WIR S1 Tomb of Horrors [SPOILERS!! SPOILERS EVERYWHERE!!]‏

[Freakohollik]

Frekaohollik - the problem is though, it's billed as "thinking man's" module. Infinite monkeys typing is not a thinking man solution, it's inelegant and brute force. Some of the solutions really do come down to flipping a coin - there is no possible way to deduce the right course of action without trial and error.

I guess that's where I get off the train. If I have to simply guess the right answer, that's not thinking, that's just grunt work.

Yeah a lot of it is trial and error. That's the key. Find ways to try things without getting yourself killed.

 

[Maggan]

Trial and terror

It's trial and error that will take me as a player through the Tomb. The problem for me is the meta aspect of that. To apply the experience from one run where my PC was killed, I have to rely on knowledge that I as a player has gathered, but which really shouldn't be available to my PC.

And if I willfully disregard that meta knowledge, and go into the Tomb expecting to solve it, my PC will in all probability die. That makes the Tomb a module not suited for my tastes.

Still is a classic module, of course.

/M

 

[Bullgrit]

A lot of posters are claiming that this is a "bomb squad" module and not a "thinking person's" module. I don't see these things as mutually exclusive and it seems that Gygax didn't either. I would say that most of the bomb squad elements are what makes this a thinking person's module.

I feel that a lot of posters think that the module should have a solution to all the problems written into the module. Instead, solutions are often left out and the task is placed soley on the party to figure out what to do. And if even if you do die, you can just get resurrected.

Yes, meticulous bomb squad-style play is a sort of thinking play. But as I've mentioned several times through this thread, that is not the style of play many of ToH fans portray it as.

This is not a matter of some of us wanting ToH to be different than it is, it's a matter of so many ToH fans telling us it is different than it is.

For instance, read this description of ToH:

First, TOH is primarily a test of player ability and not of character ability. There is almost no combat in TOH. There are very few saving throws in TOH. There are numerous traps that by pass hit points completely. Until the very final encounter, which seems by intention to be one that the wiser player avoids, what is on your character sheet is almost irrelevant in determining whether you succeed in the module.

Secondly, this amounts to a spoiler of some sort, but Tomb of Horrors is fair. Acererak plays fair. He's so uncannily and unusually fair given his apparant goal (killing adventurers) that it had to be lamp shaded and explained in the game universe in 'Return to the Tomb of Horrors'. He's not using reverse psychology on the players to force them into guessing what's behind door #2. If you must guess whether to go left or right, then success depends largely on luck. 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. If success depends on hitting the target AC or making a saving throw or doing enough damage when rolling damage, then success is at least in part luck and even a party which makes the correct choices might still be defeated in the module. Tomb of Horrors is almost entirely singular in being a killer dungeon where this is not true. If you make the right choices, you can 'beat the dungeon' with practically a party of 1st levels. Of course, with 1st level characters you'd practically have to be perfect in your play, to the extent that I think no one could do it without having first read the text, but really to 'beat the dungeon' requires you to make no big mistakes in play anyway and so even 10th level characters only gain the ability to survive minor mistakes.

This is the main reason why Tomb of Horrors has acquired such a reputation. It really is entirely different from everything else. S2 'White Plume Mountain' is a killer dungeon, but its often a killer dungeon in the obvious sense of having very dangerous monsters. The puzzles are still there, but environment is reduced to being only an equal threat and challenge. A first level party even making all the right decisions still has no chance of defeating the module, because so many dangerous monsters stand in the way. By something like S4: 'Caverns of Tsojcanth' its almost entirely the dangerous monsters and the ability to make saving throws and use your characters abilities effectively that determines success. It's not remotely the same sort of dungeon.

This post, here on ENWorld, received a bunch of xp awards with comments like, "Great analysis," "Exactly right," "Very good explanation."

So many people think/believe/espouse the above as truth about ToH. But as we've seen in this thread, most of it is completely and demonstrably false.

Now, I'm not calling out the particular poster who said all the above, nor the people who gave the post xp. It is just one of many examples around here, (and from outside ENWorld), but it is a recent and extensive example, and it is from the thread that prompted Stoat to start this particular discussion.

I feel that a lot of posters think that the module should have a solution to all the problems written into the module.

No, it's that we have always been told that the module gives a solution to all the problems. But it doesn't. And we're left wondering why this has been misrepresented to us.

Again, this is not all to say that ToH isn't, or doesn't deserve to be, a legendary classic D&D module. It's just very odd that ToH's biggest fans describe it as something very different than what it actually is. The way the ToH's fans describe it, I would think I'd love it. I'd love to run/play a module with the style and features it is said to have. But when you read/play the actual module as written, it's very disappointing to see that it is not at all like how it is described.

It's like hearing that a particular movie is a deep mystery story, but when you watch it you see it's actually a thriller horror flick. When you complain that it's a horror flick, someone else comes back with, "What did you want? A mystery story?" Well, yeah, that's what I was told it would be.

Bullgrit

 

[FoxWander]

For instance, read this description of ToH:This post, here on ENWorld, received a bunch of xp awards with comments like, "Great analysis," "Exactly right," "Very good explanation."

So many people think/believe/espouse the above as truth about ToH. But as we've seen in this thread, most of it is completely and demonstrably false.

Now, I'm not calling out the particular poster who said all the above, nor the people who gave the post xp. It is just one of many examples around here, (and from outside ENWorld), but it is a recent and extensive example, and it is from the thread that prompted Stoat to start this particular discussion.

Wow, the people who agreed with that post must have played a different Tomb of Horrors than I did because they couldn't be more wro... Oh yeah, I'm the guy quoted as "Exactly right," up there. But that does go to prove the point I made a few pages ago (here). Nostalgia and misremembering a lot (apparently QUITE a lot) of the details accounts for much of that, as we've learned here, mistaken idea of what the Tomb is. However, in keeping with the post I linked to above, I will say that I still stand by my XP comment to that other post in regards to how the Tomb felt (as far as how I remembered it at the time)- unfortunately that feeling does mesh with the actual analysis and details of the Tomb.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I wonder if part of the issue is the difference between how it is experienced as a player vs. how it is experienced as a DM. If you're a player, and you've got a decent DM, and you've never actually read the module yourself, you may walk away thinking that the whole thing was "fair," because it was never apparent to you just how arbitrary it all was.

 

[Swedish Chef]

I wonder if part of the issue is the difference between how it is experienced as a player vs. how it is experienced as a DM. If you're a player, and you've got a decent DM, and you've never actually read the module yourself, you may walk away thinking that the whole thing was "fair," because it was never apparent to you just how arbitrary it all was.

I think this sums it up completely. I've followed the thread right from the start. I ran the ToH for my 3ed group a few years ago and this is exactly how it played out. I read and re-read the module several times. I made notes of things that I felt needed to be changed as they weren't clear to me, so they'd be even less clear for the players. I decided what sort of searches would reveal what secrets/clues/traps in a given area. I was the one that helped make the module "fair" for the players. Whether I succeeded in that is up to my players to tell you, but I believe so, as no one complained about it at the end.

I think the majority of "classic" modules are viewed that way for two reasons. 1) There was a shared continuity at the time. There weren't many published modules available, so pretty much everyone played several of them at some point in time before DMs started scripting their own and 2) many DMs at the time relied more on their own judgement for written modules as many of them had such flaws in their descriptive text.

I'm not putting down today's modules. I enjoy running many of them, as it is just easier, especially with all the new rules. But a relatively simpler game back then resulted in relatively simpler modules which, conversely, required DMs to invest more creative thinking into running them. And I think that creative thinking is what makes the difference.

 

[Freakohollik]

Yes, meticulous bomb squad-style play is a sort of thinking play. But as I've mentioned several times through this thread, that is not the style of play many of ToH fans portray it as.

This is not a matter of some of us wanting ToH to be different than it is, it's a matter of so many ToH fans telling us it is different than it is.

For instance, read this description of ToH:This post, here on ENWorld, received a bunch of xp awards with comments like, "Great analysis," "Exactly right," "Very good explanation."

So many people think/believe/espouse the above as truth about ToH. But as we've seen in this thread, most of it is completely and demonstrably false.

Now, I'm not calling out the particular poster who said all the above, nor the people who gave the post xp. It is just one of many examples around here, (and from outside ENWorld), but it is a recent and extensive example, and it is from the thread that prompted Stoat to start this particular discussion.

No, it's that we have always been told that the module gives a solution to all the problems. But it doesn't. And we're left wondering why this has been misrepresented to us.

Again, this is not all to say that ToH isn't, or doesn't deserve to be, a legendary classic D&D module. It's just very odd that ToH's biggest fans describe it as something very different than what it actually is. The way the ToH's fans describe it, I would think I'd love it. I'd love to run/play a module with the style and features it is said to have. But when you read/play the actual module as written, it's very disappointing to see that it is not at all like how it is described.

It's like hearing that a particular movie is a deep mystery story, but when you watch it you see it's actually a thriller horror flick. When you complain that it's a horror flick, someone else comes back with, "What did you want? A mystery story?" Well, yeah, that's what I was told it would be.

Bullgrit

Fair enough. I agree with the majority of the quote you posted, but I can see how such descriptions would give the wrong impression of the module. The "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." line is outwright wrong and is the most misleading part.

 

[BoxingtonPAS]

Fair enough. I agree with the majority of the quote you posted, but I can see how such descriptions would give the wrong impression of the module. The "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." line is outright wrong and is the most misleading part.

I have enjoyed this thread. Have not played in years but this has gotten me to pick up the ole dice again. Thank you all.

 

[Hussar]

Run read. Kind of apropos considering the hoopla over in the Exploration Pillar thread.