Is TOMB OF HORRORS the Worst Adventure Of All Time?

Prevailing opinion here in the EN World community has traditionally held that the worst adventure module of all time is 1984's The Forest Oracle. 7th Sea designer John Wick (whose upcoming edition of 7th Sea is the third most anticipated tabletop RPG of 2016) vehemently disagrees; he nominates the classic adventure Tomb of Horrors for that position, contending that it "represents all the wrong, backward thinking that people have about being a GM." In an article on his blog (warning: this uses a lot of strong language), he goes into great detail as to why he hold this opinion, stating that the adventure is the "worst, &#@&$&@est, most disgusting piece of pig vomit ever published".

​

[lQ]"My players picked the entrance with the long corridor rather than the two other entrances which are instant kills. That’s right, out of the three ways to enter the tomb, two of them are designed to give the GM the authority for a TPK."[/lQ]

Very strong words, and you can read them all here. As I mentioned before, there's lots of NSFW language there.

The article also includes an anecdote about a convention game in which he participated. In that game, being already familiar with the adventure and its traps (and having advised the DM of this), he played a thief and attempted to discover or deactivate the traps, up until a near TPK occurred and he left the game.

Wick is, of course, no stranger to controversy. A couple of years ago, he created widespread internet arguments when he stated that "The first four editions of D&D are not roleplaying games."

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think one of the relevant factors is that, in fact, the "Ask a Friend" spells aren't limited. There is no clock in ToH.

This seems to me to drive home [MENTION=31506]ehren37[/MENTION]'s point: optimal play of ToH (with a flying thief on a rope, or sheep being herded through the dungeon, or summoned monsters - the "cannon fodder" someone mentioned upthread) can tend to be boring. This come through in the Alarums and Excursions comment that I quoted upthread: no NPCs to engage with, no dynamism. It's one of the most static adventuring environments ever published, I think.

I think ToH could stand to be much more dynamic, but I also think that this is a stylistic thing. Bringing sheep to the dungeon is like earning 10 gp from some orcs and then giving up to go home and become a baker because adventuring is too dangerous. Or in the mystery analogy, deciding after the second murder to just call the cops rather than find out how to survive. If the goal of play is to confront and overcome a challenge, it's not going to be fun if a bunch of summoned monsters beat the challenge. (Though this was in 1e, where divination spells and summoned monsters could just as easily screw over the party that used them much of the time).

Now, ToH does kind of encourage this kind of extreme lateral thinking. I wouldn't say the module is perfect by any stretch.

But for the right goals of play, it's good at what it does.

The "right goals of play" here really doesn't include "tell a compelling narrative." That's not what ToH is interested in at all.

It is interested in "reduce information asymmetry," ie, "solve the mystery." It's not necessarily the BEST THING EVER at that, but it's really what the module is offering, and that's where the fun of the module lies. Use your spells and abilities and puzzle-solving skills to determine how to get through this thing without grisly death.

That can be a fun game, and ToH is totally a reasonable stab at that kind of fun with a lot of solid elements (like the gargoyle face). Given that play goal, ToH is clever and devious. A flying rogue on a rope is just a FOO strategy that might dominate the play experience, but given that ToH was one of the earliest examples of this design, I don't fault it much. The first group that beat it with a flying rogue on a rope would've felt VERY clever indeed before the Internet just ruined all the secrets!

Given the goal of "Explore the unknown," though, ToH is just unfair and punishing you for doing what you think is fun.

 

[werecorpse]

Dear werecorpse:

Since you've become the catalyst for a discussion of this, I thought it fair to address your point a bit more fully.

I myself had for the longest read the 1e AD&D DMG and dismissed much of its advice as being poor or incoherent. His approach to handling players seemed a bit harsh, some rules seemed to positively get in the way of good gaming, and the standards of play he discussed often seemed somewhat odd. I had devised my own approaches over the years and disregarded much of his advice, taking only what seemed sound and ignoring the comments that seemed ill-thought out.

I had a revelation though when one summer I sat at a table in a gaming store and hosted open gaming sessions, where anyone could show up with a character and play the game. And the longer I did that, the more respect for the 1e DMG and Gygax's insights I started to have. I began to realize that what I had found less than useful advice, wasn't aimed at the DM who is hosting a game for 3 friends who show up every week. Much of the advice in the DMG is aimed at DMs in Gygax's situation, which was hosting games six nights a week for a revolving cast of players and characters who show up 12 or 20 at a time.

Once you realize that there is a vastly different approach you can and often have to take to roleplaying when there is a single player, or 2-3 players, or 4-6 players, or 7-12 players, or more than 12 players you start to realize that Gygax's advice in the DMG is no less and probably much less dysfunctional than what you find in Burning Wheel or FATE or half a dozen other Indy RPGs where the author doesn't realize almost everything they are saying is predicated on at minimum not having more than 2-3 players in a high trust environment. Once your group size grows, once that high trust social contract has to go out the window, things get much clearer.

Indeed, one of the things that is most deficient in most modern RPGs compared to Gygax's writing, is that while modern RPGs are far more organized and coherent in their rules presentation, they often fail to really describe and demonstrate play as effectively, leading to perfectly coherent rules that are perfectly unable to obtain the results they are intended to produce. Or at minimum, unable to tell a would be GM what they need to do to turn these rules into the game the rules intend, because they fail to realize how much more there is to an RPG session than the rules.

Be very very careful of accusing as experienced and celebrated GM as Gygax of 'making mistakes'. It may just be that the aren't playing in the same environment you are playing in with the same constraints or lack thereof you have. Until you've trudged a few miles on that GM's side of the screen, you may not have the perspective to critique them. And you already know one should be careful of dismissing others play styles. So practice your own advice.

Or to put this more bluntly, you sir are not Gary Gygax. Show some respect.

Just dealing with that one paragraph. My point is that IMO Gygax had some wonderful skills but that he made mistakes. I don't consider it disrespectful to someone to say that I think they made mistakes. I greatly respect Gygax as a game designer and as a dungeon designer. I have never seen him run a game but from what I have read I respect him as a DM as well.

edit: just read your comments about G2. Irony.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think ToH could stand to be much more dynamic, but I also think that this is a stylistic thing. Bringing sheep to the dungeon is like earning 10 gp from some orcs and then giving up to go home and become a baker because adventuring is too dangerous. Or in the mystery analogy, deciding after the second murder to just call the cops rather than find out how to survive. If the goal of play is to confront and overcome a challenge, it's not going to be fun if a bunch of summoned monsters beat the challenge. (Though this was in 1e, where divination spells and summoned monsters could just as easily screw over the party that used them much of the time).

Though I'd say the magic user who summoned those monsters overcame the challange, not the monsters themselves. Its a intelligent use of resources to overcome an obstacle.

 

[vonmolkew]

haven't read all the comments, so sorry if I start beating a dead horse.....this was one of the most fun modules I've ever run...as far as the "Face" is concerned - doesn't anyone carry a 10' pole any more? That was the first thing my party tried. Started at 10'; came out as 5'. Question: who sends the entire party down a corridor (one of three mind you) without first scouting them out? The "useless" poem at the beginning helped save their butts more than once. Yes, a couple of them died. Yes, they knew going in that this might be the first time it happened. They still had fun.....also, one thing to remember: this was written for the Original AD&D rules. Back in a time where the DM was encouraged to be cold, heartless and vicious. And from the article, it sounds like the 12 year old DM was exactly that....maybe he shouldn't have rubbed it in their faces. Sometimes being a dick gets you punched in the face.......

 

[darjr]

I ran it for my kids. My oldest had his character poke the sphere. He was playing a vampire centaur and was clued in when his finger grew back. His brother, playing a werewolf, said "cool!" They were ten and twelve.

 

[Parmandur]

Never played it, never really had that play style experience (Kickstarted Dungeon Crawl Classics latest printing to remedy that!), but "not liking the intended style" is kind of a leap to "WORST ADVENTURE EVAHR!"



Honestly, that 12 year old DM experience sounds aweful; but it also sounds like he and his friends grew as people from it. Nobody, likely, has ever been able to say that of the Forest Oracle.

 

[thom_likes_gaming]

Hilarious article, thank you John Wick.
Sure, he kinda missed the point, and his 12-year-old self simply didn't play it "right", but: The bit with the replay years later and the Bag of Holding alone is priceless. Laughed a lot.

 

[pemerton]

Bringing sheep to the dungeon is like earning 10 gp from some orcs and then giving up to go home and become a baker because adventuring is too dangerous. Or in the mystery analogy, deciding after the second murder to just call the cops rather than find out how to survive. If the goal of play is to confront and overcome a challenge, it's not going to be fun if a bunch of summoned monsters beat the challenge. (Though this was in 1e, where divination spells and summoned monsters could just as easily screw over the party that used them much of the time).

Now, ToH does kind of encourage this kind of extreme lateral thinking. I wouldn't say the module is perfect by any stretch.

But for the right goals of play, it's good at what it does.

<snip>

It is interested in "reduce information asymmetry," ie, "solve the mystery." It's not necessarily the BEST THING EVER at that, but it's really what the module is offering, and that's where the fun of the module lies. Use your spells and abilities and puzzle-solving skills to determine how to get through this thing without grisly death.

That can be a fun game, and ToH is totally a reasonable stab at that kind of fun with a lot of solid elements (like the gargoyle face). Given that play goal, ToH is clever and devious. A flying rogue on a rope is just a FOO strategy that might dominate the play experience, but given that ToH was one of the earliest examples of this design, I don't fault it much. The first group that beat it with a flying rogue on a rope would've felt VERY clever indeed before the Internet just ruined all the secrets!

In the Alarums and Excursions review/critique that I posted upthread, the author also explains the procedure he used for exploring the pit with the levers: hammer iron spikes into the wall so the PCs have something to stand on/rope themselves to, then pull the levers.

That's in the same general vicinity of a flying thief on a rope, and was implemented one of the first times that the module was run! And the player didn't seem to feel all that clever, though there are some snide criticisms of inexperienced players who didn't think of similar useful techniques.

I'm not really here to beat up on ToH. As I said in my first post, it's not the worst module that I own, but its certainly not the best, and not the best Gygax module that I own and have used. And at least some of the things that frustrate me about ToH were evident to players way back in 1975, as shown by the A&E review. Wick's rhetoric might be a bit overblown, but most of his particular criticisms are pretty old-hat and familiar.

They're hardly worthy of some of the outrage found in this thread.

 

[pemerton]

it's super-dynamic because you spend the whole game discussing what to do next with the other players.

In that sense, solving any puzzle with a group of friends can be dynamic, especially in a context of no takebacks.

But that doesn't necessarily make for a good RPG session - as at least one relatively experienced player thought even way back in 1975 (per A&E quoted above).

EDIT: That is to say, a person for whom that sort of dynamism doesn't lead to a good RPG session is hardly some sort of freak or outlier, even if there are others for whom that would be a good session.

I think Wick's criticisms of ToH are pretty commonplace and unremarkable. It's no surprise that not everyone agrees, given that "bad module" is a matter of taste and judgement, and obviously his rhetoric is intended to generate needless outrage, but there's nothing in his blog that's very shocking, is there? If he'd posted the A&E commentary under his own name, would that have caused outrage too? Is ToH now so iconic that criticising it is per se heretical?

 

[pemerton]

But the particularly poor design I'm referencing though can't be blamed on Gygax, but rather is riffing on the less inspired encounters in Q1 Queen of the Demonweb pits which have Gygax's fondness for big set piece encounters... without the tactical set piece.

I'm not sure where Q1 comes in - I certainly didn't mention it. It's a pretty awful module in my view, based on both reading and attempting to use various bits and pieces of it in various systems (RM, 4e). Some of the basic ideas of the demonweb are interesting, but that's about it.