Is TOMB OF HORRORS the Worst Adventure Of All Time?

Prevailing opinion here in the EN World community has traditionally held that the worst adventure module of all time is 1984's The Forest Oracle. 7th Sea designer John Wick (whose upcoming edition of 7th Sea is the third most anticipated tabletop RPG of 2016) vehemently disagrees; he nominates the classic adventure Tomb of Horrors for that position, contending that it "represents all the wrong, backward thinking that people have about being a GM." In an article on his blog (warning: this uses a lot of strong language), he goes into great detail as to why he hold this opinion, stating that the adventure is the "worst, &#@&$&@est, most disgusting piece of pig vomit ever published".

​

[lQ]"My players picked the entrance with the long corridor rather than the two other entrances which are instant kills. That’s right, out of the three ways to enter the tomb, two of them are designed to give the GM the authority for a TPK."[/lQ]

Very strong words, and you can read them all here. As I mentioned before, there's lots of NSFW language there.

The article also includes an anecdote about a convention game in which he participated. In that game, being already familiar with the adventure and its traps (and having advised the DM of this), he played a thief and attempted to discover or deactivate the traps, up until a near TPK occurred and he left the game.

Wick is, of course, no stranger to controversy. A couple of years ago, he created widespread internet arguments when he stated that "The first four editions of D&D are not roleplaying games."

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This comes up every time we do a John Wick thread.

RPG's are not movies. They are just not. Direct comparisons between the two are almost always invalid. The point of playing an RPG is not to create the script of a movie. Any transcript of an RPG would need to be adapted to be a good script for a non-interactive medium. Movies and RPGs are fundamentally different story telling mediums. Cinematic action in an RPG is fine, but it's not what an RPG is about and there are lots of things that you can do in an RPG that you can't do in a movie and vica versa there are things that make sense in movie logic that have no place in an RPG.

Fine, substitute the word story or novel. I realize you missed the point of what I was responding to while tripping over yourself to cry foul, but the person I was responding to said that it had a horror tone and likened it to a movie. It's a pretty boring and crappy horror TALE, when played out in grognard vision. Pixel bitching is still boring, and frankly I'm too old and get to game too little to run through the same stupid checklist when opening every single door. Particularly since its only through the DM's grace that listening at the door doesnt trigger the worlds quietest wail of the banshee or some other arbitrary and randomized kill condition. Maybe I've just seen behind the curtain, and realized that there is no "beating" a RBDM challenge. They simply let you win. So I'd rather my adventures simulate interesting stories, than making sure all the proper chest inspection protocols were followed. No one talks about the session where their thief rolled some dice and disarmed a trap and no one got hurt 20 years later.

 

[Celebrim]

Fine, substitute the word story or novel.

Fine. Point still stands. An RPG session isn't a novel either. A novel is a passive experience by the reader. An RPG is interactive.

I realize you missed the point...

No, I didn't. You spent the whole post complaining that the play didn't resemble Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. I got your point just fine. I just think it's an utterly clueless statement to make.

It's a pretty boring and crappy horror TALE, when played out in grognard vision. Pixel bitching is still boring, and frankly I'm too old and get to game too little to run through the same stupid checklist when opening every single door. Particularly since its only through the DM's grace that listening at the door doesnt trigger the worlds quietest wail of the banshee or some other arbitrary and randomized kill condition. Maybe I've just seen behind the curtain, and realized that there is no "beating" a RBDM challenge. They simply let you win. So I'd rather my adventures simulate interesting stories, than making sure all the proper chest inspection protocols were followed. No one talks about the session where their thief rolled some dice and disarmed a trap and no one got hurt 20 years later.

Even if I fully agreed with you, and I don't, this amounts to a preference regarding what is fun in play. It is not objectively true that that style of play is boring. Indeed, it's likely that my preferences in play are more like yours than you think, but it still is true that I have from time to time enjoyed the old school style dungeon crawling as a change of pace and a thing with a certain artistic merit of its own.

What this still amounts to is you claiming its 'badwrongfun' for the people who do enjoy that sort of play because it isn't your personal preference. Hence the reason I pointed out the irony.

 

[Celebrim]

Gygax had some fantastic design skills, but from what I have read of his stuff and stories of his game play he made all the usual Gm mistakes - Gm v player, designing stuff which has as its purpose to "get arrogant players", playing favourites, being dismissive of others play styles etc.

Dear werecorpse:

Since you've become the catalyst for a discussion of this, I thought it fair to address your point a bit more fully.

I myself had for the longest read the 1e AD&D DMG and dismissed much of its advice as being poor or incoherent. His approach to handling players seemed a bit harsh, some rules seemed to positively get in the way of good gaming, and the standards of play he discussed often seemed somewhat odd. I had devised my own approaches over the years and disregarded much of his advice, taking only what seemed sound and ignoring the comments that seemed ill-thought out.

I had a revelation though when one summer I sat at a table in a gaming store and hosted open gaming sessions, where anyone could show up with a character and play the game. And the longer I did that, the more respect for the 1e DMG and Gygax's insights I started to have. I began to realize that what I had found less than useful advice, wasn't aimed at the DM who is hosting a game for 3 friends who show up every week. Much of the advice in the DMG is aimed at DMs in Gygax's situation, which was hosting games six nights a week for a revolving cast of players and characters who show up 12 or 20 at a time.

Once you realize that there is a vastly different approach you can and often have to take to roleplaying when there is a single player, or 2-3 players, or 4-6 players, or 7-12 players, or more than 12 players you start to realize that Gygax's advice in the DMG is no less and probably much less dysfunctional than what you find in Burning Wheel or FATE or half a dozen other Indy RPGs where the author doesn't realize almost everything they are saying is predicated on at minimum not having more than 2-3 players in a high trust environment. Once your group size grows, once that high trust social contract has to go out the window, things get much clearer.

Indeed, one of the things that is most deficient in most modern RPGs compared to Gygax's writing, is that while modern RPGs are far more organized and coherent in their rules presentation, they often fail to really describe and demonstrate play as effectively, leading to perfectly coherent rules that are perfectly unable to obtain the results they are intended to produce. Or at minimum, unable to tell a would be GM what they need to do to turn these rules into the game the rules intend, because they fail to realize how much more there is to an RPG session than the rules.

Be very very careful of accusing as experienced and celebrated GM as Gygax of 'making mistakes'. It may just be that the aren't playing in the same environment you are playing in with the same constraints or lack thereof you have. Until you've trudged a few miles on that GM's side of the screen, you may not have the perspective to critique them. And you already know one should be careful of dismissing others play styles. So practice your own advice.

Or to put this more bluntly, you sir are not Gary Gygax. Show some respect.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think that's really my issue with it, it really doesnt. If you watch any group play it "to win", its boring as hell. Just a long series of pixel bitching around, poking things with sticks, resting the moment you are out of augury/commune spells, etc. There's like 2 things to fight tops. Would anyone want to watch a movie where the protagonists did the stuff suggested in this thread? Send a train of mules in to trigger traps?

In a movie analogy, Tomb of Horrors is perhaps best compared to a mystery. There are things that the antagonist knows that the protagonists do not, and the story is largely about uncovering those unknown things, until all the plans are laid bare (the treasure). In the movie version, you see the party standing in front of the green gargoyle head debating. The reckless, adventuresome character has already gone in the head, and she's been gone like an hour and hasn't come back. Something probably happened to her, but you don't know what, and you don't want it to happen to you. So all the characters are debating - do we send someone in? Do we use one of our limited "Ask A Friend" spells? Do we just move on? What if it vomits acid at us or something?

The tension is in not knowing. The catharisis comes from finding out - when the thief puts the 10-foot pole in and it comes out dissolved halfway. We know that adventuresome halfling isn't coming back.

I mean, we all know Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been so much better if instead of racing the boulder and dodging darts, Indy meticulously puttied up each dart hole, placed a portable structurally sound bridge over the chasm with reinforced guard rails, left the dungeon to go consult some books, and heroically lead a bunch of pack animals to their death before pulling out a scale and calculator to properly calculate the idol's weight and use the necessary amount of sand.

To me, traps are mainly interesting when they are in action, which means the good ones should be triggered. Now some of the ones in Tomb ARE interesting - the bleeding wall for example allows people to interact once its set off, and is clever in how players defeat it. Others are random - the scepter to crown disintegration, if memory serves, has no hints, so its augury, or 50/50 chance of killing your comrade.

Again, think in terms of the mystery genre. Think of the Monty Python Investigator Tiger sketches or the movie Clue or Sherlock Holmes on a case. Folks are dying left and right whenever the lights go out. The idea isn't to find out whodunnit as much as it is to avoid the murderers to get a bunch of filthy lucre. The challenge isn't in overcoming the trap, it's in being clever enough to avoid it in the first place.

It's not an action movie. It's a mystery.

It's not perfect like that, but it's better aligned with the play goals if you think of it that way.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Gygax definitely wasn't a "we are trying to tell a story here" DM, the story is something that is put together by players thinking about or discussing what happened in the game session. Its why old school modules often have a lot of monsters packed in tight which might not be the most logical but it provides plenty of game challenges for the players to overcome, via might or brains. RBDM style is a perfectly valid style to run a game. My players and I are a fair bit competitive they just ask me to keep it fair and let the dice fall where they may. We have a pretty high death count and people just make new characters since they like playing D&D and overcoming the challenges in the game more than trying to explore the human condition via elves and orcs. But in the end evryone play the game the way that makes them have the most fun.

 

[Celebrim]

It's not an action movie. It's a mystery.

Yes. You could also look at it as a Heist movie, "Oceans 11 - Greyhawk edition; Plan the perfect crime."

But while the experience of the game can be likened to the payoff in a heist movie where the plan comes together, the actual experience of the game is planning and pulling off the heist and not the experience of watching others do it. That means that you yourself accept responsibility for the pulling off the heist in all its elaborate steps, and are not just reporting the exciting parts.

If that's not your cup of tea, I perfectly understand. If you want to say people are childish for liking that, well... that's a different matter.

 

[pemerton]

If that's not your cup of tea, I perfectly understand. If you want to say people are childish for liking that, well... that's a different matter.

So, I understand that a person's emotional response to a dungeon is subjective and differs from person to person and from experience to experience.

But speaking as a DM, one of the things that strikes me about S1 is just how difficult it is to successfully replicate the dungeon.

<snip>

But G2 (indeed the whole G series) on the other hand always stuck me as something that your average senior in high school or freshmen in college could and did create.

<snip>

I think it appeals to Gygax's love of D&D as a tactical skirmish level wargame. Some parts of those modules are inspired, but I never thought much of their basic design. If you want combat oriented dungeon crawl as opposed to D&D as wargame, Paul Jaquays was doing it better with works like Dark Tower and Caverns of Thracia.

Lastly, Tomb of Horrors stands up well in terms of the stories its created. Everyone has a story. Sometimes, like with Wick, the story isn't very pleasant, but it is powerful in a way that 'we killed 80 hobgoblins', 'we killed 40 bugbears', 'we killed 20 ogres', etc. just isn't.

So you're taking the high ground by deriding others' preferences as "average seniors in high school or freshmen in college" rather than childish? With a tactical wargaming jibe for good measure?

I'm glad you mentioned B2, though - another Gygax module that I think is better than S1. (I've never done much with the Caves, but have had more than one good experience GMing hijinks in the Keep, mostly involving the evil priest disguised as good.)

On G2, it uses the three dimensions of the geography in a way that I've never seen replicated in a D&D module (not that I own the full set, but I've read a few). And consistently with the comments made by the Alarums and Excursions critic that I quoted - and quite at odds with your tactical wargame comment - it has a lot of scope for dealing with NPCs, striking or fracturing alliances, etc. It's a very dynamic environment where the dynamics of the geographic environment and the dynamics of the social environment are in synergy.

Gygax's advice in the DMG is no less and probably much less dysfunctional than what you find in Burning Wheel or FATE or half a dozen other Indy RPGs where the author doesn't realize almost everything they are saying is predicated on at minimum not having more than 2-3 players in a high trust environment.

<snip>

Indeed, one of the things that is most deficient in most modern RPGs compared to Gygax's writing, is that while modern RPGs are far more organized and coherent in their rules presentation, they often fail to really describe and demonstrate play as effectively, leading to perfectly coherent rules that are perfectly unable to obtain the results they are intended to produce. Or at minimum, unable to tell a would be GM what they need to do to turn these rules into the game the rules intend, because they fail to realize how much more there is to an RPG session than the rules.

These comments make me wonder whether you've read the GMing advice for the games you're criticising (FATE, BW, maybe HeroWars/Quest and/or the various -World games?), let alone played them. These games describe and demonstrate play in far more detail than Gygax does (the closest he comes is not in his DMG at all, but in the closing pages of his PHB), and their authors manifestly realise that there is far more to GMing procedures and techniques than just the rules. Their advice and explanations reflect this.

In a movie analogy, Tomb of Horrors is perhaps best compared to a mystery. There are things that the antagonist knows that the protagonists do not, and the story is largely about uncovering those unknown things, until all the plans are laid bare (the treasure). In the movie version, you see the party standing in front of the green gargoyle head debating. The reckless, adventuresome character has already gone in the head, and she's been gone like an hour and hasn't come back. Something probably happened to her, but you don't know what, and you don't want it to happen to you. So all the characters are debating - do we send someone in? Do we use one of our limited "Ask A Friend" spells? Do we just move on? What if it vomits acid at us or something?

I think one of the relevant factors is that, in fact, the "Ask a Friend" spells aren't limited. There is no clock in ToH.

This seems to me to drive home [MENTION=31506]ehren37[/MENTION]'s point: optimal play of ToH (with a flying thief on a rope, or sheep being herded through the dungeon, or summoned monsters - the "cannon fodder" someone mentioned upthread) can tend to be boring. This come through in the Alarums and Excursions comment that I quoted upthread: no NPCs to engage with, no dynamism. It's one of the most static adventuring environments ever published, I think.

 

[Zak S]

it's super-dynamic because you spend the whole game discussing what to do next with the other players.

That's the experience at the table, no matter what the movie in your head imagines.

 

[Vigilance]

No. Tomb of Horrors is far from the worst adventure of all time.

 

[Celebrim]

So you're taking the high ground by deriding others' preferences as "average seniors in high school or freshmen in college" rather than childish?

I didn't say that. You have quoted me out of context using heavy snipping.

I am in no way deriding the preference of high school or college age DMs, or even those that enjoy G2. I'm just saying its not that hard of a dungeon to create. Nor am I faulting a young DM for making something along the lines of G2. I know I've turned out worse, and I could point out some features of G2 that are rather well done (lack of map symmetry for example is an important detail young map makers often get wrong). But on the whole, I'd guess the average DM could write something along the lines of G2. S1 has largely proved beyond even most of the better professional DM's ability to replicate.

With a tactical wargaming jibe for good measure?

Jibe? I rather like tactical wargaming, and make it a regular part of my D&D diet. I'm merely asserting that sometimes the big masses of low level humanoids that show up repeatedly in Gygaxian design were uninspiring and led in the context of AD&D to rather uninteresting combats. In T1 the bandits were well done. In WG4 however, the most inspired part of the design is not the big set piece against the norkers and giants in the upper levels.

The giants.... well, I find them more of the same trend on a bigger scale.

I seriously doubt you could get anything like B2 published today. The keep, other than it's missing lots of essential information it expects a novice DM to supply, is a nice base of operations for what it is. It's the kitchen sink caves that are, despite a few interesting encounters, the problem.

But the particularly poor design I'm referencing though can't be blamed on Gygax, but rather is riffing on the less inspired encounters in Q1 Queen of the Demonweb pits which have Gygax's fondness for big set piece encounters... without the tactical set piece.