Now that we are over half way through the Tomb, I want to compare the facts of the text so far with what some folks, (mostly in other threads referring to this module), claim as truth about this adventure. The following quotes come from other threads about ToH, and they all got either xp awards from people agreeing with the assessments, or they got replies agreeing with the assessments. (So it seems that the following statements are commonly believed to be factual or truthful.)
The module gives you clues in the form of riddles, and those riddles are, essentially, a "walk through" for the entire module (if you can parse them out carefully). On the other hand, if you fail to notice the first riddle, or if you ignore the clues provided, well, the module can kill you pretty quickly.
Well, there’s only one riddle, and it is pretty difficult to discover. (I think it is even likely to be undiscovered if played by the text as written.) But even if it is discovered, it is far from a “walk through” for the Tomb. It is generally very vague, and even seemingly misleading. So far in this discussion, different people, (even those in support of the riddle), have given different, (and sometimes contradictory), interpretations of it. So this statement seems inaccurate.
Unlike some modules, with traps that have no possible way of being decoded short of painful experience, <snip comment on another module>, ToH presents players with a chance to figure things out.
We’re not seeing *anything* that lets the Players figure anything out. Every trick and trap requires taking precautions and protections, and then just testing. So this statement seems to be a completely false, (reversed from fact).
Acererak follows a pattern and sticks to it, so that with care you really don't have to guess after you successfully enter the tomb.
I’m not seeing any pattern for anything. Everything is guesswork. This statement seems completely false. (If there is a pattern, I really wish someone would point it out.)
… it is utterly unmerciful and unforgiving.
Many of the tricks and traps are not particularly deadly. Some are just annoyances and attrition. This statement seems false.
If the tomb warns you against doing something, then its a fair warning and the consequences of ignoring it will be bad. If the tomb provides you a clue, it's a fair clue that isn't meant to mislead you.
Other than the riddle in the early red path, (which is vague and misleading), still not seeing any warnings or clues for or against anything. This statement seems baseless.
Acererak doesn't build a maze. He doesn't make you guess which way to go. It's not a sprawling labrinth filled with a lot of arbitrary choices between left and right with no way of knowing which leads to certain doom and which to a reward. You aren't arbitrarily picking your way through it, and if you paid attention he'll give you very specific directions through the tomb. False leads look like false leads once you have the real one to compare them too, so just look around before you decide to follow the first thing you find and you'll be alright.
No, it’s not a sprawling labyrinth; it’s pretty linear with respect to ways forward. I’m still not seeing “very specific directions” or any hints or clues on how to distinguish between false leads and the correct path. Heck, false leads and the correct path are often both hidden and trapped. So this statement seems false.
Acerak doesn't rely on attrition. He's not trying to wear you down. He's not going to force everyone to make a saving throw just to go foward and turn the whole affair into a test of whether you can roll high on 4 or 5 unavoidable rolls in a row.
Actually, there is a lot of attrition in this Tomb. And there are tests to roll many saves to move forward. This statement is definitely false.
The dungeon doesn't amount to whether you can win initiative enough times, or whether you roll high on your damage dice, or whether the monster makes his saving throw, or whether you can avoid a streak of 1's.
True, because there are very few combats in this Tomb.
If you play by his rules, you'll probably never have to make a saving throw, and if you screw up and get reckless you'll probably never have a chance to.
He doesn’t seem to follow any rules or patterns. Even if you take the proper path, you may have to make many saving throws. And screw ups haven’t all been especially deadly. This statement seems false.
there is almost no luck, good or bad
There is a lot of requirement of luck, from many saving throws to many search checks (1 in 6 chance to find the secret door you must find to move forward), to picking which chest to open with no clue or hint provided.
ToH is fair with Acererak being predictable and clues for the right decision being available.
This general statement is seeming more and more false with every numbered area we cover in this thread.
As I’ve said before, this adventure, presented as a “thinking person’s module,” is mostly “bomb-squad thinking,” (use caution and protection, then test), and little/no “Sherlock Holmes deduction thinking,” (figure out the clues and hints). For instance, when presented with three chests, there are no clues or hints for the Players to use in figuring out which chest to open or how to avoid a trap. The Players are required to assume all things are trapped, and take mitigating precautions and protections to survive or avoid the effects of the traps.
This is a legitimate play style, (one that some people really enjoy), but I’m always left wondering why those who like this module always present it as the other play style. Why say there are clues and patterns when there obviously are not? Why say it’s a “thinking person’s module” when it’s more of a “cautious and meticulous person’s module”? There’s nothing wrong with cautious and meticulous play style if that is what the group likes/prefers.
Bullgrit
