Tomb of Horrors 4e - Mouseferatu style

[Majoru Oakheart]

The product description pretty much rules out that we'll get an actual module as opposed to a loose collection of challenges. The product's level range (10 to 22??) already precludes a tighter design, unless this product overhauls the dogma of only throwing level appropriate encounters at the PCs. I mean, I'd hope so, but let's not get carried away. I think comparisons to 4E's own Dungeon Delve or 3E's Book of Challenges hit the mark pretty well of what we can reasonably expect. And yes, one can realistically "weave a campaign around" the challenges in these books.

Yeah, the impression I get is that there are a number of adventures(probably 5 or 6) that are fairly short in this book. Each adventure can be used individually or can be strung together to form a campaign without the details between them filled in.

For instance, you might find out when you are level 10 that there is something inside the Tomb that you require in order to stop the BBEG, so you go to it and find the item, but part of the dungeon is collapsed with no way past.

Then, when you are level 15, you find out that there is another dungeon created by Acerak which contains something else you need and you go to that.

Then at 20, you are told that you need to find something else that is deeper into the original dungeon and you are given some magical method of clearing the rubble and you go deeper in and defeat the BBEG.

Each of the adventures can be played on their own, or they can be combined together along with adventures of your own design to fill in the gaps.

I don't get the impression that it is simply a bunch of encounters, however. I would have liked to have seen a mega-dungeon for this product though.

 

[Hellzon]

Stuff

Thanks for the answer. Kinda figured a 12-level module wouldn't contain enough stuff to level all the way.

 

[Frylock]

Wow!

I can't wait for this one. I took a 24-year hiatus from the game, so all of my early memories of D&D are 1st edition. I'd love to see this followed up with rewrites of S2 (White Plume) and S3 (Barrier Peaks) as well, although I doubt we'd see those as retail store releases even if they were rewritten. I would also love to see C1-2, D1-3, and Q1 redone, but now I'm just being silly.

EDIT: BTW, I'm one old-school player that isn't afraid of change. If you take some liberties with the story, I'll judge them on their own merits rather than based on whether it's precisely what I played before. Part of ToH's allure was how easily a party could screw itself. If things are exactly the same, we'll already have all the answers. What fun is that?

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

interesting

This is probably the hardest 1E module to bring forward, simply because 'the way people play D&D' these days doesn't really mesh well with a lot of the design choices in the original.

I'm assuming you've tried to keep to the spirit of the original. I don't play 4E, but I may pick this up just to see how the system accommodates this goal!

Ken

 

[Mouseferatu]

So Ari, can you reveal anything about your writing partner? That shouldn't breach your 'say no more' stance should it?

I can say that Scott was a blast to work with, and that he definitely grokked the aesthetic we were shooting for.

 

[kaomera]

First of all, I want this. Badly.

Nope, they're meant to be interspersed throughout an ongoing campaign, mixed in with other stuff. It can form the basis of a campaign, with "side adventures" between chapters, or you can use it as just one of several recurring plotlines, based on how you like to design campaings.

Well I'm hoping that the only real issue with simply running it as one continuous adventure will be leveling. I can get around that easily enough.

I'm not sure why. The point of the game is to simulate a fictional world where fictional people live and see what happens to them when put into certain situations.

To each his own, personally I haven't seen an RPG yet that can really simulate a fictional world with any real degree of success, and I'm not sure if I'd want to.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I lack the skill and experience to solve the more difficult puzzles in a reasonable amount of time.

Of course, a more experienced and talented puzzler could probably solve them in under 5 minutes. That, I probably could never do even with practice.

Likewise, very few players have ever beaten Centipede, Mrs. Pac-Man, Xevious and its not even clear that most people could do so with enough practice.

By comparison, I seriously doubt that anyone above the age of 10 has played Diablo II and not beaten it.

Well, when you set up a false dichotomy in which the only choices are "effortlessly win" and "struggle for a lifetime but still fail", then of course you're going to see problems where there really aren't any.

The players can be expected to "win" D&D (or the crossword, or a videogame) yet still face exciting challenges along the way. I hope the latest iteration of Tomb of Horrors facilitates that mode of play.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure why. The point of the game is to simulate a fictional world where fictional people live and see what happens to them when put into certain situations.

Is it? I don't agree. If this was the case, the players would interfere with the point of the game and you'd be far better removing them. Indeed, the player would not only be an interference, but so would the game referee and the ideal game of this sort might be a version of SimCity.

It isn't to see how said fictional person would fare given the entire knowledge pool of some guy from modern day Earth.

I don't believe that is the only alterative.

Plus, if all you are doing is testing player skill then you are entirely negating the physical abilities of the fictional characters.

I don't believe that is true either.

The game is a combination of player skill and character skill. We test both of them.

Ahh... finally something I do agree with. However, the test of 'character skill' is inherently uninteresting and in fact 'character skill' is to a certain extent untestable or at least needlessly testable since the expected outcome of testing character skill is entirely predictable and over the long run known. Testing 'character skill' is a rather pointless dice throwing excercise - the dice equivalent to playing the card game 'war' for hours and hours on end. There is nothing inherently interesting about it. Character skill is only interesting when cast in the light of player skill. Character skill is nothing more than a limiting resource which restricts the player's choice, and like every game the point of restricting choices (that is, to have rules) is to force the player to demonstrate his skill by overcoming the limitations placed on them.

As for the rest, we disagree on so much fundamental issue, that there is little point in me trying to refute the details.

Winning is the expected result, but it isn't the only one. It's the same thing that happens when I sit down to watch a movie. 99% of all movies are going to have the happy ending where the heroes defeat the bad guys and everything is solved.

So now the experience of the game is comparable to the experience of watching a movie? I rest my case.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, when you set up a false dichotomy in which the only choices are "effortlessly win" and "struggle for a lifetime but still fail", then of course you're going to see problems where there really aren't any.

To be honest, I don't even know what you are trying to say. Could you please explain this false dichotomy you set up anywhere too me a little more clearly, because I can't seem to find it in my thinking anywhere.

Likewise, I'm not sure what the quotation marks are for, but I think you should know that quotation marks aren't properly used to enclose things I didn't say so that people will know I didn't say them. That's the only explanation I have for how you are using them.