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

[billd91]

So 3E didn't invent the 15-minute adventuring day, then?

3e didn't invent it, no. But I only ever heard of it as a problem with certain play styles of 3e players.

If you ended up with a short day in 1e/2e, it was because you got your hp kicked in and ran out of healing and didn't have any time pressure. Usually, this depended on either bad luck or biting off more than you could chew.

In certain highly optimizing play styles in 3e, you added in whenever the casters blew through their higher DC spells. In 1e/2e, that wasn't much of a factor since all saves were dependent on the target, not the level of the spell. When you also consider the ease with which healing could be obtained (via spontaneous casting, cure light wounds wands), the reason for why a group of PCs might take a 15 minute day shifted substantially... for those players who made it a part of their style of play.

I mention particular styles of play because there are plenty of other styles that managed to avoid the 15 minute day. I, for example, never really encountered a 15 minute adventuring day aside from occasions when the PCs found the opposition too tough and had to make a hasty retreat and then reassessed their tactics. Running out of high save DC spells has never been an issue.

 

[pemerton]

3e didn't invent it, no. But I only ever heard of it as a problem with certain play styles of 3e players.

If you ended up with a short day in 1e/2e, it was because you got your hp kicked in and ran out of healing and didn't have any time pressure. Usually, this depended on either bad luck or biting off more than you could chew.

In certain highly optimizing play styles in 3e, you added in whenever the casters blew through their higher DC spells.

In the context of ToH, though, it seems to be 3E-style 15 minutes being put forward - namely, stopping and resting when the MUs and clerics run out of fly and augury spells.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Strangely, the text seems to think that it *is* an attrition dungeon.

an automatic 1-6 hit points damage sustained (a mere annoyance, but it erodes the strength of the party).

- Section 13, page 5

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yep. The frustration for discussion though is when people reverse the "wisdom" depending on the outcome:

We died searching for the treasure.
-- Well, you shouldn't have searched.

We didn't find the treasure.
-- Well, you should have searched.

It's like Monday-morning quarterbacking:

The pass is intercepted.
-- The quarterback shouldn't have tried to pass the ball.

The runner fails to score.
-- The quarterback should have thrown a pass.

Quick question: How seriously do you take the Monday morning quarterbacks?

If your answer is ' not at all' then why are post adventure judges of player skill treated any differently?

 

[Celebrim]

This seems to posit a lack of interdependence of play style and rules...

Only partially. I simply posit that there is not a large dependence of play style on the rules. I don't deny that rules can influence play style, but its just one of several matters.

Over the last few years I've had a growing realization that there are two areas of RPG practice that are very much under emphasized when we talk about RPGs. Those areas are how the game master prepares for an RPG session, and the style that we play the game in. I've come to realize that the preparation for a game and the style of the game are quite often completely divorsed from the rules of the game we call 'the system', but that they have a greater effect on how the game is actually played and experienced than the rules do. If you have two games with completely different rules, but the game master prepares for the games in the same manner and the players and game master adopt the same style of play, then the resulting games will largely resemble each other regardless of the differences in the rules.

You talk about how going from Rolemaster to 4e has changed your groups play style. But I wonder how much of that is due to rules artifacts, and how much of that is due to perceptions of how the two games are supposed to play. I would presume that the shift from RM to 4e was dictated by a desire to have a different play style, so it would seem rather unlikely to me that your group would immediately thwart itself in that desire. Likewise, I wonder there are now changes in the sort of material that the game master prepares the game. When you state: "but also relating to encounter design and the way that the rules deal with issues of authority over the ingame situation, and the relation of that to action resolution and GM force.", you are attributing a change to the rules and to a certain extent I'm sure you are right, but I'm equally seeing this as a description of a change in social contract, play style, and game preparation - all of which have a fairly loose relationship to the rules.

 

[Stoat]

I thought there were a bunch of ethereal demons hanging around the ToH to reset all the traps if they were left alone.

Have I got my deathtrap dungeons mixed up?

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I thought there were a bunch of ethereal demons hanging around the ToH to reset all the traps if they were left alone.

Have I got my deathtrap dungeons mixed up?

That was something added in later updates and revisions, like

Spoiler

being unable to remove the crown from its room

or

Spoiler

the adamantite doors not being made of "real" adamantite

, after people started using destructive problem solving to beat the dungeon.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Abraxas]

How would resting go if not handwaved? Are you thinking about random encounters?

Partially correct.

When I ran it, yes I was thinking about random encounters - 1st edition mind set - there were always random encounters plus, at the time, I was under the impression that it was supposed to be run as a single attempt - no rests/breaks - so the resources you had were all you had - this really does make it much tougher.

As for the con players - I was merely wondering if they thought of it at all. None of the recounts I have read ever mention this - so I'm curious.

 

[Stoat]

I took a look at my copy of the module at lunch. I don't see anything about ethereal demons resetting traps either.

Re: Resting in the Tomb, the module says this:

Negotiation of the Tomb will require quiie a long time. so be
prepared to spend several sessions with this module. When the
game ends for the day assume the expedition is spending the
intervening time until play again commences resting and
recovering from adventuring up to that point. Allowing actual/
game days on a 1/1 basis gives players a chance to recover
some lost hit points. too. As there are no monsters to be randomly
encountered within the Tomb, the party might be allowed to
encamp close to the entrance without fear of random encounters,
but If you do so opt, do not inform the players of this.