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]

Frank (and the Wikipedia page for the Tomb of Horrors that shows up for me anyway) are correct that the Tomb was run at Origins in 1975, not 1976. You are correct that the PHB did not come out until 1978.


It is true that they are not the same adventure. The Origins Tomb was run for exactly 120 people in the 1975 tournament, eight parties of 15 players each. Yes, each party was 15 players, so they used the infamous "caller" rules. At four scheduled times in the convention, Gary Gygax and his son Ernie each simultaneously ran the adventure for one group.

It is thus not an entirely apples-to-apples comparison to look at the 15-player parties of OD&D pregens designed for the 1975 Tomb versus the 2-10 player parties designed for AD&D in the 1978 module version of the Tomb. The 1978 module does say that if more than 5 players are participating, each should control only one character, so, let's say it is designed for a 6 or so character descent as opposed to the 15 character descent of the Origins tournament. More disposable bodies are handy when dealing with so many traps and arbitrary ways to die.

It is similarly difficult to say whether the module version is more deadly without cherry-picking details that perhaps aren't representative given the differences in the system between OD&D and AD&D. The first false tunnel, which collapses for 5-50 damage in the 1978 Tomb, deals only 4-40 damage in the 1975 Tomb; and the gargoyle in room #8 that has 64 HP in the 1978 Tomb has only 42 HP in the 1975 Tomb.

At least one prominent gamer who played in the tournament - Mark Swanson, who came down to Origins from Boston - complained that the Tomb of Horrors was a really stupid adventure full of pits and traps that had no real depth to it. He also lamented that of the people in his party, only four of the fifteen had ever played D&D before, which made the adventure difficult to navigate. Characters were distributed in alphabetical order, so you didn't get to assign the most powerful characters to the most experienced players (and there are pretty vast differences in the power-levels of the pregen characters, they range from 12th to 4th level). His group didn't get very far.

Swanson sourly noted that parties that ran later in the convention weekend got inside information from previous tournament participants, which gave them an unfair advantage.

One group did manage to get the whole treasure at the end. The overall winner of the tournament was Barry Eynon, who was an experienced player from the Ryth campaign visiting from Michigan.

Thanks for that.
Do you know
1. how long each group had to deal with the adventure?
2. Was the demilich destroyed ?(was this the crown & sceptre event?)
3. How did the other groups go (the ones that didn't get the whole treasure or have Swanson and not get very far?)

Just learning that there were 15 players per group is pretty mind blowing.

 

[werecorpse]

Wait wait wait wait...

Is the claim "this is unbeatable without cheating" or "this is unbeatable without cheating in a tournament that allows no buying chickens" or "this is unbeatable with a legit leveled-up PC"?

Or have the goalposts been moved again?

Just state, in clear english, exactly the single sentence statement you are making, and everyone else should do the same.

And this question is not just for you but for EVERY person who has claimed it's "unbeatable" or "unbeatable without cheating"

Hussar has always been talking about winning in a tournament. He refers to the tournament as being 3-4 hours with 6-8 players and zero preparation. He did this early on. He also has said multiple times that he believes it can be beaten and has in fact beaten it. In fact you quoted one of his posts where he was says it was pretty hard to believe it could be done by 6-8 people in 4 hours. You said that His statement that such a thing was hard to believe was akin to accusing people of lying.

Part of the reason I was asking how long they had in the tournaments was because I suspected the early tournaments were not set up the same way as Hussar expected. We now know the original one had 15 players per group. This is an important factor. i would be interested to know how long the groups played.

it was treatmonk20 who said it was unplayable and defined that as in his view not fun to play or run.

and gamedaddy also said some stuff about maybe cheating, he was the one talking about a legit levelled up character or something (can't quite remember - apologies).

you seem to be conflating a bunch of people's posts.

Btw i was the one accused of moving the goalposts the first time (incorrectly I suspect as I suspect dajr had my posts confused with Hussar) so accusing Hussar of moving them again seems unecessarily snarky.

 

[Zak S]

you seem to be conflating a bunch of people's posts.

Of course I'm not. That's why I said:

And this question is not just for you but for EVERY person who has claimed it's "unbeatable" or "unbeatable without cheating"

I just want to make sure every variation to the claim to be accounted for so they can all be clarified.

 

[werecorpse]

I have run it for D&D 1st, 2nd (once each), twice with 3.5, twice with GURPS and once with RuneQuest III.

I have seen the crown and sceptre used once to destroy Acererak, an antimagic field to supress him whilst the group looted his room, a portable hole/bag of holding was used to deal with him once, two groups have escaped the dungeon after losses prior to the BBEG fight and one group used a Decanter of Endless Water and Potions of Water Breathing to deal with the pit traps and the flame trap corridor after doing extensive research on the place after interviewing Archmage Tenser himself about the dungeon (he and Robilar survived it in Greyhawk canon - fleeing the battle with Acererak) - half of them died in the BBEG fight though.

Interestingly, one Paladin became a Blackguard mid-dungeon, which definitely helped him survive, and a Wizard in another game sold his soul to a demon to get through it alive. But then I am lucky enough to generally have 'think outside of the box' role-players in my groups, so things can go anywhere sometimes.

In my experience, if someone complains of something being too difficult and therefore 'unfair' after going at it head on, expecting a straight rush in and hit it to work most of the time, then they are often enough the kind of player who is self-entitled, whether they realise it or not. Unfortunately this type of player is more prevalent these days, as the number of encounters per day and the CR of the challenges has become a codified thing which cements an expectation that this is the only way it can be done. The players having limited resources (like older version wizards and their very few spells at low level) is one thing - a half decent player will adjust and try to solve encounters without blowing their limited 'ammunition'. But now, you can actually be accused of being a 'bad DM' by some players for having the temerity to exceed the number of recommended encounters per day, exceeding CR or pressing characters (without them having made mistakes) after their x/rest resources are expended.

This limited and 'only inside the box' approach to the game was almost a strict requirement with the way 4th Edition rules worked. So much so my players and I abandoned it early on.

Personally I think the idea that all encounters must be entirely 'defeatable' using 'point and shoot' abilities or dice rolling alone is an unfortunate expectation baked-into to a certain extent with newer editions. This passively discourages creative 'outside the box' thinking ("I'm out of surges/spells/turns etc... so can't do anything.." kind of thinking.), and this is a great shame. Older editions of the game, and in fact some of the systems that rose at that time (like RuneQuest I) required more than the tabletop equivalent of MMO ability button mashing to deal with challenges and were I feel all the better for it.

It's no wonder this person or that cries foul and 'it's unfair' instead of thinking 'how else can we deal with this?'.

If you think this is an unfair appraisal, please consider that I have been DM'ing since the late 70's and have seen the trend develop slowly over time. Of course it doesn't apply to everyone who came to game latter on, but it is much more common than it used to be. Questions like "how do I deal with the 15 minute working day syndrome" just never got asked in yesteryear - the answer was self-evident back then insofar as the players were part of the solution and DMs just dealt with it. They didn't seem to need (and in fact didn't have) any advice or guidance, rules based or otherwise to resolve it, so they just did it.

Yet somehow we all managed to enjoy long-running campaigns without regular TPKs or problems with encounter balancing, despite the other types of shortcomings the earlier versions of RPG rules worked.

Things these days are far more 'spoon fed' if you strictly follow the guidance available, and naturally, any module predating this development are going to be seen by some as 'unfair' or 'the worst module ever' because that is the only benchmark they have for what it 'right'.

A solution for such hide-bound D&D DMs raised on this paradigm is to GM other game systems that don't have it. Run a GURPS game, or a RuneQuest game or similar - games that just say "here's how you make characters, here's how your play, here's a bunch of challenges of various types - GO!".

It will help them develop their own judgement on threat level and challenge without sitting there adding up numbers, and it will help their players be more adaptable in their approach to resolving encounters and situations in-game.

THEN perhaps, older modules like Tomb of Horrors or Lost Shrine of the Tamoachan can be revisited by them and enjoyed instead of being complained about...

Thanks for your recollection of events. I think the style of play and what is expected of the game and players has changed a lot over the years (I started playing in the late 70's and DMing probably in 1980 if memory serves. I have run a couple of approx 15 year 1e campaigns and a RQ campaign that lasted about 5 years). I've never been a big trap fan and I'm not so against the change but that's a conversation for another place.

 

[Hussar]

Wait wait wait wait...

Is the claim "this is unbeatable without cheating" or "this is unbeatable without cheating in a tournament that allows no buying chickens" or "this is unbeatable with a legit leveled-up PC"?

Or have the goalposts been moved again?

Just state, in clear english, exactly the single sentence statement you are making, and everyone else should do the same.

And this question is not just for you but for EVERY person who has claimed it's "unbeatable" or "unbeatable without cheating"

Umm, fourth time now. I never said it was unbeatable. Perhaps I should try a larger font?

 

[Hussar]

Frank (and the Wikipedia page for the Tomb of Horrors that shows up for me anyway) are correct that the Tomb was run at Origins in 1975, not 1976. You are correct that the PHB did not come out until 1978.


It is true that they are not the same adventure. The Origins Tomb was run for exactly 120 people in the 1975 tournament, eight parties of 15 players each. Yes, each party was 15 players, so they used the infamous "caller" rules. At four scheduled times in the convention, Gary Gygax and his son Ernie each simultaneously ran the adventure for one group.

It is thus not an entirely apples-to-apples comparison to look at the 15-player parties of OD&D pregens designed for the 1975 Tomb versus the 2-10 player parties designed for AD&D in the 1978 module version of the Tomb. The 1978 module does say that if more than 5 players are participating, each should control only one character, so, let's say it is designed for a 6 or so character descent as opposed to the 15 character descent of the Origins tournament. More disposable bodies are handy when dealing with so many traps and arbitrary ways to die.

It is similarly difficult to say whether the module version is more deadly without cherry-picking details that perhaps aren't representative given the differences in the system between OD&D and AD&D. The first false tunnel, which collapses for 5-50 damage in the 1978 Tomb, deals only 4-40 damage in the 1975 Tomb; and the gargoyle in room #8 that has 64 HP in the 1978 Tomb has only 42 HP in the 1975 Tomb.

At least one prominent gamer who played in the tournament - Mark Swanson, who came down to Origins from Boston - complained that the Tomb of Horrors was a really stupid adventure full of pits and traps that had no real depth to it. He also lamented that of the people in his party, only four of the fifteen had ever played D&D before, which made the adventure difficult to navigate. Characters were distributed in alphabetical order, so you didn't get to assign the most powerful characters to the most experienced players (and there are pretty vast differences in the power-levels of the pregen characters, they range from 12th to 4th level). His group didn't get very far.

Swanson sourly noted that parties that ran later in the convention weekend got inside information from previous tournament participants, which gave them an unfair advantage.

One group did manage to get the whole treasure at the end. The overall winner of the tournament was Barry Eynon, who was an experienced player from the Ryth campaign visiting from Michigan.

Thank you very much for this. On my phone and can't posrep. But it's nice to know that my skepticism wasn't entirely off base.

 

[ExTSR]

Enough

Did a little fact checking, and this is why I remain skeptical of anecdote.
@ExTSR talks about how they played the module at Origins 1976 (July 23-35 Baltimore, according to Wikipedia).

First, a big shout-out and thanks to Increment's posts (Jon Peterson, author of Playing At the World -- THE definitive and exhaustive tome that documents our roots in the 1970s).

The above quote shows my core problem here, as Jon has pointed out. Hussar misquotes me and then follows his own Google-trail, heedless of facts. You see a lot of that these days, but to echo a common meme... "your google-fu doesn't trump my law degree." (No, I don't have a law degree, literalists. If your head went there, refocus, and try to keep up.)

.

For those who are interested in historical facts, I refer you to this Authority (proven so), and I respectfully bow out. I once walked out on a certain gamer website, my former internet 'home', because of this sort of 'debate'.

No, I wasn't there. I'm a new guy, "3rd wave" we call it; didn't get to TSR until 1980. My knowledge in this area comes from my friends, from oral histories recounted by those who were actually there. I am proud to know these people, by accident of fate.

But I'm not the Angry Young Man whose shoes I once wore, and I have little time or patience for those who desperately seek googly verification for their theories while turning their backs on the resources and truths that have been uncovered through sheer hard work, spurred by a genuine love of our Hobby. This includes Jon and Shannon and many others (edit: like Bill M... see current OD&D video).

Feel free to follow your pet theories, one and all. And do indeed be distrustful of anecdotes, for our memories blur over decades. Proper research notes the anomalies but synergizes multiple sources to find a path to Truth. An open and intelligent mind is always suspicious of Pet Theories that seem to be convenient answers to All the Questions. Reality is rife with complexity and nuance, and simplistic solutions are usually wrong.

So I'm outta here, enough with this thread. As I leave, I apologize for not using any vulgarity or obscenity; my refusal to sheeple-up and descend to the common conventional tactics (ala the Wickster) does not boost my signal, but I am content with who I am, and my small place in this world.

cya around EnWorld.

 

[Hussar]

And thus we see why I remain highly skeptical of anecdote.

 

[billd91]

Thank you very much for this. On my phone and can't posrep. But it's nice to know that my skepticism wasn't entirely off base.

You do realize that, with respect to the Mark Swanson bit, he's relating an anecdote? And you're using that to bolster the validity of your skepticism.

 

[Zak S]

Umm, fourth time now. I never said it was unbeatable. Perhaps I should try a larger font?

I asked a specific question:

"Just state, in clear english, exactly the single sentence statement you are making..."