Rate S1: The Tomb of Horrors (corrected poll options)

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Or maybe they were top notch gamers who made the right choices? :\

Given that there are NO CLUES for most of the instant death traps, "right choices" would be lucky choices. If you want to say that blind luck can make you a "top notch gamer," we're going to have to agree to disagree on definitions.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

So does this thread count as a blantant attack on TSR and Gary Gygax? I heard that that can get a thread closed.

B2 was excellent and there is a great deal in there that 3e could learn from. Gary sometimes dismisses the notion of balance in favor of story. I'm not 100% with that, I simply think unbalanced encounters should be labeled as such with the CR/EL rating. But otherwise I think he's absolutely correct.

My dislike of S1 is limited to S1 and S1 alone.

 

[Eternalknight]

Gary just posted this in another thread:


What I say about nay-sayers is, pluck 'em! They can express their opinion, and so what? I don't need to defend anything. Some hundreds of thousands of PCs have adventured in the ToH, and not many have made it successfully, so it is most demanding of real skill.

You can quote me from this post, if you like, for we ran the module as a tournament at a Spring or Autumn Revel, or a Winter Fantasy con here back in the day. There were, IIRR, eight teams, and one of them absolutely obliterated the demi-lich by using the crown, putting it on his head, and touching the "wrong end" of the scepter to it. Russ Stambaugh was the DM for that team, and he asked me if that would work. I was astounded at how clever the players had been, said so, and gave them the top spot for their innovation. Again, as I recall, several of the other eight teams made the cut, destroyed Acecerak. those were veteran dungeoneers, of curse.

Ernie playing Tenser didn't go for the situation and cleared out. Rob playing Robilar made it to the end, grabbed all the loot, and didn't bother fighting the demi-lich--not much profit in that by his estimation, not with all the treasure in his bag of holding. I have run a party of local gamers through the ToH, and they made it with the loss of a couple of the PCs. It was many years ago, so I do not recall player names and details--way too many gaming sessions under my belt in the 33 years I have been a GM for such recollections...

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Angel of Adventure]

Reply to BiggusGeekus

Well, I would certainly agree that the mod would be slightly easier under a 3.0/3.5 conversion. A lot of the stuff in that mod is so darn frustrating because it doesn't really conform with any of the D&D rules (past, present, or maybe even future.)

Per your PCs actions, I can't really criticize as they seemed reasonable for "in-the-box" thinking. The problem with the mod is that so much of it requires "out-of -the-box" thinking that doesn't conform to normal gaming. And yes, loosing any character that you've spent loads of time on does suck. It sucks even more when the death occurs in a notorious death trap.

Anyway, beating this mod is summed up by Yoda: There is no try; there is only do or do not.

You either set yourself up to see this thru (if possible) or don't go there at all. You shouldn't go into it (with temp or real PCs) if its something that you just want to have your hand at.

(And finally, here comes the tomato!!!)

The real fun is not seeing when/how you die; the real fun is beating the darn thing and then bragging about it to all who say that it can't be done!

Later,

AoA
(Ducks back down in the face of an incoming volley )

 

[Psion]

It has some redeeming features to it, like the little illustration book (more adventures should do that...), but I consider deathtraps to be a pointless excercise. Even Gygax himself speaks of it in retrospect as a sort of Munchkin "Roach Hotel."

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm really getting the feeling that a lot of the supporters, if they've played or DMed or even read the module at all, have done so with a DM who consciously went through and toned the module down a great deal.

Well Frank and Gary apparently disagree, as do other posters so I can only assume that it ate one of your favorite characters or somethingj. Either way, no big deal.

 

[toberane]

Gave it a 10. It was always my favorite of the 1st edition adventures before Dragonlance came out. I liked it because it rewarded players that tried to think and be careful, and it brutally killed the hack 'n slashers who charged mindlessly forward crying "Kill Orc! Kill Orc!"

It's the same reason I liked the Metal Gear Solid video game. If you try to be careful and sneaky, you'll make it through, but if you ruch forward, guns blaring like you were playing Quake or Doom, you get killed before you get past the first level. (Slightly off topic, I know, but it parallels nicely.)

 

[Pants]

I'm giving it a 6. A lot of it IS arbitrary. Very arbitrary, but there's some great ideas in there. The false entrances were great, totally stumped my players with one.

I'd NEVER run it in an already established game, but when I ran it on my one-shot it was alright. I did tone some stuff (a character lost an arm in the demon-mouth instead of getting totally obliterated, for example), but the players were especially canny at points (except for the wizard... the player made a BLASTER mage... ugh). It was great watching the veteran player and the newbie bouncing ideas off of each other over how to proceed (the newbie had some really insightful comments and was, generally, right about the traps most of the time).

 

[Numion]

I did tone some stuff (a character lost an arm in the demon-mouth instead of getting totally obliterated, for example), but the players were especially canny at points (except for the wizard... the player made a BLASTER mage... ugh).

That comment is a testament to the modules meta-gaming nature. Usually a module should just prove the characters decisions on how to proceed and what to do either correct or not correct, hopefully with clues to what is the more correct thing to do. This module invalidates the players choice of what character to play in the first place. Now, that would be more understandable if he had tried to play a blind kobold, but evoker mage is a staple in D&D.

"I wish I had four hands so I could give this module four thumbs down."

 

[ZuulMoG]

'Meta-gaming' apparently is defined as 'having a cautious and thoughtful approach to dungeoneering that includes room for the possibility that a Fireball spell might not be the solution to every conceivable problem a PC might face'.

You could fill a decent-sized hopper with the character record sheets of PCs of mine that got mulched in death-trap dungeons like ToH, and that was the most fun gaming period I've ever had. In 3.5 the only way a PC can die is if the player decides to kill him in a roleplaying situation. There is no possibility of a so-called balanced encounter with a monster ending a PC's life if the player wants him to live. It used to be you had to 'look up the monster or have the book memorized so you could shout out "November!"', nowadays the klik-kliks come with it stencilled on their foreheads, IE, a player was expected to have some idea of how to play.

Killing Acerak was a dream that many of my PCs saw die as blood foamed from their lips. D&D has never been so much fun.