Tomb of Horrors - example of many, or one of a kind?

Celebrim · May 31, 2011

TerraDave said:
Rude and repetitive. OK.

Sentence fragment. But clearer.

For the record, I literally did not and still do not understand what you were trying to say. I wasn't saying or not saying your players had a right to complain. I still do not know what you are doing nor what your players are complaining about, and I don't feel much like guessing or jumping to conclusions. Nor do I understand how, "So are you saying that my players have a right to complain?", follows from the quoted text. Pardon me for thinking more clarification on my part might cause you to understand better what I was saying, given that you didn't seem to understand it at all. Was that snark? Irony? Sarcasm? Genuine curiousity? An attempt at agreement? I have no idea.

I suppose by your standards I should have said: "Unclear and illogical. Ignoring." If that had been my thinking though, I probably would have done so and said nothing.

Alaxk Knight of Galt · May 31, 2011

If you are interested in capturing the ToH style in 4th Edition, you can't go wrong with Revenge of the Iron Lich. It's light on combat, rewards player skill over character skill, and is very lethal. I ran it a couple of weeks ago (with a warning to all the players about the difficulty) and it was a blast.

Doug McCrae · May 31, 2011

Bullgrit said:
Is Tomb of Horrors an example of standard old school gaming, or is it a single outlier, an exception from the standard? Is Tomb of Horrors what gaming used to be like? Or is it something unusual, even unique from old gaming?

Its gamism is extreme, swamping all simulationism to a greater degree than other modules of the period. Ie it makes no sense from a game world perspective, it exists merely to challenge the players. Acererak doesn't exist. There is no such character, he has no attributes. He's just a stand-in for the module writer. In this respect, ToH hearks back to the even more old school mega-dungeon, which was the same - purely gamist, makes no game-world sense, exists only to challenge the players. The 'mad wizards and insane geniuses' who constructed the OD&D mega-dungeons were likewise mere conduits for the will of the DM.

I think Crothian is wrong to suggest that ToH is typical. Although gamism is the primary mode of play in D&D texts of the 70s, it's usually less extreme. ToH is an outlier, while remaining on the same spectrum.

Another unusual feature of ToH is that it's extremely linear.

Plane Sailing · May 31, 2011

Ulrick said:
So yes, its a standard old school module.

I completely disagree.

It was an outlier amongst all the modules produced by TSR

It wasn't like any standard dungeon adventures which I played in, or read about in various APAs of the day.

Thus it is, by definition an outlier.

In addition, I never considered it to be a particularly interesting or 'fair' dungeon, designed with too many instant death effects. Ran a quarter of it once, and it was wholly boring.

Plane Sailing · May 31, 2011

(although I ought to add that I understand that some people have found it to be great fun - I'm not saying anything objective about the fun that can be had with it, just that my group found no fun in it)

Cheers

Stormonu · May 31, 2011

I find it to be typical in its components, not the whole. Many of the tricks within the dungeon rear their head in other modules in style, if not actual execution.

It is by far the only module I can think of where combat is virtually non-existant, but I think that such is deliberate in this modules case to eliminate randomness in the adventure; success in Tomb is by skill, not luck.

Celebrim · May 31, 2011

Stormonu said:
I find it to be typical in its components, not the whole. Many of the tricks within the dungeon rear their head in other modules in style, if not actual execution.

I agree with this much. If you look at another execellent Gygaxian module like WG4, you can see many of the same ideas being used in specific areas of the module. What makes S1 stand out is the degree to which these design ideas are carried out.

But really, when we compare 'old school' vs. 'new school' I think we are comparing things of degree and not of kind. It's not like the old school modules never featured backgrounds, plots, stories, or events, or that the new school modules never feature tactical combat, attrition, and dungeon crawls. They differ by the degree to which these features are emphasized.

Ulrick · Jun 1, 2011

Plane Sailing said:
I completely disagree.

It was an outlier amongst all the modules produced by TSR

It wasn't like any standard dungeon adventures which I played in, or read about in various APAs of the day.

Thus it is, by definition an outlier.

In addition, I never considered it to be a particularly interesting or 'fair' dungeon, designed with too many instant death effects. Ran a quarter of it once, and it was wholly boring.

It can be considered an outlier because it was the first AD&D module and Gygax intentionally made it incredibly challenging for players, surpassed only by Isle of the Ape. But it set the standard for all modules to come in both presentation and content. AD&D itself was about player skill, not character abilities. And those early modules demonstrated this. They may not have been death trap dungeons, but they were difficult unless you thought beyond your character sheet. And even with the game itself, you did not get much XP for killing monsters. You killed them when you had to and avoided them if you didn't. Otherwise you would get nickled and dimed to death.

Even the Giant series emphasized wit over raw character ability. If the entire Steadying of the Hill Chief got mobilized because the characters just charged right it, they'd get stomped. The Glacier Pits of the Frost Giant Jarl presented an environmental challenge that would foil uncautious and impatient players. The same goes with Hall of the Fire Giant King. These were modules for high level characters. Player skill was supposed to match these level. If not, then "thump."

The same can be said for lower level modules from those days. The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh required players to decipher codes and piece together clues leading to the next module. Again, this wasn't death trap, but it required player thought. The Village of Hommlet required players to be incredibly cautious of who they speak to in town, otherwise those in moathouse would be on alert and ready. Heck, even The Keep on the Borderlands required that players be cautious, otherwise their neophyte characters would be massacred.

amerigoV · Jun 1, 2011

Ulrick said:
It can be considered an outlier because it was the first AD&D module and Gygax intentionally made it incredibly challenging for players, surpassed only by Isle of the Ape. But it set the standard for all modules to come in both presentation and content. AD&D itself was about player skill, not character abilities. And those early modules demonstrated this.

To whit

Isle of the Ape said:
Artifacts and relics, as well as special magical items with powers granted from some great being or deity, do not work at all on this island. The demi-plane is such that their functioning is totally impaired. In other words, the characters must use standard equipment, normal magic, and their own abilities in order to survive. Any good adventure is a test of the abilities of the players to utilize their characters,and they must not be allowed to rely on items.

Back in our day, we kick our player's butt and called them "crybabies." And we players liked it!

Eric Tolle · Jun 1, 2011

As far as different old-school play styles go...

" never mind searching for an entrance, I'm going to have my Type VI demon will just dig through the side of the mound."
"I'll have my pet bronze dragon help!"

Damn munchkins.

And then there was the plane-traveling group of Arduin characters, and the time when I tried adapting it to Traveller and they decided to simply blast through it with their scoutship's lasers....

There were a lot of equally frustrating ways of playing it "old school" style.