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

[Abraxas]

There is another way that the ToH is unique - The text for the DM contains more snark/sarcasm than any other published module/adventure that I have ever read - bordering on flat out spite.

 

[pemerton]

this is from the first room of the 'Sample Dungeon' in the DMG:

ROTTING SACKS: There are 10 moldy sacks of flour and grain stacked here. The cloth is easily torn to reveal the contents. If all of them are opened and searched, there is a 25% probability that the last will have YELLOW MOLD in it, and handling will automatically cause it to burst and all within 10’ must save versus poison or die in 1 turn.

there are ways to begin to search things that may avoid setting off things like yellow mold - weighted ropes and poles come to mind. Toss the hooked rope onto the pile of rags and drag. That disturbs the pile a bit to reveal things that will give off spores, will probably reveal green slime, and may pull some of those rags apart for better visual inspection without undue risk.
Running in with your bare hands to root through the rags? Generally a bad idea, not a player showing much skill as a prudent/paranoid adventurer.

Good dungeon hygiene was an essential part of dungeoneering. This usually involves liberal use of 10' poles and torches, occasional use of soap and water or strong alchohol, and with back up plans of burning oil and cure disease when it becomes available. If you can't see it, don't touch it. If it looks dirty or filthy, assume its lethal to touch because it probably is. Loot can be explored in detail back at camp or town.

In Appendix N (I think it is), Gygax says that inspiration for the game came particulary from REH, Leibner, Vance and Lovecraft. Tolkien is also mentioned as a lesser figure.

I haven't read Leibner - my impression of his stories is entirely from TSR's Lankhmar materials plus second hand accounts. I've read a bit of Vance and quite a bit of Tolkien, Lovecraft and REH.

There is some resemblance beween these suggested approaches to an AD&D dungeon - weighted ropes, poles, soap, etc - and some of the investigative elements of Lovecraft. Even there, though, the resemblance is not that great: investigation in Lovecraft reveals secrets that humankind was not meant to know - not just whether or not a given pile of rags is yellow mould or an elven cloak.

There is no resemblance between these suggested approaches to play and the typical Conan story - Conan doesn't use 10' poles, doesn't map, grabs jewels and runs with them, and then if they transform into living creatures and try to kill him he kills them first! The Fellowship, in Moria, didn't haul out a rope and 10' pole to help investigate the Book of Mazarbul. I haven't noticed any resembance, either, in the Vance I've read, and I'd be surprised if Leibner - which by reputation is meant to be fun pulpish stuff - involves many 10' poles either, as opposed to the protagonists blundering their way into danger and then making good by liberal use of wits, charm and authorial fiat.

For me, then, the disconnect in AD&D is this: why are the classic adventures intended to produce a play experience that so little resembles what is said to be the inspirational material for the game?

 

[Doug McCrae]

For me, then, the disconnect in AD&D is this: why are the classic adventures intended to produce a play experience that so little resembles what is said to be the inspirational material for the game?

I guess it's because D&D started as a wargame. They added dragons and wizards to Chainmail because they thought it would be cool. But Chainmail didn't become a tool for doing the same sorts of things as those tales with dragons and wizards in, it was still a wargame.

1. Add fantasy elements to Chainmail.
2. Switch focus to individual figures, not armies. At this point, I think it becomes an rpg.
3. Play switches from battlefield to dungeon.
4. Players lose interest in playing monsters, leaving them to the referee.
5. Referee spices things up by adding traps and puzzles.
6. Gary hears some players boasting about how tough their PCs are, decides to 'teach them a lesson'.
7. Tomb of Horrors.

The D&D of Tomb of Horrors has not changed that much from Chainmail with dragon and wizard figures.

 

[Celebrim]

There is no resemblance between these suggested approaches to play and the typical Conan story - Conan doesn't use 10' poles, doesn't map, grabs jewels and runs with them, and then if they transform into living creatures and try to kill him he kills them first! The Fellowship, in Moria, didn't haul out a rope and 10' pole to help investigate the Book of Mazarbul. I haven't noticed any resembance, either, in the Vance I've read, and I'd be surprised if Leibner - which by reputation is meant to be fun pulpish stuff - involves many 10' poles either, as opposed to the protagonists blundering their way into danger and then making good by liberal use of wits, charm and authorial fiat.

For me, then, the disconnect in AD&D is this: why are the classic adventures intended to produce a play experience that so little resembles what is said to be the inspirational material for the game?

Because they are games. The very first modules probably didn't look exactly like the classic ones. The classic ones had evolved to be good games, and as such they had features that differed from that of good stories.

One of the most important differences being that the protagonists aren't under the control of the author. In the literature that inspires D&D, the author favors the protagonist and insures that whatever happens and no matter how unlikely this outcome is the protagonist wins. Obviously, this doesn't make for a very good game, and Gygax disparages game authors who take that stance. Instead, in the game the author is in a certain sense the antagonist of the protagonists. And as such, if the protagonists are to win through the obstacles presented by the story, they are going to have to rely on something more than the extraordinary luck typically granted to literary heroes.

That isn't to say that the game doesn't also grant the protagonists extraordinary luck and capacity - that's what hit points and the like are for - but rather that if the game isn't rigged in your favor such that you can't lose, then you are going to have to rely on something more than just your hit points.

In that sense, game heroes tend to be much much more compotent than literary heroes. Which is why gamers watch a movie and go, "What an idiot. Real PC's would never fall for that trap!"

 

[Celebrim]

There is some resemblance beween these suggested approaches to an AD&D dungeon - weighted ropes, poles, soap, etc - and some of the investigative elements of Lovecraft. Even there, though, the resemblance is not that great: investigation in Lovecraft reveals secrets that humankind was not meant to know - not just whether or not a given pile of rags is yellow mould or an elven cloak.

I think every good game master takes inspiration from a different set of sources.

My strongest literary sources are Tolkien, Lovecraft, and the brothers Grimm.

Investigation in my game may on the small scale be to determine whether the given pile of rags contains some lethal hazard or a magical cloak (or both!), but that's not what the game is about. That's only a small scene in the game, a piece of the larger investigation. Since my inspiration comes from Tolkien and Lovecraft, the goal of the investigation is usually to save the world or at least your peice of it, and very often what you are saving it from is someone who has learned or desires secrets that mortals were not meant to know.

In fact, my current campaign is about exactly that - the villain desires something, which though it has a great potential for good, is something that mortals are not meant to have. The secret of what he wants and how he intends to obtain it is the ultimate goal of the investigation, even if a particular scene involves probing with a 10' pole.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Doug McCrae]

Because they are games.

But games can have a variety of rules and victory conditions. One could create a game in which the players are rewarded for having their characters act like the protagonists in a particular genre of fiction. For example a horror game in which the players score points for splitting up and going to the cellar.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For me, then, the disconnect in AD&D is this: why are the classic adventures intended to produce a play experience that so little resembles what is said to be the inspirational material for the game?

The answer is simple. It is in fact a game. The source material is inspirational in tone but are still stories.

The game exists to to played. In order to play and engage the minds of the players there are obstacles designed to stimulate the imaginations of the players who come up with solutions. Playing the role of an adventurer would be less fun for me if it meant being guided through some story and thrown headlong into situations and passively awaiting authorial fiat to provide a way out. While this might more closely resemble familliar stories I don't see much of an opportunity for a game in it.

The pulp feel comes from adventurers seeking fame and glory. The particulars of how this is achieved will differ depending on the medium.

Books and movies are passive. The characters are subjected to whatever trials, adversity, and gain whatever rewards the author sees fit to write. The characters do not have independent thoughts and motivations outside of those assigned by the author.

Games are played by people who generally (hopefully) want to take an active part in the entertainment. Solving problems in a pulp/fantasy setting by real people engaging the experience as if it were actual is bound to lead to the kinds of things you don't typically see in stories.

How many times have you encountered a situation in a book or movie and thought ; "if that were me then I would have......" That is exactly the kind of thing you get to do all the time in an rpg. Just because Bob the protagonist never used a stick to test something in a story doesn't mean that you can't .

 

[Umbran]

The answer is simple. It is in fact a game. The source material is inspirational in tone but are still stories.

I don't think that answers the question at all. It looks to me completely orthogonal to the question.

The game exists to to played. In order to play and engage the minds of the players there are obstacles designed to stimulate the imaginations of the players who come up with solutions.

Yes. But then we come to the choice of obstacles, the actual content in the adventure. Why is the content in these supposedly classic modules so much like an engineer trying to trick fellow engineers into making a mistake, and so little like the obstacles Conan, Fafhrd, and Grey Mouser face?

Playing the role of an adventurer would be less fun for me if it meant being guided through some story and thrown headlong into situations and passively awaiting authorial fiat to provide a way out.

A player can have as much freedom of choice in trying to figure out how to search a stack of moldy bags as dealing with a Thulsa Doom's guards. The question isn't about how much freedom the players are given to devise their own solutions to problems, as what their problems are in the first place.

I think the answer to that question is, as you say, quite simple, but not anywhere near the direction you put it:

The authors were more like people who fiddle with rules and puzzles, and less like people who write stories. If you figure the authors (wisely) went by the "write what you know" philosophy, then it is not odd that the classic modules are a lot about tinkering with fiddly bits.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes. But then we come to the choice of obstacles, the actual content in the adventure. Why is the content in these supposedly classic modules so much like an engineer trying to trick fellow engineers into making a mistake, and so little like the obstacles Conan, Fafhrd, and Grey Mouser face?

Conan, Fafhrd and other pulp heroes didn't actually have to face any obstacles. They were all pre-written predicaments with pre-written solutions.

A player can have as much freedom of choice in trying to figure out how to search a stack of moldy bags as dealing with a Thulsa Doom's guards. The question isn't about how much freedom the players are given to devise their own solutions to problems, as what their problems are in the first place.

I'm not understanding what you mean. Are you saying that only the type of obstacles from the stories should be included in game scenarios?

Classic modules, as goofy as some of them were, had one thing going for them; the authors were clever enough to know that any challenge worthy of being called such was meant for the player sitting at the table rather than a pile of doodles and numbers scribbled on a piece of paper.