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."

 

[werecorpse]

Your referencing my words and you aren't understanding them.

In the context of 1e AD&D, winning is not beating the monster. Winning is getting the treasure out of the dungeon. And by some measures, Tomb of Horrors is such an easy module that 1st level characters could get the treasure out of the dungeon successfully. In that sense, it's one of the most fair and playable modules ever written, because almost every other module mostly comes down to 'did we roll well at the right times'.

Surely you are not suggesting that because it's possible to get some treasure out of a dungeon without combat that fact in and of itself makes the dungeon one of the most fair and playable of all time?

that makes any ridiculous collection of rooms, traps and monsters a fair and playable dungeon as long as the first room has a sack of gold in it.

IMO winning in RPGs can be different for each challenge (in this case dungeon) and I would have said winning in the context of tomb of horrors is destroying the Demi lich or a slightly lesser win (but still a win) would be looting the Demi lich's hoard.

 

[Hussar]

On the idea of reports and cheating:

Look, I'm not saying the people who reported succeeding at the module were automatically cheating, but, lets face facts. What are the odds that a group of 6-8 people with zero preparation and pre-gen characters could successfully navigate the ToH in 3-4 hours? It's pretty hard to believe.

What is perhaps easier to believe is those 6-8 players listened in on earlier tables running the module, talked to other players who played the module previously, and generally canvassed as much information as they could about the module beforehand and thus managed to complete the module due to a pretty healthy running head start.

Granted, it might be that they were just that good. They managed to defeat the entire module completely on their own. That is certainly a possibility. But, IMO, it's likely not what happened. They defeated the ToH the same way that most home games did it - they had a pretty large amount of forewarning from other players and perhaps even had access to the Monster Manual II.

Heh, my own group did ToH after playing the G series. Which meant we had an intelligent sword that detected secret doors and a +5 Hammer of Thunderbolts. Made the module fairly easy to defeat. But, a group doing this with the pre-gens? With zero forewarning? And only first-person accounts of the event? I remain healthily skeptical.

 

[Celebrim]

Surely you are not suggesting that because it's possible to get some treasure out of a dungeon without combat that fact in and of itself makes the dungeon one of the most fair and playable of all time?

If you don't think I'm suggesting it, perhaps you should go with that feeling.

I'm saying that the fact that the module depends largely on player actions and not on combat mechanics means that it is one of the most fair and playable of all time. Compared to a module containing say a dragon or other active threat, winning is much less dependent on luck. And I'm saying that it's one of the only modules for 10th level characters I know of that could reasonably be completed by a low level party. And I'm saying that it is possible, to make good decisions that lead to surviving the tomb and making off with the demi-liches loot. Since Acererak, at least as presented in the original module, is an entirely passive villain killing him isn't really necessary. The smart party kicks down the door, recognizes that the fight is pointless, and takes his stuff.

This is entirely consistent with what Gygax calls out as smart play in the 1e DMG, where he suggests that the smart party tries to avoid pointless combat while obtaining their goals. Bypassing combat where the option is available is usually smart play.

 

[ccs]

On the idea of reports and cheating:

Look, I'm not saying the people who reported succeeding at the module were automatically cheating, but, lets face facts. What are the odds that a group of 6-8 people with zero preparation and pre-gen characters could successfully navigate the ToH in 3-4 hours? It's pretty hard to believe.

What is perhaps easier to believe is those 6-8 players listened in on earlier tables running the module, talked to other players who played the module previously, and generally canvassed as much information as they could about the module beforehand and thus managed to complete the module due to a pretty healthy running head start.

Granted, it might be that they were just that good. They managed to defeat the entire module completely on their own. That is certainly a possibility. But, IMO, it's likely not what happened. They defeated the ToH the same way that most home games did it - they had a pretty large amount of forewarning from other players and perhaps even had access to the Monster Manual II.

Heh, my own group did ToH after playing the G series. Which meant we had an intelligent sword that detected secret doors and a +5 Hammer of Thunderbolts. Made the module fairly easy to defeat. But, a group doing this with the pre-gens? With zero forewarning? And only first-person accounts of the event? I remain healthily skeptical.

Yes, the players in that tourney won because they were time travelers!
Congrats on figuring it out.

The tourney you're debating happened in the 70s.
Tomb of Horrors wasn't published as a module until '81.
Monster Manual II? Published in 1983,

 

[werecorpse]

If you don't think I'm suggesting it, perhaps you should go with that feeling.

I'm saying that the fact that the module depends largely on player actions and not on combat mechanics means that it is one of the most fair and playable of all time. Compared to a module containing say a dragon or other active threat, winning is much less dependent on luck. And I'm saying that it's one of the only modules for 10th level characters I know of that could reasonably be completed by a low level party. And I'm saying that it is possible, to make good decisions that lead to surviving the tomb and making off with the demi-liches loot. Since Acererak, at least as presented in the original module, is an entirely passive villain killing him isn't really necessary. The smart party kicks down the door, recognizes that the fight is pointless, and takes his stuff.

This is entirely consistent with what Gygax calls out as smart play in the 1e DMG, where he suggests that the smart party tries to avoid pointless combat while obtaining their goals. Bypassing combat where the option is available is usually smart play.

Well you did say that by some measures tomb of horrors is such an easy module that 1st level characters could get the treasure out of the tomb successfully. I don't think they could get to Acererak's Vault so I wondered if you had some other measure of successful.

 

[JonnyP71]

and before I get accused of beliving is some strange conspiracy, I belive that with work it CAN be made to be playbul, and those are the stories you are hearing...

How do you judge if a module is 'playable'?

I recently introduced 1E to 2 groups consisting of players younger than me, 1 group of near newbies, and one of more experienced gamers who are a bit too young to have played 1E - most cut their teeth on 2E/3E and other RPGs.

My introduction for both groups was Tomb of Horrors with a group of characters I created specifically for the adventure. I gave the casters some suitable spells, I gave them a Paladin with a +4 defender sword, they had plenty of trap detection abilities in the party. They were well set to have a go at the Tomb. We played it as written, sticking closely to the original rules of 1E.

2 groups, 4 in one, 5 in the other. Both groups made it as far as Acererak.

One character survived, naked, penniless. Acererak was untouched. No treasure was taken from the Tomb.

So they 'failed' in one sense.

But both groups still talk about the adventure, of the laughs they had, of the traps they overcame. It taught my group of newbies a more circumspect way of playing, it taught them how to be resourceful and how to think outside the box when it came to spell use.

The adventure succeeded. It proved very 'playable' as is. It worked, it was fantastic fun for everyone.

 

[Caliburn101]

So just to be clear - RPGers who don't like ToH are self-entitled monty-haul munchkins? Including the author of the 1975 A&E review, who played it at Origins in 1975?

Out of those who have read the module and still chose to play it, yes.

You can't look at the risk, decide to take it on and then get upset and claim it is a bad module and unfair when you don't win, not unless you're self-entitled. Nor indeed can you do the same as a DM and then publically complain about it because you slaughtered your players characters.

 

[werecorpse]

Out of those who have read the module and still chose to play it, yes.

You can't look at the risk, decide to take it on and then get upset and claim it is a bad module and unfair when you don't win, not unless you're self-entitled. Nor indeed can you do the same as a DM and then publically complain about it because you slaughtered your players characters.

Sure you can. You can play and lose or win in a good or bad module, and you can DM and slaughter player characters in a good or bad module. Those results do not establish the quality of the module.

The question asked was does not liking the module make you a self entitled monty haul munchkin. IMO no.

My earliest comment in this thread was saying ToH had some poor design issues. Despite (or perhaps because of) those issues that I considered poor clearly there are many who have enjoyed it just the way it is. So subjectively the answer is it's a fine dungeon for some play style and not for others. If you start saying some of those play styles are wrongbadfun you need to rethink - I slipped into that way of thinking a bit.

It seems that the success or not in ToH rests a lot on the interpretation of the text and player statements by the DM. In 3.0+ where you have a more mechanical chance of finding the trap it's up to the dice. In pre 3 it's up to DM to decide if the players succeed and up to the words of the DM to guide them. The green devil face trap is a classic example - many DM's would describe it in such a way as there is no way anyone would climb into it, and if they started too they would either be sucked in telling everyone else that it's a hideous trap or they would lose a limb - same result. Yet apparently it causes a great many deaths. I suspect that is due to the dm's interpretation of the module - as happened with 12 year old John Wick.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Gygax's statement at the start of the return to tomb of horrors. He describes how one team destroyed the demilich using a method that was not one of the methods stated in the module as being one of the methods able to harm it. They won first place in a tournament for coming up with an innovative and novel solution. So essentially more than in many modules success depends on your DM. According to the module you can only harm the skull in one of 8 ways, the DM (including the designer) allowed a way not stated in the 8 to not only effect the creature but destroy it and you defeat the enemy. Could I have dumped a tapestry on the skull and torn it? Would that work? Could I grab it, dimension door and lob it into the green devil mouth? On the text- no but maybe it's innovative enough to be worth a win by GM fiat?

Same with the taking a bunch of newbies through it when the DM has chosen their magic items, trap detecting abilities and given them suitable spells. A good way to run it IMO but is it too much DM help? I don't know.

The suggestion by Gygax that this style of play requires brains is fine, brains certainly help, but the suggestion by the supporters of ToH that other styles do not or if you dislike this style you are playing a dumbed down version of the game is not.

In the end I can't decide what I think. As gamers my groups have always played campaigns and over the 15 or so years we played 1e after ToH came out we knew of its reputation but never seriously tried to take it on in campaign - our characters just weren't interested in poking around in a famously deadly tomb that posed no threat to anyone. Maybe by ignoring it we won.

I think I'd like to run it as it appears as much a test of the DM as the players. I might stick it in my latest 5e campaign and if the players ever go there convert it.

 

[JonnyP71]

Same with the taking a bunch of newbies through it when the DM has chosen their magic items, trap detecting abilities and given them suitable spells. A good way to run it IMO but is it too much DM help? I don't know.

Imho that was the only way to run it - the PCs were in one group Cleric 12/Paladin 11/Bard 5-7-8/Monk 11/Mage 13, the smaller group used Cleric 13/Paladin 12/Monk 11/Mage 14 - I ensured such spells as Transmute Rock to Mud, Dimension Door, Wizard Eye, Shatter, Forget and Legend Lore were in the Mages' spellbooks, and the Cleric began with Find Traps, Commune and True Seeing, magic items were the aforementioned +4 defender, along with a few protection devices, a Horn of Valhalla, a Staff of Power (with very limited charges), and Slippers of Spider Climb - items commensurate to a party of that level. They still failed - but they did well to get as far as they did - the group of newbies didn't realise they were safe to rest and the last character alive (the Monk) reached Acererak without ever resting. The other group did realise resting was safe, but crucially lost their Paladin to the exploding Altar. It was their Mage who managed to escape alive.

I would never throw it into a campaign. Not ever. But as an interesting diversion to an existing campaign, with characters to whom the party had no emotional attachment, it was superb.

Plus, it has really changed the newbies' play style - they have approached 5E ever since with a more intelligent mindset, thinking much more cooperatively about their actions. And that has been the module's biggest win. From a DMing point of view, I really enjoyed seeing how the module engaged players who had previously sat back and let the game go on around them. Rather than charging around, hacking at almost anything in sight, they were stopping to think, and to study their surroundings, examining the puzzles, thoroughly deconstructing the clues.

In short, it was brilliant for all of us, and is now one of my favourite modules ever produced.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, the players in that tourney won because they were time travelers!
Congrats on figuring it out.

The tourney you're debating happened in the 70s.
Tomb of Horrors wasn't published as a module until '81.
Monster Manual II? Published in 1983,

Sigh. I guess I was unclear. The tourney players played in multiple rounds no? It's not like the module was run at the convention in one time slot and never run again. It is entirely possible for someone to observe earlier runnings of the module and use that information later on when they run the module.

Someone playing the module in a home game could have had access to the module beforehand. Or perhaps read various descriptions of it in different publications like The Dragon or various other sources. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] quoted one such source earlier. While there was no Internet, true, information did get disseminated through the hobby.

Someone playing the module after 1983 could have access to the MMII.

Sorry, I guess I thought what I was saying was clear in context. I forgot that Internet Pedantry is a much better way of discussing something.

Look, are you saying it's absolutely impossible for someone who claims to have successfully navigated the module to have any foreknowledge of the module? If not, then which is more likely: a group of 6-8 quite probably strangers, successfully navigated the module in 4 hours without any forknowledge, or; a group of 6-8 quite probably strangers observed other groups playing the module a few times, picked up hints and tips and then successfully navigated the module in 4 hours?

Granted, it's entirely possible that the former did, in fact, happen. However, Occam's Razor tells us that it's far more likely the latter.