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".


1198278663fullres.jpg



[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."
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

(Consider food: you can have a good pizza and a good curry, and both are good meals but they're different good meals. And a person who loves pizza and hates curry will of course prefer the one over the other. But that doesn't make the curry a bad meal - it just means it's not to his taste.)

I think the food analogy is very appropriate.

I like a garden salad. You can make a delicious garden salad. While I consider it a bit strange if a person really only wants to eat salad, I can sympathize with that because I understand the deliciousness of crisp fresh vegetables where the ingredients are artfully considered to form a great whole.

I might say, "That's a great salad."

Now, on the other hand, I also like cheesecake. Cheesecake is a very delicate and difficult dish to make well. Many professional chefs can't even do a great job of it. Many baked goods are similar in this. They require deep understanding of the chemistry that goes into baking, great precision in technique, and lots and lots of practice to pull off well.

I can't really say that salads are better than cheesecakes from an objective standpoint. I eat salads more often than cheesecake on purpose, because a diet too rich in cheesecake would be bad on several levels. I likewise can't say that cheesecake is objectively better than dishes I don't particularly like, like roasted red beets. If a person likes salad, or cheesecake, or roasted red beets, or dislikes these things, then good for them. I'm particularly admiring of persons who appreciate the goodness in all sorts of foods, in the way I just can't of red beets (or potato chips), but if a person likes relatively few foods that is there preference. And, as I'm likely to like many of the same foods that they do, I will sympathize with their preferences.

But I can objectively state that cheesecake requires more skill to pull off adequately than a garden salad does. A garden salad is an appropriate dish to give to a novice cook to begin learning how to prepare good food. And there is an art underneath a good garden salad and we could actually discuss at great length the elements that will make a garden salad good and worthy of praise. And we can do that without diminishing the fact that you might have enjoyed that garden salad from Wendy's rather well. But a cheesecake now, and many other similar baked goods, is likely to turn out disastrously in the hands of a novice. Much greater skill and effort is required to prepare a good one. And we can say that without insisting that anyone is wrong for not liking cheesecake much. Just because something is fancy and complicated and difficult doesn't mean it is necessarily more enjoyable, much less more enjoyable for everyone.

That is to say, admiring the craftsmanship of something is different than enjoying it. You can appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into things you don't particularly care for, and you can enjoy things that don't have much craftsmanship in them.

This is the same way I feel about modules. Taken for what it is, S1 is like a rather well crafted cheesecake (though not perfect of course) - or if you prefer like a near perfectly executed dish of caramelized Brussels sprouts with whole roasted garlic, duck bacon, and a balsamic drizzle. G2 is like a rather average garden salad. Now, you may well enjoy G2 more than S1, and that's fine and perhaps natural. And there is certainly nothing wrong with not liking cheesecake or Brussel sprouts at all. But to claim that a module is 'the worst adventure ever', when in fact it is well crafted and enjoyed by a very large number of people, is like claiming any dish with red roasted beets in it is the worst ever just because you don't like beets.

UPDATE: A bit more thought on the food analogy.

Often when we are discussing the quality of a module, the very appropriate question comes up which is, "What could we do to make the module better?" This is an appropriate question because it gets to the heart of the question of the module's craftsmanship. The module will, as almost any dish will, have flaws and refinements that could be made to improve it. The very best dishes - and adventures - are going to be the sort that we can not easily find ways to improve, and which we must confess honestly we couldn't do better ourselves.

But what typically happens in the case of a module when we do this is something that is absurd. If asked, "What could we do to make Tomb of Horrors better?", people will begin to say things like, "We could make it less deadly.", We could make it less challenging.", "We could give it more monsters.", and when people say that they indicate that not only do they not understand how to make the module better, but they don't even understand what the module is.

They are like someone asked to criticize a cheesecake who says, "Well, we should take some of the eggs out, indeed I think it would be better with no eggs. And no sour cream as well. And we should use a bit of olive oil. And we should start with cottage cheese rather than cream cheese, but not as much. And we should replace the flour with lettuce. And then add some palm hearts, some tomatoes, and a bit of fresh basil." And if you respond, "But that wouldn't be a cheesecake, it would be a salad!", they say, "Well of course, salads are better than cheesecakes!" Or in the same way, you might say, "How could this salad be made better?", and they might say, "Well, we need bigger less crispy croutons. And less lettuce. Indeed, a lot less lettuce. Maybe some basil. And we should mash up the tomatoes and cook them. And we should use much more cheese and pepperoni. A few of the onions and peppers can stay, but the cucumber has to go." You might respond, "But that's not a salad; that's a pizza!", and they respond, "Yes, that's how you make a salad better, you turn it into a pizza."

Now that's funny on some level, especially when meant as a joke. But it's ridiculous if you don't see how ridiculous that actually is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Good gravy... he was 12 years old. How much maturity do you expect?

None, or rather, barely more than was displayed in the story. (I'd hope my 12 year olds would do better in such a test.)

But he's not 12 any more, and rather than blaming the problems on his 12 year old self, he's persisting in blaming the module. This suggests he's not progressed very far from the story, particularly in light of what he recounts about what he has done since then.
 

Good gravy... he was 12 years old. How much maturity do you expect?

Not much but to be a grown man and still hold a grudge against a game module is pathetic. Especially when the blowback against his 12 year old self was due to him being a 12 year old jerk to his only friends. Yet he's acting like the module was what lost him his only friends for a year. I'm sure tons of 12 year old kids back in the day ran it and didn't lose all their friends with a TPK. The whole blog post comes across like he's still suffering from PTSD over it. I hope he gets the help he needs to put this behind him. Are there RPG orientated therapists? Analysts? Maybe an analrapist?
 

One of the greatest of all time. It is a tournament module and it is roleplaying as "war" at it's finest but that is a known fact.

I think many "modernists" who view roleplaying differently see the module in a negative light. Perhaps by their values and their playstyles it is not good but that just means it doesn't fit a purpose for which it was never defined. For those like me who prefer the Gygaxian style of play it is awesome.
 

It was one of the most unforgiving adventures that subscribed to a specific style of play and most likely received bad reviews when the table did not appreciate its focus.
 

I'm not sure where Q1 comes in....

The whole thing about encounters in bare rooms with "60 gnolls", "40 bugbears", "20 ogres", "10 trolls", and so forth is not made up, but an actual series of encounters in Q1.

But realizing that is true of Q1, I'm having a hard time understanding your appreciation of G2. You claim to like the three dimensionality of the module, but its only superficially 3D. Much like the very similar B2 structure, the central valley disguises that its all taking place on a flat surface. None of the encounters make much use of the 3D structure, certainly not as much as they could or other modules do, and few (one?) make direct use of as much as a staircase. Encounter areas don't usually interact with each other across space, much less across 3D space. Rooms are generally not described as sloping, and the caves are all on two flat non-intersecting levels connected at 2 points only - one of which is a 200' vertical 10' wide shaft.

The problems are so numerous, I could fill more pages discussing them than the module actually has. Just briefly:

a) About half of the encounters 50 odd encounters are with "3 frost giants" or "4 frost giants" all equipped about the same. Most of the remainder are with different numbers of frost giants, or similar numbers of giants of a different species (ogres, ogre magi, hill giants, stone giants, fire giants)- most of which are given by the text every reason to be mutually hostile to the players. Two encounters of the same sort is 1 too many. Three is right out and should be sent back for revision. Four is the editor should send back a letter to the writer stating no further work is needed or desired. Gygax of course didn't have an editor at this point other than himself to speak of, and was breaking ground in undiscovered country, so we ought to allow that. But that doesn't mean that the level of craftsmanship on display is often very high.

b) Even among the non-giant encounters, there are reoccurring themes - 2 encounters with frost toads and 3 encounters with winter wolves, for example. Rarely (bordering on never) does the terrain or circumstances of the encounter play any role, and the text certainly doesn't high light such things. Tactically, the fights divide into to two types - straight up slogs or else undetectable ambushes that then turn into straight up slog fests. The practically the only mentions of terrain are to ensure fireball, which Gygax sure recognizes in 1e is a leveler of all playing fields against mosters and especially cold loving ones, is partially nerfed and its use punished.

c) Far from the assumption of dynamism, for the most part the module not only assumes monsters will occupy static positions but depends on it. The sheer numbers of giants would absolutely overwhelm a party of the suggested level should the giants actually react dynamically. The entire upper level of the 'Glacier Rift' is barely larger than a football field, and certainly no larger than a stadium. From the giant's perspective and sense of scale, the whole place is scarcely larger than an modest scale upper class home. In many cases, 3-4 giants are living in rooms from their perspective not much larger than a walk in closet with just enough room to stretch out on the furs and sacks said to be there also. Yet the assumption for the most part of the text is that the vast majority of the tribe will be unaware of a battle mere yards away and must be alerted by action stealing activity to sounds that would be obvious at twice the distance. Indeed, the arrangements of the giants to defend their stronghold are ridiculous to the point of seeming to be an attempt to actually sabotage their ability to defend themselves. It seems that way because it actually is.

d) The module is no less a potential meat grinder and TPK than ToH, only it depends far much more on luck. If any 2-3 giants roll high on their 'to hit' rolls and/or damage in the same round, you have PC paste. The Dragon encounter involves two dragons, each of which insta-kills any PC of the suggested levels that lacks protection from cold if either saving throw is failed, and which together will generally TPK a party without protection from cold regardless of saving throws. Yes, of course a PC party should prepare for cold danger in such an obvious scenario, but then again of course a PC party should cast 'augury' or other precaution before stepping into the Devil's Mouth. The difference is, in G2 even if you do everything right, you can still die to bad luck.

e) The module has some of the worst verisimilitude of any of the old school modules that got a reputation for bad verisimilitude. The only real access to the dragon's lair is through a shaft so narrow and so vertical that they arguably can't use it. The dragons themselves are so venerable that it's difficult to imagine why they tolerate acting like pets, even to such as giants. The daily caloric intake of the complex is a good bit greater than a city of 1000 people, but there is basically no economic activity going on. The inhabitants need to eat 2-3 bison, or a dozen elk, or a few score deer or antelope daily to avoid starvation, but other than the one kitchen little activity seems to be happening. None of the giants seem to have anything to do with themselves except wait around to die. This is particularly odd because scattered throughout the module are a very large number of enormously valuable and sometimes incredibly complex items of giantish manufacture. This includes a huge number of objects of art specifically created to honor different tribes of giants apparently made by completely absent giantish craftsman, as well as an enormous number of giant weapons and the like. Distant tribes are engaged in economic trade that is lacking any apparent source, and while you could try to make this some sort of clue it's more retroactively trying to plug holes than actually thought out. The overall appearance is not of an actual functioning society, but of a particular sort of dungeon designed for balanced play and not the actual utility and use of the inhabitants.

Additionally, there are items covered with contact poison in the open in living quarters, which much represent some considerable risk to the inhabitants beside being conceptually less fair than most of ToH which at least calls out that everything is deserving caution. And then there is the enormously unnecessarily complex (and lethal) puzzle box, which has to rival anything in ToH for arbitrary death.

f) It's actually fairly impressive how much game is incorporated into such a short text, but about half the text is simply a listing of innumerable treasures that degenerate to redundancy and tedium fairly quickly. If trying not to die in ToH is supposed to be tedium, trying to ransack all the sacks, chests, and so forth to find all the meaningless XP boosting foozles you need is much worse. For the most part, this is to Gygax what most early novels are to writers. Compared to even B2, a module I dislike, from a writing perspective this is a weak effort with little creativity or style.

g) The opportunities for role play are scarcely more than in ToH, which does have the nymph. Sure, a DM could make more and invent all sorts of personalities and individual motives, but as written there actually isn't a lot in the way of disparate factions here to play on. The slaves are few and explicitly called out in the text as worthless. The ogres and yeti have no real reason to revolt, nor does the text call out either as possibilities. The cloud giant is described as a new henchmen. The fire giants have every reason to be hostile. The stone giants aren't hostile, but they've no reason at all to be helpful and break their neutrality either. The dragons and other pets always attack and often with surprise. Only the storm giant offers much in the way of meaningful RP. Maybe a DM could roll with a suggestion to, for instance, encourage the cloud giant to overthrow the Jarl and rule as king in his place, but it doesn't appear that the module is intended to play that way or anticipates anything of the sort. Nor does there appear to be much opportunity for the players to win anything's trust save magically. The price of anything's loyalty but the storm giant is not specified.

h) The text descends far too often into Gygaxian obscurantism. I don't mind all the obsolete words, and you can usually figure them out from the context, but the garbled sentences are often too much even more me. Just try reading the paragraph near the start about the suggested party composition for clarity.

Now, is it fun? I'm sure it could in the hands of the right DM and with players with a particular sort of attitude be a lot of fun. But as a design it just doesn't hold up all that well. It's seldom inspired, rarely as grand as it can or maybe should be, is way too repetitive, and spends far too much time describing various treasures that really only exist to fast power level the party up to the point they can take on the Fire Giants. The whole thing feels primitive - like some random mobs you are supposed to grind in World of Warcraft just to hit the next level. By contrast, I feel ToH's design has stood up very well to the test of time, and it makes a great module even today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The module is basically unplayable. That said, it was a fun read, and that we're talking about it all this time later means that it was thought-provoking at least.
 

Good gravy... he was 12 years old. How much maturity do you expect?

I'd note how he behaved at a convention as a grown up. The story sounds kind of funny until you look closely at it. i.e. just imagine being one of the other players at that table. You've traveled to a convention, spent money to play a slot(and therefore heavily limited your other choices), and some guy tricks you into a TPK 5 minutes into the mod.

Sounds if he might have gotten lucky to not get punched again...
 

The module is basically unplayable. That said, it was a fun read, and that we're talking about it all this time later means that it was thought-provoking at least.

How can you use the word "unplayable" to describe a module that has been played? And beaten?

Like when people say "Ok, I played this in 1992 and..." are you saying they are lying?

Do you think the fan press stories from the original tournament runs are a clever fabrication?

How deep does this conspiracy you're imagining run?

These are not rhetorical questions--I really want to know.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top