# The Caller and the Mapper



## Iosue (Jun 23, 2014)

TwoSix said:


> Iosue said:
> 
> 
> > The complete and seemingly permanent removal of  the caller and mapper from the game is much higher.
> ...



I've started a new thread to give this a fuller response.

In OD&D, AD&D, and Expert D&D (<- my more accurate alternative to "Basic D&D"), there were two roles that players could take on for the party.

The *Caller*'s job was to keep track of what the party was doing and relay this information to the DM.  Despite popular misconception, the caller never did this _during combat_.  It was a turn-based role, not a round-based role.  (Turn in this case meaning the unit of game time and action that typically represented 10 minutes.)  Another misconception (admittedly fostered by the published examples of play) was that the caller was the "party leader" who could make unilateral decisions about what the party was doing, both individually and as a group.  The caller essentially acted as a "commit button" for the players to the DM.

The *mapper*'s job was to draw out, on graph or hex paper, a map of the dungeon or wilderness being explored, according to the DM's description.  It was often a good idea to have at least two mappers, because the mapping was considered something being done by both player AND character, so if something happened to the character, it would happen to the group's map, as well.  (This was part and parcel of the general fuzziness regarding IC and OOC in early play -- a topic for another post another time.)

One reason I lament the loss of these roles is because they existed due to D&D being not just a generic fantasy RPG, but rather a fantasy *exploration* RPG.  So, in the course of play, you would have many people doing many different things.  Someone's investigating a pile of rags in the corner, another is checking for secret doors, another is keeping lookout outside the door, etc.  And since the goal of play was exploration of the dungeon or wilderness, a premium was put on efficiency and orderly play.  (Mainly because, as just about everyone knows who's played, groups of players are seldom efficient and orderly as a rule.)

So, for example, a common issue is one of sequence.  One player says, "I'm searching for secret doors!"  The DM says, okay, and rolls their search die.  The roll is successful!  "I open it!" the player says immediately, revealing the monster lurking behind.  The players now deal with the monster, without getting around to the actions the other people were doing.  Or perhaps the most common pitfall -- the party enters a room, someone trips a trap, and then there's an argument/discussion about which players were inside the room vs. outside the room.

To be sure, these issues can easily be handled with an experienced DM who knows how to organize, prioritize, and sequentialize.  But the caller allowed for the DM to focus on DM-stuff like reviewing the map and key, rolling wandering monsters, and other busywork, while the caller worked out with the players who was doing what where and when, and relayed that to the DM.

As for the mapper, IMXP few things really brought out the fun of an exploration game as starting out with a blank sheet of graph paper and watching as the map slowly took form, giving the players a tangible sense of their progress, as well as providing them with a physical thing they look over, analyze, and think about.

In my most recent groups, I've also utilized a Quartermaster -- someone who keeps track of who's carrying what, to facilitate the logistical side of exploration.

Some things have always remained the same in D&D.  There are always fighters, magic-users, thieves, and clerics.  Everyone always has the six ability scores.  But exploratory focus of the game when I first started playing has largely fallen by the wayside.  Forget callers and mappers, people don't even want to keep track of light-sources and simple encumbrance.  So, on the those rare times when I'm inclined to feel sad about modern D&D, it's mostly along those lines.  It is a major disconnect between myself and players who've started since the late-90s.  In the 80s and early 90s, whether one preferred D&D or AD&D, whichever of the many diverse playstyles one might have settled into, the great many D&D players shared the common experiences of playing B2 and/or hating Bargle, the experience of mapping, and a good chance of having used callers.

That most post-2000 players don't have those shared experiences is not a knock on them or even on post-2000 editions.  It just makes me feel old.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 23, 2014)

Yes, you are old! 

The role of the caller is a particularly interesting one as it also derives from the days when there could be very large groups playing the game. When you have 15-20 players, having someone to wrangle them all so the DM doesn't get overwhelmed is tremendously important. There are certainly times today when you've got a group of five or six players that behave like a group of squabbling cats that it would be very advantageous to use the Caller again. I have considered it at times.

The role of the mapper is a very specialist one which really shines when you're running a megadungeon - lots of windy passages, confusing layouts and (especially) secret rooms. With the move away from large dungeons to a more story-orientated (small) dungeon layout, it's not so important. It's interesting the change of focus when the DM draws the map himself. One drawback we've found with the mapper (which I have in my ongoing AD&D game) is that the game can become a dialogue between the mapper and the DM without the other players being involved. Once again, it's a matter of balance.

Cheers!


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jun 23, 2014)

Add a Quartermaster... brilliant!

I am DEFINITELY doing this for my next dungeon campaign.  (And maybe finally I can keep the players' inventories and encumbrance figures straight beyond the time when players reach 4th level or so.)

I have a couple of players who love to map and love to call, and I can just picture now who will want to handle equipment (and, *rubs hands together connivingly*, unsplit treasure) for the party....


----------



## GMMichael (Jun 23, 2014)

Wait, so OP is saying that PCs should do something beyond running one, single character?

This should be revolutionary.  And it will also likely not appear in D&D 5e.

Why the heck not?  Do I want PCs controlling the outcome of my story?  No!  Do I want them taking care of some logistics so I don't have to wipe their diapers?  Yes please!



Spoiler



For the record, I have never had to wipe a PC's diaper.  And many of them deserve such mature treatment.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2014)

Iosue said:


> In the 80s and early 90s, whether one preferred D&D or AD&D, whichever of the many diverse playstyles one might have settled into, the great many D&D players shared the common experiences of playing B2 and/or hating Bargle, the experience of mapping, and a good chance of having used callers.



I have played D&D (B/X, AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D, 4e) with quite a few different people since the early 80s. I've done plenty of mapping (or seen it done) but have never encountered the use of a caller, or had it suggested by another participant that we should use one. I think the caller really went out of fashion very quickly (especially, as [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] notes, because many groups weren't all that big).

Since the early 90s, though, at least in my own campaigns, mapping has been confined to sketch or line maps (if anything at all) so the players can have a general sense of the layout of an area. No graph paper mapping has taken place for a _long_ time.



Iosue said:


> In my most recent groups, I've also utilized a Quartermaster -- someone who keeps track of who's carrying what, to facilitate the logistical side of exploration.



My group uses a party treasurer. The player's PC is a dwarf fighter Eternal Defender with a Handy Haversack, and so has an encumbrance limit probably equal to the rest of the party's put together, or more. So in game the PC is carrying all the treasure, and in the real world that player is meant to record it and keep track of distributing it from time to time. (I'm pretty sure errors are made and records not kept of everything they find. This would be a pretty big deal in more classic D&D play, but isn't such a big deal in 4e, especially when most "treasure" is in the form of GM-awarded item power-ups.)


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 23, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, I have never had to wipe a PC's diaper.  And many of them deserve such mature treatment.




I... am guessing you don't have kids or friends with kids... if you're "wiping diapers", you're doing it entirely wrong.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Jun 23, 2014)

pemerton said:


> I have played D&D (B/X, AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D, 4e) with quite a few different people since the early 80s. I've done plenty of mapping (or seen it done) but have never encountered the use of a caller, or had it suggested by another participant that we should use one. I think the caller really went out of fashion very quickly (especially, as [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] notes, because many groups weren't all that big).




The same experience, here. Even with a group of some 10 not overly disciplined players in AD&D 1e we didn't use a caller. Even today I can't see any sense in this role. It would make the game even slower, as the step of telling the caller and the caller telling pretty much the same contents to the DM should take more time. And the DM being free to concentrate on his tasks and notes would be pretty hard, when a dozen people are discussing their tacticts and precedures in the same room. Oh, and don't forget the players asking the DM for details.


----------



## Pickles JG (Jun 23, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Wait, so OP is saying that PCs should do something beyond running one, single character?
> 
> This should be revolutionary.  And it will also likely not appear in D&D 5e.
> 
> Why the heck not?  Do I want PCs controlling the outcome of my story?  No!  Do I want them taking care of some logistics so I don't have to wipe their diapers?  Yes please!




I am not sure if there is irony here? 

The OP says nothing about running multiple characters & it would hardly be revolutionary being a feature of quite a bit of AD&D play & also of Ars Magica from 20 years ago.
It's not something I care for as I like to inhabit one character & that is hard enough without trying to be 2 people.


Did you really say you do not want the PCs controlling the outcome of your story? Are they merely along to spectate as you show us you great unpublished novelist skills? 
Again this is a style of DMing/game structure I detest. PCs need to have agency.

As to logistics well I am not interested in bean counting in a game I want derring do, action, drama & funny dialogue.


----------



## Pickles JG (Jun 23, 2014)

As to the original topic I have never seen a caller in 35 years. Mapping used to be common when exploration in the literal sense was more of a feature of the game. It was something I sometimes enjoyed, last in a 1e module run in 3.5, but that was very much a 2 player puzzle game played by myself & the DM. The whole idea of a caller seems to promote this with some players being more important than others. 

Every party seems to generate a "quartermaster/treasurer" to do the admin no-one else really cares about (except in 4e or things like PFS where there is no party treasure). This is something I can do without as for some reason long lists of made up mundane "treasure" have lost their lustre of over the decades.

I am not very excited by the whole exploration pillar. I did however realise that the games I run can be very combat light & hve strethes where players are not interacting (with other characters) so I guess this would be exploration. Planning robberies, organising banquets, fixing livestock competitions & the like do not seem to happily fit under the title exploration.


----------



## reiella (Jun 23, 2014)

I don't really see mapping so much anymore. I think it's because of how often we use battle mats now though. As an overall group, we don't want to 'map' it twice.


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 23, 2014)

I have formally and informally used a Caller in my games. 

Formally - I ran an on-line Expedition to Castle Greyhawk game. I found the caller to be very helpful in keeping all the players engaged. It was easier for another player to ensure all the other players were engaged during exploration than for me to juggle that in with everything else, including making the technology work, etc.

Informally - I am running a Savage Worlds 50 Fathoms game. The PCs run a ship, and thus there is a captain, first mate, etc. I look to the player of the captain at times when decisions/what to do would naturally flow from him. The player does solicit input from the other players and then gives the orders. Here I look to that player as part leader and part caller.

Some of the other Savage Worlds settings are military in nature, so in those settings I look to the PC in charge for orders when I run them (usually as one-shots/at conventions). Even one of the fantasy pregens I have for convention play is a Savage World's version of the 4e Warlord. If that PC is in the group, I look to them as part Caller and part Leader.

Overall, I think its a concept that should not die out. It keeps the players engaged more and responsive to each other instead of a bunch of murder hobos (perhaps that makes them more of a Shanty of MurderHobos.). Also, it allows the players to manage the game their way as a group. Let face it, we have all been in groups where there is one player that just has to push the red, glowing button. Without the caller, that player just gets to blurt out "I press the button" over and over again. Fun for me as the GM, but probably not so much for the other players. In reality, that little quirk would get reined in pretty quickly by a group (ie, they still let them touch the button, but only after the group gets ready for what might happen).


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 23, 2014)

Iosue said:


> Some things have always remained the same in D&D.  There are always fighters, magic-users, thieves, and clerics.  Everyone always has the six ability scores.  But exploratory focus of the game when I first started playing has largely fallen by the wayside.  Forget callers and mappers, people don't even want to keep track of light-sources and simple encumbrance.  So, on the those rare times when I'm inclined to feel sad about modern D&D, it's mostly along those lines.  It is a major disconnect between myself and players who've started since the late-90s.  In the 80s and early 90s, whether one preferred D&D or AD&D, whichever of the many diverse playstyles one might have settled into, the great many D&D players shared the common experiences of playing B2 and/or hating Bargle, the experience of mapping, and a good chance of having used callers.
> 
> That most post-2000 players don't have those shared experiences is not a knock on them or even on post-2000 editions.  It just makes me feel old.




When the types of activities the game rewards change dramatically, you get a very different game. I still enjoy exploration style too. That is why I still play editions best suited for such play.


----------



## Iosue (Jun 23, 2014)

MerricB said:


> Yes, you are old!



I'm 37*.  I'm not old!  /dennis

*Actually 38, but I feel his pain these days.



MerricB said:


> The role of the caller is a particularly interesting one as it also derives from the days when there could be very large groups playing the game. When you have 15-20 players, having someone to wrangle them all so the DM doesn't get overwhelmed is tremendously important. There are certainly times today when you've got a group of five or six players that behave like a group of squabbling cats that it would be very advantageous to use the Caller again. I have considered it at times.




I have found a caller to make a significant difference in a group as small as four.  And it wasn't because they were especially squabbly.  It just seemed to bring the group together as a team, and kept things running smoothly.  And the minute we didn't have a caller, we ran into "Wait, I don't think I'm in the room.  I'm back here..." and "Okay, so you head down the passage..." "No, wait, I still want to check this thing out."



MerricB said:


> The role of the mapper is a very specialist one which really shines when you're running a megadungeon - lots of windy passages, confusing layouts and (especially) secret rooms. With the move away from large dungeons to a more story-orientated (small) dungeon layout, it's not so important. It's interesting the change of focus when the DM draws the map himself. One drawback we've found with the mapper (which I have in my ongoing AD&D game) is that the game can become a dialogue between the mapper and the DM without the other players being involved. Once again, it's a matter of balance.




I like having at least two mappers.  Also, I've used dry-erase boards or maps to quickly draw the shape of a room to keep the map-making as quick and easy as possible.



DMMike said:


> This should be revolutionary.  And it will also likely not appear in D&D 5e.




I do not have much hope.  I just figure that with the return of turn-based exploration rules to the game, the DMG or some online stuff may include advice on using this style of play.



DMMike said:


> Why the heck not?  Do I want PCs controlling the outcome of my story?  No!  Do I want them taking care of some logistics so I don't have to wipe their diapers?  Yes please!




I absolutely want the PCs controlling the outcome of the story.  It's their story.  This is how I imagine myself as a DM. 



pemerton said:


> I have played D&D (B/X, AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D, 4e) with quite a few different people since the early 80s. I've done plenty of mapping (or seen it done) but have never encountered the use of a caller, or had it suggested by another participant that we should use one. I think the caller really went out of fashion very quickly (especially, as  @_*MerricB*_  notes, because many groups weren't all that big).




I think there are a number of reasons for the caller going out of  fashion.  Group size may have played a part, but I suspect it was mostly  the weakening of turn-based exploration.  As more and more people  simply eschewed turns in favor of simply describing movement from room  to room, and encounter to encounter, the need for a caller went by the  wayside.



Jan van Leyden said:


> The same experience, here. Even with a group of some 10 not overly disciplined players in AD&D 1e we didn't use a caller. Even today I can't see any sense in this role. It would make the game even slower, as the step of telling the caller and the caller telling pretty much the same contents to the DM should take more time. And the DM being free to concentrate on his tasks and notes would be pretty hard, when a dozen people are discussing their tacticts and precedures in the same room. Oh, and don't forget the players asking the DM for details.




None of that has been my experience.  Typically, I need a few moments to view notes and other tasks, and doing that while the players are huddling and making their plans takes out a lot of dead time.  Even if I don't have much to do, hearing players tell the caller their plans before the caller "commits" by telling me allows me to prepare the dice/rolls/rules/monsters that will be needed ahead of time.  Then I can address their actions in a quick and orderly matter.  Thief's going to sneak down the hall...okay, better get out my d10s and find the statblock for the shrieker...fighter's listening at the door, so here's my d6, and here are my notes for what's on the other side of the door...wizard's holding the light near the fighter, okay, I'll go ahead and note one turn's passed for their lantern...and cleric is looking down the opposite hall, and it's about time for a wandering monster check...no monster.  The caller "commits" the party to their actions for that turn, and then I just go ahead.  "Okay, your lantern has about an hour's oil left.  Cleric, you don't see or hear anything coming down the hall; (rolls 2 on d6) fighter, you hear some scuffling sounds on the other side of the door; (rolls hide in shadow, fails, rolls move silently, success) Thief you creep down the hall, not making a sound, (rolls surprise for shrieker and thief) and you hear a slight squeak above you.  Looking up, you see a shrieker, seeming to slumber.  It doesn't seem to have noticed you."

And if they change actions before the caller "commits", no time is wasted by me getting something ready -- I can simply go with the flow.



Pickles JG said:


> DMMike said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, so OP is saying that PCs should do something beyond running one, single character?
> ...




I believe he's not suggesting multiple characters, but rather the players having some roles in the game in addition to simply playing their character.  



Pickles JG said:


> As to logistics well I am not interested in bean counting in a game I want derring do, action, drama & funny dialogue.




These things aren't mutually exclusive.  In fact, IMXP the bean counting can even lead to derring do, action, drama & funny dialogue.  



Pickles JG said:


> As to the original topic I have never seen a caller in 35 years. Mapping used to be common when exploration in the literal sense was more of a feature of the game. It was something I sometimes enjoyed, last in a 1e module run in 3.5, but that was very much a 2 player puzzle game played by myself & the DM. The whole idea of a caller seems to promote this with some players being more important than others.




That's an issue of execution rather than the idea itself.  The caller has no greater importance than the quartermaster or the mapper.  They simply process and relay certain information.  But it's not for all games.  I think it's pretty much best suited for the turn-based dungeon and hex crawl.  If the game doesn't really make use of such turns, simply moving from encounter to encounter, then a "caller" is entirely superfluous, since they have very limited utility at the round-based encounter level.



> I am not very excited by the whole exploration pillar. I did however realise that the games I run can be very combat light & hve strethes where players are not interacting (with other characters) so I guess this would be exploration. Planning robberies, organising banquets, fixing livestock competitions & the like do not seem to happily fit under the title exploration.




For me, the excitement is less about the specific rules that they've released in the playtest so far, but the fact that such rules are there in the first place, and may be expanded on in the DMG, or may lead to having more labyrinthine dungeons/hexmaps ripe for exploring.  I can always simply import turn-based exploration from B/X to any edition.  It's less the actual rules than the hope that the kind of play will again be supported.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2014)

Iosue said:


> I have found a caller to make a significant difference in a group as small as four.  And it wasn't because they were especially squabbly.  It just seemed to bring the group together as a team, and kept things running smoothly.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I have not done very much turn-based exploration since my earliest playing days. Even then, it tended to be the turn as a measure of time rather than the turn as a unit of play. So the PCs would walk down a corridor, mapping it, and I would count of the turns, but it wasn't in the form of "declare one action per PC per turn". That would fit with your hypothesis about the lack of felt need for a caller.

On the topic of player planning: When my players are planning I pay attention, and frequently get involved (eg to egg them on one way or another, whether by encouragement or (gentle) mockery; perhaps to remind them of some salient backstory that they seem to have forgotten; etc). If the plans that are being hatched seem complex or potentially contradictory, I will clarify who is doing what before proceding to try and resolve the declared actions. There is no single player who is in charge of this mediation process - it's a whole group thing.


----------



## Iosue (Jun 23, 2014)

pemerton said:


> I have not done very much turn-based exploration since my earliest playing days. Even then, it tended to be the turn as a measure of time rather than the turn as a unit of play. So the PCs would walk down a corridor, mapping it, and I would count of the turns, but it wasn't in the form of "declare one action per PC per turn". That would fit with your hypothesis about the lack of felt need for a caller.




Yup, just what I was thinking of.  Also, though I don't know if this was true for you in particular, but I suspect a lot of folks got involved with RPGs through established groups, which likely had a veteran DM and their own group dynamics that made a caller unnecessary.  Myself, OTOH, I was introduced to the game playing a solo game (player-and-DM), after which I borrowed the rules, read them, and then got my sisters, brother, and best friend involved.  Since the rules called for a mapper and caller, we naturally followed suit.  Possibly why I'm one of the few mid-80s Caller Experienced players.



pemerton said:


> On the topic of player planning: When my players are planning I pay attention, and frequently get involved (eg to egg them on one way or another, whether by encouragement or (gentle) mockery; perhaps to remind them of some salient backstory that they seem to have forgotten; etc). If the plans that are being hatched seem complex or potentially contradictory, I will clarify who is doing what before proceding to try and resolve the declared actions. There is no single player who is in charge of this mediation process - it's a whole group thing.



Hehe.  You and I have the exact opposite approach.  At least when I'm playing B/X.  My goal is turn gargoyle.  If the game is in "turn mode", I try not to speak unless spoken to.  My job is simply to smoothly and accurately relate to the players what their characters perceive.  In an encounter, if I'm actually playing a role, then the funny voices come out.  In a combat, I'm pure referee -- making sure the playing field is clear, adjudicating corner cases, announcing results, keeping the flow of play moving.

I have found that if I gargoyle up, the caller does NOT take charge.  All players feel free to ask me for clarifications.  They talk to each other without one person taking charge.  If a "leader" does appear, it's generally due more to outside-the-game social dynamics than the fact that someone is the caller.  We rotate the caller, so often "leaders" and "callers" are two different people.  I suppose if people are in groups where those "natural leaders" tend to take the caller role, then there might be a feeling of the caller taking too large a roll in the game.  But truly in my XP, the caller is just a relater of a certain kind of information in certain modes of the game, no more and no less.  I'd have to play with more diverse groups to really be sure, but I suspect that rotating caller duties might even mitigate a lot of that "natural leader" stuff.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2014)

Iosue said:


> I was introduced to the game playing a solo game (player-and-DM), after which I borrowed the rules, read them, and then got my sisters, brother, and best friend involved.



I learned to play from the Moldvay Basic rulebook. When I go upstairs after posting this message I'll see what it says about the role of the caller! But when I first played it was with small groups (eg my brother and a friend or two) so a caller may have seemed redundant. (And perhaps unclear in function.) I remember reading, early on, the Puffin book "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" (probably better known to those whose cultural sphere is more in the English than US orbit, but if you don't know it apparently it's cheap used on Amazon, and worth a look). As far as I remember it recommended dispensing with the caller. But it also didn't emphasis the turn as a unit of play (only a unit of time). 

Mapping, on the other hand, we were used to from playing Fighting Fantasy books.



Iosue said:


> At least when I'm playing B/X.  My goal is turn gargoyle.  If the game is in "turn mode", I try not to speak unless spoken to.



Even if I tried I think I would fail.

Back when I was a bit more of a free agent (as a uni student) I used to play in a wider range of groups and go to one of the annual Melbourne conventions. One of my first convention experiences, that had a big impact on me, was playing a freeform Cthulhu Dreamlands game. There was basically no need for action resolution - because whatever we did happened - so the play was all about the interpersonal dynamics: the PCs had been written up (in the usual con style) so that we had conflicting agendas, natural alliances and instabilities, etc.

The GM's main job, therefore, besides doing the standard framing stuff, was to walk around from player to player or small group to small group and play the "devil" on our shoulders, destabilising things just at the point that we might be about to reach an agreement, and revving us up if we were getting slack or not pushing hard enough for our PC's agenda.

This particular GM was excellent at that. I don't think I'm as good, but it's what I try to do. Remind the players of the stakes. Remind them of the backstory that they care about. Keep up the pressure and the energy, so that when eventually they make a decision and commit themselves they're really _committing_ themselves.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2014)

Iosue said:


> If a "leader" does appear, it's generally due more to outside-the-game social dynamics than the fact that someone is the caller.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I suspect that rotating caller duties might even mitigate a lot of that "natural leader" stuff.



My group used to have two rather clear leaders (which could cause problems when they clashed! but they were close friends - leader A and I were the groosmen at leader B's wedding). But they now both live in London. Another player - oddly enough, the least experienced (ie started in the late 90s as a 30+ year old when I roped him in, whereas everone else started in the early 80s Moldvay Basic era), has emerged as the closest to a group leader. He does the heaviest lifting in terms of organising sessions, coordinating people's timetables, strongarming people into hosting etc. And he probably has the single biggest share of influence on the choices the party makes as a whole, but is by no means dominant and doesn't always get his way.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 23, 2014)

Iosue said:


> Despite popular misconception, the caller never did this _during combat_.  It was a turn-based role, not a round-based role.




In my experience, this varied from table to table, or game to game.  Some used a caller only outside combat, others used one during combat, others used them at both times.

I've tended to move away from running a game where absolute detail of positioning matters much, and this largely alleviates the need for a mapper.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 23, 2014)

Iosue said:


> Hehe.  You and I have the exact opposite approach.  At least when I'm playing B/X.  My goal is turn gargoyle.  If the game is in "turn mode", I try not to speak unless spoken to.  My job is simply to smoothly and accurately relate to the players what their characters perceive.  In an encounter, if I'm actually playing a role, then the funny voices come out.  In a combat, I'm pure referee -- making sure the playing field is clear, adjudicating corner cases, announcing results, keeping the flow of play moving.




The issue I find with turning "gargoyle" is that while the characters live in the world 24/7 (or 32/8, depending on your game-world clock and calendar), the player lives in it a few hours at a time, every week or two, and views it only through interactions with the GM - that's a pretty narrow window.  The PCs should have a ton of background information and intuition about how things work that the players generally lack.  

It is the GM's job to widen that window, so that the PCs are making informed decisions.  If and when the Players are walking down a road that the GM knows is kind of silly, and that runs contrary to what the PCs would know, I think the GM should probably offer that information, rather than wait for the PCs to specifically ask for it.

Case in point:  I ran the second session of a new Shadowrun game last night.  The first half of the run was stealing a widget.  The second half was getting hold of the person who knows how the widget works.  This latter, to a person of the real, modern world, amounts to kidnapping.  A couple of my players balked at the ethics, even though in the game world, "corporate extractions" are a pretty common form of run.

So, it was important for me to remind the players of this - not that I get to make choices for them, not that they *must* take the hook I've provided (I had two different backup plans), but that in the rest of the world, this wasn't considered that big a deal.  They can make the choice to not do extractions, if they want - but they should make that decision knowing the context in which it was relevant, rather than make it, and then find out later on that they're running against the grain without knowing it.

Similarly, for example, the party tech-heads should know a lot about common security systems.  If the team starts making a plan that runs contrary to the knowledge the PCs would have, the GM should remind them, rather than allow them to make a crappy plan, and they gripe that the GM didn't give them enough information to make a good plan.


----------



## GMMichael (Jun 23, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I... am guessing you don't have kids or  friends with kids... if you're "wiping diapers", you're doing it  entirely wrong.




The reusable kind.  Disposables are so...20th century.



Pickles JG said:


> I am not sure if there is irony here?



Sorry, forgot the irony tag.



Pickles JG said:


> Did you really say you do not want the PCs controlling the outcome of  your story? Are they merely along to spectate as you show us you great  unpublished novelist skills?
> Again this is a style of DMing/game structure I detest. PCs need to have agency.






Iosue said:


> I absolutely want the PCs controlling the outcome of the story.  It's their story.  This is how I imagine myself as a DM.



C'mon gang.  "Controlling" and "affecting" are two different things.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 23, 2014)

pemerton said:


> I learned to play from the Moldvay Basic rulebook. When I go upstairs after posting this message I'll see what it says about the role of the caller!




Page B4: "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."

Page B19: "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 "he 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."

Page B63: "*caller* - the player who normally tells the DM what his or her party will do, based on what the other plaeyrs tell him or her."

Cheers!


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jun 23, 2014)

I find the caller generally redundant at the table, but I've resurrected the concept in my online voice-chat games, because I've found it helps tremendously with keeping things moving.  When you lose all of the non-vocal cues you have at a table, you tend to get long tracts of silence on the line while each player internally decides whose turn it is to speak and then, having reached that decision, assumes that the person in question knows they are up and goes to the fridge to get a root beer.  Having a caller tends to mitigate that phenomenon because the caller always knows it is their turn to speak and if they need input from another player they ask.  It's been a big improvement.

I am a big old fencesitter regarding player mapping.  It is one of the precious few parts of playing a character that I actually enjoy, and I love to see other players doing it, but it requires a lot of capability on the part of both the dungeon master and the player.  The dungeon master has to articulate the characters' surroundings accurately and clearly, and the player has to listen and produce a representation without prompting or guidance that will still be useful once the moment has passed.  When one or the other of those skills is lacking player mapping adds little to the campaign experience.


----------



## Iosue (Jun 23, 2014)

DMMike said:


> C'mon gang.  "Controlling" and "affecting" are two different things.



I'm aware of the difference and I still mean "controlling."  I set up the world. I provide some hooks.  What happens in the game as played is _completely_ up to the players.  I have no story for them to affect.  What story that arises in the course of play is entirely dependent on their decisions and actions.  I don't want nor need any say in the matter.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 23, 2014)

Iosue said:


> What story that arises in the course of play is entirely dependent on their decisions and actions.




With respect - like it or not, that's not true.  



> I don't want nor need any say in the matter.




The story is based on the decisions and actions of all characters in play.  That includes the monsters and NPCs - they have choices and actions - and you make them.  So, you have say in the matter.  You place the monsters, you create the NPCs (or accept/edit the ones present in published materials) - these choices also influence the resulting story.  Even if you stop short of making arbitrary fiats of events in play, the GM _cannot avoid_ having agency in the story.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 23, 2014)

My original group was 14 players and a DM(though on most days we only had 8 players show up).  We used a caller and a mapper as well.

Though, more recently we've pretty much done away with the mapper because we don't often go through dungeons big enough to warrant it.  Even if they did, it seems a pointless waste of time because it always causes more confusion than it should.  Inevitably, the mapper mishears the DM once or twice about which direction the exit in the room goes and they end up with a map that looks absolutely NOTHING like the correct one.  Then you have to watch the PCs stumble around aimlessly attempting to follow a map that is wrong without having any idea why the map is wrong.  It was funny once or twice but it got old until I would just let the PCs say "We go back to that room with the fountain" and I say "Ok, your characters are able to find it".

As for party caller, I think the reason it worked well is because we as a group empowered the caller to make simple decisions without consulting everyone else constantly.  When exploring a dungeon this comes up especially.  Without a caller, every corridor takes ages to walk down.  It normally sounds like this:

DM: "So, the hallway continues for 50 feet, there are 2 doors to the right and 2 to the left.  However, at the end of the corridor, the passage continues to the right."
P1: "I say we check out each door individually!"
P2: "I say we check the left side doors then the right side doors."
P3: "Doors might have monsters behind them.  If we go to the end of the hall and look down the right passage we can see if there are guards wandering or other options for places to go."
P4: "No, if we go past the doors, enemies will be behind us and we'll forget to come back here and check them!"

However, with a party caller(as long as we actually gave them the power to decide) the conversation goes:
Caller: "We check out the first door on the right first"
DM: "It's an empty room with nothing in it."
Caller: "We search it."
DM: "You don't find anything."
Caller: "Ok, we go across the hall to the first door on the left."

This doesn't mean that sometimes the other players wouldn't argue the decisions of the caller or didn't have a say on where they went.  But it happened less often.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 24, 2014)

There are in fact three roles, not two: caller, mapper, and treasurer.

Caller: this had been abandoned by our crew before I even joined in, and that was a lo-ong time ago.   We're just too independent, and none of us like the idea of another player speaking for our characters (which is how we've always interpreted the caller's role); never mind that half the time the caller wouldn't know what some of the party is doing - the ranger's off scouting alone, the thief is quietly prying at the desk drawer while the party is busy elsewhere, a third character is discreetly casting charm person on the party fighter, etc. 

Mapper: absolutely essential.  If the players don't keep a map it's assumed the characters don't either, leading to getting hopelessly lost in fairly short order.  (as player, I try not to be the mapper as I do enough mapping as a DM)

Treasurer: also absolutely essential.  The treasurer records what we've found, and (perhaps more important) what we know about what we've found; we don't and won't play a system where magic items identify themselves after a few minutes' use. (as player I almost always end up as treasurer, I don't mind doing it and it saves me from mapping)  The treasurer also records who is carrying what out of what we've found in case anyone gets blown up, turned to stone, teleported to the high arctic, etc.

Lanefan


----------



## Agamon (Jun 24, 2014)

Speaking for my own games, if I have the amount of players to require a caller, I'm doing it wrong. Four players is perfect, five can work, six is too many.

Also, when I GM, I'm one of the players, not someone too important to spoken to directly. lol

Oh, and I've been playing since '81, if that makes any difference.


----------



## Iosue (Jun 24, 2014)

Umbran said:


> With respect - like it or not, that's not true.
> 
> The story is based on the decisions and actions of all characters in play.  That includes the monsters and NPCs - they have choices and actions - and you make them.  So, you have say in the matter.  You place the monsters, you create the NPCs (or accept/edit the ones present in published materials) - these choices also influence the resulting story.  Even if you stop short of making arbitrary fiats of events in play, the GM _cannot avoid_ having agency in the story.



With mutual respect, I think you're splitting too fine a hair here, and perhaps taking two lines out of the context of my post and the larger context of the discussion in which it was made.

I'll further note that I'm not describing some platonic ideal of play here.  I'm describing the specific style of play that my specific groups use when trying to play B/X D&D as an exploration game.

So, sure, I have involvement.  But what I don't seek is _control_.  I make certain choices before the game in order to create the field of play.  The dungeons and hexes are stocked at random.   Many encounters in play are random.  NPC reactions are based on reaction rolls.  Certainly I interpret these results into a coherent whole.  But I don't have a story.  Without the actions of the players, all I have are empty sets.  Any story that exists is driven by the actions of the characters in play.   Even in my NPC interactions, since I'm relying on random rolls I have very little control over how any one NPC will act, let alone the in-progress story as a whole.

To put it in DMMike's terms, it would seem that he as DM wishes to retain control of the story, while his players affect it.  In my games, I want the players to have control of the story, while I merely affect it, simply because as DM I cannot not.  You could define "control" so broadly that there is no distinction between how DMMike and I run our games, but I'm not sure how useful that would be.


----------



## Iosue (Jun 24, 2014)

Umbran said:


> The issue I find with turning "gargoyle" is that while the characters live in the world 24/7 (or 32/8, depending on your game-world clock and calendar), the player lives in it a few hours at a time, every week or two, and views it only through interactions with the GM - that's a pretty narrow window.  The PCs should have a ton of background information and intuition about how things work that the players generally lack.
> 
> It is the GM's job to widen that window, so that the PCs are making informed decisions.  If and when the Players are walking down a road that the GM knows is kind of silly, and that runs contrary to what the PCs would know, I think the GM should probably offer that information, rather than wait for the PCs to specifically ask for it.
> 
> ...



Again, I'm not talking about Universal GM Best Practices.  I'm talking specifically about playing D&D as a game of exploration, and in this case making a contrast with Pemerton's style of "When my players are planning I pay attention, and frequently get  involved (eg to egg them on one way or another, whether by encouragement  or (gentle) mockery; perhaps to remind them of some salient backstory  that they seem to have forgotten; etc)."

_Of course_ I pay attention to what the players are saying, and _of course_ I correct blatant player misconceptions the character could not be expected to have, e.g., layouts of rooms, etc.  Nor am I saying that "turning gargoyle" will be appropriate for all kinds of campaigns/playstyles/games or people.  And the free flow of information is vital.  All I am saying is that when the players huddle to discuss their next course of action (in an exploration game, so this generally involves the next area to be explored), I take no part, aside from answering questions and making clarifications.

Umbran, I'm a little confused.  Is there a reason you keep taking examples of me saying, "Well, in my specific game, this is what I do..." and extrapolating them into generalized discussions of what GMs do or should do?  I mean, I get that the style I use to run B/X D&D may not be best suited for how you run Shadowrun, but what does that have to do with Callers and Mappers in D&D?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 24, 2014)

Iosue said:


> I set up the world. I provide some hooks.  What happens in the game as played is _completely_ up to the players.  I have no story for them to affect.  What story that arises in the course of play is entirely dependent on their decisions and actions.  I don't want nor need any say in the matter.





Iosue said:


> what I don't seek is _control_.  I make certain choices before the game in order to create the field of play.  The dungeons and hexes are stocked at random.   Many encounters in play are random.  NPC reactions are based on reaction rolls.  Certainly I interpret these results into a coherent whole.  But I don't have a story.  Without the actions of the players, all I have are empty sets.  Any story that exists is driven by the actions of the characters in play.   Even in my NPC interactions, since I'm relying on random rolls I have very little control over how any one NPC will act, let alone the in-progress story as a whole.



A lot of this is similar to how I like to GM - I set up backstory, a lot of how NPCs react is based on random rolls (typically skill checks in my game, rather than reaction rolls, but for current purposes I don't think that's a huge difference).

I think the single biggest difference, for me, would be non-random stocking and non-random encounters. In a type of continuum with my non-gargoyle mode of engaging with player planning, I have a non-gargoyle mode of setting up these elements of backstory and framing situations: I deliberately set things up to pod and proke and get responses from the players. (Not any particular sort of response - hence why I say that, like you, I'm affecting but not controlling - but some sort of reasonably passionate response.)

I think this is probably the main marker of my game being a non-exploration game.

Enough about me! [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] has frequently posted that, in order to maintain interest and avoid boring bits in an exploration-based old-school game, he puts "unrealistic" amounts of wacky stuff into his sandbox. (And so, eg, has fewer empty rooms than the traditional stocking tables would suggest.) Do you have any particular approach to this issue? (Maybe you don't think there is an issue.)


----------



## Iosue (Jun 24, 2014)

pemerton said:


> A lot of this is similar to how I like to GM - I set up backstory, a lot of how NPCs react is based on random rolls (typically skill checks in my game, rather than reaction rolls, but for current purposes I don't think that's a huge difference).
> 
> I think the single biggest difference, for me, would be non-random stocking and non-random encounters. In a type of continuum with my non-gargoyle mode of engaging with player planning, I have a non-gargoyle mode of setting up these elements of backstory and framing situations: I deliberately set things up to pod and proke and get responses from the players. (Not any particular sort of response - hence why I say that, like you, I'm affecting but not controlling - but some sort of reasonably passionate response.)
> 
> I think this is probably the main marker of my game being a non-exploration game.



I suspect there's also something related to our previous discussion about where the meta-tools fall, and the paradox inherent in D&D.  I put greater reliance on random content so as to remove as much as possible the tension between supporting the players while also running their antagonists.  And since in B/X the majority of the meta-tools fall on my side, I remove myself from the discussion as much as is necessary to avoid undue influence.  Not that this is easy!  Nor does it always end well; sometimes the players end up spending lots of time exploring an "uninteresting" area when, with but a nudge from me, they could be exploring a much more "interesting" area!  But I put those in quotes because interesting/uninteresting is an a priori judgement that I only I can make, seeing the whole picture and imparting my own biases.  As an exploration game, _exploring_ an empty room can be just as interesting as "getting right to the action".

Mileage varies, of course.



pemerton said:


> Enough about me!  @_*Libramarian*_  has frequently posted that, in order to maintain interest and avoid boring bits in an exploration-based old-school game, he puts "unrealistic" amounts of wacky stuff into his sandbox. (And so, eg, has fewer empty rooms than the traditional stocking tables would suggest.) Do you have any particular approach to this issue? (Maybe you don't think there is an issue.)



Probably my approach to this is, "No result does not make sense."  I rely on random content generation, including random reactions.  Time and time again I see people demur this style because of "results that don't make sense."  Reading the Pulsipher and (and to a certain extent, the Musson) thread, I felt that they took this attitude, and a lot of their advice involved avoiding results not "according to logic" (Pulsipher), or "fighting-and-looting" games that result from a random stocking approach (a subtext I got from Musson).

I understand that impulse, but I've come to reject it personally.  No matter what the result, I see my job to make it make sense.  And this is certainly part of the affect on the game I have that I mentioned to Umbran.  Doesn't feel like control, though!  More like set dresser working for a capricious and zany producer.   IMO this helps cut down on a "fighting and looting" mentality, because the players (and I!) are often surprised.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 24, 2014)

Iosue said:


> I suspect there's also something related to our previous discussion about where the meta-tools fall, and the paradox inherent in D&D.



I just reread that thread. It seems to have been cut short - the last post is yours, and you seem to promise that you'll be covering more materials.

You should necro it and do that stuff! (Plus your reading Moldvay Basic thread - as best I remember the scenario creation tools and advice haven't been discussed yet.)



Iosue said:


> I put greater reliance on random content so as to remove as much as possible the tension between supporting the players while also running their antagonists.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Probably my approach to this is, "No result does not make sense."  I rely on random content generation, including random reactions.  Time and time again I see people demur this style because of "results that don't make sense."



Now this is good stuff!

And it is very apposite not only to old school play but to "modern" play as well. I'm sure you've encountered the recurring complaint about 4e skill challenges that (for instance) it "doesn't make sense" if a player comes up with a fool-proof plan, then succeeds on the skill roll, but that's only the 2nd of N required successes (where N > 2). Whereas the correct response - if you're interested in running skill challenges at all - is "OK, what happened to mean that the foolproof plan turned out not to work after all?"

It applies to DC setting as well. Level-appropriate DCs (or any other metagame based way of setting DCs) requires a willingness to make stuff up to make the result make sense within the fiction.

Skill challenges, metagamed DCs, etc are the tools of the "modern" GM that correspond, in functional terms, to the randmoness tools of the "classic" GM, helping to put a brake on GM power and stop railroading. And to work, they require this attitude of "Everything makes sense - it's my job to come up with an explanation".

I would be interest to hear you describe the results of randmoness as you use it - eg what sorts of aesthetic/emotional experiences does it lead to in play? Can you give any examples of how the technique has played out in your game?

In my own case, I feel that taking the approach of "everything makes sense, and it's my job as GM to help make that true" means that you get a lot more surprises. Which means that the game is fun: both these little vignettes, which don't necessarily lead to anything very profound but are just fun to play through, with no one at the table having expected or planned for them; and also ideas that send things off in new directions, and so help shape the subsequent direction of the game. Here are a couple of links to examples: this one I'm very proud of as probably still the best skill challenge I have run, and it produced multiple vignettes of the sort I've tried to describe which just wouldn't have happened in a "follow the logic of common sense" approach; this is a much more recent one, where following the logic of the skill challenge rules and the dice roles led the PCs to binding a demon to their service to go and soften up the Frost Giants in advance of the party's assault. (I'm about to run G2, suitably mechanically adapted and set in the Feywild and the politics of the Winter Fey, for my 26th level 4e group.)

Besides its other problems, railroading is _boring_!


----------



## Sadras (Jun 24, 2014)

Iosue said:


> Probably my approach to this is, "No result does not make sense."  I rely on random content generation, including random reactions.




Just want to ask, how do you implement random content generation - do you use random encounter tables for each room/corridor/tavern?


----------



## Iosue (Jun 24, 2014)

pemerton said:


> I just reread that thread. It seems to have been cut short - the last post is yours, and you seem to promise that you'll be covering more materials.
> 
> You should necro it and do that stuff! (Plus your reading Moldvay Basic thread - as best I remember the scenario creation tools and advice haven't been discussed yet.)



You are my EN World conscience, pemerton.   I'll see what I can do.



> And it is very apposite not only to old school play but to "modern" play as well.
> 
> ...
> 
> Skill challenges, metagamed DCs, etc are the tools of the "modern" GM that correspond, in functional terms, to the randmoness tools of the "classic" GM, helping to put a brake on GM power and stop railroading. And to work, they require this attitude of "Everything makes sense - it's my job to come up with an explanation".




Indeed.  IMO, aside from focus on exploration, the primary difference between early TSR D&D (0e, 1e, and Classic) and WotC D&D (with 2e representing in my mind a kind of bridging point) has to do with what the players use to interact with the game.  In early TSR D&D, this is the DM.  In WotC D&D, this is the rules themselves.  But these are just different paths up the mountain, so to speak.



pemerton said:


> I would be interest to hear you describe the results of randmoness as you use it - eg what sorts of aesthetic/emotional experiences does it lead to in play? Can you give any examples of how the technique has played out in your game?
> 
> In my own case, I feel that taking the approach of "everything makes sense, and it's my job as GM to help make that true" means that you get a lot more surprises. Which means that the game is fun: both these little vignettes, which don't necessarily lead to anything very profound but are just fun to play through, with no one at the table having expected or planned for them; and also ideas that send things off in new directions, and so help shape the subsequent direction of the game.




Well, we're getting pretty far afield of the topic, but what you've written here applies very much to games I've run in this style.  Lots of little surprises, and unplanned vignettes that keep the game fresh.  On the DM dungeon stocking side, one of the first dungeons I stocked with this philosophy was the 2nd level dungeon map found in Mentzer's DMG.  I rolled Traders.  Twice.  Uh, okay.  So what would traders be doing in the 2nd level of a dungeon?  Later I rolled Bandits.  A-ha!  The bandits attacked the traders who fled into the dungeon, eventually reaching the second level, where they split up and the bandits lost them.  Then I rolled Giant Geckos.  Two rooms down from one of the parties of traders.  And with a surprising store of treasure!  So, it came to mind that the traders found themselves in the room with the geckos, and barely escaped with their lives.  One didn't make it out, and it was his treasure that was in the room.  Later a string of animal rolls in another section of the dungeon suggested what the giant geckos were doing there.  They'd escaped from a menagerie!  

During play, the players were searching around the outside of the first level.  I rolled for wandering monsters and came up with...one Trader!  And his initial reaction roll to the party was negative.  So, improvising, I said that he was practically catatonic in shock and fear, and after the party talked him down, he explained about the traders and the bandits.  This became one of the side quests for the party as they explored the dungeon -- rescue the traders from the dungeon.  None of this was planned; until the PCs happened to run into the trader outside the dungeon, I didn't even have a "save the traders" plot hook.  It all just turned out that way through the rolls I made.

Tavis Alison, of ACKS and Autarch fame, gave a podcast interview extolling this mode of play, which I highly, highly recommend.  He's talking mainly about OD&D, but what he talks about can be entirely applicable to any kind of RPG, IMO.



Sadras said:


> Just want to ask, how do you implement random content generation - do you use random encounter tables for each room/corridor/tavern?




If I'm making my own (rather than one of the handy random dungeon generators out there), I use primarily the rules in B/X that pemerton mentioned above.  I either design my own dungeon/wilderness layouts, or use the layout (but not the key) of a pre-published module.  For dungeons, Basic D&D has a random stocking table that uses d6: 1-2 Monster, 3 Trap, 4 Special, 5-6 Empty.  If it's a monster, you roll on the Wandering Monster table of appropriate level to find who or what and how many of them are in there.  Then you roll another d6 for Treasure and cross-check with what kind of room it is.  1-3 means there's treasure in a Monster room, 1-2 means there's treasure in a Trap room, and a 1 means there's treasure in an Empty room.

I sometimes dip into the random content generators in the 1st Ed AD&D books if I need inspiration, especially for dungeon sections.  Using the random dungeon generator in the book can take you right off your graph paper, so I generally don't use it for the whole dungeon, but it's great for spicing up sections.

Few things have made me jump up and down in anticipation for 5e like the news that there will be reams of random content generators in the DMG!


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2014)

Seems like maybe the discussion has migrated away from the OP topic to some degree...

But I'll say that in about 35 years of play (sometimes off and on) I've never once used a caller and only very rarely a mapper.  Both roles are appropriate to a very specific kind of playstyle that emphasizes large groups of characters exploring dungeons and doing little else.  I think this playstyle was always very specific, never very common, and practically non-existent by 1980 or so, if not even considerably earlier.  It also hearkens back to the notion of tournament play.  Which, while I'm aware that it existed, it certainly didn't come very close to representing any game I ever was in.

I guess I'm saying that you must be older than me, or something  

But really it's not as much about age as it is about playstyle.  I didn't come into the hobby during the mid-70s as a war-gaming enthusiast who was excited about this new take on my existing hobby.  I came into the hobby in the very late 70s and early 80s as a fan of fantasy books who was excited about this new take on my existing hobby.  And coming at it from a totally different hobbyist background than Gygax and Arneson did, or initially assumed for the first wave of D&D fans, I always did find much of the early assumptions about playstyle to be very strange and even uncouth (!) given what I wanted the hobby to provide.  While I later came to understand some of the war-gaming context inherent in the early game, I never really did take to it all that well.

The "second wave" of fans, those that made D&D a household name in the early 80s in particular, seemed by and large to be more like me rather than the old grognards who made up the first wave.  This is why it was probably inevitable that the so-called Hickman Revolution took place and stuff like the elimination of the caller and mapper from the basic gamer lexicon eventually happened.  The game evolved to meet the demands of its player base, and with a significant sea-change in what the player base wanted, the game eventually changed to meet that.  In fact, I believe that for many years, the game was caught up in a bit of an old boys network where old skool designers and writers were unaware of, or at least specifically did not cater to, this pent-up demand.

There are still a lot of lingering legacies of this first wave inherent in D&D, though.  Plenty of little features here and there that are retained out of tradition or habit or inertia, but which don't really do much for the audience in many respects.


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 25, 2014)

Having used the caller and mapper until late 2E (I started in '79), I don't want to go back to using either.  Though, generally we do use an unofficial treasurer (woe betide the players if I have to keep track of their treasures - someone on the player side better be writing this stuff down).

Generally I feel that the caller puts an unnecessary buffer between me and the players.  I've also seen several players lose interest when they feel someone else is calling all the shots.  Yes, sometimes the table resembles a scene from the Goonies with everyone talking at once (at can be quite amusing to watch), but if I need to step in to get bring some order to what's actually going on, not a problem and far easier for me to address/engage a single player rather than filter it through someone else.

I haven't had players have the need to map in a long time, and back in the days when we did do mapping the map was generally wrong ("Was that 20' down the hall from the start of the corridor or not counting the 10' section we were in." or "Wait - we went West.  You filled in the East corridor").  Also, with a lot of battlemats, dwarven forge tiles or whatnot, keeping a map just wasn't really necessary.


----------



## Iosue (Jun 25, 2014)

Hobo said:


> I guess I'm saying that you must be older than me, or something



I don't think so!  I'm part of your "second wave" that got into the game via Basic in the 80s.  But the rules (both Moldvay and Mentzer, and 1e books by Gygax) suggested the use of a caller and mapper, so that's how we played.



> But really it's not as much about age as it is about playstyle.



Oh definitely.  IMO, if you're running game heavily dependent on exploration (dungeoncrawls and hexcrawls), both caller and mapper have utility.  But if exploration is peripheral to your game play, a la the Dragonlance modules, then there's very little need for either of them.  I think the mindspace of the game is quite different.  In the former, the player perspective is pulled back.  Your focus is, in effect, on the environment being explored.  Combat isn't simulated, it's resolved, preferably quickly, so you can get back to the exploration.  The map isn't an extraneous obligation -- it's a record of progress made and goals achieved.  In the latter mode, though, you have more of a "first person" view.  Your focus is on (typically non-exploratory) goals in front of you.  Combat is part of the immersive experience.  You no more need detailed maps than any character in a fantasy novel or movie.

Kind of like the difference between Legend of Zelda and Knights of the Old Republic, say?


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jun 25, 2014)

I remember the Caller.  It was the very first rule I ever tossed.  I remember going around and around as a 10 year old with the Holmes Basic (or maybe AD&D, whatever) rules trying to find some way it was a good idea.  When I came up empty I decided to do without.

The Mapper was really important in my early games where the goal was exhaustively plundering a dungeon.  Later, when I went to mission-based adventures and site maps that were mostly bubbles indicating locations and lines indicating connections, the Mapper went by the wayside too.

Never had a treasurer either.  When the party got something, they tossed it in the bag and I added it to my written list.  They generally divvied it up at the end of an adventure.

This thread gave me an idea for a monster called a "Caller" with mas suggestion powers and command powers.  It always wins initiative and PCs must save or carry out the tasks it announces.  Its suggestion and commands are usually not hostile, instead directing the party towards early D&D dungeon exploration, with 10' poles and so on.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 25, 2014)

I can understand the existence of a caller for large parties (i.e. more than 6 players) in dungeon-oriented games, but for smaller parties, or in more RP-oriented games, where PCs may want to do opposed things or very separate things, it seems like an actively bad idea. I can think a few times when there's a lot of confusion, disagreement or cross-talk, where I've designated one player and had him get what everyone is doing out of them, then tell me, but I've only had to do that a handful of times in 25+ years of DMing, so I think it's probably not something we'd have benefited from. Have a player who tends to act as the leader can often be helpful, but he doesn't need to call everything (I tend to be that player when I play).

Mapper is also interesting, and I have used them, back in the day, but I've found that it is very rarely faster and better to have a player draw the maps by responding to my descriptions than it is for me to draw in front of them. Plus I feel it's totally unfair and my bad if I am not clear enough in a description, and the map gets messed up as a result (because the PC would be able to see the real situation), and I've known that to happen, so again, I prefer to draw the maps (we use a battlemat most of the time so they can just copy from that usually).


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 26, 2014)

We've been using Callers for 10 years now and I can say if you don't use them in combat, combat can quickly turn v e r y  s l o w. Callers are a tactic the players can use, a sharing of actions such as opening a door or initiative. After cooperating players (however big a group that may be) have decided what they want to do, the Caller relates the order of actions to the DM. This speeds up play play regardless of the scale of time units in-game.

I'm guessing this play advice might be in D&D Next like advice on treasure distribution by the players, but they aren't designing a role playing game as they used to be (as pattern recognition games). It's firmly in the 4e design methodology, though I do like what I've heard more than before. 

So yeah, Callers are a tactic. So is being a mapper. Not recording stuff you've learned on your Character Log or not mapping (or over-mapping) are definitely all options. If you don't care what's going on or about getting lost, the players can skip this stuff (or maybe they simply remember that well).


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 26, 2014)

We jokingly nicknamed our caller the menial decision maker.  Honestly that is what he does.  Turn left or right and no one has a good reason why let the caller decide.  I've always had a mapper too.

I do not think dungeon play was niche in 1980.  Not a chance.  Many of the great modules came out after 1980 and they were practically all dungeons.  We played dungeon oriented campaigns and still do all through that time period.  In those days, I knew of many groups though (far more than now) and they all were dungeon exploring.   

Now let me caveat.  A castle, tower, cavern complex, haunted house, etc...  are all dungeons the way I'm using the term.

A dungeon is a restricted movement area that is mappable in five or ten foot squares.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 27, 2014)

Umbran said:


> In my experience, this varied from table to table, or game to game.  Some used a caller only outside combat, others used one during combat, others used them at both times.




:ditto:

as a referee i make all the players callers. they are the caller for their individual PC. but in large groups it helps a lot if you have someone take the role of organizing the players actions.

example> referee: you find the passage ends with a door.
thief: i check the door.
magic user: i cast detect magic
cleric: i cast detect traps
fighter: i attempt str check with my open door...

referee: hold on. i heard thief, magic user, cleric, and fighter in that order... i will run it as such.

but imagine the referee heard the fighter first over the cacophony and there was a magic trap. it would be an argument with the rest of the group saying they had made the right call.

what a caller does best is get the party to act as a team and come up with a strategy for normal occasions and less so normal ones.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 27, 2014)

likewise someone mapping helps the party recall past adventures. even years (in game terms and real life) later.
yes, some referees like me pull modifications to old sites. restocking them when abandoned. restyle them too. since obviously the previous tenants didn't fair so well the way it was laid out.


and as mentioned someone tracking party items is good too. you want to know who has the last potion of healing when the cleric needs it cuz he went down.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 27, 2014)

Each player operates a playing piece in the game. This piece is usually hidden on the game board the DM keeps behind the screen. 

Some of the features of the board and piece may be abstracted for the DM's ease, but they can be laid back out on the board, if necessary. 

When the player takes a move the game may result in different consequences according to the rules the players are attempting to decipher in order to achieve their self-selected objectives. 

The DM will move the playing pieces and relay the consequences after every move each turn. 

When a player announces their move they are acting as a Caller. Performing this action is performing the action of a Caller.

Groups of players working together usually select a single Caller for the group depending upon the situation. For ease, we call this the Group Caller.

In almost all cases using a Group Caller speeds up play. The Group caller relates the moves of all the player in his or her group and each receives a response either collectively or individually as the game rules determine. 

Group Callers are an especially good tactic for large groups as, say, 4 hours of play with 17 individual callers and 1 DM can make the game feel interminable rather than fast, responsive, and thrilling.

Placing a 1 minute limit on all groups to determine next actions can also speed up play and increase excitement, but this should be a house rule.


----------



## GMMichael (Jun 27, 2014)

*PC jobs*

Is it too early/late for this thread to dovetail?

As a GM, I am now 100% serious about keeping players involved by giving them more to do.  Caller and mapper are two very good examples of such tasks.

What else is there?

Treasurer's not bad.  Its application seems more limited than Caller or Mapper.

What about Rules Lawyer?  Only one player is allowed to look up rules, and only when it's not his turn.  If the rules lawyer can find the rule before a round has ended, then it's not too late to change the outcome.  While this one seems limited too (only during rules disputes), I can easily see some players _constantly_ sifting through the rule books.  Which might keep them away from Angry Birds.

Herder?  Someone to keep PCs focused and preventing Out Of Character conversation?

Snack Wrangler?

If we're averaging four PCs, we should have four different PC secondary jobs, right?


----------



## diaglo (Jun 28, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Is it too early/late for this thread to dovetail?
> 
> As a GM, I am now 100% serious about keeping players involved by giving them more to do.  Caller and mapper are two very good examples of such tasks.
> 
> ...



some groups have players with small bladders, need for smokes, or have to take calls from kids or work.

a substitute Caller, Mapper, Party treasurer to keep the flow going helps.
but most times the referee can just call a 5 minute break for the group to help take care of business. it also helps clean up things like rules discussions or hidden actions or the players to talk outside of the referee's hearing if they want to try a new approach to the scenario (i am not saying this is player vs referee or vice versa). some people just think better saying things out loud.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Jun 28, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Snack Wrangler?



Beer fetcher.


----------



## DaveyJones (Jun 28, 2014)

dd.stevenson said:


> Beer fetcher.



someone has to bribe the referee.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 28, 2014)

DMMike said:


> Is it too early/late for this thread to dovetail?
> 
> As a GM, I am now 100% serious about keeping players involved by giving them more to do.  Caller and mapper are two very good examples of such tasks.
> 
> ...




Good idea.  Great idea actually.

The rules lawyer one though I wouldn't go for.  I never look up rules at the table.  It slows the game down.  If the player doesn't know then I make a call usually conservatively so that next time he is ready.  I'm almost always ready because I take notes but if not I make an executive decision. I'm not opening a book and stopping the game.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 28, 2014)

Morale Officer and Hygiene Officer.


----------



## Pickles JG (Jun 29, 2014)

We have a damage dice allocater as players track the damage each beasty has suffered also tea maker. T These are _player_ jobs - as are Mapper & Caller not PC ones


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jun 29, 2014)

Savage Wombat said:


> Morale Officer and Hygiene Officer.




That made me laugh.  Now I'm imagining PARANOIA characters sitting around a table playing an RPG.  Unfortunately "must spread experience around yadda yadda ..."


----------



## GMMichael (Sep 3, 2015)

dd.stevenson said:


> Beer fetcher.



Thread necro for two reasons.  One, beer fetcher is a great idea, even if it's better suited to someone who isn't actually playing.  Or someone who's falling behind for metagame reasons...or their character is temporarily dead (mostly dead?)...

Two, I found a fourth player job that I really like.  There's caller (leader), mapper, treasurer, and CHRONICLER.  Did you remember to buy more arrows in town?  Ask the chronicler.  What was the helpful gnome's name again?  Ask the chronicler.  What was the name of the village we're supposed to visit?  Ask the chronicler.

With each of those jobs taken, the GM can focus on making the game great.


----------



## Ranes (Sep 3, 2015)

Chronicler is as good a reason as any for a thread necro (especially as it necros a thread I hadn't seen first time round). I've had such a player in one of my games. The player volunteered himself for the role; it was not one anybody had suggested. And he was really good at it, too.

Beer bearer is another role players in my games have often volunteered for. It's a role any thirsty DM should appreciate.

Over the last ten years, I've run a few games with up to twelve people attending (in addition to me as DM). On those very busy occasions, I have asked for players to nominate a caller and I've found it's the only way I can manage the demands of such numbers.

As for quartermaster, I think that's not a bad idea either. Anyone who joins my game knows that I don't hand-wave ammunition and encumbrance. Certainly, up to the mid-levels of play, I regard players'  attention to such logistical issues as part of the challenge they face, although I wouldn't expect a quartermaster to have to track every arrows or sling bullet. That's an individual player's responsibility.

I think the use of floor tiles and battle mats has gone a long way to diminishing the role of the mapper though. And having players make their own maps as best they can from the DM's description is something I do miss. I enjoyed that aspect of the game, even as a cartographically challenged player.

Perhaps, when our battle maps become so sophisticated that they update themselves (and always keep the minis in the centre of the map), they'll be clever enough not to auto-reveal previously explored territory, as the party attempts to retrace its steps. And once again, PCs will turn left when they should turn right.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 3, 2015)

The caller becomes necessary for table management once you have 10 or more players at the table.  Otherwise it is bedlam with everyone trying to talk over one another and expecting propositions to be resolved immediately.  They are much less necessary when you have just 4 players at a table (default for the modern era), as it becomes an easier task to manage the party as individuals.  Also, they may be less necessary with experienced players that have expectations about how to play.

Mappers and party treasurers on the other hand are pretty much essential for players, because otherwise you run into the problem of people taking treasure and not recording it on their character sheet.   Also, you get lost.

Official clue recorders and note takers are also really useful party positions.  Otherwise, in games that feature complex plotting, players often forget what they have learned and fail to draw deductions.


----------



## Cristian Andreu (Sep 3, 2015)

On the rare occasion I get to sit on the other side of the DM's screen, I always take the mapper role; I love trying to figure out a dungeon by carefully putting it on paper, and comparing them to what the DM had drawn once the game ends. I also love drawing maps in general, so it's a win-win for me.

I'm currently playing as a Dwarf Diviner in D&D 5e, so I'm on mapping duty. Whenever I make a mistake, I get to blame it on the excess of lead in the surroundings affecting my divination skills.


----------



## VikingLegion (Sep 3, 2015)

The groups I've DMd for have always had a chronicler as well - we called him the journal keeper.  He basically had a day planner dedicated for the campaign, and took notes on what was accomplished each day in short form:

fought 6 brigands on the road
arrived in town of "x"
talked to local priest about removing Bob's curse
heard rumors of a gorgon marauding the local farmsteads

This role was of crucial importance several times during a campaign when the players seemed to be a bit stuck.  Our group only met once or twice a month, so small details were easy to misplace.  The journal keeper would peruse his notes during downtime and was able to connect the dots on many important plot pieces.  Lastly, I didn't award xp after every session, but rather when the players "finished" a chapter or major portion of adventure.  At that point the journal keeper would go back and tick off all defeated enemies and I would award the xp value for them, sometimes tacking on bonus story xp if they accomplished major goals.  These little 10 minute segments every 3 or 4 sessions served as a fun recap to the party to relive the last couple months of gametime.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Sep 4, 2015)

I sometimes use a caller (whoever is sitting next to me at the table gets the job) to wrangle player actions while I jot down notes or find some information from a previous session. This allows me to keep the game moving while I handle administrative tasks that the players probably don't care about.


----------



## Iosue (Sep 4, 2015)

Since there's been some renewed interest in the thread, I thought I'd comb through the old books can find what they say about the caller and mapper.

*Dungeons & Dragons Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures, by Gygax & Arneson*
Surprisingly, I can't find any explanation of the caller or mapper in OD&D.  The first mention of mapping is in *Vol. III The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures*, in the movement rules, where it notes that no mapping is allowed during flight/pursuit situations.  Explication of the Caller comes in the example of play, which is presented as a dialogue between the Referee and the Caller.  From the example of play the Caller seems very much like a leader, since there's no indication that he's consulting with the other players -- he simply tells the Referee what the party is doing.  The section on Wilderness rules is the first to describe some kind of mapping operation: it says the players should have a blank sheet of hex paper to note how the Referee is describing the surrounding terrain.

[sblock=Dungeons & Dragons Rules for Fantastic Medieval Role Playing Adventure Game Campaigns, by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, edited by Eric Holmes]
"One player should map the dungeon from the Dungeon Master's descriptions as the game progresses. This is easiest done if he uses a piece of graph paper marked North, East, South, West with the entrance to the dungeon level drawn in near the center. One of the players should keep a "Chronicle" of the monsters killed, treasure obtained, etc. Another should act as "caller" and announce to the Dungeon Master what action the group is taking. Both mapper and caller must be in the front rank of the party. If the adventurers have a leader, the caller would logically be that player."[/sblock]
Holmes clearly describes the two roles, and suggests that the Caller _can_ be a party leader.  Interestingly, he also describes the Chronicler!  We also see that interesting mix of player and character in early D&D.  The Caller and Mapper are obviously metagame roles taken by the players, but Holmes says the _characters_ should be in the front rank.

[sblock=Dungeon Module B1: In Search of the Unknown, by Mike Carr]
"One player in the group should be designated as the leader, or "caller" for the party, while another one or two players can be selected as mappers (at least one is a must!). Although individual players have the right to decide their own actions and relay them to the Dungeon Master as play progresses, the caller will be the one who gives the DM the details on the group's course of action as they move around and explore (such instructions as "We'll move slowly down this corridor to the east..." or "We'll break down this door while so-and-so covers our rear..." are typical directions given by a caller to the DM). In the course of the adventure, the caller will naturally discuss the options available to the party with the rest of the adventurers, but it is this person who the DM relies upon for the official instructions (although individual players can still pursue alternate courses of action at appropriate times, if they insist, by telling the Dungeon Master). Once a caller (or any player) speaks and indicates an action is being taken, it is begun—even if the player quickly changes his or her mind (especially if the player realizes he or she has made a mistake or error in judgment). Use your discretion in such cases.

"The player or players mapping the explored area should use graph paper. Orient them according to the same directions on the referee's map (with the top being north in almost all cases). After that, allow them to draw their maps from your descriptions as they wish—but make certain that your verbal descriptions of the areas they explore are accurate (although you can say such things as "approximately sixty feet," especially in large or open areas or places where there are irregular rock surfaces). Above all, avoid the considerable temptation to correct their maps once they have drawn them. It will not be uncommon for players to show you their map (especially if they're confused) and ask you, "Is this right?" In most such instances, you should avoid correcting any mistakes there, unless it would be obvious through the eyes of the adventuring characters. Encourage good mapping skills and an attention to detail rather than falling into the rut of continual player map questions."[/sblock]
Once again, Mike Carr clearly describes how to play the game.  We see here that the Caller doesn't make unilateral decisions, but simply relays what the group decides, as well as their roll as a human "commit button".  He also gives a clear explanation of mapping, and notes that while the DM should avoid correcting their mistakes, he should do so if it's something that would be obvious to the characters.

[sblock=Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Special Reference Work: Players Handbook, by Gary Gygax]
"OBEDIENCE

"This aspect of play has three facets. The leader and caller of a party might order one course of action while various players state that their characters do otherwise. Your DM will treat such situations as confused and muddled, being certain to penalize the group accordingly.
...

"MAPPING

"One player must keep a map of the expedition's trek, and if two players make maps the chances for the success of the expedition improve. Graph paper with 5 or 6 lines to the inch is suggested for underground map making. A sheet of small size hex grid is usual for outdoors maps. Both sorts of paper should always be on hand. Never become concerned if your map is not exact, if it is off 10' here or 20' there. As long as it gives your party an idea as to where they are and how to get back, it is serving its purpose. Always make notes on the map to show danger -- traps, tricks, monsters.

"ORGANIZATION

"Organize your party by showing which characters are where. Show marching order for a 10' passage, a 20' passage, door openings, etc. Always prepare for rear actions as well as frontal combats. Assign one individual as leader. This character will "call", i.e. tell the referee where the party will go and what they will do. Miniature figures are of great aid here. The DM will usually require a marching order to be drawn on a piece of paper if figures are not at hand."
[/sblock]
Advice here is rather sparse, and at first glance, at odds with Mike Carr's description and what Gygax himself would write in B2, with the Caller being the Leader (in fact, generally called "the leader" instead of "caller" throughout the PHB and DMG), and seemingly able to order the other players around.  However the description of play in the DMG shows the Leader acting much more as Mike Carr describes above, so I think the way to interpret the "Obedience" section up there is a suggestion to be well-ordered, and not argue over actions.

The DMG example of play may be the best example of what the caller does, because it also includes contributions from the other players, explaining how their characters do their actions and otherwise interacting with the DM.  There are a few references to mapping in the DMG, but little practical description or advice.

[sblock=Dungeon Module B2: The Keep on the Borderlands, by Gary Gygax]
"One player in the group should be selected as leader and ‘caller’ for the party; another one or two should take care of necessary mapping. INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS MAY DECIDE ON THEIR ACTIONS, but it is the ‘caller’ who gives the DM the details on the party’s course of action (such as “We’ll head down the eastern corridor.“). The caller should discuss the party’s actions with the players, and inform the DM of the decisions of the group. When a player speaks and indicates that an action is being taken, it has begun - even if the player changes his mind. Use your discretion in these cases, and remember that the DM has the final say in all matters.

"The players should use graph paper to map the areas being explored. Have them indicate which direction is north, and use compass directions to describe details and direction of travel (“We’ll go west and turn north at the next intersection”). Use the same method to describe areas to them (“You see a corridor which goes about 30’ south and then turns west”). Be sure to keep your descriptions accurate, though you may say such things as ‘about forty feet’, especially in open areas or when describing irregular surfaces. Players will often show you their map and ask “Is this right?” Do not correct their mistakes unless the error would be obvious in the eyes of the adventurers, and remember that, in most cases, maps do not have to be exact. Encourage good mapping skills and an attention to detail, and avoid falling into a rut of continually answering map questions."[/sblock]
Gary's advice in B2 is clearer and more practical than in AD&D, mostly because it's essentially a paraphase of Carr's advice.

[sblock=Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Adventure Game, by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, edited by Tom Moldvay]
"*Part 1: INTRODUCTION, Definition of Standard D&D® Terms*
"At the start of the game, the players enter the dungeon and the DM describes what the characters can see. One player should draw a map from the DM's descriptions; that player is called the *mapper*. As the player characters move further into the dungeon, more and more of the dungeon is mapped. Eventually, the DM's map and the player's map will look more or less alike.

"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.

*"Part 4: THE ADVENTURE, Organizing a Party*
"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.

"MAPPING: One player should draw a map of the dungeon as it is explored. This player is called the *mapper*. Normal movement includes the time spent exploring, measuring, and mapping the dungeon. Maps are drawn to help players visualize the area their characters are exploring and to provide a record of sections of the dungeon they have already explored. A good mapper should listen closely to the DM in order to draw a good representation of the dungeon. It is most important to record proper directions, shape, and approximate size, rather than spending a lot of time determining exact measurements and filling in minute details. It is also a good idea to make brief notes about where traps, monsters, and unusual features are encountered."[/sblock]
Since I started with Moldvay Basic and B2, these two pretty much formed my conception of the Caller and Mapper.  In Moldvay we again see the conflation of the metagame player role with the in-game character role.

[sblock=Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Role Playing Game Players Manual, by Gary Gygax & Dave Arneson, edited by Frank Mentzer]
"*Solo Adventure: Mapping*
"This time, you will make a map of the dungeon so you don’t get lost. Maps also help in remembering where the worst monsters were - like the ghouls - so you can avoid them until you feel ready for them.

"You will draw your map on a piece of graph paper. Each line one square long will equal 10 feet in the dungeon. Copy each map carefully. Draw an arrow pointing to the top of the paper and label it “North”, then draw a line across the arrow and label “East, South, and West.” This will help you remember the directions.

"As you draw your maps be sure to write notes on it to help you remind you where things are.

"If you don’t make a map as you go, you will probably get confused.

*"Playing in a group: How to Prepare*
*"Mapper and Caller*

"Although each person will be playing the role of a character, the players should also handle the jobs of “Mapping” and “Calling.” Any of the players can be the “Mapper” or “Caller,” whatever their characters may be.

"The *mapper* is the player who draws a map of the dungeon as it’s explored. One or more of the characters should be making maps, but one of the players must make the actual game map. The map should be kept out on the table for all to see and refer to. Pencil should always be used in making the map, in case of errors and tricky passages. 

"Mapping is an important part of imagining where your characters are. Sooner or later, all players should learn to make maps. If you play often, take turns at mapping; it is an important and useful skill to learn.

"The *caller* is a player who announces to the Dungeon Master what the group of characters (the Party) is doing. The Caller must check with every player to find out what all the characters are doing, and then tell the DM (quickly and accurately) what they plan to do. The Caller does not tell the others what to do; the Caller merely reports what is going on.

"The Caller’s first job is to find out the “party order” - the way the characters are lined up or grouped during normal travel. The Caller should also report the movements of the group, such as “We’ll go northeast through the woods,” or “We’ll turn right at the next corridor.” Battles are always more complicated, and the DM should then take the time to check with each player, instead of handling it all through the Caller.

"You may have games without Callers, if the Dungeon Master is willing to ask each player what each character is doing, and make notes to remember the actions. But it’s usually easier and more organized if one player acts as Caller.

*"Dungeon Masters Rulebook*
*"Mapping*
"Mapping a dungeon is one of the biggest problems for beginning players. You can make it easier by following some simple guidelines:

"1. Describe areas clearly and accurately. If you make a mistake, tell the players right away, and make necessary corrections.
"2. Use the same terms in descriptions, and try to describe room details (size of the room, exits, creatures, other contents) in the same order each time. If the players become familiar with certain often-used terms, they can map more easily. Some common terms for corridors are:"*Side passage (or Sideroad)*: A corridor branches off to one side, but the main corridor continues.
*Four-way Intersection*: Corridors branch off to both sides of the main corridor.
*T-Intersection*: The main corridor ends at an intersection where corridors continue left and right.​"3. Set a standard description at the start of the adventure for corridors, rooms, walls, and other typical features. "For example, if you start by saying “A standard corridor is 10’ wide and 10’ high,” you can simply say “standard corridor” instead of describing it each time. Standard walls might be “made of stone blocks, each 2‘ long and 1’ tall, mortared on all sides,” and no further wall description is needed unless it differs from the Standard. 
"4. When you design your own dungeons, use straight corridors and square rooms at first. You may try other shapes and twisty corridors when you and the players are more experienced - but even then, it will still slow down the game."[/sblock]

Mentzer, my other fundamental influence also explains thing pretty clearly.  We seem to lose the conflation of player and character here, though.

[sblock=Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeoneer's Survival Guide]
"*SPEEDING PLAY*
"The idea of the caller-the character who declares the actions of the whole group-has been dropped from many role-playing games. Often, when characters are first learning to play, no single character is quite ready to be an effective caller. Other beginning players may feel that the caller prevents them from getting the full gaming experience.

"If your group does not employ a caller, and players experience frustration at the rate of play, perhaps the idea should be reexamined. Experienced players have a much easier time delegating the tasks of caller to one member of the party while maintaining the involvement of all the characters. The caller can serve a vital function in keeping the party moving and avoiding those lulls where no one wishes to make a decision. This method works best when the task of caller rotates through the group, changing every game session.

*'MAPPING TECHNIQUES*
"The most common style of mapping for characters exploring an underground setting is the detailed graphing of each 10-foot block of corridor explored or room entered. This style, while usually providing a reasonable copy of the map the DM is using, has several weaknesses.

"For one thing, this type of map requires a great deal of time -- both game and real time -- to make. Player characters must carefully pace out dimensions, and the mapper must take the time and effort to record them accurately on the graph paper. A party otherwise able to travel in complete darkness must maintain a light source for their mapper, making it much easier for the denizens of the dungeon to spot them.

"Another problem with this type of map is that players tend to agonize over minor errors. If a room overlaps into an area where the map shows a corridor runs, the players worry about teleport traps and other reality shifts, when the most likely explanation is that the map is off by 10 or 20 feet. 

"Of course, such maps are valuable if careful attention to detail and dimensions are necessary for some reason. In most cases, however, the main purpose of the map is to show the characters the way out of the dungeon after the adventure, so such an elaborate illustration is clearly overkill.

"If players are not especially concerned with the exact dimensions of an area they are exploring, a line-drawing map can work very well. In this case, the mapper simply draws a line to indicate the path of a corridor or tunnel through which the party is moving. Doors are indicated with the standard symbol, and crossing corridors or branching tunnels can be displayed with additional lines. The exact distance moved becomes a matter of educated guesswork.

"Such a map serves admirably to show the characters the path when they wish to retrace their steps and leave the dungeon. It also effectively displays the areas that have been explored, as opposed to those that have not. Intersections and doors can be easily spotted. Best of all, the map can be drawn without slowing the party down. Although a light source is still required, the light can be shone temporarily while the mapper quickly sketches in the last 100 feet of corridor, and then extinguished while the party advances.

"A line drawing map provides insufficient information if the party is traveling through an extremely complicated or confusing area such as a maze or a convoluted network of caverns. Other than these cases, however, players may find the line-drawing map to be every bit as effective -- and a lot more convenient -- than the typical graph paper masterpiece that most exploration missions generate."[/sblock]
I think we can see the Caller and Mapper on the way out here in this late 1st Ed. book.  No Caller is considered the default, but rather suggested if there are pacing issues.  Mapping is seen as essentially as an unrewarding, perfunctory task.  In the Wilderness Survival Guide, hex mapping is given no mention at all.

Still, I have to say I was a little shocked to look through my 2nd Ed. books and found that Calling and Mapping weren't mentioned.  At all.  I'd thought there was some small mention in passing as in "an option you might consider".  But nope.  Gone.  Given this and the relatively brief mention in 1st Ed. (and disinterest in the DSG), I've kinda come to the conclusion that the Caller and Mapper are very much a D&D thing (as opposed to an AD&D thing).


----------



## Ranes (Sep 5, 2015)

Great post, thank you. It got me thinking, so I looked up the 3.5 DMG. Sure enough it mentions a player taking mapping duty but not in the form of a suggestion that it may be a good idea. It simply assumes a player might be doing so. Here's what it says:

"When one of the players is drawing a map as the characters explore a new place, give her a break. Describe the layout of the place in as much detail as she wants, including dimensions of rooms. For clarity, you might draw out the shape and size of a room on a grid in front of you. Be willing to repeat a description if needed. Describe anything the characters should be able to see (considering illumi- nation and their own vision capabilities) or reasonably estimate (such as the distance to the far wall of a cavern).

"Of course, when the PCs are lost in a dungeon or walking through fog, the whole point of the situation is that they don’t know where they are (or where they’re going). In cases such as these, don’t take pains to help the mapper. If the characters are sneaking through a maze and they make a wrong turn, it’s all the more fun when they have to backtrack."

So there's nothing here to educate the player about why mapping might be a good idea in the first place. It's just a nod and a wink to what might be going on and what you all might get out of that. And as to a caller or anything of that nature, I can find nothing, in the PHB, DMG, PHB2 or DMG2. Given that the latter two titles both contained chapters dedicated to improving different kinds of game, I find the absence of material of this nature more disappointing now than I did at the time (when I was just glad that both xII books distilled useful guidance to new players and DMs).

I realise, as others have stated in this thread and elsewhere, that the typical game has long since shifted towards four or five players and PCs per session, and less emphasis on epic-scale dungeon or wilderness exploration. That's all fine by me. But I'd still like to see our core books say, "But you know what? Here are these other game parameters and these are the means by which you might accommodate them."


----------



## GMMichael (Sep 5, 2015)

Ranes said:


> But I'd still like to see our core books say, "But you know what? Here are these other game parameters and these are the means by which you might accommodate them."



Quite possible that non-D&D core books do this.  Think about it for a bit, and you'll realize that GMing advice could easily take up 400 pages or more.  This wouldn't leave a lot of room for random magic item tables, which I think is why D&D limits the content.

To me, the GM has too much on his plate.  Even when he has computing tools to help.  So player jobs just make sense.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 8, 2015)

Caller is very much an older practice than D&D. It goes back to wargaming. 

Mapper isn't something in wargaming, but then wargaming didn't hide the game board/table behind a screen for the referee to reveal based upon different actions in the game by the players. 

Tracking that information is what the character log/record sheet was for. As well as recording the surroundings with a map, so the _players_ didn't get lost. Mazes being at heart close to what it means to be a game.


----------



## Prince Atom (Sep 8, 2015)

My group doesn't usually use encumbrance, but we generally ask for a volunteer to write down all the loot we've discovered, so the players don't get confused and wind up with duplicates if the fighters all call dibs on the magic sword and all write it down.

We haven't done mapping on graph paper since we started using a battlemat or white board.  I have discovered that I like to replicate the maps on Roll20, and I spent a lot of prep time copying Tegel Manor and Castle Ravenloft when we didn't use more than a fraction of it.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 9, 2015)

The Whiner Knight said:


> My group doesn't usually use encumbrance, but we generally ask for a volunteer to write down all the loot we've discovered, so the players don't get confused and wind up with duplicates if the fighters all call dibs on the magic sword and all write it down.



This is a very useful role.  Handy too is if the DM maintains a mirror list so she can easily reference what that magic sword actually does when all the players know is "it's magic".

Lan-"I usually take this role in games I play in"-efan


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 10, 2015)

Iosue said:


> Some things have always remained the same in D&D.  There are always fighters, magic-users, thieves, and clerics.  Everyone always has the six ability scores.  But exploratory focus of the game when I first started playing has largely fallen by the wayside.  Forget callers and mappers, people don't even want to keep track of light-sources and simple encumbrance.  So, on the those rare times when I'm inclined to feel sad about modern D&D, it's mostly along those lines.  It is a major disconnect between myself and players who've started since the late-90s.  In the 80s and early 90s, whether one preferred D&D or AD&D, whichever of the many diverse playstyles one might have settled into, the great many D&D players shared the common experiences of playing B2 and/or hating Bargle, the experience of mapping, and a good chance of having used callers.
> 
> That most post-2000 players don't have those shared experiences is not a knock on them or even on post-2000 editions.  It just makes me feel old.





Adrenaline addiction is hard to overcome with folks who know no other way.  Many smaller, more immediate moments of satisfaction can seemingly outweigh the promise of a deeper, greater satisfaction, as long as a continual source for the lesser versions is in the offing.  The need to sell more and more product increased the demand for more and more Referees, DMs, GMs, etc. such that the job needed to be redefined in ways that streamlined the required skills.  In the long run, it is easier to require and train someone who can provide smaller, more immediate satisfactions than someone with the time and dedication to provide something greater.


----------

