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."

 

[Celebrim]

Gygax had some fantastic design skills, but from what I have read of his stuff and stories of his game play he made all the usual Gm mistakes - Gm v player, designing stuff which has as its purpose to "get arrogant players", playing favourites, being dismissive of others play styles etc.

Irony.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I pretty much disagree with all of what Mr.Wick wrote. I think there are some key points he isn't considering...

First...yeah, what everyone else in this thread said; it's a module designed to kill PC's, and, more importantly, it is designed as a tournament module.

Second, "old skool" (or "a regular AD&D game in 1980's") had the assumption that the players were the ones making the life-or-death decisions. It was the players who came up with how to detect a trap and defeat it. It was the players who were the prime determining factor of how successful a character was. Back in those days, I didn't say "Make a Spot Trap check, DC 22", I said "You see a wooden door, with iron bands...but the iron bands don't look nearly as rusty as the others you've seen. Almost like someone is trying to keep them clean". That's when the players start to use their own brains to detect and overcome any traps. The Key Thing Wick seems to be missing is this. His players obviously were either not up to the task, or were used to some other form of play style. As a player, when you see something in a deadly dungeon, you don't just jump in and hope you can roll good if you need to. The Tomb of Horrors was specifically designed to prey on that kind of "Freelick Maneuver" (re: "Freelick, the Fernetic of Glossamere jumps into the pit to gather up all the treasure! How much does Freelick get?"...kudos to any who know what movie I'm quoting that from). Throw things at it (iron spikes, water, oil, a rat/lizard/snake/small-animal, etc). Cast knowledge-type spells like Divination, Commune with Other Plane, or even Speak with Dead if one of your companions goes through and doesn't come back or scream or give any other indication. A party of 7 or 8 (that was the 'average' party size in those days), the clerics, druids, magic-users and illusionists should have a sack full of spell scrolls between them...they are all 10th to 14th level, after all! No small feat in 1e AD&D! That's one to two years of 8-hour weekly sessions...surely the players have learned how deadly stuff can be at those levels.

Third, and I think this is the MOST TELLING reason why he lost friends... he stood up and laughed at them. The module didn't do that...he did. He gloated. He was a world-class 12 year old a-hole in that moment. His fiends just lost all their hard-earned (I'm assuming here...) characters because they didn't think it was a trap, or at least a trap that would kill them if they were stupid enough to let it. And he, in his 12 year old wisdom, felt it was appropriate to jump up from the table, point his finger and laugh heartily at his 'friends', straight in the face. THAT is why he lost friends...not the module.

Anyway, thats my 2¢. I've also killed PC's...TPK's...with that module. Usually at the mouth, but I've also killed a "25th level paladin with 25 in all stats, with a two-handed holy avenger vorpal sword and a huge ancient gold dragon as his mount"...I think he made it in 20 or 30'. Followed the red path, fell in pit, failed save...died. That was rather funny to me...but I didn't jump up, point my finger at him, and laugh.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Nytmare]

Did you just make a Mazes and Monsters reference on a D&D message board and wonder if anyone was going to get it?

 

[Xaelvaen]

This adventure was designed to challenge high level characters that had become arrogant in their supremacy (in Mr. Gygax's home campaign, prior to being formally written for tournament play in 75) - this fact alone gives me quite a large profile of those who do, and do not, like the content therein. Those with whom I game, and myself, absolutely love this adventure and consider it beyond criticism.

 

[Henry]

For another take on this venerable module:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/retrospective-tomb-of-horrors.html

A hammer is a terrible tool for baking a cake, but when you have some nails to drive it works just fine.

 

[IgnatiusJ.Reilly]

The adventure is not for new DMs who do everything by the book. Unless, of course, it's just played on a lark using expendable characters.

 

[Zarithar]

I think its a great article and I see his point. When run as written, Tomb of Horrors is basically a giant middle finger from the DM to the players. When modified to give the party a chance, it works. Thematically, I personally really enjoy it... but would never run it strictly as written.

I enjoyed the article and his anecdote about his thief character was pretty great.

 

[Sacrosanct]

ToH was written with the specific intent to kill off PCs of players who thought they were God's gift to gaming. The fact that John hasn't figured that out context after 35ish years to what? Sound edgy? Speaks volumes. IMO anyway. And I've no desire to ever play it myself, FWIW.

 

[neobolts]

It's neither poorly written nor unplayable.

And may I refer you to the 'Return to the Tomb of Horrors' story? http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...the-Tomb-of-Horrors-finally-gets-a-Story-Hour!

I suspect many groups have in fact actually incorporated the Tomb into long running epic fantasy tales successfully.

I made my point poorly. I was saying it is not poorly written or unplayable, thus not meeting my definition of "worst." I do still think it is better suited for disposable PCs vs a long term campaign, due to its use of quick TPK events.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

One of my favorite adventures of all time. I've run it many times.

The reason I like it has nothing to do with the style of play. It has to do with the setting. In my opinion, if a powerful magical creature is going to build a crypt to secure their stuff, it will be deadly. That's all. No pulling punches. I don't necessarily agree with every single encounter, or all of the specific design elements.

But the idea that the only thing keeping tomb-robbers from succeeding is the design of your tomb and the traps that protect it (plus some potential undead, contracts, or bound guardians), just makes sense to me.

The overall concept is the standard for most crypts that I make.

Ilbranteloth