Which is exactly why I brought it up as an example of "Deadly =/= Challenging"
The Tomb is incredibly deadly, possibly the most deadly dungeon ever designed, but it isn't challenging in the way that people want things to be challenging. And once you know all the tricks, it may still be deadly, but it is no longer challenging.
Deadly does not equal Challenging.
The Tomb is extremely challenging, only in a different way than usual: the challenges are tricks, traps and puzzles (i.e. challenging brains) rather than monsters and combat (i.e. challenging brawn).
What also makes the Tomb differen (and gives it its well-earned reputation) is that in many cases the result of failing a challenge is death: you don't get a second chance or a do-over.
But, that is the point. Many of the things being touted as bringing the challenge back to the game are lethal, but you can't learn from them. You can't learn anything from a wraith sapping your Con or a Shadow sapping your Strength until your fighter is useless. What is there to learn? Don't fight wraiths? Great, but fighting monsters is deadly anyway. Have the low con people fight it? That just kills them. There isn't anything to learn, you just have to suffer through and try not to die while you're character is spending weeks or months recovering their abilities.
Or find another way of dealing with them that doesn't involve front-line fighters or melee combat.
Sometimes you really do need magic to get the job done, and while some see this as a problem, I don't. Have a Cleric handy to turn them, then blast away with ranged spells or even ranged missiles. But yes - in fact the very thing to learn from them is
don't fight them hand-to-hand.
So, pixeling. Just have a large piece of paper and read off every part of the door and how you check it for the trap.
Nothing wrong at all with developing SOPs for common situations.
And, the DM will never call for a roll while you do so?
Of course she will.
But giving clear specifics as to what you're doing, be it case-by-case or as a SOP, informs the DM exactly what you're touching or not, where you're checking and what for, and so forth; all of which may modify your roll for better or worse.
It also removes the burden of assumption from both sides and thus proactively ends the following needless argument before it begins:
Player: "I check the door for traps."
DM: "Good. Saving throw as you find the contact poison the hard way."
Player: But I wouldn't have touched it!"
<argument ensues>
The second a player says "I wouldn't have...", you have a problem. A big problem. And a
completely avoidable problem had the player taken the time to be much more specific, in this case as to her search sequence.
1) I find it fascinating that in a game where you expect the players to try every trick in the book and follow a "combat is war" mentality, that something as simple as poisoning your weapons when you are cowardly and weak monsters, is going to come across as completely unfair.
Agreed. It's not unfair at all.
2) One thing that may be skewing my understanding of the game is this lack of surprise. In 5e it is completely possible that the Goblins will all get an entire round, maybe two, of firing before the players get their first action, but you keep mentioning the "Statisitcal improbability" of that happening in B/X. If surprise was never really a thing, that might explain why 5e abilities are weaker, because you can actually surprise the party in combat instead of then instantly reacting to the appearance of ambushes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought 5e didn't have 'surprised' in its lexicon. So how is your 5e situation possible, where the Goblins get two complete rounds of firing before the party can react?
B/X and 1e certainly do, and yes: in those systems with unlucky rolling it's entirely possible that a party could be wiped out by ranged ambushers using poison without ever knowing what hit them. Further, surprised characters don't get shield or Dex bonuses to AC, making them easier to hit.
Maybe in older editions, but that isn't the end all and be all of 5e.
For example on scouting ahead, I sneak up the dim hallway, sticking to the walls and peer around the corner.
Was I stealthy? Did the enemy around the corner see me?
I can describe them not seeing me, I can describe the perfect sneak, but if I'm just describing why I should succeed, then scouting isn't dangerous because nothing can go wrong. No monster can be hidden on the ceiling, because I will always add "I check the ceiling for monsters" to the end of every statement.
I can describe success to you, but does that mean I automatically succeed?
No, you're describing the ideal outcome you're attempting to achieve. The DM then rolls to see if you achieved it or not.
Because, if after twenty minutes of deciding to check the tomb they were sent to raid in every possible manner, and they open it and still die to something or other, their choice wasn't meaningful. They check it, just not in the correct way, and they all died. But they had to open the tomb either way, because the only other choice was to turn around and count the entire dive as a lost cause.
Turning around and bailing on the mission is always a valid choice; be it to come back later with more and-or better resources, or to pass the mission on to someone more qualified, or to just head south for the winter.
Nowhere is it written that the party have to always succeed on what they're doing.
