Nope, gotta admit it was a pretty negative rant.
Wow you've run the module seven times. Which systems and how did they go?
(I wouldn't have thought it would make much difference playing a less forgiving system -no chance to find a trap unless you look in the right spot and death no save seems the most common way of dying in the adventure and that's isn't affected by the system)
I am very interested in hearing how different groups went through the adventure.
I have run it for D&D 1st, 2nd (once each), twice with 3.5, twice with GURPS and once with RuneQuest III.
I have seen the crown and sceptre used once to destroy Acererak, an antimagic field to supress him whilst the group looted his room, a portable hole/bag of holding was used to deal with him once, two groups have escaped the dungeon after losses prior to the BBEG fight and one group used a Decanter of Endless Water and Potions of Water Breathing to deal with the pit traps and the flame trap corridor after doing extensive research on the place after interviewing Archmage Tenser himself about the dungeon (he and Robilar survived it in Greyhawk canon - fleeing the battle with Acererak) - half of them died in the BBEG fight though.
Interestingly, one Paladin became a Blackguard mid-dungeon, which definitely helped him survive, and a Wizard in another game sold his soul to a demon to get through it alive. But then I am lucky enough to generally have 'think outside of the box' role-players in my groups, so things can go anywhere sometimes.
In my experience, if someone complains of something being too difficult and therefore 'unfair' after going at it head on, expecting a straight rush in and hit it to work most of the time, then they are often enough the kind of player who is self-entitled, whether they realise it or not. Unfortunately this type of player is more prevalent these days, as the number of encounters per day and the CR of the challenges has become a codified thing which cements an expectation that this is the only way it can be done. The players having limited resources (like older version wizards and their very few spells at low level) is one thing - a half decent player will adjust and try to solve encounters without blowing their limited 'ammunition'. But now, you can actually be accused of being a 'bad DM' by some players for having the temerity to exceed the number of recommended encounters per day, exceeding CR or pressing characters (without them having made mistakes) after their x/rest resources are expended.
This limited and '
only inside the box' approach to the game was almost a strict requirement with the way 4th Edition rules worked. So much so my players and I abandoned it early on.
Personally I think the idea that all encounters must be entirely 'defeatable' using 'point and shoot' abilities or dice rolling alone is an unfortunate expectation baked-into to a certain extent with newer editions. This passively discourages creative 'outside the box' thinking ("I'm out of surges/spells/turns etc... so can't do anything.." kind of thinking.), and this is a great shame. Older editions of the game, and in fact some of the systems that rose at that time (like RuneQuest I) required more than the tabletop equivalent of MMO ability button mashing to deal with challenges and were I feel all the better for it.
It's no wonder this person or that cries foul and 'it's unfair' instead of thinking 'how else can we deal with this?'.
If you think this is an unfair appraisal, please consider that I have been DM'ing since the late 70's and have seen the trend develop slowly over time. Of course it doesn't apply to everyone who came to game latter on, but it is much more common than it used to be. Questions like "how do I deal with the 15 minute working day syndrome" just never got asked in yesteryear - the answer was self-evident back then insofar as the players were part of the solution and DMs just dealt with it. They didn't seem to need (and in fact didn't have) any advice or guidance, rules based or otherwise to resolve it, so they just did it.
Yet somehow we all managed to enjoy long-running campaigns without regular TPKs or problems with encounter balancing, despite the other types of shortcomings the earlier versions of RPG rules worked.
Things these days are far more 'spoon fed' if you strictly follow the guidance available, and naturally, any module predating this development are going to be seen by some as 'unfair' or 'the worst module ever' because that is the only benchmark they have for what it 'right'.
A solution for such hide-bound D&D DMs raised on this paradigm is to GM other game systems that don't have it. Run a GURPS game, or a RuneQuest game or similar - games that just say "here's how you make characters, here's how your play, here's a bunch of challenges of various types - GO!".
It will help them develop their own judgement on threat level and challenge without sitting there adding up numbers, and it will help their players be more adaptable in their approach to resolving encounters and situations in-game.
THEN perhaps, older modules like Tomb of Horrors or Lost Shrine of the Tamoachan can be revisited by them and enjoyed instead of being complained about...
