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

[gizmo33]

There's a very big difference between taking point, and sending somebody to walk down a hall to spring any traps in it.

Taking point at the supermarket maybe. But taking point in war-zone means springing traps and walking into ambushes - at least a high probability. So I don't see what the "big" difference is - but I've been asking repeatedly for an explanation of why this is silly/ridiculous and I have yet to see a response that does anything but reiterate the charge.

 

[Numion]

Taking point at the supermarket maybe. But taking point in war-zone means springing traps and walking into ambushes - at least a high probability. So I don't see what the "big" difference is - but I've been asking repeatedly for an explanation of why this is silly/ridiculous and I have yet to see a response that does anything but reiterate the charge.

There's a difference between being the point man in war and being ordered to clear a minefield by walking into it. ToH is the latter.

No honorable armies would use that tactic, and neither should heroes.

 

[Crust]

I voted no based solely on a comparison with today's standard. White Plume Mountain is the same for me. Just too weird. Modules have come a long way.

 

[Melan]

What are the better "trap dungeons" . . . ? I'm curious (being a fan of that sort of thing ).

I have no clue whether it could be considered "better", but Deadly Treasure in one of the 40s' Dungeon Magazines was close to ToH's excellence. It featured a dungeon

Spoiler

where the traps were made from the magic items of a dead wizard. Nothing like walking into the mouth of a bag of holding in a crawlway and cutting its insides with your sword.

. I've also heard good things about Mud Sorceror's Tomb, also from Dungeon, but I've never seen that.

 

[Melan]

Hang on Melan. That's not entirely fair. While it's true that those earlier modules weren't exactly teeming with "verisimilitude", that isn't to say that the were all just random collections of encounters for fun either. By and large, there was at least a nod in the direction of why things are there.
But, by the same token, if it is true that the concept of verisimilitude was absent from these early modules, wouldn't that be a design flaw right off the shot. In other words, is a juvenile (oh man is THAT a loaded word - I mean early, unmature (ah crap), dammit my English is failing) form of adventure immune to criticism simply because it is an earlier form?

In the case of the AD&D module family, things were moving in that direction already. But some of the earlier modules - such as ToH, White Plume Mountain, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Judges Guild's Tegel Manor and Thieves of Fortress Badabaskor - were more about imporbable, surreal challenges for dungeon explorers. Truth to tell, I have my limits - Merle Davenport's Killer Kitchen in the Dungeoneer Magazine [an old fanzine, not to be confused with today's Dungeon] isn't the thing I am looking for today. Even if the idea of getting assaulted by rapid-firing coffee mills is a cool concept.

Still, this surrealism has its place I think. In fact, I don't buy the argument that this is a "juvenile" form of gaming. It would have been much more logical, even straightforward, to base OD&D on more "mundane" fantasy such as Tolkien or Howard. That EGG and Dave Arneson didn't do this isn't necessarily a form of immaturity. I think it has more to do with what they wanted out of the game - they seem to have liked the whole fantastic aspect. Maybe it was a conscious design effort, maybe not. From my perspective, they created a game which was a whole lot of fun in its "unevolved" state, independent of how fun or unfun other approaches are. All in all, I think ToH can and should be judged on its own context.

 

[Numion]

Still, this surrealism has its place I think. In fact, I don't buy the argument that this is a "juvenile" form of gaming. It would have been much more logical, even straightforward, to base OD&D on more "mundane" fantasy such as Tolkien or Howard. That EGG and Dave Arneson didn't do this isn't necessarily a form of immaturity. I think it has more to do with what they wanted out of the game - they seem to have liked the whole fantastic aspect. Maybe it was a conscious design effort, maybe not. From my perspective, they created a game which was a whole lot of fun in its "unevolved" state, independent of how fun or unfun other approaches are. All in all, I think ToH can and should be judged on its own context.

I wouldn't consider surrealism juvenile, even though it isn't my cup. The problem with the argument that surrealism would make ToH ok just goes smack dab against the usual argument that ToH is like a logical puzzle designed to test the players' mettle.

IMO it's a failure in design any way you look at it. It doesn't make sense as a logic puzzle, and it isn't terribly entertaining if taken as a glimpse to the crazed mind of a demilich.

I find it a strange argument that it was intended as a highly deadly adventure, and because it is deadly, it's good design. Is Monte's Orc and Pie good design, because it is what it was designed to be - the shortest complete D&D adventure?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

He explained it in one of the early Dragon magazines; it was to humilate and frustrate players who thought they were experts at the game.

Geoff.

Further cementing my idea that Gygax is a perpetual 12 year old trapped in a man's body. I really cant stand the whole "player vs. DM" mentality that plagued early editions.

 

[wingsandsword]

He explained it in one of the early Dragon magazines; it was to humilate and frustrate players who thought they were experts at the game.

So, a product designed specifically to upset the consumer? A module meant to humiliate and frustrate the people who play a game, a game they play to have fun? It sounds like an admission that it's a bad product to me.

Tomb of Horrors is remembered because it has a reputation as the most insanely difficult module ever made. It doesn't even try to be fair, with virtually undetectable, no-save, instant death traps all over the place, exceptions to the normal rules put in place specifically to ruin PC's, it's all sorts of bad. Without the nostalgia of ToH, if a module like that was released now by WotC, it would be panned as terribly written and a disaster.

It just might have been acceptable as a one-shot tournament module to see who could last the longest (but still, a module based more on skill and not dumb luck of not being the one who set off the You Die Now trap would be better for that), but it most certainly should have had a disclaimer like that on the front.

 

[painandgreed]

Further cementing my idea that Gygax is a perpetual 12 year old trapped in a man's body. I really cant stand the whole "player vs. DM" mentality that plagued early editions.

Because not all player's are happy playing out Mary Sue storylines. Some want a DM that is going to set up a series of challenges in that actually overcoming means something. Much like PvP games where people seek out other players that are much better than they are. The more rigourous the challange, the easier the next one will be and the more satisfying overcoming it will be. In this style of play, it is usually beleived that knowledge and experience in doing so carries over from one dungeon to the next and even one DM to the next. Thus, just as a soldier's training expereince makes him a better soldier, a player's expereince makes him a better player. This involves finding a DM whose judgement the player trusts and whose style they enjoy. Any DM can kill you, but a DM who can lay out a series of challenges and explain how everything worked, the clues, and the solutions afterwards is key. It brings a very warm feeling when the player is able to start figuring them out on their own and gets a sence that they have improved over where they once where.

For players of this style of play, you'll find that they don't consider modules like ToH or WPM to be random deathtraps but rather deathtraps that experienced players will be able to play through. It's not player versus DM but rahter player versus module with a DM as an inpatial judge or referee.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

And some game tables enjoy a hint of player vs DM going on. I know my players do, even if they know that its not really like that since I could "win" easily by putting a group of Frost Giants against their 1st and 2nd level party. But they do get pumped when they beat some trap, puzzle, or foe I put up against them.