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

[Henry]

One thing that always got me was the snakes in that damn chest. I always wondered who fed them?

Remember the four-armed gargoyle? I'm guessing they were frozen in a similar way. Matter of fact, wasn't there a spell for that in the PHB? Like time stop, but limited to one critter?

EDIT: Temporal Stasis was on the critter, wasn't it? And instead of dispel magic or the keyword, it was keyed to an action instead.

 

[Abraxas]

I'll agree that this can seem arbitrary to some, but given that I've witnessed it being reasoned out, the opposite interpretation is also possible.

Having a reason for doing something and reasoning it out aren't exactly the same thing. Using the silver end in the throne room and the gold end at the later door isn't a process of elimination - there is no reason you couldn't use the silver end to open every thing meant to be opened by the sceptre other than it isn't written that way.

All in all there are only a four things I really dislike about the ToH and think aren't up to the rest of the module

1) The agitated chamber - random rolls could mean multiple characters die (this room in particular is more or less deadly depending on the whim of the DM and what they consider holding on to a tapestry means)

2) The 4 armed statue (Completely a random event - if at the end it exploded, people would now be saying of course you shouldn't have done this X number of times, that was just asking for trouble)

3) The iron statues

4) The phase pits (primarily because of the nature of finding traps in 1E and not being able to search more than once)

One other element I am not fond of is te juggernaut - but typically this wouldn't catch everyone in the party.

The more I think about the ToH, the more I am convinced that the DM makes or breaks it and that may color peoples opinions of it. For example, if your DM is excessivley cryptic with divination type spells - their use in the ToH wouldn't be a high priority and things can get a lot tougher in the ToH. Given some of the commentrs around here wrt summoned creatures - using them to set off traps could endanger alignments. And you always run into DM that don't allow out of the box thinking to work - the "if it isn't in the module or in the rule book it doesn't work" style of DMing. If those were some of the obstacles people faced when playing through ToH its no wonder they see it as bad or badly designed.

Of course, having said that, I have to repeat - its easy for someone who has only DMed it and never played through it to say its great and if players would just think they would get through - not realizing that if your have all the answers the puzzles are easy.

 

[gizmo33]

I'm not really so concerned about the "camougem" (especially since the "riddle" tells you how to get around that) or advocating that dungeons contain no non-standard rules situations or items. That is a rather unfair presumption on your part. I *am,* however, concerned with the idea of a dungeon that involves plenty of situations that neither an understanding of the rules nor basic logic has a role in overcoming,

I don't see the point in characterizing my argument as "unfair" when you probably don't understand it entirely (nor do I expect that I understand yours completely). Some of you on this thread have a chip on your shoulder on the subject. There may be a subtle difference between a "non-standard rules situation" and a situation that requires "neither an understanding of the rules or basic logic". I don't think it's unfair if the difference between the two is not immediately obvious.

I see ToH's relation to a challenging module as being analogous to someone making a silly and baiting argument as opposed to a cogent, persuasive one. Both kinds can confound responses, but for bad reasons in the first case and good ones in the second.

You're not in a position to infallibly judge either one. Your transparent analogy is mildly insulting, and IMO not that accurate. IME neither truth or error can "confound" truthful responses. The likely thing that "confounds" responses is emotion.

Finally, the Trojan Horse is probably not the analogy you're looking for, for several reasons:

It actually is the analogy I'm looking for, and you're about to save me the trouble of explaining why: (how's that for condescending?)

1) It features in a myth, not a game intended for the enjoyment of the players and DM
2) It has a very good and sensible (quite non-ridiculous) place in that myth. The horse is the symbol of Poseidon, and a common object of sacrifice to that god, who (along with Athena) was a patron of the Achaean besiegers. Thus, it was seen as an auspicious object to the Greeks, and the Trojans would thus naturally covet it (and seek to bring it into the city walls) because it represented an object of reverence to their foes (and thus capturing it was a symbolic victory of sorts).

#1 seems to make a distinction that I cannot fathom. The elements, themes, monsters, etc. in DnD are derived, in part, from mythology.

#2 really illustrates the heart of the matter, IMO. First - we're talking about earth elementals being summoned and burrowing down into the tomb. Secondly - IMO what you're illustrating is that understanding the cultural context of something that appears silly on the surface can give it a new meaning. The irony is that this is exactly what I've been trying to say.

I'm getting a very patronizing and condescending tone from your posts - I'm sorry if I've misunderstood them. I'm sorry if the position that I'm taking has been taken by other people in the past as some sort of edition wars thing. I don't think that anyone that dislikes the ToH is being silly or dishonest, I only think that they might be missing some of the point.

 

[painandgreed]

However, it shouldn't be criticised based on design goals which were almost certainly missing at the time of its inception.

And I think it can be addressed from the other point and judged by the design goals of the party playing it. There are as many different play styles as groups playing. In some play styles it will be a good match and others it will not be. Nowhere do we define design criteria and the point of this post was in reference to designing modules today, so definatly design goals that were missing then that exist today apply. THere is a long list of design criteria, but not all will be important to every campaign. Some will be essential to one only to be the bane of others.

With reguards to vercimilitude, I think including clues to the traps inside the dungeon is a bad idea, with some caveats. I think providing clues outside the dugeon is a good idea. If players are going into such a ledgendary dungeon, then they should ask around with bards, ancient texts, ask dragons, etc for clues and there it would be good for them to find such a poem as it might have been given to an ally of the demi-lich's at one time. Two, if they are found inside the dungeon, then they should not be easy as they will be mnemonic devices to help somebody who already knows the answer remember what it is while still leaving it obscured for those who don't. Again, the solutions to such things should ideally be found before going into the dungeon, not in the middle of it.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Here is the exact text from the 1e adventure:



Show me how your idea that "If you follow the ideas you set forth (like to like) the person dies" is supported by this. In actuality, "like to like" is the way to solve this, either to remove the crown (gold to gold) or open the secret door (silver to silver). Sorry, but your memory is not up to scratch on this one...

Then it was changed to be more random in the 3.5 update (what I had to go off at work). Check the download.

Regardless, I just dont think its a good module. It slows the game to a crawl as people throw sticks at things, then summon creatures to touch sticks to things, then summon creatures to walk through a door. Then go rest to regain their spells. Imagine if the opening sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark had been 45 minutes of Indiana Jones farting around with a 10 foot stretch of tunnel, and you have the Tomb of Horrors.

There are plenty of adventures which challenge thought, and provide a sense of danger, but do so without a plodding pace (or else sure destruction).

 

[Psychic Warrior]

So, this is an edition war now?

Quasqueton

Oh yeah. It is so ON!!!

Really did you expect anything else when you posted this here?

 

[Mark Hope]

Then it was changed to be more random in the 3.5 update (what I had to go off at work).

No it wasn't!

Here is the text from the 3.5 update:

If the silver end of the scepter is touched to the silver inlay of the crown on the throne, the secret door is revealed, as described. Additionally, touching the scepter to the crown has another effect that depends on which end is used to touch the crown.
If touching the scepter to the golden crown in order to remove it, the wearer must choose between the silver or golden end. If the silver end is touched to the crown, the wearer must make a DC 23 Fortitude save or be instantly snuffed out, turning to a fetid powder that cannot be brought back to life through any means save 9th-level effects such as wish or miracle. On a successful save, nothing happens, but the crown does not come off. If the golden knob of the scepter is touched to the crown, the wearer can lift it from his or her head.

The effects are exactly the same in both the original and the revised version (with the exception that the revised version allows a saving throw vs. snuffing out). Dude, give it up already!

 

[Mark Hope]

Oh yeah. It is so ON!!!

Really did you expect anything else when you posted this here?

Heh heh. I find myself in the odd position of defending elements of the 1e original, while actually preferring the 3e version. Ya gotta love the ToH and it's Sphere of Polarisation...

 

[el-remmen]

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

Oh crap!

I agree with diaglo.

 

[merelycompetent]

Interesting. I'm just wondering how the planning part works, though. Unless you *know* you're going through a trap-heavy dungeon, are you really going to consider preparing (er, memorizing) four knock spells, two passwalls, and a stone shape a good idea? Isn't it more about reactive ingenuity?

Back then, we started having our spell casters assist with info gathering via the various divination spells (especially commune, legend lore and contact other plane) before our characters even left their home city. Based on the info we gathered about the location (or the objective, depending on the type of adventure) and any time constraints, we'd change our spell and magic item load outs. We were able to determine very early on that we wouldn't be in a combat-heavy adventure - for example: Are there more than 50 individual monsters in the tomb? No. Are there more than 25? No. Are there more than 10? Yes. Are there more than 20 tricks or traps? Yes. And so forth. This told us very early on that we were going on a trap-fest dungeon and not a hack and slash. So for the tomb, we initially went in with our spellcasters loaded with terrain-altering, info-gathering, healing, and defensive spells (in that order of preference). We used wands, scrolls and similar "cheap" items to cover detect magic, fireball, lightning bolt, and the utility spells. Understand, a lot of these spells had multiple uses - we dropped one of the critters into a quickie pit via passwall, and followed it with a dispel magic. Later on, we tunneled down to the entombed critter's head (IIRC, it was a gargoyle), chiseled it off, and then looted the body (we didn't find any more loot, but our RBDM was pretty irritated with us for winning a combat encounter in less than 1 round while taking little damage . We adjusted our tactics with each foray into the tomb. So some of it was reactive ingenuity, while other parts were solely the result of the pre-adventure preparation. ToH was also where our group's wizard came up with a really cool low-level replacement for Knock on regular doors and gates. He used Enlarge, and would literally burst a door, gate, or portcullis out of its frame. That wasn't really reactive. It was finding a new application for the abilities within the rules.

The main thing we did was use the time we were given before the adventure started to get an idea of what kind of obstacles we were going into. That allowed us to prepare more specifically for the adventure. This didn't work if we got railroaded into the adventure start (such as with the original Desert of Desolation series). And it also set us up for some serious problems if we didn't ask the right questions (such as on my second trip through the ToH, or Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth). Unless we were under a time constraint, we'd pull back early, re-equip and heal, then go back in. In our group (and later club), we got extra XP for coming up with new ways to use the regular spells.

It also helped that we set up standard (and numbered) tactics that we used regularly. Someone would call out "Door-Three!", for example, and everyone - including the DM, knew that we would line up half the party on each side of the door against the walls, and the door opener would pull it open using it as a shield. So we didn't get bogged down in positioning our minis (we used them occasionally), or discussing who was going to be where. This left us more game time for role-playing, puzzle-solving, and other fun stuff. It also meant that we got hoisted by our own petard if the door turned out to be a mimic, the wall the door was on spontaneously turned into a massive black pudding (that one almost got us a TPK), or the door opener got teleported into a vat of boiling oil. (You could argue that the black pudding trap broke the 1E RAW, but doing so did make the adventures more challenging.) When our tactics backfired like that, yeah, it sure felt arbitrary some times. But we *could* have used augury, or we *could* have used a wand of Detect Magic on the wall, or we *could* have poked the wall with a 10' wooden pole (we preferred using spears or lances, since they could double as weapons and were more likely to reveal the mimic-imitating-a-chest after poking it for 1hp) and triggered the trap.

I wonder how many players had a bad experience with ToH because they tried to do it all in one sitting, without pulling back to rest, recover, and adjust their approach.