PDA

View Full Version : The Tomb of Horrors: You've got to be kidding...



Zergrusheddie
2009-05-18, 01:12 PM
Our group of level 9ish characters are running through the Tomb of Horrors. We've already encountered the statue with the Sphere of Annihilation (The Order of the Stick comics and a good memory saved my ass) and have run into several situations that are just Secret Door inside a Secret Door inside a Secret Door with nothing but a trap that kills everyone. I remember hearing that Tomb of Horrors is one of the most infamous modules ever. What kind of dungeon is this other than a "let's go here and kill everyone!" factory? Please don't post anything too specific, as we are still running it.

Best of luck
-Eddie

The_Werebear
2009-05-18, 01:14 PM
It's a kill factory. It produces blood spatters and broken dreams.

Sorry I can't provide more hope, but it's one giant "screw you" after another.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-18, 01:18 PM
@ The_Werebear: The term is 'Gygaxian'.

@ The OP: It kills you. A lot. It says 9th level characters, but the traps are near-impossible for a Rogue who isn't seriously focused on traps to find, the encounters are about 3 CRs higher than listed, and the entire thing is arbitrary death.

JeenLeen
2009-05-18, 01:19 PM
I ran it using the version updated for 3.5 and it was a cakewalk for my team. I admit that that was because they were playing intelligently--they were terrified because of what they'd heard about--and they were optimized. A Tomb of Battle-based fighter (overcome DR), a helpful utility caster, and a good rogue were all the party needed. A wand of Detect Secret Doors is something a DM running it should ban.

I heard the original version 1 D&D's Tomb of Horrors was very difficult, sometimes if you just step on the wrong square you die, no save, nothing. That might have been an exaggeration, but 3.5 is much easier, it seems.

Edit: I admit that, if not for the ToB fighter, half the party would have killed in the first real fight they got in. Without Detect Secret Doors, they would have wound up in other fights that would have wiped out a lot of enemies. Of all the CR 11+ battles, they only ran into two (including the final boss.)

Baxbart
2009-05-18, 01:32 PM
I ran it once for my (granted... they weren't massively experienced) group - and had to introduce a rolling respawn system since people ran out of spare characters to bring in. People died left, right and centre. Iirc, it was around 6 deaths on average per player, and they didn't ever manage to really find what they were looking for before being chased out and giving up.

It is harsh, and though it can be very fun, it can also be very dull for anyone except the trapmonkey quite a lot of the time.

What's worse is that I'm now currently involved in a GURPS conversion of ToH. Now THAT is unbelievably deadly.

Blackfang108
2009-05-18, 01:49 PM
Last weekend, playing LFR.

My friend(regarding a tomb we were entering, OOC.): This isn't the Tomb of Horrors, right?
Me (IC): The sign said Acerark(sp?).

He stiffened up so quickly his head cracked the wall behind him.

I was on the floor laughing. (He's currently running through it in a 2e campaign.)

Starscream
2009-05-18, 01:52 PM
Yeah, the entire point of ToH is to make players cry while the DM cackles with glee, having finally got revenge for every attempt they made to treat his campaign worlds like their own personal demolition derby.

This article (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wtf-tomb-horrors.php) is basically a funny review of the module, with two guys discussing the most horrible features.

I've only done to Tomb once myself. I actually survived (barely), and I've never gone back to it because I don't want to spoil my perfect 1/1 record. Probably the only way to guarantee winning is to memorize the whole thing, and even then some luck will be needed.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-18, 01:54 PM
Probably the only way to guarantee winning is to memorize the whole thing, and even then some luck will be needed.No, the only way to win is to play a CN merc, who is only in it for the money, and loots his fallen allies and runs ASAP.

Waspinator
2009-05-18, 02:20 PM
If I recall, even in-universe the primary reason it was built is because the owner was a complete jerk.

shadzar
2009-05-18, 02:42 PM
You are lucky to get a t-shirt that says you survived the ToH, but even luckier if you ARE alive to wear it afterwards. :smallwink:

I would strongly give this advice:

Touch nothing except the floor.

You did bring your 10' poles with you right?

chiasaur11
2009-05-18, 02:44 PM
You are lucky to get a t-shirt that says you survived the ToH, but even luckier if you ARE alive to wear it afterwards. :smallwink:

I would strongly give this advice:

Touch nothing except the floor.

You did bring your 10' poles with you right?

What kind of sucker touches the floor?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-18, 02:46 PM
I would strongly give this advice:

Touch nothing except the floor....ARE YOU TRYING TO GET HIM KILLED?!? It's the TOH! Never, under any circumstances, touch the floor. If you don't have fly at-will, you deserve what you get.

Lapak
2009-05-18, 02:53 PM
I heard the original version 1 D&D's Tomb of Horrors was very difficult, sometimes if you just step on the wrong square you die, no save, nothing. That might have been an exaggeration, but 3.5 is much easier, it seems.The original version was indeed much worse. There were a fair number of times where nothing but nothing but random chance prevented your death (such as getting into the place from the outside) and several places where the obvious course resulted in death, being careful and approaching the puzzle/trap with caution and cleverness resulted in death, and being utterly paranoid resulted in either death or being unable to proceed. ('Touch scepter to crown', I'm looking at you!) Only doing something truly extraordinary - searching one specific area of a room in all possible ways, say - would give you the hint that mind indicate what needed to happen.

The only reliable way of penetrating the 1e Tomb was with an army of backup characters and having some of them retreat so that the backup knew what happened to their predecessors. And of course the final threat was ridiculously over-powered for the recommended level, meaning that the reward for succeeding was a worse and more permanent death.

monty
2009-05-18, 03:04 PM
You did bring your 10' poles with you right?

11-foot pole. You now how many things there are with a 10-foot radius?

Eldariel
2009-05-18, 03:11 PM
It's an awesome adventure. Kills idiots. It's like Darwin himself designed it. Then again, it kills almost everyone else too. But at least the overly nosy Rogue finally gets what's coming to him.

Starscream
2009-05-18, 03:16 PM
It's an awesome adventure. Kills idiots. It's like Darwin himself designed it. Then again, it kills almost everyone else too.

You'd draw a distinction between "Everyone who enters the Tomb of Horrors" and "Idiots"?

Eldariel
2009-05-18, 03:18 PM
You'd draw a distinction between "Everyone who enters the Tomb of Horrors" and "Idiots"?

Magical compulsion?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-18, 03:20 PM
You'd draw a distinction between "Everyone who enters the Tomb of Horrors" and "Idiots"?To be fair, many people don't know they're going into it. It's supposed to be just another module from the perspective of the players. It's only some DMs who have a dank, depressed village near the Tomb, filled with people who know how many it kills but are afraid to leave because they don't know what would happen if it doesn't recieve enough blood.

NeoVid
2009-05-18, 03:21 PM
See, the creators of this module have a little jar of crushed gamer spirits to mark their success.

Drascin
2009-05-18, 03:27 PM
See, the creators of this module have a little jar of crushed gamer spirits to mark their success.

..."little"? I'd expect they have enough to fill an 18-wheeler by now.

Surfing HalfOrc
2009-05-18, 03:46 PM
The best way to draw players in is use the "Return to the Tomb of Horrors" adventure. This way, they think they are just investigating a school of necromancers.

But yeah, it's a meatgrinder. From the "welcoming" front door to the end of the line. But if you actually manage to survive it, you will become a legend.

Gorgondantess
2009-05-18, 03:46 PM
..."little"? I'd expect they have enough to fill an 18-wheeler by now.

...It's a really big jar.

Eldan
2009-05-18, 04:33 PM
Our DM did the only sensible thing: he ran a paranoia conversion of it.

Swordguy
2009-05-18, 04:36 PM
I heard the original version 1 D&D's Tomb of Horrors was very difficult, sometimes if you just step on the wrong square you die, no save, nothing. That might have been an exaggeration, but 3.5 is much easier, it seems.

This is true, because the original ToH was not a challenge for the characters. it was a challenge for the players - YOU, the fat guy with glasses sitting at the table, have to figure out how to get around these traps. It's a totally different mindset than "modern" gaming, where the character is considered separate from the player in every way.

Not having the options you do in 3.x helps a LOT in that regard as well. As you said, Wands of Detect Secret Doors completely blow a huge proportion of the adventure (in the original, sans elf or specifically-cast spell, you generally had to look at an image of the scene provided in the adventure and figure out if there was a secret door on your own). Likewise, the ability to "disable device", even if the mechanism is totally concealed or out of reach (which it mostly always is in the ToH) blows a bunch of the challenge out of the water. And this says nothing about stuff like Permanancied Arcane Sight or similar stuff 3,x lets you do.

Finally, I believe this is the best descriptor of the ToH in internet history:

Player 1: I walk into the room.
DM: Are you breathing?
Player 1: Uh, yes.
DM: Make a save vs. poison. Is it a 20? You fall down, dying.
Player 2: Gak! I hold my breath, get to his side and cast Remove Poison.
DM: It's too late - winged devil-monkeys fly out from behind the pillar and counter your spell with advanced laser technology. You also turn into a flounder.
Player 2: What the f-
DM: ...and explode.

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-18, 04:37 PM
...ARE YOU TRYING TO GET HIM KILLED?!? It's the TOH! Never, under any circumstances, touch the floor. If you don't have fly at-will, you deserve what you get.

I learnt that in the first corridor when there was a trap every 10 feet. Spider Climb has saved the party (counting on fingers) 6 times so far. Case in point:

DM: There are spikes on either side of the wall in this corridor.
Me: Looking for the mechanism.
DM: You don't find it in the first 10 feet...
Me: Ok, screw that! Running on the ceiling at full speed!
DM: *Evil glare*

Another point was: Finding a Secret Door that was locked and trapped inside a Secret Door that was locked. That Secret Door led to a door which was impossibly locked (The Beast with 38 Strength took the door off it's hinges). A natural 20 on the Search Check finds a trap mechanism and nothing else. When we left the room, the DM actually told us that it was just a pit trap into lava, door would slam shut, and the floor would reclose and basically be auto-death...

No one has died yet, but my Beguiler has been taken down to -9 HP from a trapped altar and been submerged in Green Slime. Thanks for all the comments and thanks again for not giving anything away. The fact that this got so many posts so quickly makes me think that this Death Factory has ticked loads of people off.

Best of luck
-Eddie

SoD
2009-05-18, 04:50 PM
The only real way to get everyone to praise you and treat you like a god for completing the Tomb of Horrors; don't do it and say you did.

And for gods sake, if you're a ninja, do NOT turn ethereal.

mostlyharmful
2009-05-18, 05:01 PM
Death. Death. I say unto thee DEEEEAAAATTTHHHHH....... for no damn apparant reason and completely randomly, the wall eats you, the ceiling falls on you, the traps are trapped with secret uber traps which are of course also trapped, the puzzles are insane, the secrets are dangerous to know and the friggin' clues are either misleading or traps in themselves. Oh, and don't what ever you do try to go ethereal or the rabid demon penguins eat your soul.:smallmad::smallfurious::smalleek::smallbiggr in:

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-18, 05:04 PM
Yeah, the DM actually said that it was loaded with Ethereal killers, so don't do Jaunts or anything. The entire place has the party scared out of their wits.

mostlyharmful
2009-05-18, 05:06 PM
Yeah, the DM actually said that it was loaded with Ethereal killers, so don't do Jaunts or anything. The entire place has the party scared out of their wits.

Good. They might make it two or even three rooms in.

Flickerdart
2009-05-18, 05:10 PM
..."little"? I'd expect they have enough to fill an 18-wheeler by now.
Nah, people who try Tomb of Horrors are very dense.

mostlyharmful
2009-05-18, 05:15 PM
Nah, people who try Tomb of Horrors Knowinglyare very dense.

fixed that for you, some of us really were expecting just anouther module.

Haven
2009-05-18, 05:16 PM
Our DM did the only sensible thing: he ran a paranoia conversion of it.

Heh. That's pretty much perfect.

By the way, did you hear there's a video game version (http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg) of Tomb of Horrors?

Jack_Simth
2009-05-18, 05:27 PM
It can be beaten. Of course, it takes a Reserve Mage Wizard to do it well.

You'll need:
1) Permanent Arcane Sight (or Permanent Detect Magic, if you can't get Arcane Sight). This aspect is Core.
2) Get the Elemental Summoning Reserve feat. This aspect is from Complete Mage.
3) Get a ranged Reserve Attack Feat (Ideally Acidic Splatter - you may need Heighten Spell to get a high-level Acid spell for it). This aspect is also from Complete Mage.
4) Find a way to survive without air (water breathing won't cut it), for yourself and the entire party (the Ioun stone will work, the Necklace of Adaptation can work, a Bottle of Air could work). This aspect is Core.
5) Know each of the four elemental languages. This aspect is Core. A Permanent Tounges effect can also deal with it.
6) A portable Hole. This is where you put your treasure.

How it works:
1) Stop and look ahead to the maximum range of your magical detection. If anything in that range is magical, zap it until it isn't magical as soon as it's in your attack range (but do NOT walk ahead to get to it). Make sure to check floor, walls, and ceiling as well as the actual territory.
2) Run one of each type of elemental you can Summon through every square in the room, and again along your intended course of travel for as far as you can arrange it (do note that the elemental vanishes at the end of your turn if it's out of range - so that Air Elemental with it's 100 foot Fly speed can be summoned at a range of 30 feet, and then travel another 200 around corners before vanishing, or 400 feet in a straight line - you should have a LOT of warning if you do this right).
3) If anything happens to the elemental, do it again until you know what mechanism is causing it, then zap the mechanism until the mechanism is dead. Goto 2 until this step's If statement proves false. Note: If the mechanism isn't in your zapping range, make sure you understand the trap well enough that it's not going to kill you. Don't approach it until after you've cleared everything else by way of suicide elemental.
4) If you've destroyed everything in range that could potentially be a threat, and you understand everything not in range that could potentially be a threat, take a five foot step in the direction you choose to go.
5) Goto 1 until you find something that needs manipulation.
6) Do not stick anything into anywhere that you don't fully understand. If you can't clearly see what's on the other side, treat it as a wall. Destroying the door is much, much safer than is touching the door.
7) If it must be handled, have one of your summoned elementals do it.
8) Your treasure is all the scrap iron you should be producing by destroying the doors, walls, and furnishings. The stuff is valued at 1 sp/pound. Do not touch it - have an elemental put it in your portable hole.
9) You'll need some party members for dealing with the monsters in the module.
10) Don't go Ethereal. It'll get you killed FAST.
11) Once the you've got enough treasure in your portable hole, turn around and (using the same procedure) go out of the tomb.

NeoVid
2009-05-18, 05:32 PM
Finally, I believe this is the best descriptor of the ToH in internet history:

Player 1: I walk into the room.
DM: Are you breathing?
Player 1: Uh, yes.
DM: Make a save vs. poison. Is it a 20? You fall down, dying.
Player 2: Gak! I hold my breath, get to his side and cast Remove Poison.
DM: It's too late - winged devil-monkeys fly out from behind the pillar and counter your spell with advanced laser technology. You also turn into a flounder.
Player 2: What the f-
DM: ...and explode.

Personally, I like the Dork Tower strip:

Matt: OK, initiative for this round... Carson, you're dead. Igor, you're dead. Gilly, you're dead. Ken, you're dead. Bill, you're dead. Everyone got your backup characters? OK, they're dead too...




By the way, did you hear there's a video game version (http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg) of Tomb of Horrors?

Now I'm really thinking that game and Tomb of Horrors were both created for the same reason. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForTheEvulz)

Starscream
2009-05-18, 05:32 PM
It can be beaten. Of course, it takes a Reserve Mage Wizard to do it well.

--Snip mind boggling plan--

:smalleek:

It's times like this that I'm glad you're the DM and I'm the player and not the other way around. If I ever ran Tomb of Horrors and someone did this I think I would bite through my cardboard screen.


By the way, did you hear there's a video game version (http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg) of Tomb of Horrors?

I actually got fairly far into that thing. I had to watch walkthroughs and still needed about 25 tries per room, but it is possible.

Eventually I got too frustrated and my roommate thought I had Tourette's Syndrome, so I deleted it.

Eldariel
2009-05-18, 05:39 PM
:smalleek:

It's times like this that I'm glad you're the DM and I'm the player and not the other way around. If I ever ran Tomb of Horrors and someone did this I think I would bite through my cardboard screen.

Well, he knows Tomb well enough so the only fair thing is to switch the placements of traps and effects and such around.

Spoilers:
There's at least one trap that collapses a portition of the dungeon. That puts a damper on the "run elementals in"-plan. Also, stuff that blocks advancement for those locked behind is pretty common there.

Basically, the plan safer than actually duking it out, but still like to get you killed. Fast thinking and IQ in the excess of 160 is a good starting point for finishing it though.

Tohron
2009-05-18, 06:00 PM
Signature Spell: Celerity (lets you cast Celerity spontaneously) and daze immunity would go a long way towards keeping you safe - being able to gain a standard action (two if Empowered) as an immediately action would really help with responding to the monsters, and would come in handy if you ever actually reach Acererak too.

Of course, Celerity is banned in a lot of games, but then, this is ToH.

Lycanthromancer
2009-05-18, 07:02 PM
Don't forget to make your wizard an outsider (either via neraph or via a feat), and take Assume Supernatural Ability at level 3 (so you can become a nightmare via alter self/polymorph and use astral projection at will, as a Supernatural Ability).

Now you can leave your body behind at the nearest friendly town (preferably with a trusted bodyguard), and use the Reserve Feat Plantm to strip the dungeon bare.

...Not so useful against the demilich at the end, however. But that's why you pump up your Knowledge checks and use your Insane Arcane Power (also tm) to blow him to hell using broken-to-fudge Core Magic Cheese (also tm).

Jack_Simth
2009-05-18, 07:11 PM
Well, he knows Tomb well enough so the only fair thing is to switch the placements of traps and effects and such around.

This is actually my generic anti-trap Wizard, who was designed as a mental exercise for filling the anti-trap portion of the Rogue's niche. I didn't actually read through The Tomb to see how he'd do until after the plan was in place. The only things added specifically due to my reading through The Tomb were advancing five-feet at a time only (and that's mostly for effect for people reading the plan, honestly), and the "survive without air" bits. The Survive Without Air bit was added due to the Flood of Blood trap - while you could arrange to be outside the room while you're having an elemental take a look at the faucets (you'll need the Third Eye Sense, from the Expanded Psionic Handbook - that item is crazy-useful at times), it's unlikely for that to actually happen, so I fully expect this guy to trigger that one. - but that's also greatly because several of the traps are cheating when you compare the "target level" of The Tomb with the effects it throws your way.

Rearranging the traps? That's not going to affect much.


Spoilers:
There's at least one trap that collapses a portition of the dungeon. That puts a damper on the "run elementals in"-plan. Also, stuff that blocks advancement for those locked behind is pretty common there.

Basically, the plan safer than actually duking it out, but still like to get you killed. Fast thinking and IQ in the excess of 160 is a good starting point for finishing it though.
Ah, but:
The section on which it will collapse still leaves you well outside the drop zone if you're doing this correctly (remember: You've got an Air Elemental preceding you by 230 feet; you've got an Earth elemental preceding you by 70 feet, a Fire Elemental by 130 feet, and a water elemental by 70 feet - all distances calculated based on a 30-foot distance drop (max range placement for the feat) and a double-move). What's the effective range of the trap in question, again? Additionally, loose rock can be moved out of the way after the fact if you decide you really do need to go that way. A partition falls down preventing you from continuing? Not really an issue - stone and iron both have hardness and HP. You can demolish them if they're in your way. Worried about your air running out? Oh wait, that was covered in Item 4 of "You'll need".

The biggest problem is the Antimagic Field (most effects the Reserve Mage is using are Su)... but he'll detect them when the elemental vanishes at that point every time, and he can dig around that readily enough (by demolishing the walls - a 10x10x5 block of granite has hardness 8 and 900 hit points - it's toast with a fifth level Acid spell, Acidic Splatter, and time... and Heighten Spell can make Acid Splash fit the bill).

The really fun part is that this wizard doesn't need to rest except after facing a non-trap encounter.

Mind you, this guy is defeated by a discriminating magical trap and a Core first level spell, and he doesn't do very well when you need to be quiet about getting past a trap, but neither of those apply in The Tomb of Horrors.

:smalleek:

It's times like this that I'm glad you're the DM and I'm the player and not the other way around. If I ever ran Tomb of Horrors and someone did this I think I would bite through my cardboard screen.
If you get upset when the players wreck your plans that are designed in opposition to your player's characters, you shouldn't be DMing. See, wrecking your plans? That's actually part of the player's jobs when you're setting your plans up in opposition to them. You should be happy when they do that, and improvise something else.

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-18, 07:20 PM
Heh. That's pretty much perfect.

By the way, did you hear there's a video game version (http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg) of Tomb of Horrors?

I hate that god damned game so much! If that is Tomb of Horrors, I'm going to need aspirin for the next session...

Jack_Simth
2009-05-18, 07:46 PM
I hate that god damned game so much! If that is Tomb of Horrors, I'm going to need aspirin for the next session...
Build the Reserve Wizard I laid out (there's also a couple of other routes, but Wizard is easiest due to the bonus feats), make certain everyone else in the party can survive without air and are very combat-optimized, and bring the Aspirin anyway ... for your DM.

Edit: Oh, wait - you're using established characters, and you're already partway in. That suggests your DM hates you. You might go back to town, pick up a few wands of Arcane Sight, Summon Monster 1, and Shout (sonic bypasses hardness). You'll want two of each.

Starscream
2009-05-18, 08:03 PM
If you get upset when the players wreck your plans that are designed in opposition to your player's characters, you shouldn't be DMing. See, wrecking your plans? That's actually part of the player's jobs when you're setting your plans up in opposition to them. You should be happy when they do that, and improvise something else.

I'm perfectly happy when my players mess up my plans because there is nothing more boring than just running through encounters like clockwork.

A lot of people think that being a DM is less fun than being a player, but that's only when the players are predictable. You're omnipotent, they aren't, so you are just there to make sure they have fun.

When the players are clever however, then you really need to take notice and think on your feet. As a player I don't really like to optimize, because I think it makes things boring, but as a DM I encourage the players to be as tough and versatile as they can because it gives me more of a challenge when I try to come up with appropriate obstacles. Often that's even more fun than being a player.

I just meant that I'd be terribly shocked to witness a player handle the dreaded Tomb like that. It basically makes pretty much every trap ever obsolete. If I ever want to hit the PCs with another trap again, I had better open some of those sadistic Grimtooth books or become really creative really fast.

JadedDM
2009-05-18, 08:03 PM
Strange game. It seems the only winning movie is not to play.

:smallamused:

Flickerdart
2009-05-18, 08:24 PM
Strange game. It seems the only winning movie is not to play.

:smallamused:
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is largely regarded as a bad move."-Life, The Universe, and Everything

Juggernaut1981
2009-05-18, 08:35 PM
As a DM... why you would consider tossing in ToH in the middle of a campaign...

Because you're tired of those nice scenarios you worked on that weren't Meatgrinders... getting turned into Meatgrinders by players who then spend the next 15min asking "So what do we do now?"...

ToH is a Gygax-style response to "Sure you have HPs and can mash things good... here is a dungeon... go Meatgrinder it... ooooh it's a frustrating experience to watch your carefully crafted cheese get annihilated?? Welcome to the experience of DMing for you guys... (put dice in box, go get beer)"

Jack_Simth
2009-05-18, 08:41 PM
I'm perfectly happy when my players mess up my plans because there is nothing more boring than just running through encounters like clockwork.

A lot of people think that being a DM is less fun than being a player, but that's only when the players are predictable. You're omnipotent, they aren't, so you are just there to make sure they have fun.

When the players are clever however, then you really need to take notice and think on your feet. As a player I don't really like to optimize, because I think it makes things boring, but as a DM I encourage the players to be as tough and versatile as they can because it gives me more of a challenge when I try to come up with appropriate obstacles. Often that's even more fun than being a player.

True enough.


I just meant that I'd be terribly shocked to witness a player handle the dreaded Tomb like that. It basically makes pretty much every trap ever obsolete. If I ever want to hit the PCs with another trap again, I had better open some of those sadistic Grimtooth books or become really creative really fast.
Oh, not at all. See, vanilla traps are pretty boring to begin with even in standard play - roll search, roll disable device; make both rolls, or soak an effect. In either case, move on. Less than that, if you're dealing with a good trapfinding rogue who takes ten or twenty; you don't actually care what the trap does. The anti-trap wizard at least gets to watch all the pretty traps go boom; he's a step UP from the rogue who's defeating the traps, from a narration perspective.

To actually make traps interesting, you mix them with one or more creatures that are able to do one or more of:
1) Ignore them with impunity
2) Benefit from them directly

Example of Type 1: the Evil Wizard on his throne as the PC's enter his room would normally invite a charge from the party fighter... but there's that pesky matter of the Camouflaged Pit Traps scattered around the throne room. Your basic Camouflaged Pit Trap is only CR 1 at ten feet of depth... but it'll delay the melee characters from closing for at least a round, unless they prepare in advance and know they're stepping into an Evil Wizard's lair. The Evil Wizard, of course, knows exactly where each one is (he had them put in), and/or has a Fly or Air Walk effect up.

Example of Type 2: there's a room, where the majority of the floor is a touch-activated auto-reset Inflict X Wounds trap. Inside this room, there is an intelligent undead. Every round, the undead triggers the trap, and soaks an Inflict X wound spell... which heals the undead (I actually ran across this in a completely randomly generated dungeon once, and threw the two together like this just for grins - you may remember it).

With either type, the critter prevents the trap from being nothing more than two rolls of the dice - you're not going to spend your time using Search and Disable Device when there's a critter trying to eat you. After the critter is dead, the trap isn't much of a challenge anymore (Search and Disable Device work just fine, as normal, now).

Interestingly, this technique for making interesting traps doesn't actually care if you're using the standard anti-trap rogue, or the Reserve Mage Wizard.

Also... you can still use fairly standard traps - they just have to be discriminating enough to ignore an Elemental (or an Unseen Servant dragging a sack filled with 100 pound rocks, for the low-level version of the same wizard) - and discriminating traps are a good thing; a trap that hits everything doesn't usually make sense anyway. Also, they have to make use of the 1st level Sor/Wiz spell "Magic Aura" to remove the magical aura.

Starscream
2009-05-18, 09:05 PM
Oh, not at all. See, vanilla traps are pretty boring to begin with even in standard play - roll search, roll disable device; make both rolls, or soak an effect. In either case, move on. Less than that, if you're dealing with a good trapfinding rogue who takes ten or twenty; you don't actually care what the trap does. The anti-trap wizard at least gets to watch all the pretty traps go boom; he's a step UP from the rogue who's defeating the traps, from a narration perspective.

My usual method is to incorporate riddles of some kind. Gives the players something to do other than rolling dice. Also, the Riddler is my favorite supervillain, and if I'm going to be working against the heroes, I might as well emulate someone I like :smallbiggrin:.

Typically there will be three possible outcomes. If they figure out the solution they get through unharmed.

If they instead rely on the dice they can disable the trap, but frequently trigger some other, less dangerous threat. I try to make this something logical; like the poisoned arrow that was going to fire at them misses, but hits a gong instead possibly summoning a wandering monster.

If they just rely on the "sledgehammer" tactic (i.e. have the barbarian bust down the door) then they suffer the full effects of the trap.

The problem with riddles is that some players feel that the game should be decided by their character's abilities and not their own. They point out that it's stupid for a wizard with an 18 int to spend hours sitting outside the door until the halfling figures out it's the elven word for "friend".

So typically an intelligence roll or some sort of knowledge check will yield a hint of some kind, so at least clever characters get an advantage, even if their players are dumb.

harami2000
2009-05-18, 09:14 PM
It is harsh, and though it can be very fun, it can also be very dull for anyone except the trapmonkey quite a lot of the time.
Tourney mods are best played to a time limit as originally intended, IMHO. :smallwink:

Swordguy
2009-05-18, 09:32 PM
If you get upset when the players wreck your plans that are designed in opposition to your player's characters, you shouldn't be DMing. See, wrecking your plans? That's actually part of the player's jobs when you're setting your plans up in opposition to them. You should be happy when they do that, and improvise something else.

Wrecking your plans is entirely different than rendering the entire module/game pointless. There's a social construct where the group tacitly agrees to work with the DM so the WHOLE group can have a good time. Pulling something like that completely destroys both the dynamic of the game, AND the point of playing in the first place. What's the point of DMing or playing anything but the mage when people pull that crap? Nobody else has fun but you when you do that.

My response to that would either be, "OK, you win. Have fun gaming yourselves, guys - I'll go play some xbox." or to the player who played that: "Get out."

Why not create an epic spell that instantly defeats the ToH while you're at it? Everyone else at the table will have just as much fun that way - read, NONE - and then you can complain at the DM for not improvising brilliantly when his game preperation for the next month goes down the tubes. It's this reason why I only run the older version of ToH - you can't really pull that kind of **** off in 2e. Why bother if there's no challenge?

MickJay
2009-05-18, 10:23 PM
True, ToH is probably the worst module to convert to 3+, since almost all of its real challenges become pieces of cake with the extra powers and abilities the players gained in newer editions.

Hectonkhyres
2009-05-18, 10:40 PM
What should you do? Stop the game and play a full round of Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, and C°ntinuum in quick succession. Only then will you truly be ready for the abomination that is Tomb of Horrors.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-18, 10:45 PM
So, Swordguy.

Setting up a module only to see it obliterated by the players: Pointless waste of time.
Writing up a character only to see him obliterated by the module: Fun times?

This is the Tomb of Horrors we're talking about. Some groups might like its extremely high levels of "You die", but they wouldn't try to just breeze through it, now would they? Against anyone else, it's pretty much just mean, so how would being mean back to the DM not be a legitimate response?

chiasaur11
2009-05-18, 10:53 PM
Wrecking your plans is entirely different than rendering the entire module/game pointless. There's a social construct where the group tacitly agrees to work with the DM so the WHOLE group can have a good time. Pulling something like that completely destroys both the dynamic of the game, AND the point of playing in the first place. What's the point of DMing or playing anything but the mage when people pull that crap? Nobody else has fun but you when you do that.

My response to that would either be, "OK, you win. Have fun gaming yourselves, guys - I'll go play some xbox." or to the player who played that: "Get out."

Why not create an epic spell that instantly defeats the ToH while you're at it? Everyone else at the table will have just as much fun that way - read, NONE - and then you can complain at the DM for not improvising brilliantly when his game preperation for the next month goes down the tubes. It's this reason why I only run the older version of ToH - you can't really pull that kind of **** off in 2e. Why bother if there's no challenge?

Well, to be fair, that epic spell will, in fact, be more fun than running the tomb at all for most parties.

It takes a certain perverse sense of humor, I assume.

Swordguy
2009-05-18, 11:09 PM
So, Swordguy.

Setting up a module only to see it obliterated by the players: Pointless waste of time.
Writing up a character only to see him obliterated by the module: Fun times?

This is the Tomb of Horrors we're talking about. Some groups might like its extremely high levels of "You die", but they wouldn't try to just breeze through it, now would they? Against anyone else, it's pretty much just mean, so how would being mean back to the DM not be a legitimate response?

Truly, your handle is chosen wisely...

Truthfully, my rant (for rant it is) is against the method of gaming that allows - nay, encourages! - players to derail storylines or modules that the DM has come up with to entertain the entire group. The modern conception of railroading has somehow become "if the DM wants to do it, it's railroading". If you're using a pregenerated module in the first place, you understand that the point is to actually play the module. It's what's best for the group as a whole - 1 player haring off on his own and destroying the module only hurts the group and makes the DM not want to run adventures anymore. What's the point when the players won't cooperate, and actively resent the work the DM puts into a shared group experience?

Now, you ask what's the difference between a player obliterating a module and wasting the time the DM put into preparing it, and a DM killing a character in said module that the player put a great deal of time into? The difference is that without the DM, there's no game. Any given character in a campaign is expendable, but without a DM actually presenting a world and running adventures, there's not a game at all. You can make that same argument against ANY situation in which the DM kills a character. If a character dies, the player rolls another one. If the DM's work goes down the drain every time a player gets a hair up his ass and reads the Wizard Optimization Boards, the DM gets tired of the game being over a half-hour in and stops running the game. Then you don't have a game at all. It's part of the DM's job to kill characters on occasion, and the player's job to accept that with good grace, a cool burial or remembrance for the dearly departed, and a fresh new character concept to try out.

It is NOT the player's job to make the DM quit the game, and I don't know a DM who wouldn't be asking himself what the point is if he was limited only to the role of generic NPC and rules-interpreter because his stories for the players always get derails by a player who cares only for his own entertainment.

The rules of small group dynamics don't change because you're playing an RPG.

Now, you're quite correct in that it's a mean module - and a DM that just drops it on his party with no warning is almost certainly a bad DM. But that's not the nature of the ToH. The point is either as a punitive measure against out-of-control players (in which case, he's not a bad DM for dropping it on them) or as a milestone for the characters. It's a BIG DEAL to go into the ToH, and players are going to WANT to go - for the prestige of saying "I survived" if for nothing else. It's almost a rite of passage in some groups. If you're playing the module by choice, you shouldn't be trying to break it, or render it pointless. It removes all meaning from the phrase "I survived the Tomb or Horrors" if you essentially remove all the risk. The risk is the POINT.

Colmarr
2009-05-19, 12:29 AM
Stuff

I generally agree with you, but for different reasons.

A player springing TrapWizardTM on an unsuspecting DM is reprehensible. But a DM springing the Tomb Of Horrors on unsuspecting players is equally reprehensible.

Except in some outlier groups, IMO the default assumption of the D&D hobby* is that the DM will challenge but not unfairly overwhelm the players. In turn, it is assumed that the players will not make it unduly hard on the DM to challenge them and/or run the game.

If either side breaks that "treaty" without prior agreement, the game goes downhill rapidly.

The problem with TrapWizardTM (apart from your justified comments that he reduces the other PCs to sidekicks and bodyguards) is not per se that he's impinging on the DM's fun; it's that he's breaking the default assumptions of the hobby*.

*Note that I said hobby, not game. This is a metagame assumption about how the game will be played, not about what the game will contain.

Swordguy
2009-05-19, 12:42 AM
I generally agree with you, but for different reasons.

A player springing TrapWizardTM on an unsuspecting DM is reprehensible. But a DM springing the Tomb Of Horrors on unsuspecting players is equally reprehensible.

Except in some outlier groups, IMO the default assumption of the D&D hobby* is that the DM will challenge but not unfairly overwhelm the players. In turn, it is assumed that the players will not make it unduly hard on the DM to challenge them and/or run the game.


All too true. I touched on that a little earlier,


Wrecking your plans is entirely different than rendering the entire module/game pointless. There's a social construct where the group tacitly agrees to work with the DM so the WHOLE group can have a good time. Pulling something like that completely destroys both the dynamic of the game, AND the point of playing in the first place.

...but you said it FAR more clearly. Thank you.

Additionally, regarding the "fun of the DM"; from my perspective, my main focus is on the DM getting to have fun too - I've been in at least 1 D&D game a week for a decade, and haven't been a player of D&D since 2001. I've had players (and posters here, for that matter) tell me in all seriousness that the DM isn't supposed to have fun when running a game. That the only people who matter are the players. Thus, I'm a bit sensitive about such sentiments.

Paramour Pink
2009-05-19, 12:55 AM
I think the only thing that scares me about this module is that it seems to attract bitter DMs and suicidal players. :smalleek:

Colmarr
2009-05-19, 12:59 AM
Additionally, regarding the "fun of the DM"; from my perspective, my main focus is on the DM getting to have fun too - I've been in at least 1 D&D game a week for a decade, and haven't been a player of D&D since 2001.

As a former DM, I sympathise. A DM is in a very difficult position, and most players probably don't realise why.

As a player, you generally take enjoyment from beating the DM. That's an oversimplification, but at heart it's true. The DM challenges you, and you rejoice in beating those challenges.

What exactly does the DM rejoice in? If he's too deadly, no one has fun. If he's not deadly enough, his gaming time is spent running combats that have foregone conclusions and in which he is always playing the losing side.

DM is a really difficult job if you take it seriously, and that in turn makes it even more important that players don't go running around breaking that assumptionTM willy-nilly.

Myrmex
2009-05-19, 01:24 AM
From everything I hear, ToH sounds exactly like how an in universe dungeon SHOULD be. A poorly guarded treasure chest at the end of a linear, and safe set of doors with no protection against ethereal/astral travel seems a really bad set up. Any vault in D&D seems a waste of time to make, unless it's your house and you've got a lot of time and resources.

Colmarr
2009-05-19, 01:55 AM
From everything I hear, ToH sounds exactly like how an in universe dungeon SHOULD be. A poorly guarded treasure chest at the end of a linear, and safe set of doors with no protection against ethereal/astral travel seems a really bad set up. Any vault in D&D seems a waste of time to make, unless it's your house and you've got a lot of time and resources.

Except that AFAI can gather, ToH has no rewards sufficiently valuable to justify the trouble and expense that Acererak went to to protect them.

It's like the universe's biggest bucket of slime balanced on the top of the door to the bathroom. It's there just because its maker was a douche.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-19, 02:16 AM
Except that AFAI can gather, ToH has no rewards sufficiently valuable to justify the trouble and expense that Acererak went to to protect them.

Spoiler
There is Acererak himself - or at least a demilich that pretends to be one.
But yes, the 3E conversion was a bad idea - but not just because 3E Wizards can break anything they want. The whole point of any Gygaxian dungeon is for it to test the players, not their characters. This is why there is so much description in the module - the players had to identify traps beforehand and figure out how to basically do everything (even find secret doors). Running the ToH using 3E or later mechanics is either a cakewalk or a meatgrinder - you use skills for everything your magic doesn't cover.

This is not to say any idiot with a TrapWizard can make it through ToH - but being able to wrap yourself in a mystic cocoon defeats most of the designer's intent.

It was nice of WotC to update ToH, but in so doing, they rather missed the point. It was a dungeon built for a different age...

Swordguy
2009-05-19, 02:25 AM
What exactly does the DM rejoice in? If he's too deadly, no one has fun. If he's not deadly enough, his gaming time is spent running combats that have foregone conclusions and in which he is always playing the losing side.

Presenting the framework for a good story and sharing in the telling of that story with the players. Assuming, of course, that doesn't fall under 'railroading' and the players are willing to work with you to make it happen. [there's no smilies indicating a sarcastic, yet slight depressed, grin - so imagine one here]

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-19, 02:33 AM
Presenting the framework for a good story and sharing in the telling of that story with the players. Assuming, of course, that doesn't fall under 'railroading' and the players are willing to work with you to make it happen. [there's no smilies indicating a sarcastic, yet slight depressed, grin - so imagine one here]
Heh, QFT.

Story is everything in all RPGs; and it is a story told by the players as much as by the DM. The actual split varies from system to system, but a game where you do nothing but run combats and maximize stats is known as a wargame. They're fun, but for different reasons.

For ToH specifically, it was designed to be a tournament one-shot that was so twisted that its players would talk about how their characters died for years to come. There, the story was the death of the PC; in another game their life, or their deeds, or their relationships with others may be the story. Or it might just be about kicking down the door in Castle Von Doom and charging Archlich Ferdinand with a flaming vorpal phasing sword +6 and duking it out - but even there, the story of why you're at Castle Von Doom in the first place is what makes that battle meaningful and - dare I say it - fun :smalltongue:

harami2000
2009-05-19, 07:28 AM
For ToH specifically, it was designed to be a tournament one-shot that was so twisted that its players would talk about how their characters died for years to come.
They still are. I know people from the original tourney setup at Origins who are talking about that 34 years later.
Converting to 3e was indeed a nice touch to bring ToH to a new audience but it is very, very easy to "miss the point" given changed expectations in RPing and a totally different game setup vs. that original "you have 3 hours" (or thereabouts) context.

And, for the 1975 original, there is no chance of misinterpreting the tone of the setting giving the wording in the preamble. "Surpassing challange (sic)/Certain Death" is really probably not what you want to be putting a much-loved character through "just for fun". :smallsmile:

Rhiannon87
2009-05-19, 08:24 AM
Except that AFAI can gather, ToH has no rewards sufficiently valuable to justify the trouble and expense that Acererak went to to protect them.

It's like the universe's biggest bucket of slime balanced on the top of the door to the bathroom. It's there just because its maker was a douche.

Yeah. The "haul" you get at the end? Not worth it. Not worth it even a little. There are cursed items in the haul, for the love of little green apples.

NephandiMan
2009-05-19, 09:35 AM
Presenting the framework for a good story and sharing in the telling of that story with the players. Assuming, of course, that doesn't fall under 'railroading' and the players are willing to work with you to make it happen. [there's no smilies indicating a sarcastic, yet slight depressed, grin - so imagine one here]

Although Oracle Hunter beat me to it, QFT. This is the ethos I try to live by as a player. Evidently there are some players (hopefully rather more a minority than the rumors surrounding them would suggest) who find no greater delight while gaming than utterly wrecking the GM's plans. A little unexpectedness here and there is fine, it helps keep the game fresh, but if you're not collaborating to tell - or rather, enact - a memorable story peopled with memorable characters, what's the point?

More squarely on topic, how bad is ToH? I ran it last Halloween as a one-shot, with players who knew full well how bad it was going to be (and we had a blast, by the way - I don't think any of us had ever laughed that hard at a D&D session, although it's revealing that I was laughing harder than any of the players). Anyway, one of the players had some unholy combination of warlock and cleric that allowed him to use his eldritch blasts to heal damage, giving the party unlimited healing. I allowed this monstrosity because I was quite confident I would still end the night with a total party kill.

And I did.

Lapak
2009-05-19, 09:57 AM
EDIT: Regarding "the payoff is insufficient for the danger!"

Spoiler
There is Acererak himself - or at least a demilich that pretends to be one.This. You have to view the Tomb from the point of view of the guy building it; it's not built for the convenience of adventurers. In fact, making sure that no treasure trove gets established there that's worth the trouble is the single BEST protection that the Tomb provides for the one thing that it's actually there to protect. Again, it's the ideal design using 'in-setting' logic - making it ridiculously dangerous is good, but making it ridiculously dangerous with no payoff is better.

MickJay
2009-05-19, 10:14 AM
Having a dungeon to protect the treasure is probably the dumbest idea ever, just think about it: what does your typical adventurer think when they see one? "Ooh, a dungeon, there must be a treasure inside, let's loot the place" :smalltongue:

And that's yet another thing which makes ToH nasty, as it exploits this kind of thinking; even better if the players actually don't know there's nothing worthwhile inside...

Another_Poet
2009-05-19, 10:17 AM
What kind of dungeon is this other than a "let's go here and kill everyone!" factory? Please don't post anything too specific, as we are still running it.


Don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but it isn't typically "Gygaxian" at all. Well sure the puns and not-so-helpful riddles are, but Gygax wrote this dungeon for a tournament and it was expected that he would present a truly fierce killer of a dungeon. He delivered.

It was never meant to be a "drop this into your normal campaign" adventure; it's meant as a top-tier challenge to play and a badge of honour to defeat. That's all.

Gygax wasn't known for being a merciless player-murdering jerk. He was known for wanting his friends to have a good time and yet also challenge their critical thinking skills. For all the people that point to ToH and say it's typical Gygax I hope there are at least as many people who remember... you know... the other 99% of the dungeons he designed. Many are deadly but all are meant to be winnable.

ToH is the exception. Defeating it with anything other than a nonstop grind of replacement characters and a ton of metagame knowledge is close to impossible.

Good luck in there. I'm jealous that you get to play it.

:)

ap

P.S. Try teleporting in... I dare you.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-19, 01:49 PM
Gygax wasn't known for being a merciless player-murdering jerk. He was known for wanting his friends to have a good time and yet also challenge their critical thinking skills. For all the people that point to ToH and say it's typical Gygax I hope there are at least as many people who remember... you know... the other 99% of the dungeons he designed. Many are deadly but all are meant to be winnable.

N.B. He did have a habit of fatally re-writing rules when a player found an exploit. Putting a Bag of Holding inside another Bag of Holding? Catastrophic pandimensional explosion!

harami2000
2009-05-19, 02:50 PM
Don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but it isn't typically "Gygaxian" at all. Well sure the puns and not-so-helpful riddles are, but Gygax wrote this dungeon for a tournament and it was expected that he would present a truly fierce killer of a dungeon. He delivered.
Do you know that for a fact about that "expectation"? We're talking right back in 1975 here...
Anyhow, ToH is typical of EGG's earlier writings in terms of being a tourney mod; as were Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Lost Caverns of Tsojconth, Lost Tamoachan, Ghost Tower of Inverness... hmm... Giants/Drow aren't exactly pussycats, either (well, 500 pound stripey ones, perhaps).


It was never meant to be a "drop this into your normal campaign" adventure; it's meant as a top-tier challenge to play and a badge of honour to defeat. That's all.
I'd've thought that was reading a bit too much with hindsight, personally. TSR wasn't even publishing modules for several years after ToH because they didn't think there was a market for those.


Gygax wasn't known for being a merciless player-murdering jerk. He was known for wanting his friends to have a good time and yet also challenge their critical thinking skills. For all the people that point to ToH and say it's typical Gygax I hope there are at least as many people who remember... you know... the other 99% of the dungeons he designed. Many are deadly but all are meant to be winnable.
What are those "other 99%", out of interest? That's ten tourneys above (no D1) and "even" the likes of Lost Tamoachan can be a TPK right at the start, so there should be 990 other Gygax productions to list.
From what I know, I'd agree with his intentions for the game whilst playing alongside friends but how much of that day-in, day-out campaign material has ever been published?

Another_Poet
2009-05-19, 03:43 PM
Hi Harami,

I didn't mean it as a strict history lesson. I think that the modules you list are much easier than ToH, though not as easy as a standard off-the-shelf module today. He certainly felt that traps were there to kill, not delay intruders. And he liked outsmarting people. But I always get the sense from his writing that he liked being outsmarted too.

As far as the expectations in 1975 I wasn't there so I can't be sure. But we're talking about a group that was mostly war gamers. PCs were cheap fodder and narrow corridors with ridiculous tricks were brand spanking new. You can bet they wanted to see it taken to the extreme.

As far as cranking up the rules, I think that's another aspect of the outsmarting competition. A friend of mine likes to tell me this story about how the US military was running training exercises to see how Iraqi insurgents could best carry out coordinated strikes against the US. Some US soldiers got to play the Iraqis in the exercise. They were told they couldn't use very high-tech means to coordinate their attacks because Iraq didn't have those at the time. So they sent motorbike messengers all over with their orders and won the exercise. Immediately they were told "okay, no motorbikes this time, we'll set up checkpoints on the roads" and had to try again. That time they started broadcasting troop movement orders from mosque loudspeakers. The orders moved across the cities and villages quickly and they still won. The US changed the rules again....

You get the point. I'm not saying Gary wrote 1,000 modules or that they were fair happy bunny sleepover parties. It's just that gaming was a lot moe competition-focused then and RPing was less of a major emphasis. Characters weren't expected to live 20 levels and if they died in an interesting way that is a lot cooler than just being impaled on a spear.

ToH was more extreme than most, and isn't the best example of his work.

ap

Jack_Simth
2009-05-19, 05:57 PM
Wrecking your plans is entirely different than rendering the entire module/game pointless. There's a social construct where the group tacitly agrees to work with the DM so the WHOLE group can have a good time. Pulling something like that completely destroys both the dynamic of the game, AND the point of playing in the first place. What's the point of DMing or playing anything but the mage when people pull that crap? Nobody else has fun but you when you do that.

My response to that would either be, "OK, you win. Have fun gaming yourselves, guys - I'll go play some xbox." or to the player who played that: "Get out."

Why not create an epic spell that instantly defeats the ToH while you're at it? Everyone else at the table will have just as much fun that way - read, NONE - and then you can complain at the DM for not improvising brilliantly when his game preperation for the next month goes down the tubes. It's this reason why I only run the older version of ToH - you can't really pull that kind of **** off in 2e. Why bother if there's no challenge?
How do I want to put this...

What's the purpose of The Tomb of Horrors in the first place?

Why, it's a puzzle dungeon. And the problem with it as a puzzle dungeon is the same problem that I've always had with every other outright puzzle in D&D - it's specifically designed with one "win", and set up so that all other solutions are "punished" - in order for the players to have any fun with it "as intended", they have to be able to think closely enough to the designer of the dungeon to "get it" and anticipate the other guy - a man they've never so much as met, in this case. You get an absurd range of reactions to it - many will hate it, some will love it, others will think it utterly boring. Why? Various levels of enjoyment/ability at the task of thinking like the game designer. In the case of the Tomb, it's mostly "get it right or die" if you're playing it "as intended". Those who don't have much skill at thinking like the game's designer face what seems like utterly arbitrary character deaths - over and over and over again. That's not enjoyable. Alternately, they sit at each obstacle, asking the DM to repeat the description over and over and over again in hopes of picking up on a clue they missed the last time round. Few people enjoy reading (or listening to) the same passage twenty times. Again - not fun. Someone who can anticipate exactly what is intended the first time, every time, gets bored - it's too predictable. Again - not fun. There's only a fairly small range of players that'll actually have fun with The Tomb playing it as intended - those for whom thinking through the puzzles is challenging, but not insurmountable, and who enjoy puzzles of that sort. I'm not in that group.

The Trapsmith Wizard doesn't play the module "as intended" and can bypass all the (for me) not-fun puzzles by what amounts to brute-force. And yes, while he *can* sideline the rest of the party for the non-combat encounters doing this, he doesn't actually need to do so - it's entirely possible for him to not take the lead, and let everyone else take a stab at the puzzles, only going into dungeon-smasher mode once everyone else has taken a stab at it. It's also entirely possible for him to use the Elementals as a testing ground - a "was it solved successfully" test - prior to committing PC's to it.

And yet, for some odd reason, you react to it extremely emotionally - calling it a "kind of ****" when I treat the module as a single character-building puzzle, rather than a series of individual puzzles (almost all of which are "win or die" repeated a very large number of times). Why such a strong reaction?


EDIT: Regarding "the payoff is insufficient for the danger!"
This. You have to view the Tomb from the point of view of the guy building it; it's not built for the convenience of adventurers. In fact, making sure that no treasure trove gets established there that's worth the trouble is the single BEST protection that the Tomb provides for the one thing that it's actually there to protect. Again, it's the ideal design using 'in-setting' logic - making it ridiculously dangerous is good, but making it ridiculously dangerous with no payoff is better.
There's a catch to that, though. There's also the issue of the metagame "things the players can handle". You're looking at it entirely in 'in-setting' logic, and ignoring the metagame... but "intended for a party of 4-6 9th level characters" is itself metagame, and is required for the module to do what it's theoretically supposed to do. If we're going with "in-game" logic, you should hold off on the Tomb, and come in and clean it out once you've got Shapechange available, and can go through it as an Incorporeal creature traveling along inside the walls. Strip the place down to bare stone, use Analyze Deweomer on everything, and sell the cursed items to the Artificers for recycling. After all, the dungeon has a lot of stuff at caster level 20, which means it required a 20th level caster to create. Why shouldn't the guy who harvests it also be 20th level?

The same in-game logic that leads to the lack of treasure is exactly the same in-game logic that says you should play the Trapsmith Wizard, or hit it when you're high enough that it's not actually a threat anymore. For the level of threat the module entails, it should have more treasure for metagame reasons.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-19, 06:08 PM
And yet, for some odd reason, you react to it extremely emotionally - calling it a "kind of ****" when I treat the module as a single character-building puzzle, rather than a series of individual puzzles (almost all of which are "win or die" repeated a very large number of times). Why such a strong reaction?
I'll give my response: a module solved by clever character creation rather than in-game action is a module that does not need to be played.

After all, since your character can, without fail, defeat every possible trap in the module, why play? The DM should just look at your character sheet, nod, and then say "OK, you win."

For a DM, this is maddening. In a module, you've basically mooted the night's entertainment - you have the cheat code to bypass any obstacle that might thwart a party's efforts. In a campaign, you have an arms race rather than a storytelling event; the DM now needs to figure out how to beat the "god build" in order to provide some risk in the campaign, while avoiding making the character even more powerful. There's barely any time for the DM to think about interesting plots or NPCs, which is generally what DMs spend their times thinking about (or at least I do :smalltongue:)

In short, a "god build" shifts the focus of the RPG from "making an interesting story" to "making a mechanically difficult adventure." I suspect that few DMs relish the latter game - and I know that I have always hated it.

Colmarr
2009-05-19, 06:12 PM
Presenting the framework for a good story and sharing in the telling of that story with the players. Assuming, of course, that doesn't fall under 'railroading' and the players are willing to work with you to make it happen. [there's no smilies indicating a sarcastic, yet slight depressed, grin - so imagine one here]

While I agree there you have the core of what is enjoyable about DMing (and thus why some people don't enjoy it), there has to be more to it than that.

If it was all about sharing a story with friends, then it would be easier to do so around a campfire with a beer. You could even make it an interactive story and you wouldn't need rules.

So there's something more to it. I suspect that for the DM to truly have fun playing D&D, you need to find that fine line where he enjoys playing the monsters without feeling any guilt about them being too effective.

At least, that's how I feel about DMing. I never enjoyed the encounters that were going to crush the PCs, and I rarely enjoyed the encounter that got steamrolled. It was only when we had an even match that I felt like I truly enjoyed the combats.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-19, 06:21 PM
At least, that's how I feel about DMing. I never enjoyed the encounters that were going to crush the PCs, and I rarely enjoyed the encounter that got steamrolled. It was only when we had an even match that I felt like I truly enjoyed the combats.
As a previously linked blog post stated, this enjoyment extends from the uncertainty involved in game mechanics. An encounter that is correctly made will have many moments where the long-term (and short term!) outcomes are unknowable and, best of all, none of the people at the table can know that outcome. The DM can plot and the PCs can plan but none of them knows exactly how the game will turn out.

Anything that removes uncertainty from a D&D-style game makes it less fun. Railroading removes the uncertainty of story direction; Dice Fudging removes the uncertainty of combat or skill outcomes; a "God Build" character removes the uncertainty of success in a story. Now, I know that when I start talking about "fun" I enter into dangerous waters, but I am speaking from the perspective of someone who goes to a table to see if they can "win" - whether it is rescuing the princess, slaying the dragon, or solving the puzzle. If the outcome is known beforehand, then why bother playing?

Mercenary Pen
2009-05-19, 06:29 PM
With reference to the fact that the 3.5 version of Tomb of Horrors was- in effect- ruined by the sheer proliferation of win button effects that 3.5 had, is there any merit to creating a 4e version of Tomb of Horrors (using the Acererak Construct statblock presented on p200 of Open Grave, on the grounds that a level 26 solo often offends)?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-19, 06:38 PM
With reference to the fact that the 3.5 version of Tomb of Horrors was- in effect- ruined by the sheer proliferation of win button effects that 3.5 had, is there any merit to creating a 4e version of Tomb of Horrors (using the Acererak Construct statblock presented on p200 of Open Grave, on the grounds that a level 26 solo often offends)?
No.

Tomb of Horrors was an adventure made for a different age. You could turn all of the traps into skill challenges and redo the monster blocks, but it won't jive with the underlying assumptions of 4E.

Of course, YMMV, but IMHO if you're playing Tomb of Horrors, do it in the original edition. Note that this does not apply to pretty much every other module out there - the emphasis on PC death in ToH is unique (IIRC) amongst all of the other modules ever published for an edition of D&D.

Jack_Simth
2009-05-19, 06:54 PM
I'll give my response: a module solved by clever character creation rather than in-game action is a module that does not need to be played.

After all, since your character can, without fail, defeat every possible trap in the module, why play? The DM should just look at your character sheet, nod, and then say "OK, you win."

For a DM, this is maddening. In a module, you've basically mooted the night's entertainment - you have the cheat code to bypass any obstacle that might thwart a party's efforts. In a campaign, you have an arms race rather than a storytelling event; the DM now needs to figure out how to beat the "god build" in order to provide some risk in the campaign, while avoiding making the character even more powerful. There's barely any time for the DM to think about interesting plots or NPCs, which is generally what DMs spend their times thinking about (or at least I do :smalltongue:)

In short, a "god build" shifts the focus of the RPG from "making an interesting story" to "making a mechanically difficult adventure." I suspect that few DMs relish the latter game - and I know that I have always hated it.
Great. Now we turn that around. What do you do if your players aren't sufficiently in tune with the author of the module; what do you do if they don't actually have a reasonable chance of solving the puzzles in the module? Most of The Tomb of Horrors is "Death by Puzzle" and "Death by Trap". Without a particular stripe of player, it can't actually be beaten "as intended". So what if you don't have a group of that particular stripe of player? There's no uncertainty. If it turns out you've only got one player who's sufficiently "in-tune" to win when playing it "as intended", then you'll end up with one character who deals with most of the module - which was one of the things mentioned about The Trapsmith Wizard. Of course, you can't know which group you have until after you've tried your group against The Tomb.

With The Trapsmith Wizard, there's still the uncertainty inherent in the too-high-CR-for-the-listed-level-of-the-module critters that are non-optional combats if you're going to complete The Tomb. In almost any other module, the Trapsmith Wizard is NOT a limelight hog (he deals with the boring traps, like a rogue does but using a method that at least shows you what they do; neither would get all that much credit for that aspect of their character in virtually any other module), and does not break the game in any other module (at least, not more than any other "normal" wizard that's supposed to be in the party anyway). The only reason he's "a problem" in The Tomb is because the Tomb is traps piled on traps with very little else of interest.

If you've got a traditional 3.5 rogue in the party, who uses his skills to beat everything that's beatable in that manner, and ten-foot poles to deal with the rest, you'll end up with said Rogue taking the limelight for most the module - one player.

Fundamentally, the module is poorly designed in that it's set up almost exclusively for a single character type, and a single mindset, with only a handful of allowances for other character types or other mindsets. The Trapsmith Wizard (this can also be done with a Cleric or Druid, although it's harder; it can also be done by just about anyone who is willing to blow a lot of cash on wands and has access to Use Magic Device) is an alternate character type with a different mindset that can deal with The Tomb. You wouldn't take a low-level Fighter into a campaign where the critters are 90% flying ranged attackers who have an option to Sunder the Fighter's bow, would you? You wouldn't make an adventure where 90% of it takes place in an antimagic field when there's a wizard, cleric, or druid in the party, would you? Sure, you might send some flying critters that the Fighter can't reach at the party. You might have some encounters in antimagic fields. But a module that was almost exclusively one of those would be fairly poor design, because it's almost exclusively one single classification of challenge; it doesn't work with a wide range of players, characters, or play styles. Tell me, how does The Tomb of Horrors measure up in that light? How many character types, and how many play styles, can it actually accommodate?

Lapak
2009-05-19, 06:54 PM
There's a catch to that, though. There's also the issue of the metagame "things the players can handle". You're looking at it entirely in 'in-setting' logic, and ignoring the metagame... but "intended for a party of 4-6 9th level characters" is itself metagame, and is required for the module to do what it's theoretically supposed to do. If we're going with "in-game" logic, you should hold off on the Tomb, and come in and clean it out once you've got Shapechange available, and can go through it as an Incorporeal creature traveling along inside the walls. Strip the place down to bare stone, use Analyze Deweomer on everything, and sell the cursed items to the Artificers for recycling. After all, the dungeon has a lot of stuff at caster level 20, which means it required a 20th level caster to create. Why shouldn't the guy who harvests it also be 20th level?

The same in-game logic that leads to the lack of treasure is exactly the same in-game logic that says you should play the Trapsmith Wizard, or hit it when you're high enough that it's not actually a threat anymore. For the level of threat the module entails, it should have more treasure for metagame reasons.Not quite sure why you quoted me, as I wasn't arguing with you; just pointing out that within the assumptions of the game world the Tomb makes a lot of sense.

Moreover, as others have said, the game world in question is the 1st edition. As a defense for the central vault, the 1e Tomb is about as thorough as can be managed; a true 3.x equivalent would be more deadly, more trap-ridden, probably have a great many more defenses along the line of the ethereal tripwires to deal with summoners, people with Arcane Sight,and et cetera, and all of it would just be a false front disguised by an Epic illusion to disguise the fact that the REAL vault is on an inaccessible demiplane that the players will never find any clues to. Yes, power scaling in 3.x makes the Tomb - even the official 3e version - largely irrelevant to the right build.

To address your 'puzzle dungeon' question, yes; the whole idea behind them is to force the players to find the correct solution. The Tomb, and similar modules, are definitely artifacts of their time, where people didn't buy modules (by and large) to integrate them into an epic storyline, but rather to 'beat' them like you'd buy extra levels in Peggle just to play them or why you'd buy King's Quest IV after beating III. It's a different mindset and a different goal.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-19, 07:29 PM
Well, I guess it depends on whether a player ruins the DM's plans on his own initiative or for the group.

If you completely demolish your DM's plans, and afterwards all the other players cheer and pat you on the back, that's a pretty good indication that you didn't do anything wrong. Pretty likely the DM was being a jerk, and you showed him up for it. You were a hero to your group! Go you.

Of course, everyone involved is being needlessly passive-aggressive, but within that context, you're the good guy.

On the other hand, if you ruin your DM's plans and all the other players groan and rolls their eyes and curse at you, that's a pretty good indication that you did something bad. You went and ruined everybody's fun, because you wanted to show how great you are or something. Boooo!

Everyone is still being needlessly passive aggressive if no one is willing to just tell you that your behavior is inappropriate and that you should stop, but within that context, you're the bad guy.

VirOath
2009-05-19, 07:44 PM
I have a sick, twisted perspective on ToH. I find it amusing and completely evil. I would be quite upset about it getting dropped in mid-campaign because it pretty much is a campaign killer worse than any Wizard-Cheese that a player can come up with (And yes, even PunPun isn't as bad. Atleast all that takes to stop is "You pissed off a God, make a save against Divine Rank 8, oh, you're dead.)

Now, running it for the sake of running it, or starting a campaign with it is another story. That's for kicks.


But I'm not going to put in further comment on ToH, rather tackle another issue that has come up in this thread. Railroading.

Simply put, it's when there is only one solution to a situation as dictated by the DM. This isn't about the only door in being trapped, but rather a method of thinking that any creative thoughts a player puts into practice are completely shot down because they don't fit the DM's Vision. This isn't "Because the DM want's us to", but rather "It's the only way, literally."

Technically, even the Tomb of Horrors isn't a railroad since there are a few ways of dealing with everything.

But if a player does something that seems to rip apart months of planning, do two things. Ask a few questions (Why it happened, motivation, how did it happen [Example: Party got a dragon to clear a dungeon because they thought they had more important things to do, the party's healer had a curse that caused her to take any damage she healed. Since then DM has been a hard ass about any strength or advantage, proclaiming it was going to be abused, while tossing consistently abusive mechanics at the party]) And the second thing is to hold onto it. Those plans can be revisited, altered and made even more dangerous.

That is to say, creative thought from the players should be encouraged, as it should push the DM to be creative and think on his feet. It makes the game much more fun that way. Only problem is that a system like D&D tries to push linear thought into people's minds (You get X for doing Y, you need to do Y Z number of times to level, here is your progression and WBL charts, everything's been planned out for you, have fun and hold onto the DM's hand real tight!)

Jack_Simth
2009-05-19, 07:49 PM
Not quite sure why you quoted me, as I wasn't arguing with you; just pointing out that within the assumptions of the game world the Tomb makes a lot of sense.

Primarily because you appeared to be using the bit about it making sense in the game world to "counter" the complaint about the module not having a reward that is appropriate to the risk.


Moreover, as others have said, the game world in question is the 1st edition. As a defense for the central vault, the 1e Tomb is about as thorough as can be managed; a true 3.x equivalent would be more deadly, more trap-ridden, probably have a great many more defenses along the line of the ethereal tripwires to deal with summoners, people with Arcane Sight,and et cetera, and all of it would just be a false front disguised by an Epic illusion to disguise the fact that the REAL vault is on an inaccessible demiplane that the players will never find any clues to. Yes, power scaling in 3.x makes the Tomb - even the official 3e version - largely irrelevant to the right build.

Umm... The room at the end of the tomb isn't the real vault. It's entirely a trap for gathering souls for the creator. Which is, you know, pretty much what you're saying it "should be".

The only reason "the right build" makes the Tomb largely irrelevant is that The Tomb is pretty much a one-trick pony (there's a lot of variations on that trick, but it's all one trick with a very small handful of exceptions). What does a good DM do with a one-trick pony such as an Ubercharger? Why, he arranges for situations that point out the drawbacks of an Ubercharger - multiple scattered enemies with ranged attacks. Terrain that makes Charging impossible. Sure, he does put in encounters where the Ubercharger will shine... but there's a problem: it's really, really hard to design an encounter where the Ubercharger will significantly contribute without utterly owning the encounter. Why? He's a one-trick pony. Neutralize that trick, and he's just a pony, suitable only for carrying small children at birthday parties.

The Tomb of Horrors is a one-trick Dungeon. Neutralize that trick, and it's just a dungeon.

An honest player expects it when the DM occasionally neutralizes their character by attacking the weak points of the character. DM's appear to virtually foam at the mouth when a player occasionally neutralizes a module by attacking the weak point of the module. What's the difference?


To address your 'puzzle dungeon' question, yes; the whole idea behind them is to force the players to find the correct solution. The Tomb, and similar modules, are definitely artifacts of their time, where people didn't buy modules (by and large) to integrate them into an epic storyline, but rather to 'beat' them like you'd buy extra levels in Peggle just to play them or why you'd buy King's Quest IV after beating III. It's a different mindset and a different goal.
Right. But in the specific case of The Tomb of Horrors it's very poorly designed in that
1) The game it turns into a puzzle is not fundamentally a puzzle game, so it's not fundamentally expected that most of the people working with the base game will enjoy it. The extra levels for Peggle? You expect it to be the same nature as the base levels in Peggle. Kings Quest IV? You expect it to be almost exactly like Kings Quest III in nature. Nethack version 3.6.2? You expect it to be the same basic nature as Nethack Version 3.6.1. The way you run a session of The Tomb of Horrors has almost nothing in common with the way you run a "standard" session in D&D.
2) The base game is fundamentally varied in types of challenges - you've got baseline rules for social interaction (although they're not particularly well developed), you've got baseline rules for traps, you've got baseline rules for combat, you've got baseline rules for travel. Anybody that doesn't care for one particular aspect of the game can still have fun with the rest. The Tomb? It's almost exclusively a single type of the aspect of the game. Anyone who happens to not enjoy that particular aspect will not enjoy the Tomb because there's almost no other aspect to it.

The Trapsmith Wizard? He just serves to underline that by negating the One Trick of The Tomb of Horrors.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-19, 08:00 PM
@Jack_Simth: In brief, I agree that the 3.5 update of ToH is a terrible idea precisely for the reasons you stated - a puzzle dungeon is inappropriate for a skill-based system. The "particular way method" was the norm when ToH was released; there was a rudimentary skill system which was entirely optional. With that mindset, there was no other option aside from a puzzle dungeon - much of the fun was in solving those puzzles in innovative ways. Brute forcing the dungeon was not an innovative way - it was a last resort.

In this mindset, ToH was extremely well designed; it included all manner of tricks that play with the Players' expectations - every event is a surprise. In a game where the Players are constantly trying to figure out what happens next, ToH makes for a very exciting game. But if you expect to win by mastering the rules system, ToH is a terrible module.

That said, the attitude of "Players v. DM" is not a healthy one to have today, if ever. You appear to feel that the ToH is a sadistic trap that the DM inflicts on the players, in which their hopes & dreams are cruelly crushed for his amusement. In such a situation, using all the rules exploits you can find to "beat him at his own game" may seem an appropriate response.

But that is not the situation we have here. As Devils_Advocate correctly notes, breaking the game is only the correct option if you have a jerk DM; someone who you'd rather not be running your games. IMHO, if you find yourself in such a situation it is better to just walk away from the game - breaking your DM's game out of spite will tick off the DM at best, and annoy your friends at worst.

Swordguy
2009-05-19, 08:17 PM
When it comes to Jack_Simths questions of me in this thread, I second everything Oracle_Hunter has said. In many cases, this one especially,


I'll give my response: a module solved by clever character creation rather than in-game action is a module that does not need to be played.

After all, since your character can, without fail, defeat every possible trap in the module, why play? The DM should just look at your character sheet, nod, and then say "OK, you win."

he's saying what I was thinking almost verbatim.

Moreover, you seem to insist that players have the right - nay, the DUTY - to spoil the entertainment for the entire group by presenting a "win button" for a given module. I don't understand. WHY would you want to spoil an evening's entertainment that way? Because that's what you're doing - you're wrecking the module for anyone in your group who might want to do it legitimately, and you're creating a multi-hour void in the evening's plans. Why do you feel good about this? I'm not trying to be an ass - I literally don't understand why you'd want to do this. How is finishing the adventure in a half-hour and then having nothing to do for the rest of the night while the DM recovers superior to just going with it and having a whole evening's fun?

EDIT: To clarify, by doing this, you may THINK you're teaching the DM some sort of object lesson (although what it might be I have no idea). But you aren't; all you're doing is pissing off your DM, pissing off people who want to play the game as opposed to the game about building an uber-character, and wasting EVERYONE'S time. In the end, that's all you've accomplished. Why be proud?

Jack_Simth
2009-05-19, 08:36 PM
@Jack_Simth: In brief, I agree that the 3.5 update of ToH is a terrible idea precisely for the reasons you stated - a puzzle dungeon is inappropriate for a skill-based system. The "particular way method" was the norm when ToH was released; there was a rudimentary skill system which was entirely optional. With that mindset, there was no other option aside from a puzzle dungeon - much of the fun was in solving those puzzles in innovative ways. Brute forcing the dungeon was not an innovative way - it was a last resort.

In this mindset, ToH was extremely well designed; it included all manner of tricks that play with the Players' expectations - every event is a surprise. In a game where the Players are constantly trying to figure out what happens next, ToH makes for a very exciting game.
If you enjoy that particularly style. Even OD&D, though, had a very large number of non-trap encounters in a dungeon. The Tomb of Horrors? Not so much. It's got... what, three or four base encounters that aren't either traps or puzzle-traps, out of... what, fifty or a hundred base encounters? (by "base encounters" I mean encounters that don't require anything more than The Tome of Horrors module itself and the three Core books to run). For characters played to character type, there's almost nothing in The Tomb for anyone except a Rogue to do, regardless of what version you're looking at. Why? The Rogue is the detrapper and trickster.

But if you expect to win by mastering the rules system, ToH is a terrible module.

While granted it takes some knowledge of the rules to build the Trapsmith Wizard, all you're really doing is putting together a handful of elements of the rules based on how traps are expected to function. There's actually a Core version of the Trapsmith Wizard - you trade out the Summon Elemental Reserve Feat for a Wand of Unseen Servant, a lot of Sacks, and something to fill said sacks with rocks or dirt gathered on-sight (a shovel and pick); a Wand of Shout replaces the Acidic Splatter Reserve Feat. As a side bonus, this can be done with nothing but purchasing/crafting scrolls/wands of reasonably common spells and basic tools that would reasonably be available anywhere; no need to rebuild a character to make it work.

Additionally, it works by treating the traps realistically - you don't try to outguess the guy who set it up; you throw something you don't care about at the trap while you stay at a safe distance. If the trap is one-shot, that takes care of it. If the trap is more than a one-shot, you use that to locate the trap for some form of artillery that can destroy it from a safe distance. Fundamentally, this is how the military removes a mine field - you either use a mine roller, which uses a bunch of chains to slam the ground repeatedly to trigger the mines, or you get a lot of "expendable people" to go around hitting the ground with sticks. The guy with the metal detector? He goes boom when he finds his first wood or plastic mine the hard way. That method hasn't actually been practical for a long, long time.

Who in their right mind tries to finesse a minefield? Fundamentally, that's what you're doing if you try to attack The Tomb of Horrors in the expected manner.


That said, the attitude of "Players v. DM" is not a healthy one to have today, if ever. You appear to feel that the ToH is a sadistic trap that the DM inflicts on the players, in which their hopes & dreams are cruelly crushed for his amusement. In such a situation, using all the rules exploits you can find to "beat him at his own game" may seem an appropriate response.

But that is not the situation we have here. As Devils_Advocate correctly notes, breaking the game is only the correct option if you have a jerk DM; someone who you'd rather not be running your games. IMHO, if you find yourself in such a situation it is better to just walk away from the game - breaking your DM's game out of spite will tick off the DM at best, and annoy your friends at worst.
Umm... in this specific case, you've got a DM using established characters - per the OP: "Our group of level 9ish characters are running through the Tomb of Horrors." They're not all the same level - that's pretty much only something you see with "played" characters - if they're specifically built for the game, they all start on the same footing. This isn't a case of characters made for The Tomb, with a group that's going in for grins. The OP was clearly unaware of the module's basic nature. In what sense is this not a case of "jerk DM"?


EDIT: To clarify, by doing this, you may THINK you're teaching the DM some sort of object lesson (although what it might be I have no idea). But you aren't; all you're doing is pissing off your DM, pissing off people who want to play the game as opposed to the game about building an uber-character, and wasting EVERYONE'S time. In the end, that's all you've accomplished. Why be proud?
Put it this way:
I'm doing exactly what the module is doing. If I'm not being "fair" to the module, the module isn't being "fair" to the players in the first place.

The module is designed to take advantage of your expectations and use them to pound your character into the dirt. In response, I'm putting forth a method for taking the module designers expectations and using them to pound the module into the dirt. Turnabout.

The Tomb doesn't "play fair" - it's full of variations on one trick designed in such a way as to catch the wary and the unwary alike. I put forth a method for not playing fair in response - it's one trick designed to remove such tricks and their variations. Again, turnabout.

Also... why does everyone seem to think that this is ruining everyone's fun? Look at the OP's take on the Tomb as far as he's seen it "run into several situations that are just Secret Door inside a Secret Door inside a Secret Door with nothing but a trap that kills everyone" and he's notices that it's a "'let's go here and kill everyone!' factory". From the OP, he's not enjoying it already. But it's going into multiple sessions. The Trapsmith Wizard gets the uninteresting bits out of the way so you can get to the interesting bits faster.

Swordguy
2009-05-19, 08:53 PM
Put it this way:
I'm doing exactly what the module is doing. If I'm not being "fair" to the module, the module isn't being "fair" to the players in the first place.


It's not supposed to be fair. That's why beating the ToH is a noteworthy achievement. Beating the ToH when it comes at you cold really means something, and it means nothing when you build a PC specifically to beat it, as you've done. We're discussing the difference between climbing Everest, and having a helicopter drop you off at the summit. You haven't achieved anything with the latter, while the former is an achievement to be proud of.

Coidzor
2009-05-19, 08:57 PM
What sort of power would it take to just destroy the entire thing?

monty
2009-05-19, 09:02 PM
What sort of power would it take to just destroy the entire thing?

Lots of epic magic, I'd imagine. And since you can do anything with epic magic, that's not very impressive.

Jack_Simth
2009-05-19, 09:20 PM
What sort of power would it take to just destroy the entire thing?

You'd have to find a way to prevent the demons (or was that Devils? Oh well...) from rebuilding it. Either destroy them all so they can't, or break the bargain somehow.


It's not supposed to be fair. That's why beating the ToH is a noteworthy achievement. Beating the ToH when it comes at you cold really means something, and it means nothing when you build a PC specifically to beat it, as you've done. We're discussing the difference between climbing Everest, and having a helicopter drop you off at the summit. You haven't achieved anything with the latter, while the former is an achievement to be proud of.
The Trapsmith Wizard isn't specific to the module; I made a partial Trapsmith Sorcerer (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=18920) for A Now-Defunct Game (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95191) (although that particular character wouldn't last long in The Tomb unless she got off the Ethereal first, which she can do), and the method can be done with nothing but a few purchased wands. For that matter, as the module explicitly permits you to rest up whenever you feel like it, provided there's not a monster right there, it could be done the same way just by preparing the proper spells. A vanilla Cleric could do it with Summon Monster, Detect Magic, and Shatter, no problem. Remove the creatures from the equation, and The Tomb of Horrors can be temporarily destroyed by a Cleric-3 with a lot of time on his hands, a food supply, and a way to go without air for 24+ hours at a time.

Coidzor
2009-05-19, 10:26 PM
You'd have to find a way to prevent the demons (or was that Devils? Oh well...) from rebuilding it. Either destroy them all so they can't, or break the bargain somehow.


It's been built through a Fiendish Pact, eh? Interesting. Does the entire thing harvest souls or is it more a winnowing chamber so that only strong souls make it to be harvested in the final trap... Guess I should take a look at the module proper then... haha.

(What can I say, I'm the kinda guy who actually thinks about how long and what it would take to do various oddball things, like tunneling from the surface down into the underdark for a high level fighter with adamantine versus a wizard. hmm... what is the burrow speed of a pissed off Half-orc with no need for food or air and the capability to shrug off the flecks of gravel he's making... A thought experiment rather than something that would actually be attempted.)

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-19, 10:55 PM
The point is either as a punitive measure against out-of-control players (in which case, he's not a bad DM for dropping it on them)

To clarify, by doing this, you may THINK you're teaching the DM some sort of object lesson (although what it might be I have no idea). But you aren't; all you're doing is pissing off your DM, pissing off people who want to play the game as opposed to the game about building an uber-character, and wasting EVERYONE'S time. In the end, that's all you've accomplished. Why be proud?
To clarify: By killing the party off, you may THINK that you're teaching some of your players some sort of object lesson. But you aren't; all you're doing is pissing them off, pissing off any other, non-problem players who just want to play the game, and wasting EVERYONE'S time. In the end, that's all you've accomplished. Why be proud?

If one of your players is a munchkin, do you fully expect that you can "break him" by tossing a hard enough challenge at him? Isn't it at least as likely that he'll just listen to your description of everyone's bloody death, shrug, and say "Well, THAT was pointless"? Or, alternately, say "Wow, I'd better cheese things up REALLY HARD in order to beat this!"?

If you do this, you really should not be terribly surprised if it blows up in your face.

Alternately, you could just talk to the problem players and ask them to stop whatever they're doing that's bothering you. And if they don't stop it, you can kick them out of the group.

A DM who attempts to punish players by running the game in a particular fashion is being just as immature as players who try to punish the DM by building and playing their characters in a particular fashion. Maybe everyone involved can have fun at this if they enjoy being vindictive, but they're not having fun playing D&D, they're having fun playing The Cycle Of Petty Revenge.

Saph
2009-05-19, 10:55 PM
Put it this way:
I'm doing exactly what the module is doing. If I'm not being "fair" to the module, the module isn't being "fair" to the players in the first place.

The module is designed to take advantage of your expectations and use them to pound your character into the dirt. In response, I'm putting forth a method for taking the module designers expectations and using them to pound the module into the dirt. Turnabout.

The Tomb doesn't "play fair" - it's full of variations on one trick designed in such a way as to catch the wary and the unwary alike. I put forth a method for not playing fair in response - it's one trick designed to remove such tricks and their variations. Again, turnabout.

I think Oracle already answered this. There are two possible situations here, and the approach you're describing is a bad one in both of them.

Option One: The players are on board. The majority of the group are trying to play the ToH old-school style, like it was supposed to be played, for the experience. Your character is going to remove all risk from the adventure, which was - for them - the whole point of playing the thing in the first place.

Option Two: The players aren't on board. They're not enjoying the game, and the DM is just trying to kill them all for laughs. Your character isn't going to help. All it'll do is escalate the conflict, and in a player-vs-DM conflict the DM always wins one way or another.

In Option One the best solution is for you to sit out the session. In Option Two the best solution is for you to quit the game. A 'win button' character is not going to help in either case.

Building a character to inflict 'turnabout' on the DM, or to show them that you're 'not playing fair' is not a good idea. If you don't like what a DM is doing, talk to them. Don't try to 'prove your point' with in-game actions. It never ends well.

- Saph

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-05-19, 11:09 PM
Yanno, all this talk about ToH has got me wanting to run it for my group.

Before I get pelted with rotten veggies, allow me to explain:

I will tell them ahead of time "This is in an alternate continuum, you will not lose your characters over this, but if you guys think you are ready for a real dungeon? Let's go. Bragging rights for survivors. Stories about how horridly gruesome your characters died for the rest. Whaddya say?"

Colmarr
2009-05-19, 11:23 PM
I will tell them ahead of time "This is in an alternate continuum, you will not lose your characters over this, but if you guys think you are ready for a real dungeon? Let's go. Bragging rights for survivors. Stories about how horridly gruesome your characters died for the rest. Whaddya say?"

You know what? I'd take that offer from my DM.

A one-off dungeon in which you know you're going to die can be fun, because the challenge becomes not "Can we get to the end?" but "How close to the end can we get?"

kirbsys
2009-05-19, 11:44 PM
One guy I talked to managed to beat the Tomb of Horrors by having the party use their respawns to push the original character's corpses through the Tomb to set of traps.


Edit: I'll tell my party to come thank you guys after next Friday. I have to run a session, but I don't think it's gonna ever evolve into a campaign, and I think I may just run the ToH just for teh evuls.

Juggernaut1981
2009-05-19, 11:54 PM
As usual these things seem to come down to one core problem...

#1 Are the players there to "WIN" or to "play out an epic story"?
#2 Is the DM there to "WIN" or to "play out an epic story"?

D&D is not about "winning". Where are the "win conditions" in D&D? There's no Frag-count so when you hit 20 "u rulz d nooobz"... The "massive dangerous epic story of nearly countless opportunities for gruesome failure" is what its about*.

As a DM, I don't want to "win". As a DM I have always wanted to create a big story with big ideas and give the players just enough hints and tidbits of information so they can figure out what is really going on between their various trips to "Kill XYZ @ Randomsville Mine just outside Whogivesacrap Town"*. Sure, I like to challenge what they think is a "challenging" combat... and I like to do it by playing things sneakily and deviously (Kobolds run through grove of large numbers of random unpredictable traps while shooting at you... or the like). But in the end, it's about the players finally getting to the point where they go "Holy crap is that what the BBEG has planned??? SERIOUSLY??? By Io's left nut that's insane... and it could work! We gotta stop them!!!" [insert sequence of events & combats leading to epic fight with BBEG that may end up in half the party dead...]

People who have played my games, even the 3hr sessions, have come back to me YEARS after the event and said "Dude, that thing you did melted my brain but it was HEAPS of fun..." If that's the feedback, job well done.

So yeah, I hate cheese-monkey PCs. If you're here to "win" D&D, then I'm never going to be the DM for you... because if you are 'that powerful' and 'that unstoppable' then something in the many many planes is going to take some notice and either conscript you or neuter you like a puppy.

*This is also what I think 4E has lost up its "I wanna be WoW butt"... it's not about stories but about "winning"... no character has a real "weakness" just different "strengths".

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-20, 01:06 AM
The DM actually wanted us to run ToH before with a Rogue Cohort at level 6. My level 9 Beguiler is getting his ass handed to him with most of the rolls being 30+, so I think it was best that we decided not to do the module at that moment. We are running the 3.5 ToH, but the DM has so far been forgiving and I think he actually wants to see us finish it. IE, I was not killed when one of the tapestries fell on me and turned into Green Slime because of a quick Fireball done by the Mystic-Theurge. Some little background:

The group consists of 3 players:
A Drow Lich Mystic Theurge of level 8.
A Half Dragon Ogre Fighter 2 (Strength 38, we just call her The Beast)
A Drow Beguiler 8 with a dip of Mindbender for RP reasons (Me)

From most of these posts, I get the idea that nearly everyone has played it and it seems that everyone has the same opinion on it; "It's a meatgrinder and is meant to kill you." Again, I thank everyone for incorporating Spoiler Tabs as we are still running the campaign and as the Skill Monkey, I am the worst person to know what will happen.

Best of luck
-Eddie

Optimystik
2009-05-20, 01:39 AM
How do I want to put this...

What's the purpose of The Tomb of Horrors in the first place?

Why, it's a puzzle dungeon. And the problem with it as a puzzle dungeon is the same problem that I've always had with every other outright puzzle in D&D - it's specifically designed with one "win", and set up so that all other solutions are "punished" - in order for the players to have any fun with it "as intended", they have to be able to think closely enough to the designer of the dungeon to "get it" and anticipate the other guy - a man they've never so much as met, in this case. You get an absurd range of reactions to it - many will hate it, some will love it, others will think it utterly boring. Why? Various levels of enjoyment/ability at the task of thinking like the game designer. In the case of the Tomb, it's mostly "get it right or die" if you're playing it "as intended". Those who don't have much skill at thinking like the game's designer face what seems like utterly arbitrary character deaths - over and over and over again. That's not enjoyable. Alternately, they sit at each obstacle, asking the DM to repeat the description over and over and over again in hopes of picking up on a clue they missed the last time round. Few people enjoy reading (or listening to) the same passage twenty times. Again - not fun. Someone who can anticipate exactly what is intended the first time, every time, gets bored - it's too predictable. Again - not fun. There's only a fairly small range of players that'll actually have fun with The Tomb playing it as intended - those for whom thinking through the puzzles is challenging, but not insurmountable, and who enjoy puzzles of that sort. I'm not in that group.

I probably didn't need to quote all of that, but I agreed so strongly that I had to. Kudos, sir.

I never understood the attitude of DMs like Swordguy. Rat runs through the arbitrary maze, he gets cheese; Rat learns how to climb over the walls, he gets punished. And Jack's build isn't even cheating, it's freaking common sense. If I was a wizard and had a way of spawning elementals in a trap-filled dungeon, you bet your ass I'd be sending them ahead of me to bang on doors, hop on pressure plates and pull levers. And the party would thank me for it. That's not cheese; that's ****ing realism. Thankfully, I never have to play under DMs like that.

Swordguy
2009-05-20, 01:54 AM
I never understood the attitude of DMs like Swordguy. Rat runs through the arbitrary maze, he gets cheese; Rat learns how to climb over the walls, he gets punished. ...



But yes, the 3E conversion was a bad idea - but not just because 3E Wizards can break anything they want. The whole point of any Gygaxian dungeon is for it to test the players, not their characters. This is why there is so much description in the module - the players had to identify traps beforehand and figure out how to basically do everything (even find secret doors). Running the ToH using 3E or later mechanics is either a cakewalk or a meatgrinder - you use skills for everything your magic doesn't cover.

If the point of the module is to test the players, there's no POINT to running the module if through raw mechanics the module can be reduced to irrelevance.

Or, more specifically, the point is to beat a module by actually playing the game, not by virtue of building a character. If by building a character you can render playing the game moot, then there's no point to playing the game, right? So save time, build a perfect character, and spend your time you would have played the game seeing movies, or drinking, or picking up women, or whatever. Why bother playing? You've already won, and by not playing at all!

Jesus Christ - it's like Zen and the Art of Power-Gaming here...

As for Devils_Advocate, if you're gonna quote out of context, to create from whole cloth a seeming discrepancy in what I said, welcome to my ignore list. I'll not waste my time.

Colmarr
2009-05-20, 02:43 AM
That's not cheese; that's ****ing realism. Thankfully, I never have to play under DMs like that.

So it's ok for the level 20 BBEG to show up and curb-stomp the level 2 PCs that tumbled onto on of his lieutenant's plans?

Cause there's really nothing so unrealistic in D&D as the fact that the BBEG waits patiently for the PCs to reach sufficiently high a level as to be a personal threat to them...

Realism only goes so far when discussing the metagame of D&D.

Optimystik
2009-05-20, 03:19 AM
If the point of the module is to test the players, there's no POINT to running the module if through raw mechanics the module can be reduced to irrelevance.

You don't understand; the module HAS "tested the players." Jack has passed that test. It might not seem that way to you because he did it without dicerolling and nailbiting his way through one deathtrap after another, but the two most important things are that he found a way to traverse the tomb, and he did it without breaking the rules of the game.

And it isn't an autopilot build either - you have to actively and diligently be sending your scouts out, or you will die; possibly at the very next step. Which option do you think a "real" wizard would take?


Or, more specifically, the point is to beat a module by actually playing the game, not by virtue of building a character. If by building a character you can render playing the game moot, then there's no point to playing the game, right? So save time, build a perfect character, and spend your time you would have played the game seeing movies, or drinking, or picking up women, or whatever. Why bother playing? You've already won, and by not playing at all!

You seem to consider character creation to be a completely different process than playing a game of D&D. I consider them to be one and the same.

As for "perfect character"... you do realize that his 'uber build' is only designed to handle traps, right? By focusing himself into trapfinder, he's opened his character up to a slew of other weaknesses that regular wizards would be able to handle (the reserve feats he powers his servants with, for example, require that he keep certain spell slots tied up and uncast at all times.) Is it really that hard for a smart DM to adapt to his players if he feels the game is too easy? I thought that's what tabletop gaming was all about. You're accusing Jack of reducing the module to a rote exercise of send-the-mook-in-to-find-the-trap, yet the DM is no better if he sticks blindly to the module knowing that his player has found that strategy.


So it's ok for the level 20 BBEG to show up and curb-stomp the level 2 PCs that tumbled onto on of his lieutenant's plans?

Cause there's really nothing so unrealistic in D&D as the fact that the BBEG waits patiently for the PCs to reach sufficiently high a level as to be a personal threat to them...

Realism only goes so far when discussing the metagame of D&D.

But your first scenario isn't realistic either. If the BBEG spent all his time looking for level 2s to squash, he'd never get his nefarious plan underway. So he ends up either being unaware of the adventuring party that will soon be on his doorstep, or he considers them so far beneath him that he doesn't see them as a legitimate threat. Case in point: Xykon.

The point is moot though, because I'm not discussing the motivations of megalomaniacs; I'm talking about the simple common sense of sending a conjured creature ahead of you in hostile territory. That's the kind of logic that a DM should take into account when running a session, not berate his players for using.

Swordguy
2009-05-20, 03:24 AM
You don't understand; the module HAS "tested the players." Jack has passed that test. It might not seem that way to you because he did it without dicerolling and nailbiting his way through one deathtrap after another, but the two most important things are that he found a way to traverse the tomb, and he did it without breaking the rules of the game.


Be that as it may, he did it without PLAYING the game. Y'know, actually sitting down with other people in a shared social experience to achieve an objective?

You had a long post, but you didn't answer the question: what's the point in playing the game if you can guarantee a win during character generation? I've asked that like 3 times now, and haven't gotten an answer. One more time: Why bother playing when you've guaranteed the outcome? Why not just build the auto-win character and then go outside and do something else? The end result is the same, and you've saved a bunch of time this way...

EDIT:

Is it really that hard for a smart DM to adapt to his players if he feels the game is too easy?

This deserves a specific response. The ToH is a fixed module. The point of a preprinted module is to run the actual module. Not blindly adhering to it, certainly. But changing the fundamental nature of the module means you may as well not run it in the first place. And that's what Jack's build does. If a DM changes the mod to accomodate that character, he's essentially completely rewriting the mod from scratch. At that point, it's neither the ToH anymore, nor does it achieve the secondary reason to run a preprinted mod - to save prep time for the DM. If you're rewriting the whole thing, just run a custom adventure for your PCs in the first place.

Killer Angel
2009-05-20, 03:54 AM
Anyhow, ToH is typical of EGG's earlier writings in terms of being a tourney mod; as were Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Lost Caverns of Tsojconth, Lost Tamoachan, Ghost Tower of Inverness... hmm... Giants/Drow aren't exactly pussycats, either (well, 500 pound stripey ones, perhaps).

(snip)

What are those "other 99%", out of interest? That's ten tourneys above (no D1) and "even" the likes of Lost Tamoachan can be a TPK right at the start, so there should be 990 other Gygax productions to list.



If i remember correctly, the original Temple of Elemental Evil, was an adventure written by Gygax.
It's difficult, but not a meat grinder, if faced with some minimal precautions.
But maybe ToEE is the exception...

Killer Angel
2009-05-20, 04:11 AM
You seem to consider character creation to be a completely different process than playing a game of D&D. I consider them to be one and the same.


I don't agree (if I've understood correctly what you were saying, which I'm not sure).
Note that I'm not referring to the specific character examples in this thread.

A "realistic" character, should be created in relation to the world in which he will move, so, the process is the same (character creation and playing the game).
But if you create specifically a character to face the challenges in a single module, knowing what you're going to face, it's no more realistic, and neither fun.
In ToH (AD&D), even if you knew that you were going to face a trapped dungeon, there was no way to bypass the mental challenges presented by the module.
In ToH (3.5), when you know what you're going to face, you've got a lot of ways to break the adventure.
The same reasoning could be applied to any other module.
"We'll play city of the spider queen? OK, let's make a character optimized for the setting..."

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-20, 04:15 AM
If i remember correctly, the original Temple of Elemental Evil, was an adventure written by Gygax.
It's difficult, but not a meat grinder, if faced with some minimal precautions.
But maybe ToEE is the exception...
I believe the point is that ToH was a tournament module; a one-off played by random people at a con. It didn't really matter what happened after the module, so long as a good story was told.

Also (though I have no actual experience with tournament D&D) I believe that those tournament modules were run continuously; when one party finished, another could start. If I am correct, a "tough" module can allow more people the chance to play - and if written correctly, not leave the former players feeling cheated by giving them awesome deaths.

N.B. ToEE can be downright sadistic at times. Personally, I think Gygax had a bit of a mean streak :smalltongue:

Optimystik
2009-05-20, 04:17 AM
Be that as it may, he did it without PLAYING the game. Y'know, actually sitting down with other people in a shared social experience to achieve an objective?

You had a long post, but you didn't answer the question: what's the point in playing the game if you can guarantee a win during character generation? I've asked that like 3 times now, and haven't gotten an answer. One more time: Why bother playing when you've guaranteed the outcome? Why not just build the auto-win character and then go outside and do something else? The end result is the same, and you've saved a bunch of time this way...

You answer this question: How is the party standing around while the wizard disarms all the traps any less social than the party standing around while the rogue disarms all the traps? The only difference is the probability of failure.

Also, you're not listening to me - his build is far from "auto-win"; it can only deal with traps. Are traps the only threat in the ToH? His reserve feats are going to be pretty useless for heavy combat, particularly against a demilich and its raft of elemental resistances/immunities.


This deserves a specific response. The ToH is a fixed module. The point of a preprinted module is to run the actual module. Not blindly adhering to it, certainly. But changing the fundamental nature of the module means you may as well not run it in the first place. And that's what Jack's build does. If a DM changes the mod to accomodate that character, he's essentially completely rewriting the mod from scratch. At that point, it's neither the ToH anymore, nor does it achieve the secondary reason to run a preprinted mod - to save prep time for the DM. If you're rewriting the whole thing, just run a custom adventure for your PCs in the first place.

How is countering one specific strategy "rewriting the module from scratch?" And I don't have to "change the fundamental nature" of the tomb to do it either. If you read his strategy there's plenty of ways to throw a wrench into it and keep him on his toes. His entire build centers around generating unlimited summoned creatures and using them to trigger traps at a distance. You want to tell me you can't think of any way around that?

If I challenged my players and one of them came back with a solution like that, I'd applaud. He's effectively challenged the DM. Now's the DM's chance to actually get in the game and use HIS brain, instead of just reading words on a page and asking the party to make saving throws.

Finally, read the OP's post again. Even with your "shared social experience to achieve an objective" he isn't having fun, and their DM clearly wasn't up front with them on the module's nature either. Jack is 100% right, this is turnabout.

lisiecki
2009-05-20, 04:21 AM
When your in the Tomb of Horrors YOU'RE IN SUBTERRANEAN FANTASY ****ING VIETNAM. Check EVERYTHING. Clear out EVERYTHING. Don't take ONE STEP MORE than you have to until you're COMPLETELY SURE it's clear. Check EVERYTHING for traps. Search EVERYTHING. Keep the overall tactical layout in mind because THE GM WILL USE IT TO ****ING YOU OVER. Be PROACTIVE: set traps and ambushes for the monsters before they do it to you. Find a position of tactical advantage and DUMP FIREBALLS, FLAMING OIL, AND BARRAGES OF ARROWS on your enemies.

Optimystik
2009-05-20, 04:24 AM
I don't agree (if I've understood correctly what you were saying, which I'm not sure).
*snip*


When I say "realistic," I mean "how would a real person act if sent into a deadly dungeon?" Jack put it best: you don't try and finesse the mine-field, you lob something you don't care about at it. And you don't need a special build to do it either, he even gave examples of how it could be done with just wands and core material.

No, I'm not saying that it's right to make your character using metagame knowledge. I'm saying that once you have a character and your character starts to get an idea of what he's up against, he would change tactics accordingly. If I was the party cleric in the ToH, you can bet that after the first half dozen traps that I would start praying for summon monster spells and get that celestial monkey to turn latches and open boxes for the group. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The creation comes into play by making an open-ended starting character that can take advantage of these situations if the need arises. I might not have all the reserve feats necessary to pull of Jack's TrapSuvius, but my wizard would have the common sense to use a lot of those principles, like the speed of air elementals, to his advantage.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-20, 04:27 AM
How is countering one specific strategy "rewriting the module from scratch?" And I don't have to "change the fundamental nature" of the tomb to do it either. If you read his strategy there's plenty of ways to throw a wrench into it and keep him on his toes. His entire build centers around generating unlimited summoned creatures and using them to trigger traps at a distance. You want to tell me you can't think of any way around that?
The problem here is the arms race.

Now that you're facing a nuke you either have to first strike (kill him before he can do anything) or employ a perfect defense (specifically counter his powers every time). Every time you fail to stop him, you lose an entire encounter - it is solved effortlessly and without the rest of the party doing anything.

Now, either of those options is distasteful for a DM. The first one is just forcing a reroll after the game has started - the PC never had a chance to survive. The second robs the character of functionality; every time he tries to use a power, he finds the DM has countered it. Now you have a PC v. DM game - and the rest of the party is left in the cold to boot.

Your point about thieves and traps is right for 3E, but wrong for AD&D. In AD&D, while thieves had a find/remove trap skill the game still assumed that most problems would be solved by the players. Heck, few of the traps in the original module could be solved by a find/remove trap roll - the entire party had to work together to figure out how to survive another room.

I don't think anyone is contesting that ToH is a bad idea for 3E; it's culture clash, pure and simple. But I, as a DM, never want to be in the situation where one PC is capable of effortlessly breaking the campaign unless I use DM Fiat to stop him. If the PCs derail the plot with clever action or dumb luck that's one thing; having a single PC do that with a thought is another thing entirely.

Attilargh
2009-05-20, 04:34 AM
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
PETA might disagree.

Coidzor
2009-05-20, 04:37 AM
PETA might disagree.

Well, we all know Might Makes Right anyway, that's one of the corollaries to survival of the fittest.

One of the cornerstones of DnD as well, those with the most power take control and effect what they believe to be right.

Killer Angel
2009-05-20, 04:43 AM
No, I'm not saying that it's right to make your character using metagame knowledge. I'm saying that once you have a character and your character starts to get an idea of what he's up against, he would change tactics accordingly. If I was the party cleric in the ToH, you can bet that after the first half dozen traps that I would start praying for summon monster spells and get that celestial monkey to turn latches and open boxes for the group. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.


...and soon, in the celestial realms, tales ot horror starts spreading through the monkey's tribes, about the sadistic priest who summon them, to send into horrible and painfully death traps... :smallbiggrin:

On this, i totally agree. But sometimes you cannot adapt your strategy, 'cause your pc has limited resources: a cleric can do this, a Sorcerer, a lot less.




The creation comes into play by making an open-ended starting character that can take advantage of these situations if the need arises. I might not have all the reserve feats necessary to pull of Jack's TrapSuvius, but my wizard would have the common sense to use a lot of those principles, like the speed of air elementals, to his advantage.

So here's the always valid principle: a "realistic" character, can manage a lot of different situations, but when facing a one-pony challenge, he will be not totally able to overcome it, 'cause he's shouldn't be a one-pony trick.
Your wizard will use (logically) his common sense, but the tomb will be still a challenge, 'cause he's not "builded" for it.
If you are a one-pony trick, you'll do very well in certain conditions... or you're totally screwed.

Swordguy
2009-05-20, 04:55 AM
You answer this question: How is the party standing around while the wizard disarms all the traps any less social than the party standing around while the rogue disarms all the traps? The only difference is the probability of failure.

Also, you're not listening to me - his build is far from "auto-win"; it can only deal with traps. Are traps the only threat in the ToH? His reserve feats are going to be pretty useless for heavy combat, particularly against a demilich and its raft of elemental resistances/immunities.

It's different because in the ToH, the rogue doesn't disable all the traps. As Oracle_Hunter stated, it takes the entire party thinking and working together to disable the traps. Unlike the wizard, who needs only himself to wipe out what? 97 of 100-ish possible challenges in the adventure? So yes, as a matter of fact, traps ARE, for all statistical purposes, the only threat in ToH. And forcing the DM to change or adapt 97% of the game is absolutely out of line.

There, I humored you. Now answer my flippin' question or cede the point.

Malek
2009-05-20, 05:12 AM
With reference to the fact that the 3.5 version of Tomb of Horrors was- in effect- ruined by the sheer proliferation of win button effects that 3.5 had, is there any merit to creating a 4e version of Tomb of Horrors (using the Acererak Construct statblock presented on p200 of Open Grave, on the grounds that a level 26 solo often offends)?
To be honest someone on WotC boards already converted ToH to 4e. Never having played the ToH myself, I cannot speak how good it is compared to the original, but glancing through the pdf it looks like the person put a lot of work into it, and responses of other people in the thread seemed favourable.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-20, 05:14 AM
To be honest someone on WotC boards already converted ToH to 4e. Never having played the ToH myself, I cannot speak how good it is compared to the original, but glancing through the pdf it looks like the person put a lot of work into it, and responses of other people in the thread seemed favourable.
Link please?

Malek
2009-05-20, 05:17 AM
Link please?
Here you go (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1188890)

Jack_Simth
2009-05-20, 05:40 AM
Be that as it may, he did it without PLAYING the game. Y'know, actually sitting down with other people in a shared social experience to achieve an objective?

Sure The Reserve Mage plays the game. He's figuring out what to target each time. He gets to watch all the pretty scenery, and he gets to watch all the pretty scenery go boom. As does everyone else at the table. And there are at least three non-puzzle encounters in the game, where everyone can help and make their own decisions.

Besides - I've also pointed out that while the Reserve Mage Wizard can do this, he's not the only one. A strictly vanilla Cleric can pull it off too; there's really just three basic components: A summon, magic detection, ranged damage, and a willingness to treat terrain features as hostile monsters in approach (the "survive without air" bit is there for one single aspect of The Tomb, and is statistically insignificant). A cleric can do that just by spell selection, as can *most* wizards (although a lot of them do consider Summoning a waste of time, and for good reason). As the Tomb specifically permits you to rest whenever you like, the infinite nature of the Reserve Wizard Trapsmith isn't actually needed to make this work; just to make this work reasonably quickly from an in-game perspective. This can be done by Clerics, Wizards, or Rogues with UMD and the right wands without overly much trouble. A Fighter with a bow and a lot of Adamantine Arrows can also help, although not as well. The only thing stopping everyone in the party from getting in on this is mindset.


You had a long post, but you didn't answer the question: what's the point in playing the game if you can guarantee a win during character generation? I've asked that like 3 times now, and haven't gotten an answer. One more time: Why bother playing when you've guaranteed the outcome? Why not just build the auto-win character and then go outside and do something else? The end result is the same, and you've saved a bunch of time this way...
Do you ever watch Action movies? Romance movies? Comedies? In roughly 95+% of fiction, the protagonist ultimately wins (in whatever way is defined as "winning" in the context of the movie). For most intents and purposes, you have a guaranteed outcome. But all the explosions are pretty. The specific path to getting "The Guy" together with "The Girl" is different. The jokes are funny. Just because I know the end point doesn't mean I can't have fun with the start and middle stuff.


It's different because in the ToH, the rogue doesn't disable all the traps. As Oracle_Hunter stated, it takes the entire party thinking and working together to disable the trapsThat only applies if everyone at the table is sufficiently "in tune" with the game designer that everyone can effectively contribute ideas. If there's only one player at the table sufficiently in-tune with the designer to be able to outguess how to solve this particular puzzle, then for the non-combat encounters, you've... got one person giving orders, the rest acting as automatons. It's the same problem with any other puzzle in D&D. One person solving it is fine if they're only occasionally encountered. But when that's 97ish% of the module, that's poor design.

Lapak
2009-05-20, 09:05 AM
Primarily because you appeared to be using the bit about it making sense in the game world to "counter" the complaint about the module not having a reward that is appropriate to the risk. Ah, I see. No, I wasn't attempting to 'counter' anything. I was merely commenting on how it's only the fact that D&D is a game that makes this the exception rather than the rule.

Umm... The room at the end of the tomb isn't the real vault. It's entirely a trap for gathering souls for the creator. Which is, you know, pretty much what you're saying it "should be". Ah again. I only read the 3e version once, and that was a while ago; in the original version this was not the case. Again and again, I'm coming back to the idea that the Tomb really was only workable in the pre-3.x mechanical setting. It IS a legitimate answer in 3rd edition to bring in a character design that trivializes any given challenge (pretty much always some variation on a caster, which makes the building of such things less interesting to me, but it IS a fair strategy for a one-shot.) Your options allowed by the system mechanics were MUCH more constrained in earlier editions, which made building a non-bypassable trap dungeon much more likely.

The only reason "the right build" makes the Tomb largely irrelevant is that The Tomb is pretty much a one-trick pony (there's a lot of variations on that trick, but it's all one trick with a very small handful of exceptions).
The Tomb of Horrors is a one-trick Dungeon. Neutralize that trick, and it's just a dungeon. Now this, I disagree on. You're calling it one-trick, but that's like calling a dungeon with a variety of encounters with a dozen different kinds of monsters one-trick. You could as easily build a wizard designed to neutralize a wide variety of opponents with save-or-dies, run through a dozen combat encounters, and claim it was one-trick. It just so happens that the Trapsmith Wizard is actually much more versatile than you're giving him credit for, as 3.x spellcasters tend to be.

An honest player expects it when the DM occasionally neutralizes their character by attacking the weak points of the character. DM's appear to virtually foam at the mouth when a player occasionally neutralizes a module by attacking the weak point of the module. What's the difference?Actually, if I designed an entire evening where every encounter was specifically designed to make one character useless, I'd expect that player to be pissed at me and he'd be justified in doing so. There's a difference between, oh, having a party with a Force Missile specialist wizard run into a single encounter with Iron Golems and having them run through a entire dungeon that is ONLY populated with magic-immune golems.


Right. But in the specific case of The Tomb of Horrors it's very poorly designed in that
1) The game it turns into a puzzle is not fundamentally a puzzle game, so it's not fundamentally expected that most of the people working with the base game will enjoy it. The extra levels for Peggle? You expect it to be the same nature as the base levels in Peggle. Kings Quest IV? You expect it to be almost exactly like Kings Quest III in nature. Nethack version 3.6.2? You expect it to be the same basic nature as Nethack Version 3.6.1. The way you run a session of The Tomb of Horrors has almost nothing in common with the way you run a "standard" session in D&D. Comes back to what I said about the difference between a standard session now and one when the Tomb was created. The mere existence of Trappers, Lurkers Above, and Stunjellies - along with a dozen other examples - should make clear that arbitrary, near-unavoidable death is more or less an expected part of the system as it was run at that time.

2) The base game is fundamentally varied in types of challenges - you've got baseline rules for social interaction (although they're not particularly well developed), you've got baseline rules for traps, you've got baseline rules for combat, you've got baseline rules for travel. Anybody that doesn't care for one particular aspect of the game can still have fun with the rest. The Tomb? It's almost exclusively a single type of the aspect of the game. Anyone who happens to not enjoy that particular aspect will not enjoy the Tomb because there's almost no other aspect to it. Absolutely. Just as some people don't like intrigue-heavy political games where there's no combat for three sessions in a row, and others don't enjoy kick-down-the-door-and-kill-the-orc dungeon crawls. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Tomb ever was appropriate for every group.

I really do think it comes down to 'The Tomb is, pretty much objectively, a bad adventure for 3rd edition.' (And probably would be for 4th.) But it's a fine adventure in the game it was actually designed in, because the baseline expectations of that system were different.

Glyde
2009-05-20, 10:04 AM
If I was the DM, I'd probably send this wizard into a very, very painful and elementally death. Abuse of summons for traps is just hi-larious in a reasonable game.

If I planned on running ToH for one person and told him ahead of time what he was going to do, I'd welcome this trap-wizard. If I was playing with a usual group (For my clic, that's about six or seven people.), and they knew ahead of time, then I'd probably outlaw it when I first saw it (Which is a few days before the intended start date.) Or, give it the elementally death first described. I would never run ToH without a LOT of modifications to an already running, unsuspecting group.

The main conflict in this thread is a bunch of people grasping at straws trying to keep their point afloat. With the amount of dodging by some individuals in this debate, it's become arguing for the sake of arguing. It all comes down to personal preference.


If your group likes watching one person do all the work so their make-believe, most likely one-shot characters don't die, so be it. If you don't find that fun and would rather run a module as it was intended, then go ahead.\

As for the comment about D&D stories having pre determined outcomes: it depends on DM fiat level. D&D is filled with variables that make it so neither the DM nor the players can predict the outcome. It is NOT like watching an action flick. Especially for this example. If I wanted to watch the 'main protagonist' (I thought this was a group of people not just one) solve everything right from the start, I'd watch... well, there's not much out there that fits the example, because it's just so silly.

Volkov
2009-05-20, 10:29 AM
Tomb of horrors, needs more intensified energy drain traps. Then it would deserve the name.

Volkov
2009-05-20, 10:39 AM
When I ran the tomb of horrors there were more 24 age category prismatic dragons, intesnified, twinned, empowered, quickened, chainned energy drain traps, level 75 worms that walk, and max hit dice atropals than sweet monkey jeebus.

Me: Are you living?
Paladin: Umm yes?
Me: Because your heart beats 50 intensified, twinned, empowered, quickened, and chained energy drain traps fire at you.
Paladin: I....
Me: You combust. Roll up new characters.

Optimystik
2009-05-20, 12:43 PM
PETA might disagree.

I said cleric, not druid. CMs are Outsiders anyway :smallsmile:


The problem here is the arms race.

That's what you call a "slippery slope" fallacy. You're basing your argument on the foregone conclusion that the DM's counter will lead to the player finding another way to defeat the module, leading to another counter, etc...

But you only get one chance to build a character. If you neutralize a character with reserve feats (e.g. force him to cast his battery spells, throw some summon hate into the dungeon, etc.) then he has to come up with something new on the fly without the luxury of respeccing. Better yet, don't neutralize him; rather force him to make a choice everytime he summons another trapmook (for example, an aura that causes elementals to behave erratically, then roll on the confusion table; or one that prevents summoning more than one at a time.) How badly does he want that trap disarmed? I fail to see how tiny additions like that would break the module.


So here's the always valid principle: a "realistic" character, can manage a lot of different situations, but when facing a one-pony challenge, he will be not totally able to overcome it, 'cause he's shouldn't be a one-pony trick.
Your wizard will use (logically) his common sense, but the tomb will be still a challenge, 'cause he's not "builded" for it.
If you are a one-pony trick, you'll do very well in certain conditions... or you're totally screwed.

Read Jack's post. You don't have to "build" for the tomb to use his strategy. The reserve feats make it easier, but they aren't necessary. The module itself allows lots of resting (provided breathable air and no monsters). All he was doing was cutting down the drag. And a summoner wizard that can take on traps isn't a build exclusive to any module. I recall a Malconvoker build that behaves very similar to what he came up with; it wouldn't be hard to lean it towards trapfinding on the fly while progressing through a dungeon that requires it.


It's different because in the ToH, the rogue doesn't disable all the traps. As Oracle_Hunter stated, it takes the entire party thinking and working together to disable the traps. Unlike the wizard, who needs only himself to wipe out what? 97 of 100-ish possible challenges in the adventure? So yes, as a matter of fact, traps ARE, for all statistical purposes, the only threat in ToH. And forcing the DM to change or adapt 97% of the game is absolutely out of line.

There, I humored you. Now answer my flippin' question or cede the point.

"What's the point in playing the module" was your question, correct? But I did answer that. ToH is, by your own admission, a one-trick module. It deserves a one-trick answer. The DM's job at that point is to add some spice - that's why he has the powers that he does. If he's not willing to do that then yes, there would be little point to such a masturbatory exercise.

Your definition of playing and mine seem to be quite different. I think that if the game evolves, the players should too - and that includes the DM. You think that if he can't stick to his cardboard script and make the players roll saves then the game is irrevocably broken.

And besides which you are completely incorrect. Countering one strategy isn't changing 97% of the game. If one legal (not to mention LOGICAL) strategy can defeat an entire module, the module is at fault, not the player.

Now, read the OP's post again. His experience of the ToH has been one ridiculous deathtrap after another. He must be having a blast, correct?

Glyde
2009-05-20, 12:52 PM
Summoning elementals and running them into traps is not logical. Any wizard worth half their intelligence would know that abusing beings like that would get the attention of some pretty angry higher-ups.

You also seem blind to the fact that creating a character for the sole reason of breaking a module is a jerkish thing to do. You also seem to be saying that the module 'deserves' what's being done a lot. How does a dungeon 'deserve' someone exploiting the game to make it a cakewalk? I really hope you folks don't do this kind of 'optimization' in actual games. Super powered god-wizards and the like just... detract from the fun.

The module being at fault is a hilarious argument. Oh, I can commit murder and get away with it. Ha ha. Look at me, I can get away with murder. That means I should do it.

Yes, that's a fallacy, but hell every argument in this thread is riddled with them, I might as well join the club.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-20, 01:14 PM
Summoning elementals and running them into traps is not logical. Any wizard worth half their intelligence would know that abusing beings like that would get the attention of some pretty angry higher-ups.Not really. It's reasonable in many situations to put disposable units in front(what party doesn't make the Kobold prisoner take point) and no one ever sends the Cleric in first. This is just that, but better.

And actually you probably won't anger anyone. You're using part of an infinite group. No matter how many of them you use, it's an impossibly small fraction, and they reappear in 24 hours, safe and unharmed anyways.
You also seem blind to the fact that creating a character for the sole reason of breaking a module is a jerkish thing to do. You also seem to be saying that the module 'deserves' what's being done a lot. How does a dungeon 'deserve' someone exploiting the game to make it a cakewalk? I really hope you folks don't do this kind of 'optimization' in actual games. Super powered god-wizards and the like just... detract from the fun.And mking a module for the sole purpose of killing characters is jerkish. ToH is built to destroy parties. Everything is massively under-CRd, some of the DCs are nigh-impossible for the listed levels, and the puzzle parts are designed so that any decision-making process comes up with the wrong answer. The end result is almost always the party dying through no fault of their own.

And the fact that you think the Wizard is broken is..surprising. He is good at one thing-dealing with traps. In dungeons with no traps, he's useless. In dungeons with some traps, he makes cool explosions on occasion, and in this particular module, he's overpowered. Yes, I expect people to optimize for individual modules. If you're going to be campaigning in the Underdark, you don't make a character who needs to see the sun to refresh spells, if the DM says it's an aquatic campaign, you have a way to breathe water and ranks in Swim, and in the ToH, even the Barb has a way of dealing with traps.
The module being at fault is a hilarious argument. Oh, I can commit murder and get away with it. Ha ha. Look at me, I can get away with murder. That means I should do it.The module has one challenge-traps. He made a character good at overcoming one challenge-traps. The fact that the character is a one trick pony is only broken because the module is a one trick pony. In any normal dungeon, the Wizard listed is essentially an abnormally effective Rogue out of combat, and a weak Wizard in combat. The module deserves it because A:ToH is cruel and unusual punishment, and 2:The module has only one thing it does. A character not dealing with that one thing is poor roleplay. If you were dealing with a module full of open spaces and a large number of Ogres, Trolls, and Earth Elementals, a Raptoran, Warlock, or Wizard breaks it. Is that the fault of the character or the module?

Glyde
2009-05-20, 01:22 PM
I never said that the wizard he made was broken. :smallsmile:

Optimizing for individual modules is allowed, sure, I never said it wasn't. This is more than just optimizing, it's forcing a transformation of the module completely, because if it isn't, then simply creating the character made you 'win'. If I made an Aventi in an aquatic campaign, I didn't ruin anything. I'm optimized for the module though. Hmmm.

Poor roleplay? I think you're confusing roleplay with metagame.


ToH is, as has been talked about before, for one-shots (People playing it seriously are terribly sadistic, if not delusional). For having fun with a bunch of friends killing everybody off because such low chances of success. The trapsmith wizard goes against this in every way.

Attilargh
2009-05-20, 01:26 PM
they reappear in 24 hours, safe and unharmed anyways.
Safe, probably. Unharmed? They just got killed in a probably fairly horrible way! I think the mental anguish alone is grounds for some sort of interplanar lawsuit.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-20, 01:30 PM
I never said that the wizard he made was broken. :smallsmile:

Optimizing for individual modules is allowed, sure, I never said it wasn't. This is more than just optimizing, it's forcing a transformation of the module completely, because if it isn't, then simply creating the character made you 'win'. If I made an Aventi in an aquatic campaign, I didn't ruin anything. I'm optimized for the module though. Hmmm.

Poor roleplay? I think you're confusing roleplay with metagame.


ToH is, as has been talked about before, for one-shots (People playing it seriously are terribly sadistic, if not delusional). For having fun with a bunch of friends killing everybody off because such low chances of success. The trapsmith wizard goes against this in every way.What if it wasn't a Wizard, then? Grey Elf Beguiler, level 10. Max ranks in Search and DD. Started with an 20 Int, bought a +2 item for it, has +10 items for both skills, and Masterwork Tools. Suddenly, he makes most of the DCs on a 10. Is the module ruined now?

And keep in mind, the Wizard wasn't necessarily built for this. He's built to be able to disable/avoid traps. Every group has one of those, it'sjust normally class features and skill points, not feats, and that is neve considered Metagame.

Edit:And it's not grounds for an interplanar lawsuit, simply because the spell specifies 'unharmed'. Though I love the 'always call the same monster' variant, de to the humor for the poor celestial monkey who only wants you to leave him unsummoned long enough to eat a banana.

Optimystik
2009-05-20, 01:31 PM
Summoning elementals and running them into traps is not logical. Any wizard worth half their intelligence would know that abusing beings like that would get the attention of some pretty angry higher-ups.

What setting are you reading? Elementals are mindless, don't feel pain, and don't even die. If you're really worried about hurting Kossuth's feelings (laughable), roll up a psionic shaper instead and do the exact same thing.


You also seem blind to the fact that creating a character for the sole reason of breaking a module is a jerkish thing to do.

Yet a module whose sole purpose is killing players somehow isn't?

But I see no such "fact." The Tomb is a mental exercise - a "what would you do?" kind of situation. Successfully completing that mental exercise should be met with congratulations, not with cries of "exploit!" It seems to me that the only DM that would be angry at this turn of events is one who hates thinking on his feet and just wants to autopilot his dungeon crawl with his brain turned off. His players might as well be playing a computer game - the whole point of having a living person orchestrate the entire affair is to add that element of improvisation to a session.

If I were a demilich, I wouldn't just sit at the back of my deathtrap with my jaw unhinged, waiting for souls to flood in - I'd be thinking of ways to protect my investment. They are extremely intelligent creatures - for one to design a labyrinth full of traps and then not think of ways for adventurers to bypass them is just out of character. And we know he's been doing at least some thinking on the subject (with his anti-ethereal safeguards) so why not expand that a step further?


You also seem to be saying that the module 'deserves' what's being done a lot. How does a dungeon 'deserve' someone exploiting the game to make it a cakewalk? I really hope you folks don't do this kind of 'optimization' in actual games. Super powered god-wizards and the like just... detract from the fun.

I fail to see how using common sense is an exploit.

I know there are deathtraps ahead of me.
I know I can't see them.
I know I can summon expendable troops to trigger them for me.

I don't need metagame knowledge to know that being as far from a trap as possible when it goes off is wise. I also don't need that knowledge to know that following the obvious path through a dungeon designed by a being that is trying its hardest to kill me is UNwise. So tell me, if I'm not metagaming, then what exactly am I exploiting?


The module being at fault is a hilarious argument. Oh, I can commit murder and get away with it. Ha ha. Look at me, I can get away with murder. That means I should do it.

Using your brain equates to murder now?


Yes, that's a fallacy, but hell every argument in this thread is riddled with them, I might as well join the club.

Point mine out and I'll gladly address them.

Lapak
2009-05-20, 01:38 PM
And the fact that you think the Wizard is broken is..surprising. He is good at one thing-dealing with traps.While I don't think the build described is more broken than any other spellcaster, he's potentially good at a LOT more than that. It's a build that requires two feats, two Permanent spells that are extremely useful in a wide variety of situations, and one magic item. Plus he has to keep a couple of spell slots unused while he operates. That's not nothing, but it's nowhere close to all of a mid-to-high-level Wizard's arsenal. Heck, he could be just about any wizard build and have those options open.

Glyde
2009-05-20, 01:38 PM
What if it wasn't a Wizard, then? Grey Elf Beguiler, level 10. Max ranks in Search and DD. Started with an 20 Int, bought a +2 item for it, has +10 items for both skills, and Masterwork Tools. Suddenly, he makes most of the DCs on a 10. Is the module ruined now?

And keep in mind, the Wizard wasn't necessarily built for this. He's built to be able to disable/avoid traps. Every group has one of those, it'sjust normally class features and skill points, not feats, and that is neve considered Metagame.

Edit:And it's not grounds for an interplanar lawsuit, simply because the spell specifies 'unharmed'. Though I love the 'always call the same monster' variant, de to the humor for the poor celestial monkey who only wants you to leave him unsummoned long enough to eat a banana.

No, because there's still a pretty good chance that this guy will blow up if what you say about these traps is true. You say he can make most of the DCs on a 10. That's a 50% chance of failure. A bit more fair than an auto-win wizard, don't you think?

However, we once again get into the 3.5e version being bad, because you can simply roll a die and be done with it.





Point mine out and I'll gladly address them.

I don't like picking apart people's arguments piece by piece unlike everybody else on this forum, so I'm gonna pass on that. :smallwink:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-20, 01:42 PM
IThat's what you call a "slippery slope" fallacy. You're basing your argument on the foregone conclusion that the DM's counter will lead to the player finding another way to defeat the module, leading to another counter, etc...

But you only get one chance to build a character. If you neutralize a character with reserve feats (e.g. force him to cast his battery spells, throw some summon hate into the dungeon, etc.) then he has to come up with something new on the fly without the luxury of respeccing. Better yet, don't neutralize him; rather force him to make a choice everytime he summons another trapmook (for example, an aura that causes elementals to behave erratically, then roll on the confusion table; or one that prevents summoning more than one at a time.) How badly does he want that trap disarmed? I fail to see how tiny additions like that would break the module.
Gah!

A fallacy is an argument that is not logically sound. The truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy
See, what you have described is the Neutralization strategy, exactly. Because a player came up with a particular build that breaks your game, you have rework the adventure to stop that particular character from auto-winning. If you don't Neutralize, they win. The DM only has to stop Neutralization when the player's build is nullified entirely - which invalidates the time and effort the player made in designing the build!
Now, there is a nuance here I alluded to in my last post - DM v. Player gaming. It is one thing to design an adventure that challenges your PCs abilities, but it is another thing to design or change an adventure to prevent a PC from using his abilities. In the latter case you, the DM, are using metagame knowledge about the exact abilities of a specific PC - and, more importantly, Neutralizing them every time they would be useful. Any time you fail to Neutralize their relevant ability, they automatically win the encounter; this is why I called it nuclear war - it is an all or nothing proposition. Your partial solution (make it a hard choice) just restricts their ability to auto-win - maybe only on puzzles that are "too hard" for the players to solve. Again, any time the relevant ability is used, the encounter becomes a non-entity to the party; there is no risk of failure.

This necessity sets up the DM v. Player dynamic that is poisonous to a game which is ostensibly about collective storytelling. Now, instead of focusing on the story, the DM must focus on parrying a Player; and the Player is now focused on outsmarting the DM. The game is merely the medium for this combat.

You'll note that the rest of the party members have not been mentioned; that is intentional. Once a game becomes Player v. DM (or even Players v. DM), anyone who is not a nuclear bomb capable of shattering the game is of secondary importance. Their abilities only become relevant when the Nuclear Player has been Neutralized.
In short, DM v. Player games become more about the DM fighting a particular Player than helping to create a story. If the Player's power is not Neutralized in all relevant situations then those situations become irrelevant to the story; they are not challenges to be overcome, they're "cut scenes" which require no player interaction. The constant metagame attack on the Player will rightly cause them to outsmart the DM; to anticipate their next attempted Neutralization and to counter it beforehand. This is the inevitable Arms Race which can only stop once the Nuclear Player is permanently disarmed.

In a normal adventure, your options are always limited (sometimes you can teleport around the problem, sometimes you can't); but, over a series of adventures, an option stemming from PC abilities should ultimately prove useful. Ideally, the DM nullifies a particular PC's ability - situational or otherwise - rarely; the point of having abilities is to have the chance to use them. In a Nuclear Player game, the DM usually, if not always, nullifies one PC's ability exactly when it would be useful. This frustrates the Player and distracts the DM - it does not make for a fun game; least of all the sidelines players.

EDIT: I get the sense that some people here think that breaking ToH is acceptable because ToH is about killing characters; it is "unbalanced." Remember that we're talking about characters made for a particular module, not characters from a long-running campaign; that isn't what the module was made for.

Breaking a game you dislike is never a good choice. Either you tick off a DM you never liked anyways, or you upset your fellow players who wanted to play the game. In the first case, the DM is a jerk and you should find another game. The second case is self-explanatory.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-20, 01:49 PM
No, because there's still a pretty good chance that this guy will blow up if what you say about these traps is true. You say he can make most of the DCs on a 10. That's a 50% chance of failure. A bit more fair than an auto-win wizard, don't you think?

However, we once again get into the 3.5e version being bad, because you can simply roll a die and be done with it.Actually, IIRC, the update most of the DCs are =<41, so he makes them on a 9. Meaning he has a 20% chance of them blowing up in his face. If there's a second Rogue, that goes down to 10%. A single feat eliminates that chance. Is the possibility of failure the only thing that makes a difference? For me, the objection to the tomb is that it has nothing for anyone but the trapmonkey to do. There are about 4 non-trap encounters in the entire thing. Any sufficiently well-built trapmonkey can handle 97% of the tomb on his own, and any non-trapmonkey has to sit there and watch. Meanwhile, any non-trapmonkey can't handle any of the Tomb at all.

Any attempt to go without a trapmonkey ends up with the party dead, any attempt to go with a trapmonkey leaves the party useless, and a party of trapmonkeys steps on each others toes. What is the proper response to that situation, IYO?

Glyde
2009-05-20, 02:24 PM
In my opinion? I'd only make a successful Disable Device give a slight clue in the form of them finding a riddle, or maybe the remains of a failed attempt to disable the trap. If they pass the check by quite a bit, then the solution could be almost handed to them. I'd prefer it to go back to the old 2e version of figuring out how to disable the traps yourself, letting all players put forth their input, with a whole bunch of explanation on what the trap is (Or at least looks like). As stated countless times, 3.5e is not a good vessel for trap dungeons unless you modify it somewhat.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-20, 02:32 PM
As for Devils_Advocate, if you're gonna quote out of context, to create from whole cloth a seeming discrepancy in what I said, welcome to my ignore list. I'll not waste my time.
Well, I apologize if I misinterpreted, but I don't see how the context of the post I quoted from changes your meaning.

As I see it: You said that doing things to characters in the game in order to punish players isn't the mark of a bad DM. I disagree with that. I think that a good DM tries to talk problems out with players instead of being passive-aggressive. Just like I think players should try to talk problems out with the DM.

Incidentally, the intended object lesson, whenever anyone at the table does this crap to anyone, seems pretty clearly to be "I won't just put up with your poor behavior." I can't imagine why that would be hard to fathom.


So it's ok for the level 20 BBEG to show up and curb-stomp the level 2 PCs that tumbled onto on of his lieutenant's plans?

Cause there's really nothing so unrealistic in D&D as the fact that the BBEG waits patiently for the PCs to reach sufficiently high a level as to be a personal threat to them...

Realism only goes so far when discussing the metagame of D&D.
:smallsigh:

Unrealistic but playable: The PCs face a bad guy who has the motive and the means to stop them, but doesn't.

Realistic but unplayable: The PCs face a bad guy who has the motive and the means to stop them, and does.

Realistic and playable: Bad guys who want to don't stop the PCs because they lack the means to.

(Better: The bad guys have the means to potentially stop the PCs. They try to. The PCs also have the means to potentially stop the bad guys, and they try to do that. There's your game.)

What's wrong with realistic and playable? Seriously, what's the point of giving someone the means and motive to stop something but then having him not do it? That just stomps on verisimilitude.


what's the point in playing the game if you can guarantee a win during character generation?
For fun, maybe? Isn't that why people usually play D&D?

Is it so inconceivable that someone might enjoy coming up with a winning strategy and then using it in play?

And the potential for failure can still be part of what makes things exciting. Just because you think that you've outsmarted your DM doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't really one step ahead of you. You only find out for sure when you sit down to play.

I guess that it seems to me that if the DM is being extremely heavy-handed, the natural assumption is that he and the players are in a battle of wits in which it's fully appropriate for the players to also engage in extreme behavior that might otherwise be unacceptable.

For example, it's appropriate for each side to try to predetermine the outcome of the session in advance, with the understanding that the other is doing the same thing. The difference is just that the players are just constrained by the game rules, and the DM is also constrained by the principle that he should leave the players some theoretical chance of success. (If he wants to be especially evil, he should try to kill them in a way that makes them feel stupid in retrospect.)


What setting are you reading? Elementals are mindless
Um, no they're not. Not in 3E, anyway. They have Int scores of 4 to 10, depending on age.


Safe, probably Unharmed? They just got killed in a probably fairly horrible way! I think the mental anguish alone is grounds for some sort of interplanar lawsuit.
That gets to summons being evil in general, though. Their general purpose is to force extraplanar creatures to fight something for you. They're really fairly tyrannical, and yet a Chaotic Good god of liberation gets given the Summoner domain. Some things in this game just make no obvious sort of sense.

Optimystik
2009-05-20, 02:32 PM
Gah!

See, what you have described is the Neutralization strategy, exactly. Because a player came up with a particular build that breaks your game, you have rework the adventure to stop that particular character from auto-winning. If you don't Neutralize, they win. The DM only has to stop Neutralization when the player's build is nullified entirely - which invalidates the time and effort the player made in designing the build!

You keep coming back to that same fallacy. Why do you think that "nullifying the player entirely" is necessary to save your campaign? A DM can make it significantly more difficult for the TrapWizard to work without rendering it useless, yet you're so caught up crying foul that you're not even exercising your gray matter.

I'm going to say this again: A DM's job is NOT to passively sit and read a static, preprinted document. This is D&D, not Choose Your Own Adventure. The game is supposed to enter improv territory, and finding unconventional ways to solve challenges is the true value of having people - living, thinking people - on both sides of the table.


Now, there is a nuance here I alluded to in my last post - DM v. Player gaming. It is one thing to design an adventure that challenges your PCs abilities, but it is another thing to design or change an adventure to prevent a PC from using his abilities. In the latter case you, the DM, are using metagame knowledge about the exact abilities of a specific PC - and, more importantly, Neutralizing them every time they would be useful. Any time you fail to Neutralize their relevant ability, they automatically win the encounter; this is why I called it nuclear war - it is an all or nothing proposition. Your partial solution (make it a hard choice) just restricts their ability to auto-win - maybe only on puzzles that are "too hard" for the players to solve. Again, any time the relevant ability is used, the encounter becomes a non-entity to the party; there is no risk of failure.

This necessity sets up the DM v. Player dynamic that is poisonous to a game which is ostensibly about collective storytelling. Now, instead of focusing on the story, the DM must focus on parrying a Player; and the Player is now focused on outsmarting the DM. The game is merely the medium for this combat.

You'll note that the rest of the party members have not been mentioned; that is intentional. Once a game becomes Player v. DM (or even Players v. DM), anyone who is not a nuclear bomb capable of shattering the game is of secondary importance. Their abilities only become relevant when the Nuclear Player has been Neutralized.

As sstoopid mentioned, non-nuclear bomb players (i.e. non-trapmonkeys) have already been relegated to secondary importance by ToH. Their job is to not die and walk in a predetermined path to survive. And as Jack mentioned, that path is contingent on one player's ability to get inside the designer's head and relay his findings to the others.

You constantly harp on the string that the other players at the table are marginalized by the conflict; yet I continually respond that such a situation is a failing of ToH, not the TrapWizard player. Take a party in there with no rogue or summoner and see how far they get. The module DEMANDS that players who can perform neither function take a backseat.

And you said my hard choice "restricts their ability to auto-win." Yes, that was the idea. So what's the problem?


In short, DM v. Player games become more about the DM fighting a particular Player than helping to create a story. If the Player's power is not Neutralized in all relevant situations then those situations become irrelevant to the story; they are not challenges to be overcome, they're "cut scenes" which require no player interaction. The constant metagame attack on the Player will rightly cause them to outsmart the DM; to anticipate their next attempted Neutralization and to counter it beforehand. This is the inevitable Arms Race which can only stop once the Nuclear Player is permanently disarmed.

Fighting the players IS the story, particularly for Tomb of Horrors. The module is, in a nutshell: "You have to walk through a deathtrap to find a malevolent creature wants nothing more than to end your life." If you were that demilich, would you be sitting around your lair and not trying to stymie the players? You do realize how intelligent they are, right? Even if the base creature had an int of 10, by the time it became a demilich it would have at least Int 22. Yet the concept of it planning and adapting for incoming adventurers is all but foreign to some DMs.


In a normal adventure, your options are always limited (sometimes you can teleport around the problem, sometimes you can't); but, over a series of adventures, an option stemming from PC abilities should ultimately prove useful. Ideally, the DM nullifies a particular PC's ability - situational or otherwise - rarely; the point of having abilities is to have the chance to use them. In a Nuclear Player game, the DM usually, if not always, nullifies one PC's ability exactly when it would be useful. This frustrates the Player and distracts the DM - it does not make for a fun game; least of all the sidelines players.

EDIT: I get the sense that some people here think that breaking ToH is acceptable because ToH is about killing characters; it is "unbalanced." Remember that we're talking about characters made for a particular module, not characters from a long-running campaign; that isn't what the module was made for.

Breaking a game you dislike is never a good choice. Either you tick off a DM you never liked anyways, or you upset your fellow players who wanted to play the game. In the first case, the DM is a jerk and you should find another game. The second case is self-explanatory.

I said nothing about "breaking the game." I said that once a way around its existing incarnation has been found, the module must necessarily evolve or die.

D&D provides you with all the tools you need to modify an encounter to suit your playgroup. It would ONLY be "broken" if that was not a course of action. And if the DM's only response to a logical strategy is to nullify it completely or stop playing, his deficient imagination is at fault, not that of his player.


I don't like picking apart people's arguments piece by piece unlike everybody else on this forum, so I'm gonna pass on that. :smallwink:

You're right! Vague and unqualified criticisms advance discussion so much more effectively. :smallsigh:

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-20, 03:08 PM
What if it wasn't a Wizard, then? Grey Elf Beguiler, level 10. Max ranks in Search and DD. Started with an 20 Int, bought a +2 item for it, has +10 items for both skills, and Masterwork Tools. Suddenly, he makes most of the DCs on a 10. Is the module ruined now?


This is basically what I am. Drow Beguiler with a 24 Intelligence and +19 on Search checks and +21 on DD. If I took 10 on every single square to look for Secret Doors or Traps, I would find almost all of them. A 10 on Disable Device, on the traps we have encountered so far, would mean auto-success. So far, this module has been a "Conversation between Orthos and the DM" as everyone else is unable to be effective against the traps and secret doors but that's the case for most Trap Dungeons. Everyone else watches as the Skill Monkey either finds the trap and disables it, bypasses it, or triggers it.

From what I can gather, Tomb of Horrors is meant to be a one-shotter, where no one really cares if their just created characters go splat. I'm not sure if that bodes will for out mid-campaigners. :smalleek: I appreciate the user of Spoiler Tabs.

Best of luck
-Eddie

Optimystik
2009-05-20, 03:27 PM
So far, this module has been a "Conversation between Orthos and the DM" as everyone else is unable to be effective against the traps and secret doors but that's the case for most Trap Dungeons. Everyone else watches as the Skill Monkey either finds the trap and disables it, bypasses it, or triggers it.

Game, set, and match.

(This post dedicated to Swordguy and Glyde)

Glyde
2009-05-20, 03:55 PM
Game, set, and match.

(This post dedicated to Swordguy and Glyde)


Because ignoring everything the other party says is how to win arguments.

We all agreed the 3.5e version is bad, and in order to make it fun, you need to combine it with the 2e version. Everyone will not just stand back and watch the skill monkey perform if they are ALL INVOLVED.

Buuut that part flew by your head countless times, so whatever you want to believe, go ahead. I know my stance, you know yours.

hamishspence
2009-05-20, 03:58 PM
what about rebuilding it- Starting with the demilich- and making traps, items, etc that are actually feasible?

a "hard but some fun for all players" version of TOH might be interesting.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-20, 04:01 PM
what about rebuilding it- Starting with the demilich- and making traps, items, etc that are actually feasible?

a "hard but some fun for all players" version of TOH might be interesting.Actually(and every time I say this, an Angel is tossed to the fiery pits of hell) but 4.x might do it better. The 'trap encounter' mechanic is much closer to what the original Tomb had, whereas 3.x's generic search skill renders a lot of the Tomb more stupid and arbitrary.

hamishspence
2009-05-20, 04:04 PM
As someone who likes both 3.5 and 4th ed- I don't object to the comment.

Dungeonscape has encounter-like traps. And a Dungeon Lord prestige class- maybe that would work for the demilich?

Optimystik
2009-05-20, 04:11 PM
Because ignoring everything the other party says is how to win arguments.

We all agreed the 3.5e version is bad, and in order to make it fun, you need to combine it with the 2e version. Everyone will not just stand back and watch the skill monkey perform if they are ALL INVOLVED.

Buuut that part flew by your head countless times, so whatever you want to believe, go ahead. I know my stance, you know yours.

But you're wrong. You don't need to "mix it with the 2e version" to make it fun for the other players. They just need something to do besides wait for the DM and the trapmonkey to have a conversation every 5 feet. That can be done just fine under the current ruleset; no time travel needed.

If the DM is so inflexible as to refuse modify the dungeon in this way, why shouldn't a player just Trapwizard his way through the solo parts and get to the parts where everyone can participate that much more quickly? As it stands, if the OP messes up and gets himself killed, the party is screwed anyway through no fault of their own. Bad design.


what about rebuilding it- Starting with the demilich- and making traps, items, etc that are actually feasible?

a "hard but some fun for all players" version of TOH might be interesting.

I agree completely.

hamishspence
2009-05-20, 04:16 PM
4th ed version- Open Grave, and DMG, and much enthusiatic DM design work.

Or maybe WOTC will release one? Until then, the tools are there- I'd like to see some conceptual ideas.

Jack_Simth
2009-05-20, 04:47 PM
This is basically what I am. Drow Beguiler with a 24 Intelligence and +19 on Search checks and +21 on DD. If I took 10 on every single square to look for Secret Doors or Traps, I would find almost all of them. A 10 on Disable Device, on the traps we have encountered so far, would mean auto-success. So far, this module has been a "Conversation between Orthos and the DM" as everyone else is unable to be effective against the traps and secret doors but that's the case for most Trap Dungeons. Everyone else watches as the Skill Monkey either finds the trap and disables it, bypasses it, or triggers it.

From what I can gather, Tomb of Horrors is meant to be a one-shotter, where no one really cares if their just created characters go splat. I'm not sure if that bodes will for out mid-campaigners. :smalleek: I appreciate the user of Spoiler Tabs.

Best of luck
-Eddie
Pretty much. With the WotC 3.5 version, out of something like a hundred numbered encounters, there's maybe half a dozen exceptions to what you've observed so far. As I've said - poorly designed module. There's a couple of traps where your skills won't help, and there's a couple of high CR monsters (high relative to your party level, that is). But for the most part the 3.5 version is a one-trick pony with a lot of varied fluff in 3.5. That's fundamentally why nobody's actually contradicting me when I say the Trapsmith Wizard I outlined can take down all the non-combat encounters in the module. That's why I get people being so strongly against that particular character in this module.

Given your party situation, I might suggest asking your DM to simply skip past everything that can be solved by Search/Disable device, pointing out that it's utterly, utterly boring for the other three players at the table, and you can take them all down without actually rolling in any event. You'll skip something like 90% of the remainder of the module that way, but it'll save everyone at your table a lot of annoyance.

kc0bbq
2009-05-20, 05:11 PM
As someone who likes both 3.5 and 4th ed- I don't object to the comment.

Dungeonscape has encounter-like traps. And a Dungeon Lord prestige class- maybe that would work for the demilich?I believe the ToH BBEG is already statted out for 4th in Open Grave a unique level 26 Solo demilich or something like that.

I only got the book yesterday so it needs some more reading.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-05-20, 05:17 PM
-snip-

I agree completely.

Hmm... I might be able to do something about bringing back the feel of the 'original'...

Starting with a complete Epic version of Dimensional Lock that flat bars all extradimensional movement in the ToH. That'll limit some of the problems. Set up 'you are dead if you are stupid enough to do this' encounters in the Ethereal and Astral planes which only interact if you try to go there.

Then you set up another Epic Abjuration spell which blocks summonings, up to and including Gate. That'll stop the titan gate cheeze.

Then you completly ignore the whole trap rules from 3.5, and make it a puzzler. Standard skillmonkey-countered 'traps' can still be liberally spiced, but the really lethal stuff isn't, technically, a 'trap', it's simply part of the design. That means the whole party will need to be involved to figure out what is going on and how to avoid it.

Add hardcore under CR'd monsters (That Damn Crab likely being among them) to flavor.

Shake well, and serve with creepy music and dimmed lights.

lyko555
2009-05-21, 01:42 AM
Woot I just ran a group through the 3.5 version we had a ball. The ranger died to the poison spikes the paly and the artificer found out that lava is hot and the mage, rogue, and cleric got sent back to the start of the dungeun sex changed and naked. Best module ever :D

Killer Angel
2009-05-21, 02:17 AM
Hmm... I might be able to do something about bringing back the feel of the 'original'...
(snip)


Sometimes, you can let some guardian demon (or devil? don't remember) slips through some dimensional crack and say hello to the party.
This way, you cannot sleep safe while the casters refresh their spells' repertoire, and the other pc have something to fight.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-21, 02:51 AM
Fighting the players IS the story, particularly for Tomb of Horrors.
This is our major point of departure.

The story should never be the DM fighting the Players - he is supposed to set up a challenging (and dangerous) adventure and see how they react. Sure, he can throw a Shrodinger's Gun in here or there, but he should not dynamically adapt the monsters using metagame knowledge of the PCs exact abilities. Nor should the PCs spend a lot of time trying to out-guess the DM - they're supposed to be thinking about what the villains are going to do, and to figure out how to stop them, not the DM.

The point of Tomb of Horrors, I repeat, is to provide a tournament one-shot that presents an incredibly lethal dungeon that the players need to solve, using the information in front of them. The wild and brutal ways in which PCs die within ToH is a way of providing a satisfying end for necessarily one-dimensional characters. It is part of the atmosphere of the module, not the point of it.

And, to extend your INT 22 argument - why isn't the dungeon perfectly adapted to prevent any possible PC precaution from suceeding? If you can justify nullifying one clever PC power with DM Fiat, why not do all of them? At most, this is a rationalization designed to "preserve the game" by preventing the Game Breaker from, well breaking the game. In a way, this is a testament to the disruptive nature of a Game Breaker - the game itself must warp to stop them from auto-winning.

Surely you wouldn't do the same to allow a favorite BBEG to survive when snagged by an unexpected combination of PC powers?

Killer Angel
2009-05-21, 03:41 AM
The story should never be the DM fighting the Players - he is supposed to set up a challenging (and dangerous) adventure and see how they react.

Probably, the only case in which DM fights the characters (and the players fight the DM) until death, is a Dungeon Crawl tournament.
And this is why dungeon crawls are a thing almost unique.

Optimystik
2009-05-21, 11:10 AM
This is our major point of departure.

The story should never be the DM fighting the Players - he is supposed to set up a challenging (and dangerous) adventure and see how they react. Sure, he can throw a Shrodinger's Gun in here or there, but he should not dynamically adapt the monsters using metagame knowledge of the PCs exact abilities. Nor should the PCs spend a lot of time trying to out-guess the DM - they're supposed to be thinking about what the villains are going to do, and to figure out how to stop them, not the DM.

When you draw a distinction between the villains and the DM, you are entering semantics territory. The DM may not BE the villain, but he controls all the villains and decides what they do. He is guided by their behavior patterns, but ultimately he makes any combat decisions for them.

ToH takes this a step further - the villain has absolutely no ulterior motive besides seeking the PCs demise. There's no evil cult trying to steal the phlebotinum to revive their dark god, no evil artifact about to achieve sentience and wreak havoc, not even a kidnapped elven princess to rescue. In what way is it "metagame knowledge" if Acererak adapts his strategy to his opponents? You want to tell me he has no idea what's going on in HIS dungeon? When would a lich start paying special attention: when the PCs bypass the 5th trap? The 10th? The 20th? The DM is free to modify the module because it's exactly what a megalomaniacal demilich would do.

Adapting his lair is not only the logical response to an advancing party, it is well within a demilich's capabilities. Drop a demon on them while they're resting up.


The point of Tomb of Horrors, I repeat, is to provide a tournament one-shot that presents an incredibly lethal dungeon that the players need to solve, using the information in front of them. The wild and brutal ways in which PCs die within ToH is a way of providing a satisfying end for necessarily one-dimensional characters. It is part of the atmosphere of the module, not the point of it.

Ironic that you should mention "one-dimensional characters" seeing as those are the only types that can navigate the dungeon successfully. The OP's character is a prime example - he is optimized the the hilt for trapfinding and still has to move through the dungeon at a snail's pace. Worse, if he messes up and dies, the other players should just pack it in right then and there. About the only fun in that scenario is the HaveANiceDeath (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HaveANiceDeath) that can occur in each room.

In response to that, I have two proposals - either modify the dungeon to let everyone participate, or allow a TrapWizard to knock down the solo bits so everyone gets to the multiplayer parts more quickly. Or a third and even better proposal


And, to extend your INT 22 argument - why isn't the dungeon perfectly adapted to prevent any possible PC precaution from suceeding? If you can justify nullifying one clever PC power with DM Fiat, why not do all of them? At most, this is a rationalization designed to "preserve the game" by preventing the Game Breaker from, well breaking the game. In a way, this is a testament to the disruptive nature of a Game Breaker - the game itself must warp to stop them from auto-winning.

Surely you wouldn't do the same to allow a favorite BBEG to survive when snagged by an unexpected combination of PC powers?

For the last time, I never suggested "nullifying" anything. I suggested making a tradeoff. Tradeoffs are what make games interesting, because they put the choice in the hands of the players. A smart DM can make it a difficult choice for the trapwizard to employ his tactic without removing the option completely. Better yet, he can do it in such a way that the TW's choice affects everyone and gets them involved. A simple example is my suggestion of spawning baddies everytime he summons a mook to trigger a trap. Immediately the dungeon becomes a game of chess, with the trapmonkey as the King and everyone else using their best abilities to keep him alive. Suddenly the module is engaging for everyone.

TL;DR: DM's should be creative if they want their players to have fun. The whole point of being granted absolute power is to allow them to use their creativity effectively.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-05-21, 03:19 PM
Not trying to get involved in the flame war here....

How about this as an idea for the module? You put in about 10 1 room traps that affect any summoned creature. These traps basically use confusion on them. This would let the summoner build be useful in a lot of the dungeon, but not destroy the entire thing. That way, the player is rewarded for a well made character, and the Tomb gets a little easier.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-21, 07:20 PM
When you draw a distinction between the villains and the DM, you are entering semantics territory. The DM may not BE the villain, but he controls all the villains and decides what they do. He is guided by their behavior patterns, but ultimately he makes any combat decisions for them.
That is an interesting perspective.

My personal view is that the DM plays NPCs, not himself, in a game. Whether it is the innkeeper or the BBEG, the DM is trying to play a role - as much as if he were a PC.

Combat - which is not exactly what we're talking about in ToH - is not pure wargaming. Goblins may favor hit & run tactics while Hobgoblins might prefer formation fighting; sure, they take advantage of obvious openings, but those are, by definition, no-brainers. If you roleplay monsters well, the players can anticipate how a given type of monster will react in a situation - regardless of whatever they know about you, the DM. In particular, using metagame knowledge of specific PC powers is extremely distasteful; I would never alter an adventure to thwart a novel PC solution to a problem.

The ToH is one step removed from that. Here we have a demi-lich who is, in short, a jerk. The descriptions in the module give the DM and the players a good sense of this guy's attitudes and methods and, as a DM, if you are going to improvise it should be along those lines.

I have philosophical problems with over-optimizing a character in anticipation of a given module; originally, you would have just been given a pre-generated character. But more importantly, I make a clear distinction between what I, the DM would do and what any given NPC would do in a given situation.

...and that's probably enough derailing from me :smalltongue:

Juggernaut1981
2009-05-21, 08:19 PM
Okay... I am Acererak... super-powerful Lich with a general tendency to be amused by the death of others... What do I feel like doing with my Millennia of time... how about the ultimate "Electrified Bait Hamster Experiment"???

What I'll do right, is I'll make this MASSIVE dungeon that will mercilessly slaughter ARMIES of adventurers simultaneously. Then set it up so you can't teleport into the end (cause that's no fun for me to watch)... can't Etheral Jaunt (or if you do have fun with that... really!!) and can't pop off to the Astral Plane (or if you do... have fun with that... REALLY!!). Now, I just insert a trap here, and... bugger it EVERYWHERE I've got the time to pay back the loans... Just need to make myself a nice crystal mirror/ball or scrying pond and key it directly into the dungeon and watch... lets see how many adventurers go questing for the glorious treasures of Acererak that I have safely secured with me and not in that nicely-labelled dungeon I will build. This should be amusing for the next 500-years... hehehe. Oh I should leave some maps around saying something like "fabulous treasure lays here"...
Amusement Value +++

Why would a lich with thousands of years to live build the worlds biggest most deadly bait-trap??? For the amusement value. Remember, I'm EVIL... and sure if you get through it alive, you can have the fabulous treasure (Dumps spare cursed junk I don't want in 'vault')... I'm not Chaotic, if you live you can have the loot... but that's a big-ass IF.


Why does the Tomb of Horrors exist? To amuse an evil being...

Jack_Simth
2009-05-21, 08:56 PM
Okay... I am Acererak... super-powerful Lich with a general tendency to be amused by the death of others... What do I feel like doing with my Millennia of time... how about the ultimate "Electrified Bait Hamster Experiment"???

What I'll do right, is I'll make this MASSIVE dungeon that will mercilessly slaughter ARMIES of adventurers simultaneously. Then set it up so you can't teleport into the end (cause that's no fun for me to watch)... can't Etheral Jaunt (or if you do have fun with that... really!!) and can't pop off to the Astral Plane (or if you do... have fun with that... REALLY!!). Now, I just insert a trap here, and... bugger it EVERYWHERE I've got the time to pay back the loans... Just need to make myself a nice crystal mirror/ball or scrying pond and key it directly into the dungeon and watch... lets see how many adventurers go questing for the glorious treasures of Acererak that I have safely secured with me and not in that nicely-labelled dungeon I will build. This should be amusing for the next 500-years... hehehe. Oh I should leave some maps around saying something like "fabulous treasure lays here"...
Amusement Value +++

Why would a lich with thousands of years to live build the worlds biggest most deadly bait-trap??? For the amusement value. Remember, I'm EVIL... and sure if you get through it alive, you can have the fabulous treasure (Dumps spare cursed junk I don't want in 'vault')... I'm not Chaotic, if you live you can have the loot... but that's a big-ass IF.


Why does the Tomb of Horrors exist? To amuse an evil being...

Actually, if you read the DM's backnotes, the purpose is to gather souls

Yahzi
2009-05-21, 09:41 PM
Yeah. The "haul" you get at the end? Not worth it. Not worth it even a little. There are cursed items in the haul, for the love of little green apples.
Except for the 10x10x10 ft SOLID ADAMATIUM DOOR.

That door alone is worth a billion gold or so.

Jack_Simth
2009-05-21, 11:18 PM
Except for the 10x10x10 ft SOLID ADAMATIUM DOOR.

That door alone is worth a billion gold or so.
Check the backnotes. It's actually only painted iron. It got too expensive for the demons to keep replacing all the adamantium that raiders kept stealing. Mind you, Iron is still 1 sp/pound, and iron is really dense stuff, so it's still quite valuable for it's volume.

Matthew
2009-05-22, 07:15 AM
Seems like there are multiple points of disagreement here, partially because people appear to be mixing the AD&D and D20 versions of the adventures up in their discussions.

Using the D20 version of the dungeon, and in groups that favour the play style, it is perfectly legitimate to build a character that can "beat" the Tomb of Horrors, and then see your strategy "play out" (who knows, maybe you made an error somewhere). That would be deathly boring to me as a participant on either side of the screen, but other folks love this sort of stuff. Of course, it presupposes that the game master has told the players what they will be facing (or they have found out another way), and that he has given them free reign to build a character to "beat" the dungeon. The "build" is an intrinsic part of D20, and a lot of people derive fun from optimisation not only as an intellectual exercise, but also by witnessing its effects in play (again, this is not something that I enjoy, but I am not everyone).

The AD&D version of the adventure is designed to be played as a tournament module with pre generated tournament characters. There is no CR system, levels are just a rough guideline, so if other characters are used who are significantly more capable than the ones provided then the level of challenge may decrease. The way it is set up, the players have options, but mainly they need to think about how to use them to overcome the dungeon. Much like any other sort of puzzle, you need to be thinking along the right lines, which is to say, you need to be "tuned in" to the method of design. Some people hate this, other people enjoy it immensely.

So, I would say the D20/3e version of Tomb of Horrors is a perfectly good conversion, but that enjoyment depends on the same factors as did the original, just reconfigured. You may enjoy playing it with an unoptimised party using the D20/3e rule set, or you may enjoy coming up with a character build that is all but guaranteed to overcome it. Both play styles are valid.

pendell
2009-05-22, 09:27 AM
Is there anyone on this thread who was at the original Origins 1975 when this module was first introduced, or knows someone who was?

What was it like?

Did anyone win? Or did GG simply eat all the PCs alive?

Any memories ?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Optimystik
2009-05-22, 11:11 AM
The ToH is one step removed from that. Here we have a demi-lich who is, in short, a jerk. The descriptions in the module give the DM and the players a good sense of this guy's attitudes and methods and, as a DM, if you are going to improvise it should be along those lines.

That is precisely what I'm saying Acererak should do. How hard could it be for a demilich to figure out the wizard is relying on summons to bypass all the traps, and how many countless ways could he come up with to get around that flaw in his dungeon design? He anticipated and countered the party's use of etherealness to bypass them, after all. So, all the DM has to do is pick one.

If it is within both the BBEG's capabilities and mindset, by definition it can't be metagaming - such a strategy would be developed purely using Ace's in-game knowledge.


So, I would say the D20/3e version of Tomb of Horrors is a perfectly good conversion, but that enjoyment depends on the same factors as did the original, just reconfigured. You may enjoy playing it with an unoptimised party using the D20/3e rule set, or you may enjoy coming up with a character build that is all but guaranteed to overcome it. Both play styles are valid.

Those are the two extremes. I'm proposing a middle ground whereby everyone at the table can have fun with ToH under d20 rules. It may not work for lazy DMs, but if you're not willing to adapt a module on the fly you might as well get a computer to do your job anyway.

Matthew
2009-05-22, 11:25 AM
Those are the two extremes. I'm proposing a middle ground whereby everyone at the table can have fun with ToH under d20 rules. It may not work for lazy DMs, but if you're not willing to adapt a module on the fly you might as well get a computer to do your job anyway.

There are actually several other extremes, such as playing a terrible party in order to truly test your "in play" skill or a party entirely of fighters or what have you. The bottom line is that you cannot please everyone, but hopefully you can please your group by identifying and catering to the group's playing style.

Some people will not be happy with your middle ground because it will not be their definition of middle ground, or because they feel compromise means an inferior experience. There are no absolute definitions of "good" or "right" here, and that is basically where the disagreements come to a crux. That is to say, some people just have preferences so different from one another that they cannot enjoy gaming together or agree on "what is best".

Volkov
2009-05-22, 09:33 PM
Also anyone who tells you to touch the floor of that dungeon is an idiot. Never touch the floor. Hell don't breath either.

SavageWombat
2009-05-22, 11:52 PM
This has been an interesting thread.

I'd just like to point out that, according to Gygax's own words, when he ran his own friends through the module, they dealt with the traps with their usual tactic - running hordes of henchmen into them over and over again.

I think Gary would have thought that summoning elementals to trip the traps for you was a legitimate, almost expected, tactic.

Food for thought.

Hawriel
2009-05-23, 05:06 AM
T-Ball any one? cookie every time some one gets a run. I have plenty of cookies.

really.

Jack Simth and Optimystik's arguments are making them look more and more like the kind of peaple who would take off the stickers on a rubiks cube to rearange them so all the colors are on the same side. Then tell peaple how they solved the puzzle.

The point of an adventure like the Tomb is to chalange problem solving. Real problem salving. With puzzles, terrain, monsters, and what ever els. Its not about being DA lUz PWnR gamer. Its about playing a character who can interact with its enviornment. Its about how your character fail or succeeds. No one cares if they play a well thought out dungeon and 'win' by rolling dice genericly with out any thought to the ingame enviornment.

It's no different than a kid I used to know who beats games on the highest difficutly and brags about how he used cheat codes. My friends and I would just look at this kid and say that his winning ment nothing when he cheats.

For role playing games making uber power characters that just roll dice with little chance of failer with out even thinking about the game is no different.

Tomb of Horrors is not about killing characters. It's about making peaple think and cooperate. Makes me sad that this is behond younger peaple today. Sorry if thinking is a punishment.

Jack_Simth
2009-05-23, 09:15 AM
Jack Simth and Optimystik's arguments are making them look more and more like the kind of peaple who would take off the stickers on a rubiks cube to rearange them so all the colors are on the same side. Then tell peaple how they solved the puzzle.

The point of an adventure like the Tomb is to chalange problem solving. Real problem salving. With puzzles, terrain, monsters, and what ever els. Its not about being DA lUz PWnR gamer. Its about playing a character who can interact with its enviornment. Its about how your character fail or succeeds. No one cares if they play a well thought out dungeon and 'win' by rolling dice genericly with out any thought to the ingame enviornment.

It's no different than a kid I used to know who beats games on the highest difficutly and brags about how he used cheat codes. My friends and I would just look at this kid and say that his winning ment nothing when he cheats.

It may be a good idea for you to read through the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) before someone you've insulted (direct or passive-agressively) reports you for it.


For role playing games making uber power characters that just roll dice with little chance of failer with out even thinking about the game is no different.

Tomb of Horrors is not about killing characters. It's about making peaple think and cooperate. Makes me sad that this is behond younger peaple today. Sorry if thinking is a punishment.
No, it's not about making people think. It's about making people outguess the designer (with an "or die" repeated in there about a hundred times). There's a significant difference between the two.

It's the difference between "a completely accurate answer to a riddle" and "the desired answer to a riddle".

In many ways, the Tomb of Horrors is a modle that asks says "What's black and white and red all over" (pronounced, so you can't tell the difference between "red" and "read"), that gets a few responses such as "A sunburned zebra" and "a newspaper", then responds with "NO! Take 20d6 damage!" because the answer it had on file was "an gnome that's been tarred, feathered, and then been lashed to death by a team of twenty-seven attackers", and had a note that the answer had to have everything exactly as listed.

The more you have in common with the designer, and the more you know about the designer, the easier the designer is to outguess - but when there's a 40-60 year generation gap between them, that's very nearly on the impossible side.

Also, the Trapsmith Wizard (whichever stripe used - there's actually quite a few) still has to think. After all, he's clearly thought things through more than the game designer, who's dungeon is one big long string of the same type of thing over & over again with almost nothing else in it, and is almost trivially defeated by anything that can answer that one-dimensional thing reliably.

Now, if The Tomb of Horrors had a decent a mix of traps, monsters, puzzles, and maybe even a social encounter or three, the Trapsmith Wizard would actually need to have the rest of the party on hand for something other than the handful of "exception" encounters. Likewise, if there was a reasonable mix of encounter types, it wouldn't end up being (as Zergrusheddie, who's been in the module, puts it) a "Conversation between Orthos and the DM" (with Orthos being the party trapfinder).

DragoonWraith
2009-05-23, 03:21 PM
By most accounts, "thinking" doesn't come into it - far too many of the "puzzles" are completely arbitrary and basically impossible to figure out without being psychic or cheating. I haven't played it, so I can't say from experience, but a lot of people seem to think that it is the equivalent of "rocks fall, everybody dies - because you didn't look up". Except the necessary action to prevent the rocks falling is far more arcane and arbitrary than simply keeping an eye on the ceiling.

If that's the case, then the entire dungeon is stupid, and really should be "dismantled" as with the Trap Finding Wizard.

If, without hindsight, it is possible to figure out each puzzle with a bit of care, that's different. But that does not seem to be the case.

Optimystik
2009-05-23, 03:36 PM
Jack Simth and Optimystik's arguments are making them look more and more like the kind of peaple who would take off the stickers on a rubiks cube to rearange them so all the colors are on the same side. Then tell peaple how they solved the puzzle.

Except that's cheating, which neither I nor Jack have ever proposed. Learn to read.

And do you think you could you run your post through a spellcheck? For the sake of the poor "younger peaple."

Volkov
2009-05-23, 03:49 PM
This is how you survive, you bring an entire small town's population in there and see which routes have the least amount of bodies.

DamnedIrishman
2009-05-23, 05:16 PM
I have been led to believe that there was a Dark Sun module that was even more sadistic than the Tomb of Horrors...

Something about an assault on Ur-Draxa?

Volkov
2009-05-23, 05:28 PM
Tomb of horror's long story short.

Player1:*walks in*
DM: you see three chests.
Player 2:I open it.
DM: SUCK IT A PIT FIEND JUMPS OUT!
Player 1: WTF!?!
DM: and you explode!!

monty
2009-05-23, 06:10 PM
It's the difference between "a completely accurate answer to a riddle" and "the desired answer to a riddle".

The Gordians called. They have a knot they'd like you to take a look at.

Jack_Simth
2009-05-23, 06:15 PM
The Gordians called. They have a knot they'd like you to take a look at.
Hah! Shows what they know. They need to check their messeges - Alexander already cut their knot in half, they don't have it anymore.

chiasaur11
2009-05-23, 06:20 PM
Hah! Shows what they know. They need to check their messeges - Alexander already cut their knot in half, they don't have it anymore.

They got a new one.

(It's just a granny, but no one has the heart to tell them that.)

tribble
2009-05-23, 06:26 PM
for Gygax's sake, does there really need to be this much controversy over one character build? this is the easiest DM conundrum I have ever encountered.

DM: so you enter the next room. you forget all your spells and your summons vanish.
Trapsmith Wizard: what the...
Other Player: maybe its a dead magic zone?

Boom, TW is kaput.

Jack_Simth
2009-05-23, 06:47 PM
for Gygax's sake, does there really need to be this much controversy over one character build? this is the easiest DM conundrum I have ever encountered.

DM: so you enter the next room. you forget all your spells and your summons vanish.
Trapsmith Wizard: what the...
Other Player: maybe its a dead magic zone?

Boom, TW is kaput.
So you're saying the way to fix a problem where the player approaches the game quite differently than you expect, completely within the rules, is to utterly neuter the character by DM fiat. Of course. Do you do the same with the party trapfinder who's sitting there having a very long conversation with the DM (as an earlier poster mentioned was happening with his group who was running it) with Search and Disable Device? Seriously, the Trapsmith Wizard just skips the boring parts (traps in isolation). And there's still the handful of monsters in the way to keep at least some of the module interesting. But seriously - it's a badly designed module, when it comes down to it, because it's variations on one thing over and over. In a group where everyone enjoys lethal puzzles, it's a potentially fun module. In a group where few, if any, can deal with puzzles, it's not. The Trapsmith Wizard deals with puzzles by brute force, sure. In any other module, you'd expect a variety of classes of challenges, and the Trapsmith Wizard wouldn't cover 95% of the module (just the traps, followed by a standard Wizard contribution to battle).

Let the rest of the party try it. Perhaps the Trapsmith Wizard will simply hang around in the back, letting the rest of the party have a stab at it first, and then take over once the rest of the party has given up trying to finesse the minefield.

Yahzi
2009-05-23, 11:40 PM
Check the backnotes...

It's actually only painted iron.
Bah! When I played the module, it didn't have backnotes. :smallbiggrin:

It's exactly the point we've been making: ToH is about thinking inside the box that Gygax made. Thinking outside his box results in death and futility.

Bah!

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-24, 02:13 AM
Bah! When I played the module, it didn't have backnotes. :smallbiggrin:

It's exactly the point we've been making: ToH is about thinking inside the box that Gygax made. Thinking outside his box results in death and futility.

Bah!
They changed the precious metal doors into "fake doors" in the 3E conversion because "people kept stealing the real ones" :smalltongue:

I am not making this up.

Optimystik
2009-05-24, 03:23 PM
for Gygax's sake, does there really need to be this much controversy over one character build? this is the easiest DM conundrum I have ever encountered.

DM: so you enter the next room. you forget all your spells and your summons vanish.
Trapsmith Wizard: what the...
Other Player: maybe its a dead magic zone?

Boom, TW is kaput.

Translation: I don't like using my brain, so I'll punish my players for using theirs. Fun?

MickJay
2009-05-24, 07:20 PM
It all depends how people want to play that module, really...

1) exercise in guessing the correct anwers

2) getting through with anything that works: TW if it's 3+, or sending tons of henchmen before you - actually preferred tactics in original ToH; or dismantling the Tomb piece by piece, destroying any possible traps with extreme prejudice :smalltongue:

3) like any other dungeon

Simply put, there is no single "best way" of approaching ToH.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-25, 08:10 PM
It's pretty clear that what a lot of people dislike is when "correct answer" is designated as something other than "what works".

... And I'm pretty sure that ToH just kills you if you approach it like a normal dungeon. But then, maybe some players like seeing throwaway characters get killed in a variety of interesting ways. I could see the appeal in that.

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-25, 08:25 PM
We managed to kill the "demilich" last night. We sent in the Half Dragon Ogre Fighter 2 with Bull's Strength, Protection from Evil, and Death Ward; she was buffed up to Strength of 42 . The Ghost that was summoned was one-shot and the Fighter beat the Skull on initiative. Mr. Skull's DR/20 was the only thing that saved him from being dropped in 1 round; he was smashed to pieces by 'The Beast' in 3 hits over 2 rounds.

Not a single character death and I got an Artifact for my Beguiler. :smallbiggrin:

Rutskarn
2009-05-25, 10:18 PM
Want to know how my party defeated Acerak?

They threw a gunny sack over him, bore him to the ground, and had the Astral Construct laboriously beat him to death.

And if you can look at Acerak's statblock and find any way to escape that predicament, well, you've got the advantage of me.

Asheram
2009-05-26, 09:54 AM
Want to know how my party defeated Acerak?

They threw a gunny sack over him, bore him to the ground, and had the Astral Construct laboriously beat him to death.

And if you can look at Acerak's statblock and find any way to escape that predicament, well, you've got the advantage of me.

This one made me laugh. :smallbiggrin:

Did you then use stone to mud, wet his feet in it, mud to stone, then sank him in the bay?

Optimystik
2009-05-26, 11:35 AM
This one made me laugh. :smallbiggrin:

Did you then use stone to mud, wet his feet in it, mud to stone, then sank him in the bay?

Demiliches don't have feet. :smallwink:

Volkov
2009-05-26, 01:47 PM
Demiliches don't have feet. :smallwink:

That's not Acererak you kill, it's a construct dummy. The real acererak would have drowned any party that came to him in high level spells.

Rutskarn
2009-05-26, 04:27 PM
Technically, it was Acerak. I was using the 1st edition flavor and 3.5 rules.

chiasaur11
2009-05-26, 05:09 PM
Technically, it was Acerak. I was using the 1st edition flavor and 3.5 rules.

So, the gate is worth big money?

Alright!