A few years ago, I ran the Dark Legacy of Evard (4E) adventure with some students. There was a mix of experienced and inexperienced players, some had played for a few years. Despite this, perhaps partly because they had a large unwieldy group of eight, when given a choice of two options, they foolishly decided to split the party. Four of the party went to the Armory (pictured below) to get weapons and equipment for the local militia.

Whilst they dispatched the three Leeching Shadows (minions with 1 hp each) fairly easily. The two spider swarms proved to be much more difficult. They saw on top of the Armory a large Deathjump Spider. Rather than helping his friends finish off the spider swarms, the human rogue decided to climb the armory to attack the currently unmoving giant spider. The subsequent combat resulted in three of the party dying, and the other fleeing for his life as the giant deadly, but previous uninvolved spider joined the fight . In the post match analysis, the rogue admitted that it was foolish to engage with a creature, clearly visible but out of range from being involved, before finishing off the other creatures first. Whilst they did use the bridges to good effect as a bottleneck for the Leeching Shadows, they figured out afterwards that they may been able to use the canal as a place to retreat to, but also a place from which to launch attacks against spider swarms who would not have followed them there. I certainly have found DMing students that a “post-match analysis” is a great way of teaching them tactics and to make them more aware of the things they might do to improve in future.

In the real world, many interview processes involve asking their interviewees awkward questions or try to hypothetically put them into difficult situations to roleplay. Some may even use group work to see how they fare as part of the group: to see who are the leaders and whether as a group they can think clearly, logically and strategically, as well as whether they can communicate well when put into difficult situations. All of these skill, and especially “critical thinking skills” - thinking clearly, logically and strategically when put into unusual and difficult situations - are practiced and greatly improved by playing D&D. I think this is true, especially when coupled with a “post-encounter” analysis. For anyone DMing with young groups, I would high recommend an occasional debrief of this sort. It will greatly improve their thought process and tactical skills, give them an appreciation for how to approach the game logically and strategically, and add a lot of depth to their combat. So too, would I recommend that DMs think how they can plan combats and in fact, all other encounters and challenges so that the players can be strategic about their play. Encourage and reward creativity, and the joy the success will do the rest.

Moral of the story: encourage your players to stop and think and plan.

For now, I’m just waiting for the day when an interviewer starts a question with: “So you and your party are guarding a caravan on a road well known for Orc attacks….”



As a mathematician, I am well aware of that my opinions and even observations are from a very small sample group. This is why this is a blog and an opinion piece. I would love to hear of your experiences and opinions.

Many thanks,

Sam, The Educational DM (Twitter @DMEducational )

Image Header: DnD Next Playtest - WotC