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

[JRRNeiklot]

It's designed a hell of a lot better than ANY 3e module I've seen yet. Goodman Games and Necromancer do a good job, but they pale by comparison to the old modules.

 

[shilsen]

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.

From your posts, I'm guessing that's definitely true of you and me. I've been running two 3.5 campaigns and the vast majority of the time, the characters are being tested and not the players.

I think a big part (if not all) of the problem with coming up with a judgement of the original ToH is that it's completely dependent on individual taste for what a module should be like. Personally, I'd be bored and irritated with a ToH game and would hate to be part of one, whether as a player or as a DM. But that's because what I want in a D&D game is completely different from the preconceptions that ToH brings to the table. For its aims, it's great. But those aims are not mine.

 

[painandgreed]

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.

My take on what he is saying (or at least how I'm feeling) is that you may be able to judge encounters better in 3E, the problem is that encoutners can be judged too well. The rules have been balanced so that all groups played by different people will pretty much have the same challenge when facing challenge judged by EL. The spells are balanced so that only so much damage can be done and encounters are judged as ablative rather than decicive. Such players, with a realative assurance that they will not face anything such as a no-save death trap, never take the opportunity to try to avoid it.

Meanwhile, parties that are faced with the save or die disintigrate or no-save death traps will think up ways to avoid them. The presence of such extremes will cause the nessecity of outside of the box tactics. This can be seen in the thread here about the slippery room in White Plume Mountains. One group (one used to 3E I'd wager) can't figure a way across while others (usually calling back upon old knowledge) came up with several clever way across such a room. Similarly, the old parties that went into ToH had a good idea of what to expect and had tactics for such. I remember parties herding livestock (or slaves) down corridors to discover traps, sending point men forward so only one guy died, and numberous other ways to avoid such traps (if a chicken didn't set off any trap on this corridor, then if we use a spell or magic effect to make ourselves the size and weight of chickens, we should be safe crossing too). They'd trick wandering monsters to go down suspicious corridors of trapped dungeons, spend most of an adventure preparing a complicated ambush for a wizard with disentigrate, or other things that modern parties just wouldn't bother with because they are realativly certain that there is no sudden death encounters to have to think around and the rules have been carefully balanced so that just as the enemy can't take them out they also can't get lucky.

The careful balancethat D&D has may be good from the gamist point of view but for some it will hurt versimillitude(sp?) because, sometimes, life just isn't fair.

 

[d20Dwarf]

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.

Capricious? Yes. Fun? Hell yes! The vaunted 3e balance that you talk about makes adventuring feel like a series of risk/reward ratios that only an insurance adjuster could have fun with. It doesn't create memorable encounters, just "balanced" ones. That 1 in 8 chance of instant death, though, really makes you sweat! When you get past it, you've *been through something.* Why does everything have to be balanced and "fair" when I guarantee a real adventure wouldn't be?

That's another thing about the EL system...it makes everything in the world seem tailored to the PCs and their level. Whereas, the Tomb of Horrors was just sitting there in its hill, waiting for whoever may come to try and get to its juicy center. It lived in the world, it wasn't just waiting for some PCs to come fight through its 26 level-appropriate encounters in order to receive their perfectly balanced reward at the end of the day. Screw that, man, if I want to give the paladin a holy avenger just because, then let me do it!

I agree with froggie, Tomb of Horrors is the greatest adventure ever.

 

[d20Dwarf]

brilliant post.

Very well put, and it definitely brings to mind some of the things I see when I compare 3e to previous editions. All this work for balance takes away some of the magic and adventure of roleplaying.

For those of you interested more in balance than danger and excitement, I recommend Writing and Balancing Chemical Equations

 

[Treebore]

My take on what he is saying (or at least how I'm feeling) is that you may be able to judge encounters better in 3E, the problem is that encoutners can be judged too well. The rules have been balanced so that all groups played by different people will pretty much have the same challenge when facing challenge judged by EL. The spells are balanced so that only so much damage can be done and encounters are judged as ablative rather than decicive. Such players, with a realative assurance that they will not face anything such as a no-save death trap, never take the opportunity to try to avoid it.

Meanwhile, parties that are faced with the save or die disintigrate or no-save death traps will think up ways to avoid them. The presence of such extremes will cause the nessecity of outside of the box tactics. This can be seen in the thread here about the slippery room in White Plume Mountains. One group (one used to 3E I'd wager) can't figure a way across while others (usually calling back upon old knowledge) came up with several clever way across such a room. Similarly, the old parties that went into ToH had a good idea of what to expect and had tactics for such. I remember parties herding livestock (or slaves) down corridors to discover traps, sending point men forward so only one guy died, and numberous other ways to avoid such traps (if a chicken didn't set off any trap on this corridor, then if we use a spell or magic effect to make ourselves the size and weight of chickens, we should be safe crossing too). They'd trick wandering monsters to go down suspicious corridors of trapped dungeons, spend most of an adventure preparing a complicated ambush for a wizard with disentigrate, or other things that modern parties just wouldn't bother with because they are realativly certain that there is no sudden death encounters to have to think around and the rules have been carefully balanced so that just as the enemy can't take them out they also can't get lucky.

The careful balancethat D&D has may be good from the gamist point of view but for some it will hurt versimillitude(sp?) because, sometimes, life just isn't fair.

That is my kind of D&D, outside the box thinking. People concentrate too much on what feats and skills they have, and think they can't defeat the enemy if it isn't on their list. Another reason I quit DMing 3E.

 

[pogre]

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

The winnah! Tomb of Horrors is a great tournament module. The illustrated inserts added a lot and the idea that whichever party could get the farthest won - was a cool idea.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Huh.

Maybe I've just been really lucky with my groups. But none of the groups I've DMed for in 3E have had any trouble thinking creatively or outside the box.

 

[Psion]

It's purpose was, basically, for Gygax to show the munchkins who's boss.

While it's an admirable goal, it does not meet the more general goals of adventure design. So, I went no.

 

[Treebore]

Huh.

Maybe I've just been really lucky with my groups. But none of the groups I've DMed for in 3E have had any trouble thinking creatively or outside the box.

You've been lucky. Of the 26 people I have played with or DMed since 2001 with the 3E rules set, only 7 have consistantly thought "outside the box", the rest were "its not on my character sheet, so I can't do it." To be fair, a couple of the DM's were the "if it isn't on your character sheet you can't do it." type of DM.