Is TOMB OF HORRORS the Worst Adventure Of All Time?

HardcoreDandDGirl · Feb 1, 2016

does anyone have a list of anyone who actually completed the mod at a home game or con? Did they play pregens or homebrew characters? Did they go in with no information, or knowing what they were in for?

Let me say I've played through it twice. Once it was a short run... it was in 2e and it was the first time I ran into a creepy DM. It was a bad game for way more reasons then I can list, but I will say I can't blame the adventure. The second time was in 3.5, and it went well for almost five sessions before we TPKed...

I don't know if it's unfair, but it was not even in the top half of adventures I liked. I would love to hear some 'good stories' about this adventure.

Caliburn101 · Feb 1, 2016

werecorpse said:
Sure you can. You can play and lose or win in a good or bad module, and you can DM and slaughter player characters in a good or bad module. Those results do not establish the quality of the module.

Nothing here contradicts what I am saying to the OP.

HE is the one decided to blame the module for having a bad day with it, and not only that, but with some overblown hyperbole. The worst module of all time?

It can just as invalidly be argued that balanced modules where you have to have a very, very bad run of bad luck on the dice or make tactical mistake after mistake before the module can kill your characters is a poor kind of module.

I prefer to play the game with some risk, as do all my players, and as have nearly all the players of the many campaigns I have run. As I said, I've run it seven times, and in less forgiving systems than D&D, and never heard such a negative rant about the module.

Perhaps you have?

werecorpse · Feb 1, 2016

Caliburn101 said:
Nothing here contradicts what I am saying to the OP.

HE is the one decided to blame the module for having a bad day with it, and not only that, but with some overblown hyperbole. The worst module of all time?

It can just as invalidly be argued that balanced modules where you have to have a very, very bad run of bad luck on the dice or make tactical mistake after mistake before the module can kill your characters is a poor kind of module.

I prefer to play the game with some risk, as do all my players, and as have nearly all the players of the many campaigns I have run. As I said, I've run it seven times, and in less forgiving systems than D&D, and never heard such a negative rant about the module.

Perhaps you have?

Nope, gotta admit it was a pretty negative rant.

Wow you've run the module seven times. Which systems and how did they go?
(I wouldn't have thought it would make much difference playing a less forgiving system -no chance to find a trap unless you look in the right spot and death no save seems the most common way of dying in the adventure and that's isn't affected by the system)

I am very interested in hearing how different groups went through the adventure.

billd91 · Feb 1, 2016

shager said:
In the article he reveals quite plainly why he hates this thing so much - running it as written caused him to lose his small number of friends for a whole year, and suffer all the effects of that which followed. That's pretty heavy stuff.

I wonder if that really happened, personally, or, if it did, whether he was really that contrite about it. After all, he is the guy who wrote this:
Hit ‘em Where it Hurts

That article also may have been full of exaggeration - in fact, I assume it is - but if not, that's not exactly the kind of GM who sounds like he laments losing friends by going above and beyond the call of the rat bastard DM.

So what do I take from all of this? Either John Wick is a dick or he writes hyperbole to entertain the readers. Maybe a bit of both. Either way, I'm not going to cross the street to game with him. And if his GMing style causes him to actually lose friends (again)? I'll experience me some schadenfreude.

Zak S · Feb 1, 2016

werecorpse said:
I guess my issue is that on the one hand the potential critics of the adventure are chastised for not being sufficiently logical or for being too gamey in the way they approach the adventure and not thinking outside the box. On the other if you examine the adventure itself in a "logical" way consistent with the world you're "picking apart the practicalities"

edit: and you praise a group as playing intelligently for using the value of the doors to hire a dwarven kingdom - that's using the economics and practicalities of the dungeon design.

and Eric V, too

Your logical fallacy here is an equivocation over the words "logical" and "rational" and "intelligent"--they are used to mean different things in different parts of your argument.

In trying to WIN the game, what's logical and rational and intelligent concerns "What actions can you perform to get the max xp, survive, etc?".

In trying to CRITIQUE the quality of the game, what's intelligent (in the game design) concerns "How do possible players' idea of fun line up with what the module enables?"

You throw another different definition (kind of blurring "logical" "rational" and "intelligent") into the mix (also used in critque) "Is the fantastic gameworld itself logically consistent with our world?"--which is not relevant. Like asking why each time you jump on a turtle in Super Mario it slides rather than just gets crushed. Does an "intelligent"
player throw up their hands in disgust because the physics are "irrational" or does the intelligent player realize
how turtle shells work and use it to their advantage. Depends on which of the equivocal definitions you used.

So you're pretending "logical and rational" mean the same thing in all 3 cases when you've secretly kind of redefined it each time.

Zak S · Feb 1, 2016

werecorpse said:
What do you mean by winning?

I mean whatever it is critics are saying when they say the module is "unwinnable".

ToH was famously beaten, in one of the first tournaments in which it appeared, by someone who had a RAW leveled-up PC who defeated the Lich using the rules (see Tv Tropes).

If you read forums threads there's lots of people describing it being beaten in many other ways.

So whatever way you can define "beaten" it has been "beaten".

Therefore people saying it's "unbeatable" are essentially describing a conspiracy in which dozens of people (at least) have been pretending to have beaten the module or have seen it done using excruciatingly detailed descriptions (including walk-thru threads) for like over 30 years.

Zak S · Feb 1, 2016

billd91 said:
Either John Wick is a dick or he writes hyperbole to entertain the readers.

Considering how many GENUINE and kind of important things there are to argue about in RPGs, I can't see how you can do the second without being the first.

It's like seeing a fire people are trying to put out and chucking in a few cherry bombs just so people will pay attention to you.

Zak S · Feb 1, 2016

Hussar said:
On the idea of reports and cheating:

Look, I'm not saying the people who reported succeeding at the module were automatically cheating, but, lets face facts. What are the odds that a group of 6-8 people with zero preparation and pre-gen characters could successfully navigate the ToH in 3-4 hours? It's pretty hard to believe.l.

Many of these people are still alive.

Since you're accusing them of lying in a public place, the least you could do is track them down and ask them before doing that. Also: [MENTION=55178]Nytmare[/MENTION], Eric V.

Zak S · Feb 1, 2016

werecorpse said:
According to the module you can only harm the skull in one of 8 ways, the DM (including the designer) allowed a way not stated in the 8 to not only effect the creature but destroy it and you defeat the enemy.

You are leaving out an important detail. The module itself was conflicted and REQUIRED a judgment call, it wasn't just that the judge went easy on the players.

There were 8 ways described of killing the demilich. It said these were the onyl way to kill it.

There was ALSO an item that would destroy whatever it touched.

So these 2 rules were in conflict an a call was required--it wasn't like the rules had to be altered to be nice to the players, it was absolutely necessary to make a DM call one way or another in that situation.

Your argument also requires that never in all human possibility could a player ever had used any of those 8 ways. Which doesn't match the actual-play reports ont he internet

Zak S · Feb 1, 2016

Hussar said:
If not, then which is more likely: a group of 6-8 quite probably strangers, successfully navigated the module in 4 hours without any forknowledge, or; a group of 6-8 quite probably strangers observed other groups playing the module a few times, picked up hints and tips and then successfully navigated the module in 4 hours?

Granted, it's entirely possible that the former did, in fact, happen. However, Occam's Razor tells us that it's far more likely the latter.

Allegedly the world record for running the mile is Hicham El Guerrouj, who ran a mile in 3:43.13.

But really, what are the chances that someone could run a mile that fast? I mean, most people can't. I mean: almost nobody.

So, really, what's more likely: someone ran a mile in 3:43.13 or they didn't?

Occam's Razor, man, he obviously didn't, I mean, come on...

Is TOMB OF HORRORS the Worst Adventure Of All Time?

HardcoreDandDGirl

First Post

Caliburn101

Explorer

werecorpse

Adventurer

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

Zak S

Guest

Zak S

Guest

Zak S

Guest

Zak S

Guest

Zak S

Guest

Zak S

Guest

Similar Threads

Related Articles