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

[pemerton]

I simply do not agree with your assessment. "So little resemblance" is definitely not what comes to my mind. If there is a game that would better put me in the shoes of an adventurer in a fantastic universe -- not in one particular fictional setting, mind you -- then I have yet to find it.

I don't think a game which "puts me in the shoes of an adventurer in a fantastic universe" on it own will produce a play experience evocative of REH. For example, I don't think playing through ToH, or through an adventure in which avoiding the yellow mould using ropes and poles is a significant element of play, is very evocative of REH (or Leiber or Vance or Lovecraft or Tolkien) even if it fits the description "putting me in the shoes of an adventurer in a fantastic universe".

Remembering back through old modules, the early years of D&D certainly concentrated on "here's a location - how do YOU best it". The adventure was about the location, and any story that arose was incidental.

<snip>

Most modules these day ask an entirely different question - "Do you want to hear a story?"

I'm interested in GMing scenarios that ask my players "Do you want to create a story?" This tends to require at least a bit of reworking of most published modules.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I almost had a player walkout over Tsojcanth - had to tone down some of the more biased encounters and the requirements to enter the central chamber.

Was there a hot game of Candyland he was missing?

Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister [/Gary]

 

[Celebrim]

Was there a hot game of Candyland he was missing?

In fairness, Tsojcanth is arguably a more difficult module than Tomb of Horrors and there is less that a player can do about it. I mean, if Tomb of Horrors is a meat grinder, then Tsojcanth is an industrial sized abatoir with a conveyer belt leading to a stock yard of PC's the size of Kansas. (And it's not as tough as either C1 or I6.)

Tsojcanth is basically a showcase for MM2, with a ton of monsters crammed into a smallish area with widely varying (in 3e terms) encounter level and quite a bit of save or die (particullarly turn to stone) and a couple of die no save.

Careful play doesn't as much determine the outcome of Tsojcanth as blind luck, dice rolls, and system mastery. If in ToH it matters little what is on your character sheet, in Tsojcanth very little else matters and how you experienced the module probably to a large extent depends on what sort of characters you took into it. If you did 3d6 in order, 9th level characters with a smattering of +1 items and similar minor magic devices, you probably TPKed. If you did UA method for generating NPCs, 12th level characters with a godly suite of magic items, then you probably blazed through the adventure with no problems. There are a few oppurtunities for a skilled hack-n-slash sort to kill themselves in Tsojcanth (including one that is notoriously unfair), but largely the players that did terrible at ToH will do well with Tsojcanth. Skilled spellcasters and a 15 minute adventuring day are probably the secret.

I don't remember finishing the module, but I don't think it was because we TPKed. I think we just got bored.

 

[Gentlegamer]

In fairness, Tsojcanth is arguably a more difficult module than Tomb of Horrors and there is less that a player can do about it. I mean, if Tomb of Horrors is a meat grinder, then Tsojcanth is an industrial sized abatoir with a conveyer belt leading to a stock yard of PC's the size of Kansas. (And it's not as tough as either C1 or I6.)

Like Gary, I was partially being mock insulting for humor.

On the other hand, a D&Der who walks out of a game session because 'it's too hard' isn't a D&Der worthy of the name, in my opinion.

If 'winning' in D&D is surviving to tell your tale, then walking away from the table is surely 'losing.'

Of course, having your character retreat is perfectly acceptable. Gary recounted several instances where his players had their characters flee/escape in the face of daunting difficulty rather than push on, most notably Isle of the Ape.

The player 'walking' because of difficulty is bush-league.

Tsojcanth is basically a showcase for MM2, with a ton of monsters crammed into a smallish area with widely varying (in 3e terms) encounter level and quite a bit of save or die (particullarly turn to stone) and a couple of die no save.

Careful play doesn't as much determine the outcome of Tsojcanth as blind luck, dice rolls, and system mastery. If in ToH it matters little what is on your character sheet, in Tsojcanth very little else matters and how you experienced the module probably to a large extent depends on what sort of characters you took into it. If you did 3d6 in order, 9th level characters with a smattering of +1 items and similar minor magic devices, you probably TPKed. If you did UA method for generating NPCs, 12th level characters with a godly suite of magic items, then you probably blazed through the adventure with no problems. There are a few oppurtunities for a skilled hack-n-slash sort to kill themselves in Tsojcanth (including one that is notoriously unfair), but largely the players that did terrible at ToH will do well with Tsojcanth. Skilled spellcasters and a 15 minute adventuring day are probably the secret.

I don't remember finishing the module, but I don't think it was because we TPKed. I think we just got bored.

Very good points. One thing though: isn't Tsojcanth definitely an adventure that the (skilled/experienced) high level party should have several well-equipped henchmen, hirelings, and followers? Wouldn't that mitigate some of the combat difficulty? That module definitely seems to warrant a large adventuring party.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Careful play doesn't as much determine the outcome of Tsojcanth as blind luck, dice rolls, and system mastery. If in ToH it matters little what is on your character sheet, in Tsojcanth very little else matters and how you experienced the module probably to a large extent depends on what sort of characters you took into it. If you did 3d6 in order, 9th level characters with a smattering of +1 items and similar minor magic devices, you probably TPKed. If you did UA method for generating NPCs, 12th level characters with a godly suite of magic items, then you probably blazed through the adventure with no problems. There are a few oppurtunities for a skilled hack-n-slash sort to kill themselves in Tsojcanth (including one that is notoriously unfair), but largely the players that did terrible at ToH will do well with Tsojcanth. Skilled spellcasters and a 15 minute adventuring day are probably the secret.

I don't remember finishing the module, but I don't think it was because we TPKed. I think we just got bored.

You know, I've run S4 about 3 times, and been a player in it once, and never once finished it. In one instance we had a TPK before getting to the caverns --

Spoiler

blue dragon encounter

-- and in one instance a TPK within the first 3-4 caves explored.

I think we ran out of session time with the others, in a time when our AD&D games weren't true "campaigns" where action flowed from session to session and had continuity. Our games then, which used a lot of TSR modules, tended to be very episodic -- we'd run a module with a set of characters, then run a different module at the next game, but there would be no "story" continuity between the two, and if characters were the same it was because a player happened to bring the same character sheets that he had brought to the previous games.

I6 I've at least seen finished once, though many of my other experiences with it ran into TPKs, many before even getting to the castle (and once before even getting to Barovia!).

(All references are to AD&D games, for those wondering about how a gaming group could tolerate so many TPKs. Expectations have changed since the '80s.)

 

[Virel]

ToH isn't unfair. AD&D and old school is habanero peppers you'll get burnt if your careless. ToH is concentrated habanero...you'll get lite up like a Christmas tree if your careless. ToH is distilled challendges.

It shatter quite a few big ego's back in the day that had high level characters but little or no playing skill.

Back in 1981 our DM used it as an a campaign adventure. There were four player character deaths. Two were permanent. Each death was a result of poor play. We became better players as a result. We also got the treasure.

ToH is a hard skill test. Taking your time, be cautious and using stuff like Find Traps, Slow Poison, Monster Summoning I etc are key. There is a very real resource management part to ToH.

After ToH our play tightened up. ToH was fun but not something you'd want to deal with on a regular basis.

 

[howandwhy99]

This is from pretty early in the thread, but thought I should answer it anyways.

So, are you saying that B2, WG4, T1, S3, S4, GDQ, A1-4, and ToEE all basically amount puzzles with many elements and are clearly variations on the theme ToH presents?

Yes, modules are additional pieces to the campaign puzzle. No, they are not thematic variations on ToH.

B2 & T1 I call "town & dungeons", standard campaign starter modules.
The rest are all primarily dungeons/monster towns.
S1 may be the iconic "tomb" module, but the others are every bit as much puzzle pieces.

 

[Umbran]

The notion that a special selection of the works of, say, Robert E. Howard and J.R.R. Tolkien should somehow define the limits of D&D just has nothing to do with the historical attitudes of the game's creators.

You seem to keep implying that some of us have far more extreme positions than we actually do.

The notion that some particular styles should be reflected came from the authors of the game. They were the ones who claimed they were inspired by particular works. We merely note that this supposed inspiration does not seem well-reflected in the adventure design.

1) I simply do not agree with your assessment. "So little resemblance" is definitely not what comes to my mind. If there is a game that would better put me in the shoes of an adventurer in a fantastic universe -- not in one particular fictional setting, mind you -- then I have yet to find it.

I was talking about the adventure design. Not the game design. They're not the same thing. Your extrapolation is not founded in what I've said.

Let me state, for the record - I like 1e/AD&D. I had a lot of fun with it back in the day. I've run it recently for Memorial Dungeon Crawls, and had a good time with it. I don't have any major problems with the game itself. It is, in my humble opinion, quite possible to play a game akin to REH, Tolkien, or Leiber's works using the system - and I'm talking *not* in specific emulation of any one of them, but merely following the genre. I've run and played such games myself. My point is that you do have to do it yourself, as the published modules don't follow that same inspiration terribly well.

In sum, I think you are really reaching when there is a straightforward answer readily to hand: The designers were making fun games for the fun of games, not trying to make emulations of books.

I don't think there's any reach there at all. What you are saying and what I've said are quite compatible. I'm saying they wrote what they knew, you're saying they wrote what they liked. Do you want to argue that these are not related?

 

[Gryph]

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?

Fafhrd and the Mouser engage in a lot of precise, equipment based thieving and exploration.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed