First-time d&d DM advice

I'm going to DM for the first time, and I'm pretty damn nervous. I'll probably do 3.5e (as I have played it), but how is 5e in comparison? Do you have any tips for me? What do I need to read except the DM manuals? I know a bit about the art of DM-ing from lurking in DM threads on Veeky Forums, but all advice is greatly appreciated.

IF you're going to DM, start with 3.5 or do a very small 5e game. DMing your first time is hard enough, you don't need to be learning a new system at the same time. You don't really need to learn anything besides the DMG, almost any other knowledge you could gain you'll get easier from experience and peers than looking at books.

5th is a very simple system with a lot more flexibility and a lot less number crunch.

Lay out a framework and let the players fill in the blanks, don't try and plan every meticulous detail or you'll regret it.

The best way to learn how to DM is to just do it and figure out what works and what doesn't, have an open dialogue with your players and take their feedback into consideration.

Good, thanks. 3.5 it is, then.

>I'll probably do 3.5e (as I have played it), but how is 5e in comparison?
Other people can probably address this in better detail, but the short answer is that 5e has fewer options but is much less broken and much easier to run. In my experience, much of the challenge of running 3.5 comes from wrestling with the stats and rules, which is the hallmark of a poorly-designed game, as there is so much else to contend with as a GM as well. I think that many people are shocked at how much less of a grind preparing and running adventures for other games are when they go from GMing 3.5 to something else.

I was thinking of hearing the players' backstories and the type of game they wanted to play before thinking up a campaign. That would allow me to make an adventure incorporating their backstories/subplots. Is that a good idea?

Do you think that it would be easier for me to learn 5e instead of DM-ing 3.5e?

>IF you're going to DM, start with 3.5 or do a very small 5e game.
What? 5e is considerably simpler. If you need to limit the scope of one of them, it'd definitely be 3.5.

>DMing your first time is hard enough, you don't need to be learning a new system at the same time.
I'd argue that the basics of 5e are going to be pretty familiar coming from 3.5, and it's going to be much friendlier on the DM-side.

When I played 3.5, most of the complexity seemed to come from character creation, but mechanics seemed pretty simple aside from that. Didn't DM, though, so I wouldn't really know. What makes 5e more elegant?

>That would allow me to make an adventure incorporating their backstories/subplots. Is that a good idea?
That sounds good to me, though depending on your group dynamic, you might want to have a brainstorming session with where you work on stuff together, trying to fashion each player's basic ideas into a cohesive whole (rather than trying to fit together ideas that the players have already set into stone).

If you are planning on a long running game then it's always a good idea to incorporate player backstories into the world.

Are your players familiar with 5th or would they be learning to?

5e is easily the simpler game, and for future games I'd absolutely recommend it. But learning a new system is always easier than using one you already know the rules to, even if the one you know is more complex overall.

On that note, don't make your first DM game a long campaign. Long campaigns take a lot of work and experience, get the fundamentals down first.

The mechanics are unified and consistent

The math in 3.5 is pretty finicky from a GM perspective. 3.5 is generally a much math-ier game where miscalculations can have an adverse affect on the success of the adventure. Many GMs kind of improvise their way around this, but the point at which you regularly have to make and end-run around the mechanics is the point at which you might want to consider looking at another game. 5e purposefully keeps its number inflation in check. A smaller range of numbers means less possibility of things getting out of hand or of a dramatic miscalculation as far as what sort of stats and target numbers and such to use.

Brainstorming sounds like a really good idea, but wouldn't it ruin the adventure's surprises?

>I was thinking of hearing the players' backstories and the type of game they wanted to play before thinking up a campaign. That would allow me to make an adventure incorporating their backstories/subplots. Is that a good idea?

This is a very good thing, most great parties have some communication between the players and the GM about dynamics and fitting them in the world.

You don't have to go through the entire plot, but letting the players know what the premise is and letting them build a party that bounces off each other instead of just haphazardly mashing together gives a much better experience than if you simply throw them in blind.

Only one of the players has played d&d before. He played 3.5, but, as far as I know, he also read about 5, so on their side it's pretty much the same.

What part of the mechanics is inconsistent? Is the number inflation problem picking the proper DC for things as the game progresses?

I was thinking more for set up than for the secret details of the adventure. Why are the PCs together? How do their goals and histories interlock? What sort of thing are they looking to accomplish? Are they simply mercenary dungeon-raiders / murder hobos, or are they on some sort of righteous quest? That sort of thing.

I'll do that, thanks!

...

Thanks for these.

Just because there's a rule or feat that lets you do something, doesn't mean that it's in any way viable. Hell, entire classes get shafted (outside of combat, fighters are very limited, having few skill points and a considerable armor check penalty to contend with--and even in combat, casters with a few levels under their belt are going to exceed them due to flexibility). And calculating monster numbers (especially DCs) and the impact gold (which is easily converted into magic goodies) or item-creation will have can be very tricky. There's just a lot more to navigate in 3.5 compared to many RPGs, and since the game, itself, frequently miscalculates with its numbers, it's a bit arrogant to expect DMs, especially new ones, to get everything right.

And let me add that "fixing" issues of character-building and balance is very much the GM's problem, at least if he wants a successful adventure that's fun for everybody.

>Hell, entire classes get shafted
True. So, 5e martials are more balanced?
>calculating monster numbers (especially DCs) and the impact gold (which is easily converted into magic goodies) or item-creation will have can be very tricky. There's just a lot more to navigate in 3.5 compared to many RPGs, and since the game, itself, frequently miscalculates with its numbers, it's a bit arrogant to expect DMs, especially new ones, to get everything right.
How's it dealt with in 5e? Since it would be my first time, this part is very important for me.

In 5e, there's a mostly simple equation for building encounters where you just plug in a certain amount of experience that each monster gives up to an amount defined by your party's level and how hard you want the battle to be. Obviously there's some nuance in strategy, but it's MUCH simpler, and the math for the most part actually works because it was all playtested instead of just theory.

Huh, in that case, I think I'll go with 5e. Thanks a lot for the explanations.

Bounded accuracy. The numbers don't get nearly as out of control in 5e, and a slight miscalculation won't throw everything off. 5e keeps shit in check.

5e isn't perfect, but it's not completely out of control like 3.5.

>What part of the mechanics is inconsistent?
In 3e? Pretty much everything on the player side runs on completely different rules. Barbarians get X uses per day for Y rounds, Paladins gets X uses for 1 attack, Bards get X uses per day for as long as they can hold it, Psions have MP, Wizards/Clerics/Sorcs have Vancian. That's an example.

DC scaling is also whack, monsters running on PC rules causes MAJOR design, running, and balance problems, and then you get major rule loopholes like "Permanent True Strike on a ring for +20 to hit at fuck-all price".

It's consistent in the wrong places.

Right - 5e it is, I think.