Tomb of Horrors

[Numion]

ooh, hit a nerve there, huh?

Yeah, now go pat yourself on the back tiger

 

[Garnfellow]

I find this module to be hated primarily by players with very little grasp on problem solving and adored by gamers who like to overcome obstacles with their grey matter rather than by number crunching.

Actually, I've run this module 5 times and found NO correlation between intelligent play and success. I don't care what the introduction says.

I've seen very experienced, thoughtful parties ground up by ToH, and the two parties that had by far the greatest success were run by extremely reckless -- but extremely lucky -- players.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I find this module to be hated primarily by players with very little grasp on problem solving and adored by gamers who like to overcome obstacles with their grey matter rather than by number crunching.

I've also noticed this module take a bit of heat from gamers who have never played it, and feel a little resentful at being left out of the conversation by more experienced players.

This is the funniest thing I've read in a while.

 

[Justin Bacon]

If someone published Tomb of Bad today, it would be slaughtered in the reviews. Nostalgy and memories from ones youth can alter opinions greatly.

I think it's easy to point to key design flaws in the original Tomb: There are too many situations in which death is simply capricious, since Gygax delights in the undetectable and unavoidable. (Thus, rather than being a true "thinking man's" module, it's actually a "lucky man's" module.) The lack of boxed text and poor organization frequently makes it difficult for the DM to properly present the module -- presenting all the information the PCs should have without revealing anything they shouldn't. There are also some fundamental gameplay problems that could have been resolved with a little thought about how the module would actually work at the gaming table.

But, despite those flaws, the Tomb is a classic: When run properly, it does exactly what it advertises -- it freaks players out. I've seen groups that have literally routed a legion of dark dwarves single-handedly reduced to cowering in the Tomb trying desperately to figure out how they're going to escape. And if you bring the right attitude to the Tomb, it crafts memories that last for a lifetime of gaming.

Now, personally, I can't imagine ever using the Tomb as part of an established campaign. I've always used it as a one-shot with the expectation that the characters aren't going to make it out alive. I understand this and the players understand this, so we're both on the same page and we can both enjoy the module for what it is: A meatgrinding challenge of personal resolve and character.

And contrary to what someone else said here, the module CAN be a roleplaying experience. One of my most enjoyable memories from the Tomb was a character desperately trying to recover the rapidly-burning corpse of his friend from a pool of lava so that he could be revived... only to suffer deadly damage themselves from the lava. There was no metagame reason for this: The character was simply insane with the desperation of saving his friend.

Good stuff.

Now, Cordell's version has done some stuff to clean up the module's faults. For example, boxed text is a bloody godsend. And the skill checks and saving throws, while too easy to overcome in some cases (IMO), help to make the module a sensible playing experience: You can detect and investigate and avoid. Death is ubiquitous, but not capricious.

But, ultimately, Cordell cleaves fairly close to the original module. And, as a result, he brings a lot of the flaws from the original with him. For example, look at Area 5: How do you determine whether or not a particular character steps through on the path or off the path? You basically have to ask a very leading question, "Are you walking through on the path or off the path?" And the response you get back is essentially random noise: There's no way to determine which is the correct choice. And if the player chooses wrong, they'll know they simply need to try the other option.

An easy fix for this would be to widen the misty arch to 15 feet and have the path be 5 feet wide -- then you could simply ask the players to show you, on a battlegrid, how their characters go through the arch, without teling them the significance of what you're looking for. That way, when the wizard ends up back at the beginning of the hall while the fighter is teleported safely to area 11 -- because they walked through side-by-side with the fighter on the path and the wizard off it -- the players won't instantly know why that happened.

Probably the biggest "fault" in Cordell's version of the Tomb is that he felt a need to balance the Tomb for 9th level characters. The Tomb has never been a "balanced" place -- it's a gauntlet.

Early last year I completed my own complete adaptation and update of the Tomb. It was a more drastic revision than Cordell's, aimed specifically at resolving the gameplay issues without compromising the essentially deadly and uncompromising nature of the Tomb. My revision can be found on my website at http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations for those who are interested.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[jdrakeh]

I do agree with jdrakeh's comments, though, that it is something of a meta-dungeon, challenging the players as much as the characters, but I feel that there is room for this kind of thing in the hobby.

Just to be clear, I totally understand that some people dig the kind of meta-puzzle posed by modules like ToH. That's the kind of stuff that some gamers live for. I'm just not one of those gamers

The 3.5 version seems to me to strike a successful balance between staying true to the spirit of the original while maintaining a playability that is more appropriate for the current rules-set).

The 3.5 revision is noticably more player-friendly where balance and reason are concerned. The original is a true abattoir in every sense of the word. It makes a lot of those Grimtooth's books look subdued by comparison.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If someone published Tomb of Bad today, it would be slaughtered in the reviews.

Of course it would. Today's gamers are coddled and are used to having their hands held throughout the adventure. Save or die? No save at all? They hear that and whine about killer dms. Bah. The new Tomb of Horrors is about as scary as Count Chocula.

 

[jdrakeh]

Of course it would. Today's gamers are coddled and are used to having their hands held throughout the adventure. Save or die? No save at all? They hear that and whine about killer dms. Bah. The new Tomb of Horrors is about as scary as Count Chocula.

Believe it or not, for some people, roleplaying is about more than having the GM kill their characters every ten minutes just for the hell of it and, likewise, for some people, GMing is about more than killing the player characters every ten minutes just for the hell of it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Believe it or not, for some people, roleplaying is about more than having the GM kill their characters every ten minutes just for the hell of it and, likewise, for some people, GMing is about more than killing the player characters every ten minutes just for the hell of it.

And some people like to work for their rewards instead of having everything handed to them, balanced perfectly so they only die due to bad luck. ToH is very survivable for smart, careful players. Not so for those who charge at the drop of a hat.

 

[Numion]

And some people like to work for their rewards instead of having everything handed to them, balanced perfectly so they only die due to bad luck. ToH is very survivable for smart, careful players. Not so for those who charge at the drop of a hat.

Actually 3E DMG gives advice to include encounters with EL's of party level+5. Hardly an encounter where death can only result from bad luck.

It seems to be a common misconception that 3E's balance is achieved with all EL's = party level, even thought the adventure design section in DMG clearly states a more dangerous breakdown. Read it, love it, use it.

 

[jdrakeh]

And some people like to work for their rewards instead of having everything handed to them

Note that a dislike of capricious and arbitrary death dealing does not indicate a desire to have everything handed to one without working for it, or a reliance on luck. Just as having a GM who gets hard over killing players just for the hell of it doesn't necessarily make a game intellectual.