Does 5e need its own, original TOMB OF HORRORS?

[Guest 6801328]

You should kickstart it, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]. I'd back it.

Get input from [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION], though. And the angry GM.

 

[reelo]

You don't need a fancy module to challenge 5E players!

Just have them create new characters, PHB content only, 3d6 in order, houserule that nobody is allowed to have a sad/tragic/mysterious backstory, death is at 0hp, and encumbrance, food and torches are meticulously tracked.

That should do the trick.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Tomb of Horrors was deadly because it was first edition, not because it was Tomb of Horrors.

There was nothing inherently special about the design.

 

[Shiroiken]

Tomb of Annihilation has specific advice on how to work in new PCs when characters die.

Ah, good! I don't own it, so my information was secondhand. If that's the case, if it was as lethal as I heard, then the tomb section would probably qualify as a ToH type adventure (which I'm sure was the intent).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Um, no?

I mean, I played 1st edition. For decades. I'm familiar with pretty much every module.

Yeah, 1st Edition could be pretty deadly (especially in comparison to later editions); this was a feature, not a bug.

THAT SAID, ToH was designed to be especially challenging, and even more deadly, than your standard module. As has been recounted many times, most recently in this thread, Gygax made it because his players were bragging about how awesome they were, and he .. well, he wanted to -

a. Give 'em a little comeuppance (ETHEREAL MUMMY TIME, BABY!).
b. Appropriately challenge them.
c. Smack 'em down, hard.
d. Teach the everlasting values of humility.
e. Kill 'em deader than Riggby.
f. All of the above.

Designing a killer dungeon in 1st edition was the easiest thing in the world. I know, I designed many of them. The difficult thing in 1st edition was designing a dungeon that would challenge the players without killing them.


5e is designed with the specific design objective of not killing player characters.

Still, it is possible to design a dungeon that the player have no chance of surviving. And it would be rubbished as unfair. Which is what Tomb of Horrors was: a badly designed unfair dungeon.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"“Did your office ever consider just confessing error in this case? You've had a bunch of time to think about it. Do you know?" Justice Kagan, at oral arguments.

Some days, I wonder about conversing on the internet. It's like, why bother? I wasn't being particularly mean, or rude, but a claim was made (there was nothing inherently special or different about the design of Tomb of Horrors that made it more deadly) that was ... well, wrong.

And instead of just going, yeah, that was a typo, or a mistake, or thanks for the info, a person doubles down. In arguing, they just directly contradict themselves. It doesn't matter what the point was, just ... LET'S ARGUE, MAN!

Anyway, whether or not you like, or dislike, 1e, or Tomb of Horrors, or whatever doesn't really matter to me. Don't care. You can argue that with someone else. The design was inherently special, because it was designed to avoid monsters and make the players think. It's in the introduction.

To the extent you don't like it, that's your preference. You're welcome to it!

I don't get you point. Tomb of Horrors was bad. And there is nothing special about designing a bad dungeon. Any idiot can do it.

It wasn't famous, it was notorious.

It was the "Plan Nine from Outer Space" of published dungeons.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*