Subject: Answers on both.
Author:
Posted on: 2015-09-16 16:11:00 UTC

I used to do calligraphy quite a bit - I got given a set as a present when I was back in primary school. I tried my hand at the Gothic script, just because it looked cool, and I used the smallest nib and a slight italic style for my normal handwriting.

Throughout secondary school I didn't actually have to put my name on anything: all of my teachers said they could instantly recognise my handwriting.

As for D&D, there's a very useful series of articles that I found when I was first starting to GM. Not all of them will be relevant, but they should be interesting.

The rulebooks give pretty solid advice for starting/running a game, although they did tend towards fairly basic 'dungeon crawl' style games (I only have experience with 4th Ed, don't know about the rest). I'd recommend starting out with a couple of simple quests along these lines (clear these caves out of monsters, escort this shiny thing through the goblin infested woods, etc.) and then try and introduce more long term plot elements once you've got a bit of a feel for the game, and your players have a got a feel for their characters.

If the gaming group as a whole is inexperienced, then starting off with some slightly easier fights (or 'training fights' where they're going up against people that aren't actually trying to kill them) is probably a good idea, until people get a feel for their powers and abilities.

Once you've run a few fights, try and evaluate how well the challenge rating (or whatever they call it - the thing that tells you how many enemies you're supposed to throw against the players) is working for your group. In the last game that I ran, the players had got themselves a bunch of characters that had really good synergy, so I was doubling the recommended XP allowance of each fight just to keep things challenging for them.

Also, when it comes to the fights, I really recommend putting in environmental hazards, traps, and other interactive objects around the place, as well as the actual creatures that they'll be fighting. These can make the combats a lot more interesting.

I believe that things are different with 5th Ed, but 4th Ed's strict adherence to the grid system had a failing, in my opinion, in that the big climatic fights often felt very static. Normal fights, in which the party was typically outnumbered by two or three to one by weaker opponents would be fairly mobile - enemy spellcasters would start at range and have a wall of meatshields in front of them so that they could stay at range, and the players would defeat one enemy then run on to the next. It felt dynamic, and you might have to deal with cover / line of sight / difficult terrain issues as you moved on. 'Boss fights', typically against one large and powerful adversary with maybe a few (much) weaker minions, tended to be much more static. You'd spend the first turn or two getting into attack position, and then you'd just start chipping its health away. Until someone got very low on health, there wasn't really anything else to do.

This was somewhat exaggerated in our case, as the setting the DM had created meant that we were short on magic users, but long on melee types, so once we got into position around a big target we basically had it surrounded so it couldn't go anywhere (and we didn't want to go anywhere, or we'd be out of range). Still, D&D remains the only game where I've been bored while fighting a dragon.

Having things like pendulum traps swinging through the fight area can help make things a little less static.

If you've got any specifying questions about DMing I'll be happy to share my thoughts.

- Irish

Reply Return to messages