D&D 5E Let's Talk About Yawning Portal

[FormerlyHemlock]

In order for Tomb of Horrors to be really deadly, you have to fix the Sphere of Annihilation. In 5E it does some pathetic amount of damage (3d12?) instead of permanently annihilating you. I don't have my copy of Tales From the Yawning Portal, but if it's not filled to the brim with real Spheres of Annihilation I will be sorely disappointed in Acererak. (And I will take steps.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

In short: the game desperately needs a magic item creation and pricing system that a) assumes little or no downtime, and b) is based on actual utility of the item and it's effects, in complete opposition to this rarity-based nonsense

God I hope they never do that. The luck of finding treasure is one of the true pleasures of the game. What you describe would suck about 70% of the joy out of the game for me.

 

[CapnZapp]

One of the biggest reasons why the Tomb of Horrors has never been as deadly in any of the 3E, 4E or 5E versions compared to the original is simply due to the change in DMing style with the introduction of skills. Which has been pretty much true for all trap-based encounters.

Back in the day, the prototypical methodology for most DMs would be to recite the boxed text or narrate casually what was list in any particular room, and then the players had to spend all their time narrating exactly what they were doing. Any any narration that didn't specifically mention specific types of traps they were looking for / avoiding, or specific things they were looking at and *how* they were looking at them... basically gave the DM license to just let the PCs blunder into things. "You forgot to tell me what specific measures you took walking down this corridor unlike the last seven, so you fall into this pit." and so on.

But once they introduced skills into the game, it changed how many DMs ran things. No longer was overly-precise (and let's face it, in many cases completely lucky and arbitrary) language expected or needed... now the PCs just would say "I'll make a Search check!" or "I'll make a Perception check!" and DMs have become more conditioned to tell the players outright the kinds of things they notice that are more likely important (either positively or negatively). No longer do they have to spend every 10 feet tapping the ground with poles, or verbalizing "What do I see on the ceiling here?" "What are on these walls?" "Tell me specifically what these frescoes depict." etc. etc.

To really get back to the spirit of playing ToH in the classic sense... every DM needs to fight their more modern impulses and really not tell their players ANYTHING unless they ask. And take everything they say (or don't say) as their word of what they're doing (and only that) and adjudicate results appropriately. And for goodness sake never let the players use "Can I make a Perception check?" or "Can I make an Investigation check?" to get information, rather than actually narrating everything they feel like they need to observe *and* make them actually manipulate / test objects to see what happens (and usually blunder into the traps in the process of trying to figure them out.)

Quite frankly? I don't know if many more modern players would actually enjoy something like ToH if truly run in AD&D style, because it not only doesn't have the DMs give players any hints... but also because so many traps (and their solutions to get around them) are so completely arbitrary that you aren't really "figuring" stuff out, you're just throwing stuff at the wall (usually the lives of dozens of PCs) to see what sticks and works.

As you yourself seem to realize: nobody wants to go back to manual pixel bitching.

Much better, in the context of 5e, is to scale traps to the intended "audience":

If 5d10 was enough to seriously threaten a level 15 character back when, now you upgrade the trap to do 25d10 damage, save for half, to present the same kind of threat level.

This is what WotC needed to have done if they had been serious about taking play out of the kiddie pool.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is what WotC needed to have done if they had been serious about taking play out of the kiddie pool.

I think with everything (and as we've been going back and forth on this issue for the past couple years now), they have been aiming for their intended audience for these hardcover campaign books... which is the audience that is completely new and has no expectations or foreknowledge whatsoever of how any of this stuff plays out. They tune things to the foundational new player because (like we always say), it appears as though they figure experienced DMs are going to be adjusting everything in these books anyway to adapt things to their games, so there's no reason to think they wouldn't do the same to things like damage if they felt they needed it. So better to be gentler to the players who most likely won't be futzing with everything as a matter of course (because they're still just learning)... then to tune things to the standard or experienced players and most likely have things go teets-up for the new players who are trying to just muddle through for the first time.

Yeah, Capn... that means I gotta drag out the old familiar refrain I've used for the last 24 months... "Yer gonna just have to do the work yerself to get it where ya need it..." cause that's the only viable solution (assuming people are looking for one.) But I admire your persistence in bringing this quandry up for each and every book WotC releases, presumably in hopes that they actually eventually decide to change their foundation in the future. Who knows, maybe eventually they will (although personally I'm not holding my breath, LOL.)

 

[iserith]

One of the biggest reasons why the Tomb of Horrors has never been as deadly in any of the 3E, 4E or 5E versions compared to the original is simply due to the change in DMing style with the introduction of skills. Which has been pretty much true for all trap-based encounters.

Back in the day, the prototypical methodology for most DMs would be to recite the boxed text or narrate casually what was list in any particular room, and then the players had to spend all their time narrating exactly what they were doing. Any any narration that didn't specifically mention specific types of traps they were looking for / avoiding, or specific things they were looking at and *how* they were looking at them... basically gave the DM license to just let the PCs blunder into things. "You forgot to tell me what specific measures you took walking down this corridor unlike the last seven, so you fall into this pit." and so on.

But once they introduced skills into the game, it changed how many DMs ran things. No longer was overly-precise (and let's face it, in many cases completely lucky and arbitrary) language expected or needed... now the PCs just would say "I'll make a Search check!" or "I'll make a Perception check!" and DMs have become more conditioned to tell the players outright the kinds of things they notice that are more likely important (either positively or negatively). No longer do they have to spend every 10 feet tapping the ground with poles, or verbalizing "What do I see on the ceiling here?" "What are on these walls?" "Tell me specifically what these frescoes depict." etc. etc.

To really get back to the spirit of playing ToH in the classic sense... every DM needs to fight their more modern impulses and really not tell their players ANYTHING unless they ask. And take everything they say (or don't say) as their word of what they're doing (and only that) and adjudicate results appropriately. And for goodness sake never let the players use "Can I make a Perception check?" or "Can I make an Investigation check?" to get information, rather than actually narrating everything they feel like they need to observe *and* make them actually manipulate / test objects to see what happens (and usually blunder into the traps in the process of trying to figure them out.)

Quite frankly? I don't know if many more modern players would actually enjoy something like ToH if truly run in AD&D style, because it not only doesn't have the DMs give players any hints... but also because so many traps (and their solutions to get around them) are so completely arbitrary that you aren't really "figuring" stuff out, you're just throwing stuff at the wall (usually the lives of dozens of PCs) to see what sticks and works.

My CoS DM has been thinking of running Tomb of Horrors next. I raised the concern that, while I do like deadly adventures, I don't like deadly adventures whose deadliness is predicated on being unfair. Chiefly along the lines of what you say above with regard to the DM laying what amounts to "verbal traps" e.g. "You didn't say you checked the doorknob! Make a save!" Some of the old school players in the group objected by saying that was part of the fun for them. I just can't agree.

In that conversation, I stressed what I see as the D&D 5e paradigm as being fair with regard to this sort of thing. You do have to be reasonably specific to find a hidden object (and describing tasks in general). But you also have general tasks you can perform while traveling the dungeon: Stay Alert, Navigate, Draw a Map, Track, Forage, etc. A character can only do one of these things at a time (or some task that is at least as demanding on focus and time such as, say, searching for secret doors). So if you choose to Stay Alert for monsters and traps, you're not also Searching for Secret Doors. And if you're looking for secret doors, you're not also Staying Alert (unless you're a ranger, perhaps). Passive checks may apply in resolving these general tasks. At the same time, the DM should be telegraphing the threats. Some hint should exist in the boxed text with which the players can engage and make deductions about what they face.

So I think the way D&D 5e does things (according to my interpretation) somewhat meets both camps in the middle. You have to say what you're doing. You have to be reasonably specific. But at the same time, the DM is on the hook to telegraph. I haven't read the new version of the module yet, so I hope that my position here is not undermined by how they wrote it. If it leans too closely to the bad old days of the old school dungeon, I may have to bow out of the campaign. I'm all for deadly - but it needs to be fair.

 

[JonnyP71]

Quite frankly? I don't know if many more modern players would actually enjoy something like ToH if truly run in AD&D style, because it not only doesn't have the DMs give players any hints... but also because so many traps (and their solutions to get around them) are so completely arbitrary that you aren't really "figuring" stuff out, you're just throwing stuff at the wall (usually the lives of dozens of PCs) to see what sticks and works.

Having run it twice in the last 2 years using 1E rules for people more familiar with later versions of D&D, my experience is the opposite. I ran it as a one-shot for both groups, and as a change of pace to the regular campaigns, using pre-gen characters.

They loved it. With one group in particular it really brought 2 of the quieter players to the forefront as they enjoyed the challenges the traps posed.

 

[wedgeski]

To really get back to the spirit of playing ToH in the classic sense... every DM needs to fight their more modern impulses and really not tell their players ANYTHING unless they ask. And take everything they say (or don't say) as their word of what they're doing (and only that) and adjudicate results appropriately. And for goodness sake never let the players use "Can I make a Perception check?" or "Can I make an Investigation check?" to get information, rather than actually narrating everything they feel like they need to observe *and* make them actually manipulate / test objects to see what happens (and usually blunder into the traps in the process of trying to figure them out.)

Good advice, although I have yet to read the 5E edition in any detail. I have been asked to run a "Tomb of Horrors"-killer party through the revised edition, so I'll need to ensure the players know exactly what style of DM they're up against!

 

[flametitan]

In order for Tomb of Horrors to be really deadly, you have to fix the Sphere of Annihilation. In 5E it does some pathetic amount of damage (3d12?) instead of permanently annihilating you. I don't have my copy of Tales From the Yawning Portal, but if it's not filled to the brim with real Spheres of Annihilation I will be sorely disappointed in Acererak. (And I will take steps.)

From what I've heard, that's the one trap that still insta-kills in the new tomb.

 

[Sacrosanct]

God I hope they never do that. The luck of finding treasure is one of the true pleasures of the game. What you describe would suck about 70% of the joy out of the game for me.

I'm with you. It's called "treasure hunting", not "treasure manufacturing" In fact, every good story about iconic treasure hunting for relics has been about searching for it, and not "Well, no need to go find that holy grail, because we'll just create our own."

Even in the context of D&D, the game's identity is firmly rooted in "kill them and take their stuff."* From a design standpoint, while there are fans of the Christmas Tree philosophy that 3e brought about (obviously), it didn't go over so well with the rest of the masses.

*Edit. Heck, AD&D was all about finding treasure as the primary goal of the game. Everything was built around it. That's how you gained levels and advanced in the game (not combat, for which you got little relative XP).

 

[iserith]

I'm with you. It's called "treasure hunting", not "treasure manufacturing" In fact, every good story about iconic treasure hunting for relics has been about searching for it, and not "Well, no need to go find that holy grail, because we'll just create our own."

Even in the context of D&D, the game's identity is firmly rooted in "kill them and take their stuff." From a design standpoint, while there are fans of the Christmas Tree philosophy that 3e brought about (obviously), it didn't go over so well with the rest of the masses.

Why not just provide the option for Ye Olde Magick Shoppe and let people who like that method choose it and those don't can stick to baseline? I could see choosing one or the other depending on the type of campaign I'm running. (As my players will tell you, the rules in my game change based on the campaign.)