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

[diaglo]

As a module for a real campaign at the time it was the end game style module.

the PCs were retired. had reached name level. were settled or settling down.

it was the big last Hurrah. as Henry says... the passive meatgrinder.

my veteran players killed their PCs in 10 minutes real time. i had that module set aside for over 10 years...

 

[merelycompetent]

Other: (Speaking only of the original 1st Ed version, because I haven't played/DMed through any more recent version) It was great fun, but shouldn't be part of a campaign, unless your campaigns tend towards high PC body counts.

For fun and paranoia-inducing dungeon crawling, I think it's very well-designed. It's also a great example of how to really draw a party in to a series of dastardly, deadly traps.

As part of a campaign, where you spend years building up a character only to lose him to a luck of the dice save or suffer permanent death, I don't think it's as well-designed.

 

[Treebore]

True, but in todays gaming environment the module would be so wimpified as to be unrecognizeable. ITs bad DMing/gaming to actually kill a character with no chance of survival.

The first time I played through it I was playing a Cavalier (elven, even though that was against the rules), and the biggest reason my character survived is because he wasn't a rogue or a mage. Plus it helped his sword actually damaged, and eventually killed/destroyed the demi-lich. We went into that module with a group of 7 players/PC's. 3 of us survived. There would have been more but we didn't understand the nature of the teeth.

Even though many died, we all loved that module. It was a "real test" of "superior dungeon surviving skills". Now it would be booed as a horribly written module that doesn't follow the rules and "gasp!" kills characters with no saves!

So by todays standards it is a horrible adventure that is horribly designed. Me? I'll love it forever! Disintegrate still instantly kills you if you fail a save in my games!

 

[Crothian]

But it was released to the general public as a normal adventure module. The vast majority of players who played it (as Player or DM) did so in normal campaigns, not in organized tournament play.

Edit: I’m seeing that for future such polls, I need to specify “Is X a well-designed adventure module for general campaign gaming use?” (I thought that everyone would understand that was my question without having to specifically say it.)

Quasqueton

Even with that question I'd say yes, first edition was full of death in modules and things that were unfair. In todays gaming enviroment the answer though is probably no, but I don't expect a module that is 25 years old to be able to cope with the radical changes RPGs have had.

 

[painandgreed]

I voted "other" because "well designed" for what? For 1E, it was good. Since almost everythign was ad hoc in 1E, the various rule changes make no matter and if the DM didn't like them, they'd simply ignore or change whatever they wanted. For 3E it may seem like bad design because it doesn't match up with 3E rules, but 3E itself is full of bad design. For your average, "this week we go though this dungeon" it is bad design. For a "this is an exceptionally hard dungeon with great rewards" it is a good dungeon. I like it. I've always changed stuff about it. I put it in my campaigns, but I don't force my players to go through it. It serves the purposes I put it to very well.

 

[gizmo33]

I said yes, well-designed for the assumptions of the time. In a later era of EL's and so on it probably breaks alot of rules.

I agree with what Diaglo and others are saying. My own paraphrase - you have to see it in it's context - name level PCs wanting an ultimate (career-ending) challenge. For example - "Count 1, 2, 3..." was fine for a game mechanic at a time when DnD was much more of a game and much less of an "immersive roleplaying experience" (or whatever).

I wince at the whole idea of "well-designed" for what is essentially a creative work anyway. ToH has it's fans because it's brilliant for what it does. ToH is probably not a well-designed 3E adventure, or mad-lib, or novel for that matter.

One of my favorite parts, to paraphrase: "choose from the following nouns in order to construct a background/history for the tomb:..."

 

[Melan]

I’m curious what a straight-up, anonymous poll would reveal about it.

Very little except popular opinion - which may reveal how the Tomb fits into the contemporary gaming culture, and how it is perceived by current fans, but little of substance. We can agree that S1 is one of the most polarizing modules in existence, and I guess the results will reflect this - there was a "Rate Tomb of Horrors" thread way before the crash, and unlike other famous modules, Tomb got a lot of straight tens and straight 1s with little in the middle.

In my opinion, Tomb of Horrors is an example of good game design. It takes a game style (traditional dungeon adventuring) and builds a challenge based on that. Really, it is the "ultimate test" for people who have grown up on Gygaxian dungeoneering. In its casual brutality, it separates the wheat from the chaff: those who are merely good players will probably not succeed. Only those who can think outside the standard adventurer responses ("fight/cast spell/use magic item") have a chance at it without a lot of luck, because standard rules mastery doesn't work properly in the tomb. Especially when some of those rules are blatantly disregarded in Acererak's domain. That's why it was a mindbending experience on first release - it was an out-of-the-box dungeon for out-of-the-box thinkers.

On the other hand, S1 clearly doesn't fit into some later game paradigms. It isn't an "ecologized" dungeon, and neither is it a place conductive to accommodating serious "in-character play". For example, in the other thread, jdrakeh wrote:

Tomb of Horrors is a kind of 'meta-module' in that the various riddles and traps therein are designed to challenge players moreso than characters. I personally feel that I might as well be solving a Rubik's Cube whenever I play such a module. I play RPGs to get in character, not to be forced to rely on my own knowledge out of character.

There is really no way - or reason - to debate this. The only thing I can say that in its proper context, Tomb of Horrors is a masterpiece, just like Rober E. Howard's short stories are good pulp fiction but lousy "high literature". It doesn't fit into today's design paradigm at all. But why should it?

 

[Melan]

Some designers could learn that there is a fine difference between active and passive meatgrinders. The Tomb was a passive meatgrinder, one where only sheer ego pressed one forward into the proverbial razor blades. At several points in the tomb there are means to leave; only those foolhardy enough to keep going and smart AND lucky enough got to the good stuff.

Good post. Ideally, the Tomb is not a campaign objective. You don't enter it to recover the Gee-gaw of Gumph or any such foolishness. The tomb is just there, and you seek it out to see what material you are cut out of. The Tomb doesn't even treathen. That's why I dislike the Return to the Tomb of Horrors mega-adventure; because it featured an Acererak with an objective [

Spoiler

To collect souls, apparently

]. No, really, Acererak doesn't have an objective. His mind wanders planes beyond our own, and he has no use for conquest or things like that. It isn't Acererak's ambitions who are killing you, it is your own hubris. Giving enough rope to hang yourself with indeed!

 

[Mark Hope]

I’m seeing that for future such polls, I need to specify “Is X a well-designed adventure module for general campaign gaming use?” (I thought that everyone would understand that was my question without having to specifically say it.)

As campaign styles, approaches and needs differ, I'd say that having a more specific question would be a good idea. Assumptions don't get you very far if you are interested in getting to the meat of the matter.

I voted yes, as I agree with those who said that it was well-designed for its intended purpose. For general campaign use, except as an end-game, I wouldn't recommend it.

Those general considerations aside, however, there are elements within the adventure that I think have stood the test of time and are absolutely worth emulation these days. Like paradox42 noted, I was really struck by the designer's insight into adventurer psychology and the patterns of gaming activity. That kind of insight and understanding is worth striving for.

I'm not saying that designers today need emulate the Tomb's parade of secret, false and trapped doors, mind you. Rather that designers need to take into account the attitudes of gamers and build their adventures accordingly.

A good case in point is the Eberron adventure Shadows of the Last War. The Rose Quarry encounter area in that makes a series of assumptions about player behaviour that cater first and foremost to the requirements of the plot, rather than to the likely responses of the players. I've read a few accounts of this encounter going pear-shaped (and played in just such a shambolic scenario myself) where the adventure derailed because the players didn't approach things in the way that the designer required. Something of Gygax' insight into likely responses would not have gone amiss here, imho.

Where the Tomb stands the test of time in addition to the above, is in its simplicity. It manages to be challenging, dangerous and rather brutal without being overly complicated. There is something rather beautiful about this from a design perspective.

 

[Delta]

All of the original classic AD&D modules came out of tournament play. They're meant to be extremely tough, so lots of tournament PCs die and you can identify who won the event.

S1 is an excellent example of the type. I love the Gygax/Lovecraft "alien to a degree that it doesn't care about you and you might miss it entirely" theme, which some call "plotless". (See S1, S3, WG4, B2, D3)