I've never used xp-for-gp but if I did I'd still push the accounting over to the players. There's also the tracking of non-magical but valuable items e.g. gems, jewelry, fancy dinner sets, etc. that likely wouldn't get divided in the field as you wouldn't know their values.
Division in the field is based on encumbrance, not even shares, so it's not an issue. The gems are held by the person or persons who can carry the gems without slowing the party down.
It's unavoidable, I think, as soon as you implement "if the Caller says it, it happens"; and if that's not implemented the DM still doesn't know when to listen and when not to, meaning what's the point of a Caller?
I don't follow. It's not "if the Caller says it, it happens." The Caller simply relates the information to the DM once the players have decided on their (individual!) course of actions. The Caller can't say, "The thief checks for traps!" if the thief has not expressed their intention to check for traps.
This (IME wrongly, a lot of the time) assumes some things:
--- that the players, in and-or out of character, are willing to come to any sort of agreement on a regular basis
Irrelevant to the function of a Caller. Agreement is not required.
--- that all the players are willing to tell the Caller what their characters are doing
Session 0 problem.
--- that the Caller's own character isn't doing something unknown to the rest of the party
I'll get into this below, but again irrelevant to the function of the Caller.
--- that players won't change their minds during the time the Caller is talking to the DM
Not an issue. The deadline for changing their minds is not the Caller speaking, but the DM adjudicating what has been communicated. If they tell the Caller one thing, but then change their minds while the Caller is telling the DM, they just say, "Wait, actually I'm going to do X." The Caller says, "Okay, Player A is doing X," and continue. They can even do that
after the Caller has finished speaking, but before the DM starts adjudicating. It's not ideal, but no more of an issue than a character in combat saying, "I'm going to shoot my bow," picking up their d20, and then saying, "No, wait, I'm going to swing my sword."
At the intersection, for example, if everyone goes toward the green light except one character wants to hide, hang back, and then sneak to the door instead, ideally none of the other players know what this character is doing - which means the Caller can't be told either. And yet if everything has to run through the Caller...then what?
So this is an interesting case, particularly if you value keeping player-headspace as close to character-headspace as possible, which I can fully understand and get behind. But then, I would just ask, how is this done without a Caller, in a way that maintains that congruity of IC and OOC knowledge? And why would that not work with a Caller? Because if it's just the player telling the DM, in full view and hearing of the other players, then I don't see the difference.
Yes, running a big party is often an exercise in cat-herding; but as both DM and player I'd far rather that than have it be an exercise in sheep-herding.
I resent the implication. And we were having such a good discussion.
The basic disconnect here is that you're still looking at the Caller as some kind of party leader who wrangles the other players, obtains a consensus, and make sure everyone's moving in the same direction. And that's simply not what I'm talking about. I don't want that in my group, either.