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

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've never played or even seen the module. I noticed the multiple references to "no save" traps. If it were converted to 3.x (I heard it was), would it be that horrible to replace the saveless traps with "high save DC" traps?

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.

It's not a fun module if you just walk away. (Running away might be more fun, though.)

 

[froggie]

Greatest Module ever

It was the first of its kind, and a Demi-lich's tomb should be bloody deadly. Nothing that is not totally avoidable has no save. Sure, you touch the evil-looking, jewel-encrusted skull, and you get what you deserve. Same w/ crawling into a demon mouth of absolute black. Heck, insert a 10' pole first. The puzzles and tricks are great, and as long as you carefully read Acererak's poem at the start, you should wend through without too much trouble (ok, "nights good color" could get you killed...but see demon mouth comments above). I do agree that the juggernaut is a bit unfair.

TOH was the first real "thinker" adventure. The design of the puzzles and the clues along the way are nothing short of brilliant.

 

[The Shaman]

I'm a bit embarassed to admit I've never played, nor read, nor even thumbed-through, Tomb of Horrors.

But I did see the cover once!

(I hope this will not result in revocation of my grognard card... )

 

[Pants]

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?

I'm assuming because some would rather have their character's skills tested rather than the player's own skills. It seems like really just a personal taste thing, but I do agree that Tomb of Horrors tests the players more than it tests the actual characters, mostly due to the overabundance of traps and effects that cannot be discovered and pretty much instantly kill you if you do not circumvent them.

Whether this is an outdated badwrong style of gaming, I won't even begin to answer.

 

[Melan]

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

So is it a badly designed module or not? Isn't "doing what it is designed to do" the definition of well designed [for that specific purpose, obviously]?

 

[satori01]

It is a fun module that usually creates a memorable moment or two whenever it is played. The Sunless Citadel is a well designed adventure, but is it as fun as Tomb of Horror?
It is not an adventure I would run as part of a campaign, but as a stand alone, absolutely!

 

[jonesy]

...but I do agree that Tomb of Horrors tests the players more than it tests the actual characters, mostly due to the overabundance of traps and effects that cannot be discovered and pretty much instantly kill you if you do not circumvent them.

That's it exactly.

Plus it's a bunch of characters thrown against (actual) insurmountable odds. Surviving odds that really shouldn't be survived is what makes them real heroes. Or dead.

 

[Treebore]

I'm assuming because some would rather have their character's skills tested rather than the player's own skills. It seems like really just a personal taste thing, but I do agree that Tomb of Horrors tests the players more than it tests the actual characters, mostly due to the overabundance of traps and effects that cannot be discovered and pretty much instantly kill you if you do not circumvent them.

Whether this is an outdated badwrong style of gaming, I won't even begin to answer.

If you think, even in todays wimpified 3.5 spells version, that it is the characters getting tested all the time and not the players, you and I play different games.

 

[jonesy]

If you think, even in todays wimpified 3.5 spells version, that it is the characters getting tested all the time and not the players, you and I play different games.

Absolutes have a nasty tendency to ruin things. Pants said it "...tests the players more than it tests the actual characters...", which I've found accurate every time through the ToH.

 

[Garnfellow]

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.

This is a joke, right? As a DM I've killed far more characters in third edition than in 1st and 2nd edition combined. Third edition gives me much better tools to make actual in-game challenges that really CHALLENGE the PCs. What's a better measure of player abilities: (1) A third edition encounter that is 4 EL higher than the party's level, or (2) A completely undetectable trap that is only triggered 1 in 8 times and instantly reduces an unlucky character to goo.

The first situation is not unusual for a third edition end-of-adventure encounter, is relatively easy to develop using Encounter Level guidelines, will require smart play and a bit of luck, and could likely result in the death of at least 1 PC.

The second situation is just capricious, and really only tests how lucky the players are.

Because third edition gives me such good and accurate tools to design appropriately challenging encounters, I can turn the danger dial all the way to 11 and not worry about being unfair. In previous editions, where a good DM had to fudge left and right to keep an adventure fair and balanced, I would have really hesitated to push the limit too far when designing and running encounters. And I would have been inclined to "cheat" to help out the players when an encounter went bad for them, because I never really knew for sure what was bad play on their part and what was bad design on mine (or TSR's).

In third edition? I lets the chips fall where they may. But if I kill a character, I want the player to say something "Holy crap, those giants were TOUGH," not "Holy crap, I got cheated -- that stupid trap was bull-^@%@*."

I don't see why balanced rules automatically imply softness or wimpiness -- if anything, it makes it EASIER for a DM to be even more deadily.