Is the original Tomb of Horrors a well-designed adventure module?

Q

Quasqueton

First Post

• Jun 23, 2006

• #1

There is always a heated debate about the Tomb of Horrors – some say it’s great, some say it’s terrible. But it’s always just a small handful of people here who are vocal about it either way. I’m curious what a straight-up, anonymous poll would reveal about it.

Is the original Tomb of Horrors a well-designed adventure module? I'm not asking if you like it, or if it is a nostalgic great piece of D&D history -- is it well designed? If it is, what could current module designers/authors learn from it? What should current module designers/authors try to emulate about it?

Quasqueton

 

log in or register to remove this ad

lukelightning

First Post

• Jun 23, 2006

• #2

I said no, though I actually think it was fun. There were too many traps that had no save and no way to detect them. Touch the tapestry? You're dead, etc.

Plus I have bitter memories of a huge arguement with my brother (who was DMing) over whether or not the spell "sunbeam" would hurt the demi lich. I said it would, as the lich is undead, my brother said no, as it wasn't on the list of like 5 spells that hurt the thing, so I argued back that the demilich had been created before the sunbeam spell had, and the designers would definitely have included the sunbeam spell in the list if they knew about it, he said no, I said yes, etc. etc. etc. (This has nothing to do with my evaluation of the adventure, just some nostalgia....)

 

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!

• Jun 23, 2006

• #3

This topic seems to resurface every few months. I swear there was a poll about this not too long ago.

 

P

paradox42

First Post

• Jun 23, 2006

• #4

The rule-breaking stuff, like the constant no-save traps and capricious death around every corner- is not good design. But the way the various traps and puzzles are designed specifically to channel PC actions in a desired direction, without actually taking control of them- examples include the various false doors and easy-to-miss secret doors which mean some parties will just walk blithely to dooms that are off the shortest path to victory- is brilliant design. Mark Hope, in the other thread, specifically noted two examples of this: the secret real door hidden behind the false door north of the 4-way intersection with the 100' deep pit trap, which leads to the juggernaut if you don't notice the secret door immediately after the "false" on in the floor, and the phase doors leading out of the final area back into the 4-way section, which are likely to lead PCs to the cavern of mists if they didn't go that way before.

 

diaglo

Adventurer

• Jun 23, 2006

• #5

Other. It is a well designed tournament module. It is meant to kill PCs.

 

Q

Quasqueton

First Post

• Jun 23, 2006

• #6

This topic seems to resurface every few months. I swear there was a poll about this not too long ago.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge (and I read this forum daily), there has been no poll asking this question. I’m not asking if you (general use, “you”) had fun with the adventure module, or whether it is a special part of D&D history. I’m specifically asking if is well designed. And if you think it is well designed, please explain how so -- what should be emulated in contemporary adventure modules.

Quasqueton

 

Crothian

First Post

• Jun 23, 2006

• #7

It is well designed for what it was desinged for. Like Diaglo said it is a tourney module, not something that was expected to take beloved characters to in the midst of a 5 year campaign. I think the problem comes from people wanting to fit a square module into a round campaign.

 

Henry

Autoexreginated

• Jun 23, 2006

• #8

Diaglo's answer is why I said "yes." I probably should have said, "other".

What to learn? Some DMs could learn from it that entertaining your players does not always giving them challenges that they know they'll beat. It can also teach that there's more than one style of play, and sometimes even meatgrinders can be fun, for the shared experience if nothing else. Horror movies are great examples of an entertainment that invokes our inner squeamishness to the goal of creating a shared experience. People used to compare death stories in the Tomb the way some people compared victory stories from Keep on the Borderlands.

Some designers could learn that there is a fine difference between active and passive meatgrinders. The Tomb was a passive meatgrinder, one where only sheer ego pressed one forward into the proverbial razor blades. At several points in the tomb there are means to leave; only those foolhardy enough to keep going and smart AND lucky enough got to the good stuff.

 

Q

Quasqueton

First Post

• Jun 23, 2006

• #9

But it was released to the general public as a normal adventure module. The vast majority of players who played it (as Player or DM) did so in normal campaigns, not in organized tournament play.

Edit: I’m seeing that for future such polls, I need to specify “Is X a well-designed adventure module for general campaign gaming use?” (I thought that everyone would understand that was my question without having to specifically say it.)

Quasqueton

 

Last edited: Jun 23, 2006

SteveC

Doing the best imitation of myself

• Jun 23, 2006

• #10

Arbitrary death and lots of randomness? What's not to like about that?

In other words, I voted "no."

--Steve