Is the original Tomb of Horrors a well-designed adventure module?
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
painandgreed
First Post
Pants said:
Why? It worked. Somebody else falling into a pit trap lets you know exactly where it is. At the levels that the ToH is for, even tranportation was not an issue with teleport, flying carpets, or mirrors of mental prowness. The tomb has been there for ever, so there's no real hurry in exploring it. Setting up camp outside the Tomb and spending several weeks using even just summoned monsters and invisible stalkers to scout the dungeon could get past many of the dangers and save some lives.
On to other topics.
I don't think this is an edition war. The issues with balance have been around since 1E (and probably before) and certainly, DMing styles vary so widely from game to game in 3E, that there is no single way the game is played. There are various styles of play, and some are now more encouraged by 3E than they were in previous editions. In this case, the questions is of being able to excel or fail with reguards to the preceived in game balance. Even in 1E, there were DMs that would nerf spells, abilites, or items because they felt they made the characters too powerful. The real trouble comes when said character went trought extra trouble to obtain those items or spent time and effort to come up with new ways of using them. Admitedly, in some cases, they probably do need to be nerfed or otherwise thought out. However, if it is done every time the character gets an edge, then you send the players the message that what ever they do does not matter. If they take that risk and are not allowed to benefit from that risk, then they will stop taking risks. Many DMs do not want them to take those risks because it would upset the game if the players came out ahead. Not all DMs, but some. For that matter, not all players are going to want to take that risk, but some will. On the other end of things, there are players who will try and play it more conservative and safe, only to have the DM alter things to be a proper challenge for the group. (This would most commonly be my play style. I'm more than willing to fight creatures weaker than myself, gain less treasure, and advance more slowly for the safer adventure. Of course, no matter how much I plan ahead, scout out the targets, set my ambitions low, once we get there, often the situation changes so it is once again a challenge that matches our appropriate level.)
Such blancing of play is a form of railroading itself, because the actions of the players don't mean anything. If the DM insists that players are always going to be kept at the recommended value of equipment, then there is no reason to actually try. If we fall behind, it will be made up and if we get ahead, we'll be cut back, so why bother? Likewise with the current expereince system and 3E nerfing of spells. They effectivly say that there is now way for a player to take a heroic risk and succeed and take away ability to take such risks. When disentigrate actually disentigrated something rather than just do an appropriate amount of damage for a spell of its level, players (or enemies) might judge either due to RP or game tactics, that a 5% chance of success with a failed save verus "impossible" odds was worth it. It was possible to take large but decisive risks for greater reward (although as stated above, there were plenty of 1E DMs that after witnessing such wins and being forced to aknowledge them, would plot on how to steal those gains away). Today it is stilll possible to take such risks, but everything has been averaged out to long term statistics that present a much smaller chance of success and even go so far as to say that if it happens, something is wrong.
Play and DMing styles vary greatly from person to person and group to group no matter what edition, but many of the design decisions made in the creation of 3E has narrowed the optimum style of play in ways that many are not comfortable with.
jgbrowning
Hero
I always viewed the 3E form of balance as a guide to help the GM decide what relative survivability is, not as a guide to world, adventure, nor PC/NPC creation.
For example: Tomb of Horrors isn't a 1st Level adventure, it's a high level adventure, and that type of "balance" was recognized early on. All the current types of balances do is try and quantify why that's the case and provide tools to the GM to help them make the types of encounters they want, be those "blanced" or "unbalanced", be they incremental power increases for lesser risks or significant power increases for heroic risks.
Balance isn't railroading. Railroading is railroading.
joe b.
For example: Tomb of Horrors isn't a 1st Level adventure, it's a high level adventure, and that type of "balance" was recognized early on. All the current types of balances do is try and quantify why that's the case and provide tools to the GM to help them make the types of encounters they want, be those "blanced" or "unbalanced", be they incremental power increases for lesser risks or significant power increases for heroic risks.
Balance isn't railroading. Railroading is railroading.
joe b.
the Jester
Legend
Yes.
It's designed for high-level pcs played by smarty, canny players. People who rant about how arbitrary ToH is haven't thought about the resources available to high level pcs. In my experience, players who call ToH poorly designed usually overlook the virtues of the entire school of divination magic. A simple augury goes a long way in the tomb.
It's designed for high-level pcs played by smarty, canny players. People who rant about how arbitrary ToH is haven't thought about the resources available to high level pcs. In my experience, players who call ToH poorly designed usually overlook the virtues of the entire school of divination magic. A simple augury goes a long way in the tomb.
Abraxas
Explorer
Tomb of Horrors - I voted No, but it has both good and bad design elements.
How many people played through it tournament style vs campaign style? The style in which the ToH was used definitely influenced what the players could do. Everyone I know personally that played through it used it as a one shot - so the suggested idea of spending several sessions with this module was not an option. So as far as the resources available go - I think people are overestimating what was available. Because it often was a one shot there weren't unlimited augury, divination, commune and contact other plane spells. And even if there were, Augury was not 100% accurate and only gave weal or woe, Divination was less accurate than Augury and didn't give any information about traps and hazards, Commune was only to be used once per adventure, and Contact Other Plane was both possibly inaccurate and could drive the caster insane. A 14th level 1E cleric (with 18 Wis) had up to 8 Augury spells, 6 Divintaion spells and 1 Commune spell (2 if the DM ignored the suggested limitations on the spell) available plus scrolls (which were much more difficult to make in 1E). A 14th level Magic User (with 18 Int) could have 5 SM I, 4 SM II, 4 SM III or Contact Other Plane, 2 SM IV or Legend Lore, and 1 SM V or Limited Wish available plus scrolls. And this assumes they didn't want any other spells for those levels.
The tactic of throwing summoned creatures (or prisoners) at everything isn’t clever, its a brute force method (and in some cases evil) - and in general wasn’t available to characters in a one shot. If you were playing this as a campaign why not just summon earth elementals to burrow your way down to the mithral vault and bypass everything entirely. In 1E the most useful spell for negotiating the ToH was Find the Path - and then it became a race to get through before you ran out of time on that.
Often, surviving depended on the roll of the dice and the abilities of the DM to accurately communicate the environment to the players. In that respect ToH is just as much a test of the DM’s ability as the players - I have wondered how many TPKs were a result of “merely competent” DMs.
I've played a character in the ToH twice. The first time through a character was killed when he touched the Sphere of Annihalation with his quarterstaff. The DM ruled he was pulled in with the quarterstaff instead of having the staff pulled out of his hands. Later, three more characters were killed in the agitated chamber because the DM didn't allow searching for secret doors at a distance so someone had to hold the tapestry aside while we looked for secret doors - a d6 and a % roll later and 3 characters die. That left the DM & 2 players and 4 of us sitting around doing nothing. The second time 4 of us made it to the key and 4 failed saves later the adventure is over.
When it was written I would hazard a guess that the players it was written for knew their DM’s style well and took that into account when playing. Now days, the ToH reinforces player behavior that a number of posters around here seem to dislike - the take 20 and search everything style and the bring in a herd of animals (or group of prisoners) and throw them at everything style. I haven’t heard of any groups that still try the latter method any more.
I think that part of the heated debate about the ToH is due to comments like "separates the wheat from the chaff" or "merely competent from the truly expert". For those saying such things along with statements of their character survived but 4 other player's characters didn't - do you really consider yourself the "wheat" and your gaming buddies "chaff"? And then there are comments made how gamers today aren’t up to a real challenge. Both comments are insulting and elitist, and really annoying when made by someone who has only DM’d ToH and never had to run through it.
How many people played through it tournament style vs campaign style? The style in which the ToH was used definitely influenced what the players could do. Everyone I know personally that played through it used it as a one shot - so the suggested idea of spending several sessions with this module was not an option. So as far as the resources available go - I think people are overestimating what was available. Because it often was a one shot there weren't unlimited augury, divination, commune and contact other plane spells. And even if there were, Augury was not 100% accurate and only gave weal or woe, Divination was less accurate than Augury and didn't give any information about traps and hazards, Commune was only to be used once per adventure, and Contact Other Plane was both possibly inaccurate and could drive the caster insane. A 14th level 1E cleric (with 18 Wis) had up to 8 Augury spells, 6 Divintaion spells and 1 Commune spell (2 if the DM ignored the suggested limitations on the spell) available plus scrolls (which were much more difficult to make in 1E). A 14th level Magic User (with 18 Int) could have 5 SM I, 4 SM II, 4 SM III or Contact Other Plane, 2 SM IV or Legend Lore, and 1 SM V or Limited Wish available plus scrolls. And this assumes they didn't want any other spells for those levels.
The tactic of throwing summoned creatures (or prisoners) at everything isn’t clever, its a brute force method (and in some cases evil) - and in general wasn’t available to characters in a one shot. If you were playing this as a campaign why not just summon earth elementals to burrow your way down to the mithral vault and bypass everything entirely. In 1E the most useful spell for negotiating the ToH was Find the Path - and then it became a race to get through before you ran out of time on that.
Often, surviving depended on the roll of the dice and the abilities of the DM to accurately communicate the environment to the players. In that respect ToH is just as much a test of the DM’s ability as the players - I have wondered how many TPKs were a result of “merely competent” DMs.
I've played a character in the ToH twice. The first time through a character was killed when he touched the Sphere of Annihalation with his quarterstaff. The DM ruled he was pulled in with the quarterstaff instead of having the staff pulled out of his hands. Later, three more characters were killed in the agitated chamber because the DM didn't allow searching for secret doors at a distance so someone had to hold the tapestry aside while we looked for secret doors - a d6 and a % roll later and 3 characters die. That left the DM & 2 players and 4 of us sitting around doing nothing. The second time 4 of us made it to the key and 4 failed saves later the adventure is over.
When it was written I would hazard a guess that the players it was written for knew their DM’s style well and took that into account when playing. Now days, the ToH reinforces player behavior that a number of posters around here seem to dislike - the take 20 and search everything style and the bring in a herd of animals (or group of prisoners) and throw them at everything style. I haven’t heard of any groups that still try the latter method any more.
I think that part of the heated debate about the ToH is due to comments like "separates the wheat from the chaff" or "merely competent from the truly expert". For those saying such things along with statements of their character survived but 4 other player's characters didn't - do you really consider yourself the "wheat" and your gaming buddies "chaff"? And then there are comments made how gamers today aren’t up to a real challenge. Both comments are insulting and elitist, and really annoying when made by someone who has only DM’d ToH and never had to run through it.
Last edited:
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Yes, for the type of adventure it is -- a competitive module designed to take the wind out of the sails of high-level adventurers who think thay can handle it all.
It isn't an "ecologically sound" module based on current design, but then very few modules back in the day were.
It isn't an "ecologically sound" module based on current design, but then very few modules back in the day were.
painandgreed
First Post
jgbrowning said:
True, but sometimes the players are railroaded for the sake of balance. I do get the feeling reading these boards that since such a tool is given, that some DMs see it as a necessity to adhere to that balance at all cost.
I voted "yes". S1 is an example of excellent game design because it accomplishes exactly what the designer wanted it to; i.e. - it is a module which provides challenges for extremely experienced players for whom normal dungeon exploration has become humdrum and boring. S1 is the Olympic Games of dungeoncrawling. It was meant to be a challenge for even the most experienced, the most clever and the most cautious of veteran players. It requires the utmost in creative lateral thinking to survive. Players who manage this feat have something truly impressive to brag about and those who make the attempt and fail (or die) have nothing of which to be ashamed. Saying that S1 is poorly designed because it is extremely difficult to "win" against it is missing the point. All pursuits have their ultimate test. Mountain climbers have Everest, football players (American) have the Super Bowl and D&D gamers have The Tomb of Horrors. If S1 were an average dungeoncrawl, surmountable through normal thinking, normal tactics and by the average player it would not serve its purpose.
Quasqueton said:
Well, you bring up a module design that is rather iconic of the design of a previous edition, what do you expect to see?
If you're looking for a meat-grinder of puzzles, it is a decent enough adventure.
I don't think it is a good design for a campaign where the development of the PCs is a primary focus.
Similar Threads
