GreyMantle
2010-06-01, 09:24 PM
Sooo...
[Long set-up is long]
My group's current campaign just ended in essentially a TPK. It was very political and did not have a lot of classic dungeon-crawling or even fighting.
We've decided, as a quick break, it might be fun to do something completely different, and I suggested playing the Tomb of Horrors to them. After a bit of description, they decided it might be entertaining, and at the very least it would be something different.
(Note: the group as a whole is fond of puzzles and traps and such besides combat, so I'm thinking the specific style of the dungeon will not be especially abhorrent to them. If the situation seems to merit, I might add some random encounters every so often.)
I had originally intended to use the 3.5 revision WotC put online, probably with core-online for a bit of a retro feel, but then I hit upon the idea of actually running the adventure with 1st edition rules.
All of us started D&D with 3.5, but some of us have played Baldur's Gate and other 2nd Ed games. I also have access to the three main books and the original adventure, and I've read through them all vaguely thoroughly.
My question to the collected wisdom of this board is this:
For a game that will probably be a one-off, would it be worth it to run Tomb of Horrors in the original version as opposed to the 3.5 revision?
That is to say, would the (possible) added enjoyment and retro flavor be worth the difficulty of six players learning the 1st edition rules? None of them are stupid, but none of them are rules masters, either.
Thank you for any advice you might deem applicable to this situation.
[Long set-up is long]
My group's current campaign just ended in essentially a TPK. It was very political and did not have a lot of classic dungeon-crawling or even fighting.
We've decided, as a quick break, it might be fun to do something completely different, and I suggested playing the Tomb of Horrors to them. After a bit of description, they decided it might be entertaining, and at the very least it would be something different.
(Note: the group as a whole is fond of puzzles and traps and such besides combat, so I'm thinking the specific style of the dungeon will not be especially abhorrent to them. If the situation seems to merit, I might add some random encounters every so often.)
I had originally intended to use the 3.5 revision WotC put online, probably with core-online for a bit of a retro feel, but then I hit upon the idea of actually running the adventure with 1st edition rules.
All of us started D&D with 3.5, but some of us have played Baldur's Gate and other 2nd Ed games. I also have access to the three main books and the original adventure, and I've read through them all vaguely thoroughly.
My question to the collected wisdom of this board is this:
For a game that will probably be a one-off, would it be worth it to run Tomb of Horrors in the original version as opposed to the 3.5 revision?
That is to say, would the (possible) added enjoyment and retro flavor be worth the difficulty of six players learning the 1st edition rules? None of them are stupid, but none of them are rules masters, either.
Thank you for any advice you might deem applicable to this situation.