D&D 5E Acererak's Tomb of Horrors is in Chult

[Parmandur]

Return did indeed establish Accerack as planar threat. However, the 4e Tomb of Horrors is probably a much better example of how this new one will play out. Specifically, how Accerack isn't some skull sitting in the original Tomb anymore. He's seeking new evil plans across the planes. The 4e ToH never sets you foot in the original Tomb (called the Abandoned Tomb now) but it captures the feel of the original quite well.

I could certainly see an adventure where a group of PC's stumble upon the Lich's minions in Chult, discover his evil plans, and explore a bunch of places (even a pit stop to Greyhawk for the original Tomb itself) stopping his plans. It could even be a good place to do a high-level module and a plane hopping module.

I don't think they are going to just drop the Tomb in Faerun and retcon it's existence. My money is on something more like 4e's ToH then 1e's...

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Ah-Kay, that explains why he is not a skull on the DMG cover...

 

[Remathilis]

Ah-Kay, that explains why he is not a skull on the DMG cover...

He can be; but he can also inhabit any undead body he chooses. Ergo, cover vs MM pic.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[hawkeyefan]

Crossovers are always kind of lame. It'll take a lot to overcome the lameness. Mordenkainen was one of the weakest elements of Curse of Strahd - one of the few things I actually cut and replaced (just by changing the wizard's name).

I feel like WotC imagines that it is Marvel now and that characters can make cameos and they can do crossover events and everyone will just squee in nerd glee over references to their favorite characters, but it's even pretty lame when Marvel does it, and they have a long and storied history of hackey crossover herpaderp.

There aren't many people that benefit from having the Tomb of Horrors in Chult who aren't on WotC's marketing team. It will take more to make it an adventure worth considering and not just a cheap nostalgia cash-in.

There aren't any people harmed by this decision, either.

Although, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Given the established purpose of the tomb, and Acererak's goals and the fact that his true lair isn't on Oerth, all the Greyhawk claims seem a bit silly. Return to the Tomb of Horros already significantly expanded the backstory and goals of Acererak (one could even argue that adventure didn't expand these things so much as it finally established them, whichever Gygax even admits in his introduction).

Personally, I like the idea of the lich establishing more than one tomb across many worlds. I think it even fits in with what's been established. I also tend to like the idea of crossovers, and the larger D&D multiverse has always appealed to me. I agree with you that crossovers can be lame, and any such story should rely on more than simply the gimmick of the crossover. But saying that all crossovers are lame? That seems harsh.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There aren't any people harmed by this decision, either.

I feel like "don't actively harm people" is a pretty meaninglessly low bar to set for your D&D product. It also wouldn't "harm" anyone if they left it in Greyhawk. It wouldn't "harm" anyone if it was set in the universe of Disney's The Little Mermaid. I'd expect a bit more out of my gamejunk.

Although, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Given the established purpose of the tomb, and Acererak's goals and the fact that his true lair isn't on Oerth, all the Greyhawk claims seem a bit silly. Return to the Tomb of Horros already significantly expanded the backstory and goals of Acererak (one could even argue that adventure didn't expand these things so much as it finally established them, whichever Gygax even admits in his introduction).

Personally, I like the idea of the lich establishing more than one tomb across many worlds. I think it even fits in with what's been established. I also tend to like the idea of crossovers, and the larger D&D multiverse has always appealed to me. I agree with you that crossovers can be lame, and any such story should rely on more than simply the gimmick of the crossover. But saying that all crossovers are lame? That seems harsh.

All the fuss is because I'd rather have an adventure that I want to play than one I think has a high chance of being super duper lame. I don't know how it'll actually be in execution (I won't know 'till it's out, I guess!), but crossovers always feel inauthentic. It's not like Star Trek would be improved by adding Jedis. FR doesn't need the Tomb of Horrors, and the Tomb of Horrors doesn't need FR. FR has it's own liches you could tell stories about. Why not take your killer mega-dungeon inspired by the Tomb of Horrors and stick it in FR history and FR lore and show how these things can add to your gaming experience? Why be the guy who shows up to the bachelor party with his girlfriend?

Well, probably, the reason is because the marketing team knows that people who fondly remember the ToH from ye olden times will snap up this new version so screw FR lore, I want the Tomb of Horrors and I want you to put Elminster in it because nerds will buy that stuff! NOW GO!

But that reason ain't good enough for me.

Maybe they'll have a better reason later on! Hey, maybe your girlfriend really is cool with everything and is going to be a lot of fun at this bachelor party. But it's not a great start, and it's an uphill battle from here on.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I feel like "don't actively harm people" is a pretty meaninglessly low bar to set for your D&D product. It also wouldn't "harm" anyone if they left it in Greyhawk. It wouldn't "harm" anyone if it was set in the universe of Disney's The Little Mermaid. I'd expect a bit more out of my gamejunk.

But it's not the only thing I mentioned, is it? I only mentioned harming in reply to your mention of benefit. Because clearly whatever product comes from this could be great. In which case, many would benefit.

But I also said that the adventure must stand on its own and not rely solely on the gimmick of using the shared D&D cosmology. Ultimately, the adventure (if that's indeed what comes of all this) will be good or bad largely due to its own merits, and the crossover appeal will most likely neither make nor break it.

All the fuss is because I'd rather have an adventure that I want to play than one I think has a high chance of being super duper lame. I don't know how it'll actually be in execution (I won't know 'till it's out, I guess!), but crossovers always feel inauthentic. It's not like Star Trek would be improved by adding Jedis. FR doesn't need the Tomb of Horrors, and the Tomb of Horrors doesn't need FR. FR has it's own liches you could tell stories about. Why not take your killer mega-dungeon inspired by the Tomb of Horrors and stick it in FR history and FR lore and show how these things can add to your gaming experience? Why be the guy who shows up to the bachelor party with his girlfriend?

Well, probably, the reason is because the marketing team knows that people who fondly remember the ToH from ye olden times will snap up this new version so screw FR lore, I want the Tomb of Horrors and I want you to put Elminster in it because nerds will buy that stuff! NOW GO!

But that reason ain't good enough for me.

Well the adventure that took the Tomb of Horrors and elevated it beyond a location on Oerth has already been written. And it's a great adventure. Far better than the original. It took what Gygax had put down...which was pretty much just his player breaker ("oh you think you're good at D&D?")...and gave it all a story. A story that moves things beyond the world of Greyhawk.

So the insistence seems odd. Especially when your main point seems to be purely aesthetic. "Use a Forgotten Realms lich with its own mega dungeon". Certainly they could do so...they also could have used a vampire other than Strahd. The point seems to be that have an idea about that specific vampire...or lich...that they'd like to tell. There is a whole level of lore at play that maybe you are not aware of.

And there are those of us who like the shared universe of D&D's cosmology. My campaign takes place across Faerun, Oerth, Golarion, a home brewer world, and Athas, all connected by Sigil and the planes. So nods to that larger world...which has long been established...are something I enjoy quite a bit.

Is there an element of targeted nostalgia at play in cases like this? Sure. Does that mean that must be all there is to it? Of course not. Does it mean an adventure must be terrible? Of course not. Each of their adventures has had at least a pinch of nostalgia in the mix.

No no one is taking Westeros and smashing it together with Faerun, which is more what your examples would equate to. Faerun and oerth are already connected. It's canon. Based on the things I've seen you say about canon, your stance here seems a bit at odds .

 

[pukunui]

FR has it's own liches you could tell stories about. Why not take your killer mega-dungeon inspired by the Tomb of Horrors and stick it in FR history and FR lore and show how these things can add to your gaming experience?

You mean like Dead in Thay?

 

[Caliburn101]

Return did indeed establish Accerack as planar threat. However, the 4e Tomb of Horrors is probably a much better example of how this new one will play out. Specifically, how Accerack isn't some skull sitting in the original Tomb anymore. He's seeking new evil plans across the planes. The 4e ToH never sets you foot in the original Tomb (called the Abandoned Tomb now) but it captures the feel of the original quite well.

I could certainly see an adventure where a group of PC's stumble upon the Lich's minions in Chult, discover his evil plans, and explore a bunch of places (even a pit stop to Greyhawk for the original Tomb itself) stopping his plans. It could even be a good place to do a high-level module and a plane hopping module.

I don't think they are going to just drop the Tomb in Faerun and retcon it's existence. My money is on something more like 4e's ToH then 1e's...

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Return to the Tomb of Horrors has a brilliant metaplot in terms of what Acererak is really up to, and I'd like to see that redone for the 5th Edition audience. In fact I am running it for my group at the moment having converted it to 5th myself and changed a few parts of the plot to make it fit with my GREYHAWK campaign.

Call me a grognard...

I am getting somewhat irritated with WoTC putting all the Greyhawk bells and whistles in the Forgotten Realms. However, if there is a good write-up on how to put it BACK in Greyhawk in the Adventure Path then I won't complain too loudly.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But it's not the only thing I mentioned, is it? I only mentioned harming in reply to your mention of benefit. Because clearly whatever product comes from this could be great. In which case, many would benefit.

But I also said that the adventure must stand on its own and not rely solely on the gimmick of using the shared D&D cosmology. Ultimately, the adventure (if that's indeed what comes of all this) will be good or bad largely due to its own merits, and the crossover appeal will most likely neither make nor break it.

I said that there's not many people who benefit from chucking the ToH into FR. There are lots of people who benefit from a great adventure, but I wasn't griping about a great adventure, I was specifically griping about chucking ToH into FR, which doesn't set up things well to be a great adventure. It might be great despite that, sure! But even if it's a great adventure, it's still a hackey crossover.

So, I'm still voicing my concerns about crossovers, and about a potential ToH adventure that is a crossover.

Well the adventure that took the Tomb of Horrors and elevated it beyond a location on Oerth has already been written. And it's a great adventure. Far better than the original. It took what Gygax had put down...which was pretty much just his player breaker ("oh you think you're good at D&D?")...and gave it all a story. A story that moves things beyond the world of Greyhawk.

So the insistence seems odd. Especially when your main point seems to be purely aesthetic. "Use a Forgotten Realms lich with its own mega dungeon". Certainly they could do so...they also could have used a vampire other than Strahd. The point seems to be that have an idea about that specific vampire...or lich...that they'd like to tell. There is a whole level of lore at play that maybe you are not aware of.

When they told Strahd's story, they didn't relocate Barovia to FR. They don't need to relocate the ToH, either. The idea should always be to tell the best story, and a crossover is giving you a handicap right out of the gate, regardless of the lore reasons for it.

And there are those of us who like the shared universe of D&D's cosmology. My campaign takes place across Faerun, Oerth, Golarion, a home brewer world, and Athas, all connected by Sigil and the planes. So nods to that larger world...which has long been established...are something I enjoy quite a bit.

Is there an element of targeted nostalgia at play in cases like this? Sure. Does that mean that must be all there is to it? Of course not. Does it mean an adventure must be terrible? Of course not. Each of their adventures has had at least a pinch of nostalgia in the mix.

No no one is taking Westeros and smashing it together with Faerun, which is more what your examples would equate to. Faerun and oerth are already connected. It's canon. Based on the things I've seen you say about canon, your stance here seems a bit at odds .

I'm not necessarily objecting to it's canonicity / authenticity here. I'm objecting to it's lameness. Crossovers are lame. It's an ancient, stale, pandering, and over-used trope that speaks to a lack of confidence in either of the stories individually. It was lame when Elminster went and had tea with Mordenkainen or whatever. Even a good crossover can't escape the sucking black pool of lame that is at the center of it.

I mean, from my perspective, as an example, one of the best crossovers is maybe Kingdom Hearts. Disney characters and Final Fantasy characters all mixed up and you wouldn't necessarily expect a narrative where Mickey Mouse is some black-robed key-wielding Jedi figure and Maleficent and Pete From Goof Troop lead armies of shadow to destroy the Beast's castle and where you can fight Sephiroth in the coloseum made for training Disney's Hercules to really work. And it's a convoluted mess, but it kind of pulls it off! A new narrative, new characters, a good 'verse...yeah, it's pretty juicy as a setting and as a set of stories.

...and it's still pretty lame on the face of it. One of the things one always says about Kingdom Hearts is that it's a lot better than it sounds.

(and, one of the reasons it kind of pulls it off, is because it isn't interested in mimicing the experience of watching Mulan or Playing FF7 or whatever - it's using Mulan and Cloud for it's own purposes)

Even if this was the best adventure since ever, it would still have that little asterisk next to it that says "Okay, guys, I know this sounds bad, but it's actually really great!"

And with a start of "Let's put the ToH in FR!" I'm not filled with a whole lot of confidence.

That lack of confidence is what I'm voicing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You mean like Dead in Thay?

Maybe! I dunno much about it, since I've never read it. But Thay is good lich-territory.

 

[Parmandur]

I pretty much always love crossovers; more Jedi's would make Star Trek better, and the Marvel approach is just getting better and better with time.

So, am I who they are marketing this to? More or less, probably. Lucky me?