The classical solution is to use an enlarger, which projects the image from the negative on to photographic paper, which then must also be developed (same steps as film - develop, stop, fix, wash, and dry, just using different chemicals). B&W is definitely easier to handle in this regard, since you can use a safelight to see what you're doing (B&W paper isn't sensitive to red light below a certain wavelength, so working under a low-wattage red bulb won't fog the paper). For color paper you'd have to shut off all the lights while you're developing.
Doing your own prints is a helluva lot of fun, but...
- You need quite a bit of space for the enlarger and the developing trays, with good ventilation (paper developers are pretty benign as chemicals go, but standing over open trays of them for a couple of hours at a time can leave you feeling a little woozy);
- The enlarger needs to be on a steady base that's resistant to vibration;
- You need handy access to running water, and you will go through a lot of it;
- If you're not doing a lot of prints, your developer may oxidize before you've fully exhausted it, so you may wind up wasting some chemistry - you can mitigate this by storing the developer in a collapsible bottle to minimize contact with air when you're not using it.
Like MikeW says, it takes some trial and error before you nail the exposure. You will wind up burning several sheets of paper before getting it right. That's just part of the process, but given that each sheet costs some money, you may want to slow down and think a bit about what you want to accomplish before burning that initial test strip.
I haven't done prints since '98 or so, and I haven't processed film in several years now, so I have no idea how expensive paper or chemistry is. I can only imagine it's going to get more expensive going forward as more people work digitally.
Alternately, you can look for a film scanner (4000 dpi was the industry standard when I bought mine around 2004 or so). It's not quite as much fun as using an enlarger, but it's definitely faster and more space-efficient. Again, I haven't done this in a while, and I have no idea how expensive this option is anymore.