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

[Melan]

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.

It is often neglected that the original intended purpose of AD&D was standardization for tournament play. It later evolved into the default D&D game you would play, or graduate to from the basic sets available separately, but at the time of S1's publication, the default assumption was still in force.

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)

Not specific to the discussion, but this is a good comment as well. I live this kind of thing; it just oozes sense of wonder... things which aren't in the game for a purpose, but just exist without too much explanation or exposition. In short, mysteries, little unexplained touches. Like what the hell are those things in the Shrine of Evil Chaos?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I said no, though I actually think it was fun. There were too many traps that had no save and no way to detect them.

Exactly the reason (or one of) I said yes.

 

[Deadguy]

Exactly the reason (or one of) I said yes.

Out of curiosity: why? What makes that appealing to you? (Not a troll by the way, just that this style is baffling to me; it's never been a part of the way I role-play. So I am trying to understand what I am 'missing'.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

Out of curiosity: why? What makes that appealing to you? (Not a troll by the way, just that this style is baffling to me; it's never been a part of the way I role-play. So I am trying to understand what I am 'missing'.)

Color me curious as well. I like my games dangerous, and I've been playing since '83, but I've never liked the whole "You're screwed no matter what you do, deal with it" style of game design.

 

[Terwox]

Haha, it's flat out terrible, but it's fun because it's so terrible.

I can certainly see why it's a classic... it was a blast to DM through the 3rd edition version as a one-shot... but, it was fun because it was just bad.

I don't know how to describe it. The lethality is just... hokey. (And, yes, I've seen the 1e version too.)

But yes, my players writing messages on the walls in chalk to the vrocks who upkept the place about how absurd the traps were was probably the most fun part. Well, that and somebody falling for the... oh, it'd be a spoiler.

 

[Delta]

In short, mysteries, little unexplained touches. Like what the hell are those things in the Shrine of Evil Chaos?

Yeah! Another of my favorites: the creepy lost giant shrine underneath G1.

 

[Hussar]

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.

*snip*

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!

Dude, take a look at the adventure paths if you think that 3e modules are wimpified.

Really, this is badly designed IMO. It does little or nothing to actually play to the characters, and mostly tests the players. Even for the time, that wasn't exactly acceptable, although it was certainly done. Granted, lacking any sort of skill rules, it was almost impossible to test characters rather than players anyway.

I loved playing in it, I loved running it, but, I would certainly never use it as a standard for new adventures. It's more an example of what an adventure shouldn't be.

 

[Melan]

It does little or nothing to actually play to the characters, and mostly tests the players. Even for the time, that wasn't exactly acceptable, although it was certainly done. Granted, lacking any sort of skill rules, it was almost impossible to test characters rather than players anyway.

Whoa, what? I flat out disagree. In the OD&D era, challenging the players wasn't just acceptable, it was the norm. In fact, it is still a valid play style - in part for the reason that it is the players sitting around the table, not their characters. Seriously, and I ask this because I don't get the mentality you expressed -- what is wrong with challenging the players? Why is it bad wrong fun?

 

[Iron Captain]

For those who have never seen or played the original (myself included) here is a link to the free download of the revised D20 version on the WoTC webpage.

 

[DragonLancer]

Its a fun module but its not very well designed, not at all. But it does what it was designed to do back then.