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

[Gentlegamer]

That's fine. I still don't think it's 'clever' or 'out of the box.'

Ever see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?

 

[Pants]

Ever see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?

I don't really think that's a good comparison, considering Indy figured out how to bypass the traps by deciphering riddles and clues, not just by watching the other guinea pigs getting killed by the traps.

 

[Garnfellow]

I should say that, although I don't think Tome of Horrors is a shining example of great adventure design, I do think it's an incredibly FUN module to run, in part because of the very limitations of its design and in part due to its importance in the history of the game. It also has plenty of wonderfully memorable window dressing.

I loved it when Dungeon magazine put the green devil face on the cover a couple of years ago, and thought it was pretty cool that they were able to work a reference to the Tomb into the Age of Worms. The Tomb is the quintessential meat-grinder dungeon and features at least half a dozen iconic D&D moments -- every player should experience losing at least one character to the infamous Tomb, and I've run it myself at least 5 (or maybe 6?) times over the last 20 years, and I'd love to run it again. It's like an initiation rite. And I agree with a lot of posters that the Tomb is much more favorably viewed (and run!) as a one-shot tournament module than as an adventure to be inserted into a campaign.

But all this said, I wouldn't want to see a new adventure that emulated the Tomb's design. One Tomb of Horrors in the repertoire is really all you need. And I strongly disagree with a point a lot of Tomb defenders have made over and over again in this thread: that the Tomb is a real test of players, not characters.

First, I don't much like the implication behind many of these comments: that back in the day, our system didn't support nothing, so all the real players had to use their imagination! and manly intellect! to survive, and that this newfangled 3e with all its high-falluting rules makes the players nowadays stupid and weak. I'm just not even gonna get into this.

But second -- and more importantly -- I seriously question the basic premise that the Tomb tests players, not characters. I see this written again and again, but I really wonder, how so? Like I wrote above, I've run this module a bunch of times and I've seen NO correlation between intelligent play and success. None, zero. If anything, I've seen it contra-indicated.

The two groups that got utterly wiped out had a large and diverse collection of very smart and experienced players. They used a sensible mix of caution and daring, and for all this, they still got annihilated. I think one group did not get much more than 3 or 4 rooms in. But they guessed wrong and rolled badly.

The two groups that fared the best -- by far -- had a lot of inexperienced and thoroughly reckless players. Their basic approach was to more-or-less run flat-out through the entire Tomb, whooping and yelling and setting off traps left and right. They lost a lot of henchmen, summoned monsters, and a few PCs, but they got lucky and penetrated deep into the Tomb.

I understand anecdotes are only worth so much, so I'd like to know -- from a design standpoint, just what are the encounters in the Tomb that really challenge players, not characters? How do they work, and why? What would be an example of clever play in these situations?

 

[Mark Hope]

I've been thinking about the apparent split between player and character over the last couple of days, trying to formulate my thoughts. I'm not quite there yet, but here goes all the same...

At the end of the day I believe that the distinction between player and character is largely a false distinction. As far as the non-mechanical, non-rules related issues go, there is no difference at all. There is just the player. The character doesn't actually exist as an independent entity - it's just a depiction of ideas and concepts rattling around inside the player's head.

A player modifies his usual behaviour and attitudes to match his conception of his character (in other words, he "role-plays" the character) but it's still just the player at the end of the day. Rules mechanics and systems can give the character powers, knowledge and insight that the player does not possess, like fireball spells, arcane insight or a roll of 20 on a Search check. The player can roleplay a character who is less intelligent, less wise or less charismatic than himself - not not more intelligent, wise or charismatic. In order to represent greater levels of mental or social acuity (and for any physical actions), the mechanics take over.

So, when you ask "does the ToH challenge the player or the character?" what you are really asking is whether the ToH challenges the player or the mechanics of his character? The player can always "play dumb", but that's still the player's decision, and hence his own capablities that are being tested.

The idea that in the olde dayes, the player was challenged, but these days it is the roleplayed character that is challenged is, imho, patently false. In both cases, the Tomb challenges the player and the mechanics of his character. The non-existence of the character as a separate identity makes anything else impossible.

(You might wish to ask whether people roleplay their characters more these days than they did 30 years ago, but that is a separate issue and wholly unrelated to the ToH).

So the ToH challenges the reasoning power of the player (portrayed through his character or not) when he stands before the throne in the many-pillared hall. What will he do with the sceptre and the crown? It challenges the mechanics of his character when he looks for the secret door in the throne. Will he roll high enough on his Search check? (Or his find secret doors roll, if you are playing 1e). And, it should be noted, this not specific to the Tomb. It's how D&D works.

As an aside, I'd also dispute a blanket generalisation that the ToH cannot be reasoned through by player or character. I saw it happen last week. My players used their own reasoning, but they also roleplayed their character's reactions when these might differ from their own (see Alma's actions with the rope at the 100' deep pit). They figured out the symbolic connection between the gold crown on the throne, the silver image below it and the two ends of the sceptre. And they also succeeded (or failed) when it came to the mechanics of their characters, either through skill checks, combat rolls or saving throws (and in the latter case, it was the characters, not the players who were ultimately challenged and defeated by Acererak's soul drain - it was an issue of mechanics that led to those failed saves and had nothing at all to do with the actions of the players).

Just some thoughts. Apologies for rambling ...

 

[Abraxas]

Just to address this aspect of your reply for a moment- how long does it take to say, "At the green face we cast an augury to see if we should touch it... then we go rest a day and recover spells"?

Just my experience, but as a one shot - this wasn't done. You played beginning to end no rest periods to regain spells - ymmv. In the case of Tournaments, I'm unsure, but I was under the impression that this wasn't allowed or at least resulted in a time penalty - someone else would have to verify that though.

Yes, I recognize that no divination is a 100% sure-fire thing. However, certainly others in this discussion can recognize that divinations, played properly, even in 1e, can provide clues...?

And certainly others can recognize that if the result of the divination spell is incorrect and a character dies as a result of it it doesn't mean they are merely competent or chaff.

 

[lukelightning]

I agree that the "sending fodder through to set off traps" isn't particularly clever; It's a standard tactic. The problem is that it is incredibly rare in 3e to have hordes of hirelings/followers, and sending your hirelings to their certain doom could cause alignment problems.

Yeah, generals throughout history have sent soldiers to their doom for a greater cause blah blah blah. But real life generals have no other choice as they don't have magic powers, extra hit dice, etc. that would enable them to survive in situations that their lowly minions have no chance.

 

[gizmo33]

The non-existence of the character as a separate identity makes anything else impossible.

I think I agree, if I understand your post. I don't think there's a clear division between player and character in DnD. Players, even in 3E, are expected to make choices for their characters when it's not clear to me that the character wouldn't make a different choice. Tactics and roleplaying are two examples of things that the character would really do better than the player. I have a hard time believing that a player can play a character with +30 Knowledge (Religion) and really make the same choices as the character would.

But I don't imagine many people would want to remove tactical choices and role-playing from the list of player responsibilities. After all, it's a game and the players should be involved - obviously.

IMO once you consider the ambiguity (that's taken for granted) in the 3E style of playing, just consider that in the 1E days these definitions of player vs. character were different. Gygax has said, IIRC, that there was a time when players in his game didn't even name their characters. That's not to say that every 1E group had the same style as the Tomb of Horrors expected though.

 

[Mark Hope]

I think I agree, if I understand your post.

Yes, not at my most lucid here ...

I don't think there's a clear division between player and character in DnD. Players, even in 3E, are expected to make choices for their characters when it's not clear to me that the character wouldn't make a different choice. Tactics and roleplaying are two examples of things that the character would really do better than the player. I have a hard time believing that a player can play a character with +30 Knowledge (Religion) and really make the same choices as the character would.

But I don't imagine many people would want to remove tactical choices and role-playing from the list of player responsibilities. After all, it's a game and the players should be involved - obviously.

Absolutely - I agree with you completely. I really feel that the player/character distinction is valuable up to a point (that point being roleplaying) but after that it is pretty superfluous.

IMO once you consider the ambiguity (that's taken for granted) in the 3E style of playing, just consider that in the 1E days these definitions of player vs. character were different. Gygax has said, IIRC, that there was a time when players in his game didn't even name their characters. That's not to say that every 1E group had the same style as the Tomb of Horrors expected though.

I think that this is an interesting issue that this thread has raised. I'm not one for broad generalisations, but I do get the impression (specifically from the example you mention from Gygax' games) that the issue of characterisation may have been less relevant in the earlier years of gaming - although, that said, there are also plenty of examples to the contrary (the immersive nature of Empire of the Petal Throne being one case in point). But maybe that's a topic for another thread...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

No surprise that I think its a poorly done adventure. The Mud Sorcerer's Tomb and the Challenge of Champions series do a much better job of actually testing the player's ingenuity, and do so in a fair fashion. ToH relies far too much on random guessing, or the supposition that players have access to high level divination spells (too high level to actually be cast in the suggested level range), and the equally unlikely assumption that such divinations are handled in a fair fashion by the DM. It also breaks the rules FAR too often in a way that would have repercussions if the same abilities were available outside this small area. Invisible gems that cant be detected by see invisible? Unresistable sleep gas poison? Magic that works in anti magic. Why didnt this guy rule the world again?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

He was probably doing other things.