them to settle and called the party to vote. Likely I should have done that earlier.
I've looked through Dragonsfoot and found references to requiring callers in several posts from old schoolers, but I've not found a description of how a caller works. I'm also hesitant to take away individual player choices and hand them over. So this is the result:
Proposed Caller Rules
When I am DM and we have seven or more players, I propose we play by these guidelines:
1.Caller
The players should elect a caller. This could be the player who is most motivated to take on the current adventure, someone they trust with tactical decisions or even just to make the quiet player in the corner talk more. When the group (not an individual) is confronted by a choice, the DM will listen to the caller.
2.Group Decisions
When major group decisions (like plans, or whether to talk or fight) are to be made, the group can and should have a discussion. After 10 minutes (or player request, DM boredom, use of profanity) either the DM or the caller will call a vote. The players will vote, and the DM will consider the players to begin the actions voted.
3.Individual decisions during combat
Each player will have 30 seconds (1 minute? seems too long) to decide their action, or lose it. There should be time enough to decide your action before it is your turn.
Does anyone else have any experience with callers? Played in Tim Kask's game at a convention and have something to share?
I was directed to this thread at Knights and Knaves Alehouse.
ReplyDeleteSomewhat of a tangent but interesting. I was just looking at an old Dragon magazine (51 I believe) in which the now-late J. Eric Holmes was talking about his version of Basic D&D. Apparently he was NOT a fan of the caller position himself preferring player chaos:
ReplyDelete"Organizing a Party, The Caller: I think this rule should have
been thrown out. I put it into the first Basic Set because it was in
the original invention. I have never seen a successful game
where one of the players was elected caller and actually did all
the talking to the DM. Usually everybody talks at once. The
resulting confusion is much more lifelike; one can hear the
characters dithering at the cross corridor as the monsters approach.
“Run this way!” “Charge them!” “Get out of the way, I’m
throwing a spell!” “Here goes the magic crossbow bolt!” “Not
from the rear of the party!” “I’m climbing the wall!”
As the players learn to work together as a team, a leader will
often evolve. I think it is more fun to always allow a character to
call out his or her own action and see the consternation on the
other players’ faces. Also, this encourages the shy player (yes,
there are shy players!) to get into the swing of things. “What’s
your halfling going to do?”
Thanks, Chris.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble just isn't the chaos. I'm running games with 8-9 players, and do simply handle them in turn. I also arrange the table and put the shy players and noobies closest.
The trouble is when the chaos conflicts with itself. I'm not just talking about some players wanting to go south and others wanting to go north (and I've run split parties on occasion), but plain stubborn disagreements. In this case, who (amongst the largely invisible party) should scale the tower first, or even if scaling the tower should be the route in and to try the front door.
Basically, a few players were being argumentative assholes. Perhaps that would be a problem no matter the size of the group. But the larger party size does make a greater chance of assholes and conflict amongst them. It has flared up occasionally over the year (plus!) we've been gaming but the consequences hit a new low this past weekend. Until the resentments were acted out, I took the position that the party would have to get its shit together.
So by requiring a caller I want agreement and a contractual backup (hopefully consensus amongst the non-assholes) to put a lid on the crap from the assholes.
And yes, the assholes are friends and quite fun to game with when they aren't being assholes. So killing them and taking their stuff wouldn't be an option.
I do like the idea of asking the shy player to be the caller.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteI hear you about the conflict, when the Austin Hill Cantons campaign was hitting 11 players at the table (nine adults--and no less than three rambunctious 13-year olds)I started to dread the big sessions as ref. I'm not sure where exactly the line is--likely the personal dynamics of the particular group move it up or down--but there is some point where the manageable (and sometimes fun) chaos of a small group morphs into the decidedly unfun situation you describe.
Likely it's the combination of the inherent organizational problem of dealing with a large group with the added potential conflict of having more than one so-called opinion leader in the group(either of the natural or self-proclaimed kind). In my experience, some kind of rough consensus generally can be worked out among the players quickly enough to save the game even with two such mule heads in a group, but that larger group just seems so much more vulnerable.
So bully for you for calling a timeout in your group on this. If I ever play again with a large group (I generally avoid it in the San Antonio Hill Cantons sessions which typically run at a much more comfortable 3-5 players.)
I've had occasion to use this as GM/DM/CK/Ref when DMing a 14 player group in college for a weekend-long gaming party. Not everyone knew each other, which compounded the problem. It worked pretty well. The players picked the caller in advance.
ReplyDeleteMy current in-house group of five players (plus me as CK) have decided to have one leader, but this is a very informal arrangement. I think you simply have to do what works for your group and I'll be interested to hear how it goes.
Both group chaos and regimented order seem like double-edged swords, but then I think almost everything is double-edged (except for clubs, flails and maces...and their ilk).