Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7589778" data-attributes="member: 4937">So I will strongly contest this claim.  The reason that "Tomb of Horrors" has never been bested by its imitators is precisely this misunderstanding regarding "Tomb of Horrors".   Every imitator of the module has failed because they tried to design an adventure that killed you and was unfair.  The gaming product most associated with this mindset is the "Grimtooth" series, and in particular comparing the "Grimtooth" version of a lethal death dealing dungeon - the "Dungeon of Doom" - to "Tomb of Horrors" is extremely productive, because it shows how on the balance "Tomb of Horrors" is frighteningly fair.If you think ToH succeeds because it's unfair, you don't get it.I put it to you that is trivial to create a dungeon that is unfair and kills you, and products like "Grimtooth" just go to show how feeble the imagination of people who want to kill players in an unfair way typically is.  It's not hard to create completely undetectable and unavoidable trap triggers that then trigger completely unavoidable and utterly lethal effects.   I'll be happy to provide any number of examples to anyone that doesn't see how obvious that is.Tomb of Horrors by contrast isn't even particularly merciless and bloody-minded.  It eases the players into the lethality of the dungeon in a way that a party of the suggested level should be able to deal with by way of large amounts of hit points and available spells like slow poison, neutralize poison, cure disease, and even raise dead.   Once the party is made aware of the seriousness of the situation and how this is not a normal dungeon, only then does it start escalating.  Acererak by and large plays fair.  None of the traps use any sort of reverse logic.  None of the clues are false clues.  Sacrifices, such as of a magic ring or of gems, are fairly rewarded.  Generally speaking, Acererak doesn't signal one thing in one encounter, and the go a different way in another.  If doing something is a bad idea, it remains a bad idea all throughout the dungeon.  Honestly, Ravenloft is a much less fair dungeon than Tomb of Horrors.  Strahd is a level X monster and the PC's are level 6.   In 1e AD&D, a level VIII monster is considered a lethal encounter for level 6 characters.  The PC's shouldn't even be facing a level X monster for two more levels, and on top of that Strahd has lair/domain abilities, perfect knowledge of the PC's actions, and the ability to both recover from any setback and the ability to permanently maim his opponents in a way that they are completely unable to recover from.  Strahd is a proactive villain that puts the party under immense time pressure.   Acererak by contrast is completely passive.  The party can take as long as it likes to work their way through or around the problems that they face.  So long as they just don't boldly stride forward confident in their ability to overcome problems, an intelligently played party should be fine.   There is rarely anything that a 10th level party shouldn't be able to recover from as long as they just didn't charge blindly forward as a whole party with no safeguards.  Where as Strahd can kill you even if you play intelligently, just by the DM rolling well.And that comes down to what is really going on.  In D&D, players are used to everything being weighted in their favor.  They are used to getting a saving throw to avoid any consequences of mistakes that they make.  They are used to having ablative hit points which protect them from any damage sources that are out there.   In short, they are used to playing a game that is markedly unfair, and so when they play a game that is fair, it comes as a shock to them.  When you talk about something being unfair, the infamous devil head isn't something you should be talking about.  It's completely fair.  Examples of unfairness are much easier to talk about in for example Return to the Tomb of Horrors, which has several encounters where if the DM rolls high, the PC is simply dead, because something reaches out, grabs them and kills them, not because of a choice the player made, but because there is something proactive in the environment (such as a demon) that has in effect a "die no save" attack.   An attack that is "die no save" is very different than the player makes a choice and the outcome is death without a save.   In one the player is a passive agent and has no reasonable chance to avoid the problem - only luck will save him.   In the other, the player is the active party, the trap that kills them is passive, and only if they interact with it without first trying to obtain some sense of what will happen are they killed.   The devil mouth has never reached out and grabbed anyone.   It is entirely, brutally, fair.</blockquote>

Verification